 | |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Carfax? -
09-27-2009
, 11:29 PM
|
On 09/25/2009 05:13 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam<me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote: On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: "Elle"<honda.lioness (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f (AT) r36g2000vbn (DOT) googlegroups.com... Is there anyone with either carfax.com or autocheck.com service right now that could run one check for me? Please email me. I will pass your favor along to someone else somehow. Thank you. Up here in Canada, we have a show called Marketplace. They did a story on Carfax and showed how inadequate it is. I concur with the other posters that suggest a physical inspection is the only way to go. Both are the way to go. Learning wether a car was used as a rental car or totaled in an accident can be invaluable information. nope. rental cars can be abused, or they can be well maintained. "totaled" can be physically utterly trivial depending on what the insurance company deemed value to be at the time. relying on anything other than physical inspection is an exercise in self-deception and gullibility to advertising.. It is still useful information. Would you want a car that passed inspection with a glowing report that had been totaled previously? unless your carfax report states the nature of the damage, you have no idea what "totaled" means other than that the insurance company considered it "uneconomic to repair". it doesn't mean squat in terms of structural integrity. oh, and vehicles are are repaired, but don't have any record on carfax, can be chop-shop repairs - i.e. uber dangerous. |
Quote:
|
I do both. you should only spend you money on the one that matters - physical inspection. friend had their teenage daughter joyride their new lexus over an embankment. the vehicle was inspected, repaired, and given a clean bill of health. but it didn't drive right. after getting the brush off from the insurance company several times, he submitted a report from an independent inspector revealing the problem - irrepairably bucked subframe. insurance company wrote off the vehicle and paid for a new one. without that insistent and pedantic owner, inspection and subsequent write-off, there would have been no carfax, and you could have been driving that vehicle right now. |
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:55:06 -0700, jim beam<me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote: On 09/25/2009 05:13 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam<me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote: On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: "Elle"<honda.lioness (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f (AT) r36g2000vbn (DOT) googlegroups.com... Is there anyone with either carfax.com or autocheck.com service right now that could run one check for me? Please email me. I will pass your favor along to someone else somehow. Thank you. Up here in Canada, we have a show called Marketplace. They did a story on Carfax and showed how inadequate it is. I concur with the other posters that suggest a physical inspection is the only way to go. Both are the way to go. Learning wether a car was used as a rental car or totaled in an accident can be invaluable information. nope. rental cars can be abused, or they can be well maintained. "totaled" can be physically utterly trivial depending on what the insurance company deemed value to be at the time. relying on anything other than physical inspection is an exercise in self-deception and gullibility to advertising.. It is still useful information. Would you want a car that passed inspection with a glowing report that had been totaled previously? unless your carfax report states the nature of the damage, you have no idea what "totaled" means other than that the insurance company considered it "uneconomic to repair". it doesn't mean squat in terms of structural integrity. oh, and vehicles are are repaired, but don't have any record on carfax, can be chop-shop repairs - i.e. uber dangerous. I do both. you should only spend you money on the one that matters - physical inspection. friend had their teenage daughter joyride their new lexus over an embankment. the vehicle was inspected, repaired, and given a clean bill of health. but it didn't drive right. after getting the brush off from the insurance company several times, he submitted a report from an independent inspector revealing the problem - irrepairably bucked subframe. insurance company wrote off the vehicle and paid for a new one. without that insistent and pedantic owner, inspection and subsequent write-off, there would have been no carfax, and you could have been driving that vehicle right now. It is still useful information. |
why would you spend the money on carfax when you can spend it on
something reliable i.e. physical inspection?
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 09/27/2009 08:29 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:55:06 -0700, jim beam<me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote: On 09/25/2009 05:13 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam<me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote: On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: "Elle"<honda.lioness (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f (AT) r36g2000vbn (DOT) googlegroups.com... Is there anyone with either carfax.com or autocheck.com service right now that could run one check for me? Please email me. I will pass your favor along to someone else somehow. Thank you. Up here in Canada, we have a show called Marketplace. They did a story on Carfax and showed how inadequate it is. I concur with the other posters that suggest a physical inspection is the only way to go. Both are the way to go. Learning wether a car was used as a rental car or totaled in an accident can be invaluable information. nope. rental cars can be abused, or they can be well maintained. "totaled" can be physically utterly trivial depending on what the insurance company deemed value to be at the time. relying on anything other than physical inspection is an exercise in self-deception and gullibility to advertising.. It is still useful information. Would you want a car that passed inspection with a glowing report that had been totaled previously? unless your carfax report states the nature of the damage, you have no idea what "totaled" means other than that the insurance company considered it "uneconomic to repair". it doesn't mean squat in terms of structural integrity. oh, and vehicles are are repaired, but don't have any record on carfax, can be chop-shop repairs - i.e. uber dangerous. I do both. you should only spend you money on the one that matters - physical inspection. friend had their teenage daughter joyride their new lexus over an embankment. the vehicle was inspected, repaired, and given a clean bill of health. but it didn't drive right. after getting the brush off from the insurance company several times, he submitted a report from an independent inspector revealing the problem - irrepairably bucked subframe. insurance company wrote off the vehicle and paid for a new one. without that insistent and pedantic owner, inspection and subsequent write-off, there would have been no carfax, and you could have been driving that vehicle right now. It is still useful information. how? it can't be relied on for proof of condition, either good or bad. why would you spend the money on carfax when you can spend it on something reliable i.e. physical inspection? |
stuff. Ignorance isn't bliss.
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:43:56 -0700, jim beam<me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote: On 09/27/2009 08:29 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:55:06 -0700, jim beam<me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote: On 09/25/2009 05:13 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam<me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote: On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: "Elle"<honda.lioness (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f (AT) r36g2000vbn (DOT) googlegroups.com... Is there anyone with either carfax.com or autocheck.com service right now that could run one check for me? Please email me. I will pass your favor along to someone else somehow. Thank you. Up here in Canada, we have a show called Marketplace. They did a story on Carfax and showed how inadequate it is. I concur with the other posters that suggest a physical inspection is the only way to go. Both are the way to go. Learning wether a car was used as a rental car or totaled in an accident can be invaluable information. nope. rental cars can be abused, or they can be well maintained. "totaled" can be physically utterly trivial depending on what the insurance company deemed value to be at the time. relying on anything other than physical inspection is an exercise in self-deception and gullibility to advertising.. It is still useful information. Would you want a car that passed inspection with a glowing report that had been totaled previously? unless your carfax report states the nature of the damage, you have no idea what "totaled" means other than that the insurance company considered it "uneconomic to repair". it doesn't mean squat in terms of structural integrity. oh, and vehicles are are repaired, but don't have any record on carfax, can be chop-shop repairs - i.e. uber dangerous. I do both. you should only spend you money on the one that matters - physical inspection. friend had their teenage daughter joyride their new lexus over an embankment. the vehicle was inspected, repaired, and given a clean bill of health. but it didn't drive right. after getting the brush off from the insurance company several times, he submitted a report from an independent inspector revealing the problem - irrepairably bucked subframe. insurance company wrote off the vehicle and paid for a new one. without that insistent and pedantic owner, inspection and subsequent write-off, there would have been no carfax, and you could have been driving that vehicle right now. It is still useful information. how? it can't be relied on for proof of condition, either good or bad. why would you spend the money on carfax when you can spend it on something reliable i.e. physical inspection? If you have the knowledge, you can act on it. This is really basic stuff. Ignorance isn't bliss. |
remains, but one can be misled.
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
*it can't be relied on for proof of condition, either good or bad. * why would you spend the money on carfax when you can spend it on something reliable i.e. physical inspection? |
shows either (1) five owners in ten years (though the seller says he
is the only owner); or (2) odometer tampering; or (3) a salvage
vehicle. I would rely on such information. Hence for my purposes, any
of these would rule out the car for me. If the Carfax comes up clean
on these points, then there is still doubt in my mind, but less so.
Remember how KBB values a vehicle as well, and that KBB tends to be
the standard for valuing a vehicle. Any title that is a "salvage"
title or shows odometer tampering means the car cannot be valued in
KBB's eyes. You can call people ridiculous for not being interested in
a salvage vehicle or a vehicle with unknown mileage, but these people
are a large part of the car buying market. What they say rules when it
comes time to sell a car.
On insurance, the premium goes towards more than just damage to one's
vehicle. Sure consider the value of the car, and your deductible, when
reviewing that part of the premium going towards paying for damage to
one's vehicle. But one cannot just compute the annual premium, note it
will exceed the value of the car in X months, and say one is
overpaying for insurance.
#26
| |||
| |||
|
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
Is there anyone with either carfax.com or autocheck.com service right now that could run one check for me? Please email me. I will pass your favor along to someone else somehow. Thank you. |
marketplace episode on used vehicle purchasing.
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2009/vehicle_history_reports/main.html
My own personal preference is to ask the dealer for a test drive, take the
car home and do the fine tooth comb thing.
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
First I'd have to consider how you get your data, the paucity of it, whether what you are talking about is ricers, etc. *;-) ricers aren't buyers/sellers? |
overwhelmingly of ricers. If your sample is mostly ricers', then IMO
it needs to be acknowledged that ricers' goals are different from
someone who prefers stock and/or wants a reliable daily driver.
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sep 29, 9:32�pm, jim beam<m... (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote: Elle wrote First I'd have to consider how you get your data, the paucity of it, whether what you are talking about is ricers, etc. �;-) ricers aren't buyers/sellers? I am suggesting that your anecdotal "sample" may very well consist overwhelmingly of ricers. If your sample is mostly ricers', then IMO it needs to be acknowledged that ricers' goals are different from someone who prefers stock and/or wants a reliable daily driver. |
compare kbb with this:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/scz/cto/1392409597.html
that's not "rice".
and that's a stock automatic. try an si in the same condition
hereabouts and see what you get.
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.