I am surprised that there hasn’t been a stronger reaction to this recent post from the Mini community. This issue with fuel injection systems misbehaving with potentially catastrophic results is not new or confined to BMW/Mini.
Something similar to this Mini issue was first reported on VW Type 3/4 vehicles 50 years ago in the early 70’s. These were the earliest mass produced vehicles fitted with electronic fuel injection and in some circumstances, for example travelling from a cold desert environment at night into a warmer, moister environment like driving into Las Vegas, the sensors in the fuel injection system sent the wrong message to the control unit. This resulted in cars suddenly accelerating uncontrollably into the vehicle in front, remember that many US cars would be specified with automatic transmission which exacerbated this issue. VW were slow to acknowledge the issue but in the end it was resolved.
Although not a fuel injection issue, the largest denial of an issue with a car must go to Ford with their Pinto model*. There was an issue with the fuel tank splitting in rear end collisions and spilling the contents onto the hot exhaust resulting in catastrophic vehicle fires. Ford originally took the position that it was cheaper to face litigation for damages/death rather than recalling the model, a shameful stance which is worth bearing in mind when dealing with any large corporation.
I do hope that BMW/Mini face up to this problem and find out why it’s happening as well as recompense those affected.
*
Case: The Ford Pinto | Business Ethics
Thus, Ford knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire hazard when struck from the rear, even in low-speed collisions. Ford officials faced a decision. Should they go ahead with the existing design, thereby meeting the production timetable but possibly jeopardizing consumer safety? Or should they delay production of the Pinto by redesigning the gas tank to make it safer and thus concede another year of subcompact dominance to foreign companies? Ford not only pushed ahead with the original design but stuck to it for the next six years.
What explains Ford’s decision? The evidence suggests that Ford relied, at least in part, on cost-benefit reasoning, which is an analysis in monetary terms of the expected costs and benefits of doing something. There were various ways of making the Pinto’s gas tank safer. Although the estimated price of these safety improvements ranged from only $5 to $8 per vehicle, Ford evidently reasoned that the increased cost outweighed the benefits of a new tank design.