|
Automotive ennui
"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the
housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect boredom. "Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7 |
Re: Automotive ennui
"Ed" <fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in message news:00ff751da8e1a84cdf3cd3f1e434e6b0@msgid.frell. theremailer.net... > "New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the > housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect > boredom. > > "Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." > > Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7 > Much truth to that. I hesitated buying for a year because I did not know what I wanted and nothing excited me. |
Re: Automotive ennui
"Ed" <fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in message news:00ff751da8e1a84cdf3cd3f1e434e6b0@msgid.frell. theremailer.net... > "New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the > housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect > boredom. > > "Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." > > Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7 > Much truth to that. I hesitated buying for a year because I did not know what I wanted and nothing excited me. |
Re: Automotive ennui
Recently they have more TV car ads that sell you certified preowned
vehicles? > > > "New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the > > housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect > > boredom. > > > "Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." |
Re: Automotive ennui
Recently they have more TV car ads that sell you certified preowned
vehicles? > > > "New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the > > housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect > > boredom. > > > "Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." |
Re: Automotive ennui
On Sep 28, 1:14 am,
fr...@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net (Ed) wrote: > "New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the > housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect > boredom. > > "Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." > > Wall Street Journal article:http://301url.com/cf7 Well, throwing caution to the wind, I bought an 07 Malibu Maxx SS. I don't know what "boredom" refers to in car talk, but if a sleek design, practical family car, and powerfully fast as a personal car is any indication of a lack of boredom, I think I've found the answer. Now all I have to do is pay for it!! |
Re: Automotive ennui
On Sep 28, 1:14 am,
fr...@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net (Ed) wrote: > "New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the > housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect > boredom. > > "Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." > > Wall Street Journal article:http://301url.com/cf7 Well, throwing caution to the wind, I bought an 07 Malibu Maxx SS. I don't know what "boredom" refers to in car talk, but if a sleek design, practical family car, and powerfully fast as a personal car is any indication of a lack of boredom, I think I've found the answer. Now all I have to do is pay for it!! |
Re: Automotive ennui
> >Well, throwing caution to the wind, I bought an 07 Malibu Maxx SS. I >don't know what "boredom" refers to in car talk, but if a sleek >design, practical family car, and powerfully fast as a personal car is >any indication of a lack of boredom, I think I've found the answer. >Now all I have to do is pay for it!! The Malibu Maxx is the epitome of boredom. It's a great family car and it's got a pretty good price on it but I'd sooner walk than have to drive another of those miserable things ever again. Steve B. |
Re: Automotive ennui
> >Well, throwing caution to the wind, I bought an 07 Malibu Maxx SS. I >don't know what "boredom" refers to in car talk, but if a sleek >design, practical family car, and powerfully fast as a personal car is >any indication of a lack of boredom, I think I've found the answer. >Now all I have to do is pay for it!! The Malibu Maxx is the epitome of boredom. It's a great family car and it's got a pretty good price on it but I'd sooner walk than have to drive another of those miserable things ever again. Steve B. |
Re: Automotive ennui
On Sep 28, 2:06 pm, Steve B. <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >Well, throwing caution to the wind, I bought an 07 Malibu Maxx SS. I > >don't know what "boredom" refers to in car talk, but if a sleek > >design, practical family car, and powerfully fast as a personal car is > >any indication of a lack of boredom, I think I've found the answer. > >Now all I have to do is pay for it!! > > The Malibu Maxx is the epitome of boredom. It's a great family car > and it's got a pretty good price on it but I'd sooner walk than have > to drive another of those miserable things ever again. > > Steve B. Wonder what you all think of the 2002 Corolla CE. It's pretty boring looking but it runs great and has given me no problems which to me is a great reason alone to own one. I'd love one day to own a sweet looking car but for now in my life, this car has served me well in that it looks OK and runs flawlessly. :) |
Re: Automotive ennui
On Sep 28, 2:06 pm, Steve B. <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >Well, throwing caution to the wind, I bought an 07 Malibu Maxx SS. I > >don't know what "boredom" refers to in car talk, but if a sleek > >design, practical family car, and powerfully fast as a personal car is > >any indication of a lack of boredom, I think I've found the answer. > >Now all I have to do is pay for it!! > > The Malibu Maxx is the epitome of boredom. It's a great family car > and it's got a pretty good price on it but I'd sooner walk than have > to drive another of those miserable things ever again. > > Steve B. Wonder what you all think of the 2002 Corolla CE. It's pretty boring looking but it runs great and has given me no problems which to me is a great reason alone to own one. I'd love one day to own a sweet looking car but for now in my life, this car has served me well in that it looks OK and runs flawlessly. :) |
Re: Automotive ennui
I thought one could buy most of the world's cars sold in the western world
in the USA. Notable exceptions are, I think, Alfa Romeo (lovely cars, love to spend time in garages) and Citroen. There must be something exciting among them. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- "mrsteveo" <mrsteveo@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1191014459.584502.9910@y42g2000hsy.googlegrou ps.com... > On Sep 28, 2:06 pm, Steve B. <n...@none.com> wrote: [...] > Wonder what you all think of the 2002 Corolla CE. It's pretty boring > looking but it runs great and has given me no problems which to me is > a great reason alone to own one. I'd love one day to own a sweet > looking car but for now in my life, this car has served me well in > that it looks OK and runs flawlessly. :) > |
Re: Automotive ennui
I thought one could buy most of the world's cars sold in the western world
in the USA. Notable exceptions are, I think, Alfa Romeo (lovely cars, love to spend time in garages) and Citroen. There must be something exciting among them. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- "mrsteveo" <mrsteveo@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1191014459.584502.9910@y42g2000hsy.googlegrou ps.com... > On Sep 28, 2:06 pm, Steve B. <n...@none.com> wrote: [...] > Wonder what you all think of the 2002 Corolla CE. It's pretty boring > looking but it runs great and has given me no problems which to me is > a great reason alone to own one. I'd love one day to own a sweet > looking car but for now in my life, this car has served me well in > that it looks OK and runs flawlessly. :) > |
Re: Automotive ennui
Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts off
4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8 engine. I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted. "Ed" <fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in message news:00ff751da8e1a84cdf3cd3f1e434e6b0@msgid.frell. theremailer.net... > "New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the > housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect > boredom. > > "Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." > > Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7 > |
Re: Automotive ennui
Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts off
4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8 engine. I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted. "Ed" <fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote in message news:00ff751da8e1a84cdf3cd3f1e434e6b0@msgid.frell. theremailer.net... > "New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the > housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect > boredom. > > "Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." > > Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7 > |
Re: Automotive ennui
Chevy Man wrote:
> Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts off > 4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8 engine. > I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted. Don't know how well it would work in the Avalanche but I just rented a Impala LT earlier this month from Hertz. I drove it for about four days before discovering it had their new engine that goes from 6 cylinders to 3. I was impressed. Overall mileage was about 26.5 in mixed driving. Tooling along outside Phoenix on I-17 at 80m/h on dead level or a VERY slight downgrade showed instantaneous mileage readings in the 45-49 mpg range. Once I discovered it was there and dialed in the indicator in the DIC, I simply could NOT tell when it was running on 3 or 6 cylinders without seeing it on the indicator. Absolutely no lag or surge. Very nice ride indeed. How it will perform over the long term remains to be seen but I suspect Chevy may have a winner. |
Re: Automotive ennui
Chevy Man wrote:
> Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts off > 4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8 engine. > I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted. Don't know how well it would work in the Avalanche but I just rented a Impala LT earlier this month from Hertz. I drove it for about four days before discovering it had their new engine that goes from 6 cylinders to 3. I was impressed. Overall mileage was about 26.5 in mixed driving. Tooling along outside Phoenix on I-17 at 80m/h on dead level or a VERY slight downgrade showed instantaneous mileage readings in the 45-49 mpg range. Once I discovered it was there and dialed in the indicator in the DIC, I simply could NOT tell when it was running on 3 or 6 cylinders without seeing it on the indicator. Absolutely no lag or surge. Very nice ride indeed. How it will perform over the long term remains to be seen but I suspect Chevy may have a winner. |
Re: Automotive ennui
Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains? What happens when
it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not everything you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run their cars well over 100k miles. "Unquestionably Confused" <Puzzled2@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:u3jLi.55667$YL5.55643@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net... > Chevy Man wrote: >> Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts >> off 4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8 >> engine. I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted. > > Don't know how well it would work in the Avalanche but I just rented a > Impala LT earlier this month from Hertz. I drove it for about four days > before discovering it had their new engine that goes from 6 cylinders to > 3. > > I was impressed. Overall mileage was about 26.5 in mixed driving. Tooling > along outside Phoenix on I-17 at 80m/h on dead level or a VERY slight > downgrade showed instantaneous mileage readings in the 45-49 mpg range. > > Once I discovered it was there and dialed in the indicator in the DIC, I > simply could NOT tell when it was running on 3 or 6 cylinders without > seeing it on the indicator. Absolutely no lag or surge. > > Very nice ride indeed. > > How it will perform over the long term remains to be seen but I suspect > Chevy may have a winner. > |
Re: Automotive ennui
Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains? What happens when
it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not everything you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run their cars well over 100k miles. "Unquestionably Confused" <Puzzled2@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:u3jLi.55667$YL5.55643@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net... > Chevy Man wrote: >> Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts >> off 4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8 >> engine. I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted. > > Don't know how well it would work in the Avalanche but I just rented a > Impala LT earlier this month from Hertz. I drove it for about four days > before discovering it had their new engine that goes from 6 cylinders to > 3. > > I was impressed. Overall mileage was about 26.5 in mixed driving. Tooling > along outside Phoenix on I-17 at 80m/h on dead level or a VERY slight > downgrade showed instantaneous mileage readings in the 45-49 mpg range. > > Once I discovered it was there and dialed in the indicator in the DIC, I > simply could NOT tell when it was running on 3 or 6 cylinders without > seeing it on the indicator. Absolutely no lag or surge. > > Very nice ride indeed. > > How it will perform over the long term remains to be seen but I suspect > Chevy may have a winner. > |
Re: Automotive ennui
Chevy Man wrote:
> Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains? What happens when > it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not everything > you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run > their cars well over 100k miles. Bingo. That's one of the problems with all the "money saving" or safety technology - they do fail - not all of them at the same time, but let's say you have 30 technological wizbangs on your car. There's a good chance several are going to fail at some point. Some are cheap to fix, some will cost more than the value of the car when it gets some age and mileage on it (*especially* if you are not a DIY'er and parts scrounger). Try selling or trading in a car when two or three electronic things (ABS, tranny controls, seat heaters and air conditionaers) are not working and see what that does to the value. And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and discovers things missing or not working. They deduct fullup OEM parts prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether anyone really cares if it works or not - like that they can find. Doesn't take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to get your actually-worth-$5000 car down to $2500 or less. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: Automotive ennui
Chevy Man wrote:
> Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains? What happens when > it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not everything > you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run > their cars well over 100k miles. Bingo. That's one of the problems with all the "money saving" or safety technology - they do fail - not all of them at the same time, but let's say you have 30 technological wizbangs on your car. There's a good chance several are going to fail at some point. Some are cheap to fix, some will cost more than the value of the car when it gets some age and mileage on it (*especially* if you are not a DIY'er and parts scrounger). Try selling or trading in a car when two or three electronic things (ABS, tranny controls, seat heaters and air conditionaers) are not working and see what that does to the value. And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and discovers things missing or not working. They deduct fullup OEM parts prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether anyone really cares if it works or not - like that they can find. Doesn't take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to get your actually-worth-$5000 car down to $2500 or less. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: Automotive ennui
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:06:49 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote: >Chevy Man wrote: > >> Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains? What happens when >> it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not everything >> you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run >> their cars well over 100k miles. > >Bingo. That's one of the problems with all the "money saving" or safety >technology - they do fail - not all of them at the same time, but let's >say you have 30 technological wizbangs on your car. There's a good >chance several are going to fail at some point. Some are cheap to fix, >some will cost more than the value of the car when it gets some age and >mileage on it (*especially* if you are not a DIY'er and parts >scrounger). Try selling or trading in a car when two or three >electronic things (ABS, tranny controls, seat heaters and air >conditionaers) are not working and see what that does to the value. > >And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and >discovers things missing or not working. They deduct fullup OEM parts >prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether >anyone really cares if it works or not - like that they can find. >Doesn't take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to >get your actually-worth-$5000 car down to $2500 or less. > >Bill Putney >(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >address with the letter 'x') Another great reason to keep my '92 Corolla Wagon! No Air Bags to fail. Just a damend good car that gets me where I want to go without hassle! -- Scott in Florida |
Re: Automotive ennui
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:06:49 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote: >Chevy Man wrote: > >> Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains? What happens when >> it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not everything >> you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run >> their cars well over 100k miles. > >Bingo. That's one of the problems with all the "money saving" or safety >technology - they do fail - not all of them at the same time, but let's >say you have 30 technological wizbangs on your car. There's a good >chance several are going to fail at some point. Some are cheap to fix, >some will cost more than the value of the car when it gets some age and >mileage on it (*especially* if you are not a DIY'er and parts >scrounger). Try selling or trading in a car when two or three >electronic things (ABS, tranny controls, seat heaters and air >conditionaers) are not working and see what that does to the value. > >And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and >discovers things missing or not working. They deduct fullup OEM parts >prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether >anyone really cares if it works or not - like that they can find. >Doesn't take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to >get your actually-worth-$5000 car down to $2500 or less. > >Bill Putney >(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >address with the letter 'x') Another great reason to keep my '92 Corolla Wagon! No Air Bags to fail. Just a damend good car that gets me where I want to go without hassle! -- Scott in Florida |
Re: Automotive ennui
"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:5m70urFbtdh2U1@mid.individual.net... > > And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and > discovers things missing or not working. They deduct fullup OEM parts > prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether > anyone really cares if it works or not - like that they can find. Doesn't > take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to get your > actually-worth-$5000 car down to $2500 or less. > While I don't doubt they can do this Bill - I have never had this happen to a single claim. I have never had any form of deduct on a claim other than the standard deductions per NADA - things like high mileage, lack of certain options from the factory. Certainly never because a particular thing did not work. My best friend is an adjuster for a large insurance company and if this were practice, he'd have talked about it. Rather, despite what most people like to claim, most insurance claims pay pretty accurately. -- -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net |
Re: Automotive ennui
"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:5m70urFbtdh2U1@mid.individual.net... > > And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and > discovers things missing or not working. They deduct fullup OEM parts > prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether > anyone really cares if it works or not - like that they can find. Doesn't > take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to get your > actually-worth-$5000 car down to $2500 or less. > While I don't doubt they can do this Bill - I have never had this happen to a single claim. I have never had any form of deduct on a claim other than the standard deductions per NADA - things like high mileage, lack of certain options from the factory. Certainly never because a particular thing did not work. My best friend is an adjuster for a large insurance company and if this were practice, he'd have talked about it. Rather, despite what most people like to claim, most insurance claims pay pretty accurately. -- -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net |
Re: Automotive ennui
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message > news:5m70urFbtdh2U1@mid.individual.net... > > >>And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and >>discovers things missing or not working. They deduct fullup OEM parts >>prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether >>anyone really cares if it works or not - like that they can find. Doesn't >>take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to get your >>actually-worth-$5000 car down to $2500 or less. >> > > > While I don't doubt they can do this Bill - I have never had this happen to > a single claim. I have never had any form of deduct on a claim other than > the standard deductions per NADA - things like high mileage, lack of certain > options from the factory. Certainly never because a particular thing did > not work. > > My best friend is an adjuster for a large insurance company and if this were > practice, he'd have talked about it. Rather, despite what most people like > to claim, most insurance claims pay pretty accurately. We can disagree then. Ask your friend if he allows adders for upgrades done to the car. I'm going thru this right now. A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition ones out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total out value work sheet. And yes - the NADA values are fraudulently low. Easily provable with real market numbers and with other blue books. The banking industry uses them to minimize the loan value on a car to cut their risk on collateral loans, and the insurance industry uses them to cut their costs on total outs, and it's fraudulent. The adjusters are trained in doing this, and no doubt your freind actually believes the BS he was trained in. Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of buying cars"? It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out - by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for you, you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go thru the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no answer beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little experiment and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would find one to replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line (that he was trained to use if he is ever challenged). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: Automotive ennui
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message > news:5m70urFbtdh2U1@mid.individual.net... > > >>And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and >>discovers things missing or not working. They deduct fullup OEM parts >>prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether >>anyone really cares if it works or not - like that they can find. Doesn't >>take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to get your >>actually-worth-$5000 car down to $2500 or less. >> > > > While I don't doubt they can do this Bill - I have never had this happen to > a single claim. I have never had any form of deduct on a claim other than > the standard deductions per NADA - things like high mileage, lack of certain > options from the factory. Certainly never because a particular thing did > not work. > > My best friend is an adjuster for a large insurance company and if this were > practice, he'd have talked about it. Rather, despite what most people like > to claim, most insurance claims pay pretty accurately. We can disagree then. Ask your friend if he allows adders for upgrades done to the car. I'm going thru this right now. A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition ones out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total out value work sheet. And yes - the NADA values are fraudulently low. Easily provable with real market numbers and with other blue books. The banking industry uses them to minimize the loan value on a car to cut their risk on collateral loans, and the insurance industry uses them to cut their costs on total outs, and it's fraudulent. The adjusters are trained in doing this, and no doubt your freind actually believes the BS he was trained in. Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of buying cars"? It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out - by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for you, you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go thru the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no answer beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little experiment and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would find one to replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line (that he was trained to use if he is ever challenged). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: Automotive ennui
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message news:34610$46fe56a3$471fbb11$26505@ALLTEL.NET... > > "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:5m70urFbtdh2U1@mid.individual.net... > >> >> And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and discovers things missing or not working. They deduct >> fullup OEM parts prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether anyone really cares if it works or not - >> like that they can find. Doesn't take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to get your actually-worth-$5000 car >> down to $2500 or less. >> > > While I don't doubt they can do this Bill - I have never had this happen to a single claim. I have never had any form of deduct > on a claim other than the standard deductions per NADA - things like high mileage, lack of certain options from the factory. > Certainly never because a particular thing did not work. > > My best friend is an adjuster for a large insurance company and if this were practice, he'd have talked about it. Rather, despite > what most people like to claim, most insurance claims pay pretty accurately. > > -- > > -Mike- > mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Ditto... I have been with State Farm for around thirty years now and never have been short changed by them. But I do see most my friends screw themselves when it comes to insurance claims because they never even bother to read the policy. I learned my lesson when someone stole my 1966 Baja VW. I paid extra to have the ins policy show the value of the car at $3,500 so the insurance co could not screw me if it got totaled or something. Or so I thought. LOL When the adjuster told me I was just throwing money away doing that because it makes no difference to the actual replacement cost I thought I was screwed for sure. Then she asked me why there were no receipts and maybe a photo if the car was worth more than normal value of $800. Boy was I mad when I went home to get them. Later I get a phone call and she says "I am sorry" but this just does not add up to $3500 so I can not pay you $3500, will I accept $4,700.! Boy did I feel like an idiot that time. LOL Dan |
Re: Automotive ennui
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net> wrote in message news:34610$46fe56a3$471fbb11$26505@ALLTEL.NET... > > "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:5m70urFbtdh2U1@mid.individual.net... > >> >> And God help you if an insurance company is totaling out your car and discovers things missing or not working. They deduct >> fullup OEM parts prices and labor from the value of your car for everything - whether anyone really cares if it works or not - >> like that they can find. Doesn't take long, with their fraudlently low NADA starting numbers to get your actually-worth-$5000 car >> down to $2500 or less. >> > > While I don't doubt they can do this Bill - I have never had this happen to a single claim. I have never had any form of deduct > on a claim other than the standard deductions per NADA - things like high mileage, lack of certain options from the factory. > Certainly never because a particular thing did not work. > > My best friend is an adjuster for a large insurance company and if this were practice, he'd have talked about it. Rather, despite > what most people like to claim, most insurance claims pay pretty accurately. > > -- > > -Mike- > mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Ditto... I have been with State Farm for around thirty years now and never have been short changed by them. But I do see most my friends screw themselves when it comes to insurance claims because they never even bother to read the policy. I learned my lesson when someone stole my 1966 Baja VW. I paid extra to have the ins policy show the value of the car at $3,500 so the insurance co could not screw me if it got totaled or something. Or so I thought. LOL When the adjuster told me I was just throwing money away doing that because it makes no difference to the actual replacement cost I thought I was screwed for sure. Then she asked me why there were no receipts and maybe a photo if the car was worth more than normal value of $800. Boy was I mad when I went home to get them. Later I get a phone call and she says "I am sorry" but this just does not add up to $3500 so I can not pay you $3500, will I accept $4,700.! Boy did I feel like an idiot that time. LOL Dan |
Re: Automotive ennui
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:14:39 +0200,
fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net (Ed) wrote: >"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the >housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect >boredom. > >"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." > >Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7 And when has this not been true? I'll admit it, my Accord is boring, it just goes where you aim it, reliably, economically, comfortably. Then what? J. |
Re: Automotive ennui
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:14:39 +0200,
fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net (Ed) wrote: >"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the >housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect >boredom. > >"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." > >Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7 And when has this not been true? I'll admit it, my Accord is boring, it just goes where you aim it, reliably, economically, comfortably. Then what? J. |
Re: Automotive ennui
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:02:06 GMT, JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net>
wrote: >On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:14:39 +0200, >fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net (Ed) wrote: > >>"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the >>housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect >>boredom. >> >>"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." >> >>Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7 > >And when has this not been true? > >I'll admit it, my Accord is boring, it just goes where you aim it, >reliably, economically, comfortably. Then what? > >J. Ditto my '92 Corolla Wagon. I like for a car not to be exciting..... -- Scott in Florida |
Re: Automotive ennui
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:02:06 GMT, JXStern <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net>
wrote: >On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:14:39 +0200, >fritz@spamexpire-200709.rodent.frell.theremailer.net (Ed) wrote: > >>"New-car sales are sagging in America and car makers are blaming the >>housing slump or the credit crunch. I suspect something else. I suspect >>boredom. >> >>"Face it. A lot of the cars sold in America are just dull..." >> >>Wall Street Journal article: http://301url.com/cf7 > >And when has this not been true? > >I'll admit it, my Accord is boring, it just goes where you aim it, >reliably, economically, comfortably. Then what? > >J. Ditto my '92 Corolla Wagon. I like for a car not to be exciting..... -- Scott in Florida |
Re: Automotive ennui
Chevy Man wrote:
> Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains? It would run on 6 cylinders, what else? I gave you a figure of ~ 26.5 for MIXED driving. That was Phoenix, Scottsdale, Chandler, the 101 loop, I-17 up to Camp Verde and back, etc. Around 450 miles all told for the week. > What happens when > it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not everything > you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run > their cars well over 100k miles. No, mileage isn't everything. Neither is anecdotal information from you concerning a DIFFERENT product that GM had out what, 15-20 years ago, representative of what a SIMILAR engine is capable of today. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that this mixed mode Chevy engine delivers ~ 25% better gas mileage (~21mpg vs 26.5mpg) . Over 100K miles - and I agree that most folks keep their cars at least that long - at ~$3.00/gallon gas, that's a measly $3000 savings in fuel during those 100,000 miles. This system appears to be largely electronic based and just shutting down injectors so what would a blown computer cost? a bad injector "switch"? I admitted that the longevity factor is an unknown also. You seem close-minded on the subject so this certainly isn't my attempt to changer YOUR mind, only to clarify my opinion as one who's actually driven, under realistic conditions, this new engine from GM. I think I'd roll the dice. If you want to stand there and say "It didn't work 15-20 years ago so it won't work now - without even trying it - because you obviously are smarter than the engineers at GM who designed the thing... be my guest. > "Unquestionably Confused" <Puzzled2@ameritech.net> wrote in message > news:u3jLi.55667$YL5.55643@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net... >> Chevy Man wrote: >>> Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts >>> off 4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8 >>> engine. I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted. >> Don't know how well it would work in the Avalanche but I just rented a >> Impala LT earlier this month from Hertz. I drove it for about four days >> before discovering it had their new engine that goes from 6 cylinders to >> 3. >> >> I was impressed. Overall mileage was about 26.5 in mixed driving. Tooling >> along outside Phoenix on I-17 at 80m/h on dead level or a VERY slight >> downgrade showed instantaneous mileage readings in the 45-49 mpg range. >> >> Once I discovered it was there and dialed in the indicator in the DIC, I >> simply could NOT tell when it was running on 3 or 6 cylinders without >> seeing it on the indicator. Absolutely no lag or surge. >> >> Very nice ride indeed. >> >> How it will perform over the long term remains to be seen but I suspect >> Chevy may have a winner. >> > > |
Re: Automotive ennui
Chevy Man wrote:
> Great on flat ground but how would it do in the mountains? It would run on 6 cylinders, what else? I gave you a figure of ~ 26.5 for MIXED driving. That was Phoenix, Scottsdale, Chandler, the 101 loop, I-17 up to Camp Verde and back, etc. Around 450 miles all told for the week. > What happens when > it breaks I am sure it will be CHEAP to fix. Gas mileage is not everything > you have to include future repairs too. Especially when most people run > their cars well over 100k miles. No, mileage isn't everything. Neither is anecdotal information from you concerning a DIFFERENT product that GM had out what, 15-20 years ago, representative of what a SIMILAR engine is capable of today. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that this mixed mode Chevy engine delivers ~ 25% better gas mileage (~21mpg vs 26.5mpg) . Over 100K miles - and I agree that most folks keep their cars at least that long - at ~$3.00/gallon gas, that's a measly $3000 savings in fuel during those 100,000 miles. This system appears to be largely electronic based and just shutting down injectors so what would a blown computer cost? a bad injector "switch"? I admitted that the longevity factor is an unknown also. You seem close-minded on the subject so this certainly isn't my attempt to changer YOUR mind, only to clarify my opinion as one who's actually driven, under realistic conditions, this new engine from GM. I think I'd roll the dice. If you want to stand there and say "It didn't work 15-20 years ago so it won't work now - without even trying it - because you obviously are smarter than the engineers at GM who designed the thing... be my guest. > "Unquestionably Confused" <Puzzled2@ameritech.net> wrote in message > news:u3jLi.55667$YL5.55643@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net... >> Chevy Man wrote: >>> Went to buy a new chevy avalanche. Found out they had a motor that cuts >>> off 4 cylinders at highway speeds. After remembering the cadillac 4-6-8 >>> engine. I decided against a new chevy. Not just dull, not what I wanted. >> Don't know how well it would work in the Avalanche but I just rented a >> Impala LT earlier this month from Hertz. I drove it for about four days >> before discovering it had their new engine that goes from 6 cylinders to >> 3. >> >> I was impressed. Overall mileage was about 26.5 in mixed driving. Tooling >> along outside Phoenix on I-17 at 80m/h on dead level or a VERY slight >> downgrade showed instantaneous mileage readings in the 45-49 mpg range. >> >> Once I discovered it was there and dialed in the indicator in the DIC, I >> simply could NOT tell when it was running on 3 or 6 cylinders without >> seeing it on the indicator. Absolutely no lag or surge. >> >> Very nice ride indeed. >> >> How it will perform over the long term remains to be seen but I suspect >> Chevy may have a winner. >> > > |
Re: Automotive ennui
"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net... > > We can disagree then. Ask your friend if he allows adders for upgrades > done to the car. I'm going thru this right now. > In fact, I know he does. As well, I've experienced that with every claim I've ever submitted through any insurance company. > A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my > driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total > out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition ones > out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were > sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him > standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new > pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them > and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total out > value work sheet. Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill? What was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it was not on the car? > > And yes - the NADA values are fraudulently low. Easily provable with real > market numbers and with other blue books. The banking industry uses them > to minimize the loan value on a car to cut their risk on collateral loans, > and the insurance industry uses them to cut their costs on total outs, and > it's fraudulent. The adjusters are trained in doing this, and no doubt > your freind actually believes the BS he was trained in. Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I don't see how you can call it fraudently low. > > Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you > an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of > buying cars"? I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true. When my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance company even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like make/model/etc. and their current selling price. > It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out - > by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying > it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for you, > you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go thru > the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no answer > beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little experiment > and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would find one to > replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line (that he was > trained to use if he is ever challenged). He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the accident. Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on the cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars were really selling for, or more than the high end. -- -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net |
Re: Automotive ennui
"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net... > > We can disagree then. Ask your friend if he allows adders for upgrades > done to the car. I'm going thru this right now. > In fact, I know he does. As well, I've experienced that with every claim I've ever submitted through any insurance company. > A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my > driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total > out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition ones > out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were > sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him > standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new > pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them > and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total out > value work sheet. Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill? What was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it was not on the car? > > And yes - the NADA values are fraudulently low. Easily provable with real > market numbers and with other blue books. The banking industry uses them > to minimize the loan value on a car to cut their risk on collateral loans, > and the insurance industry uses them to cut their costs on total outs, and > it's fraudulent. The adjusters are trained in doing this, and no doubt > your freind actually believes the BS he was trained in. Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I don't see how you can call it fraudently low. > > Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you > an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of > buying cars"? I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true. When my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance company even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like make/model/etc. and their current selling price. > It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out - > by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying > it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for you, > you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go thru > the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no answer > beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little experiment > and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would find one to > replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line (that he was > trained to use if he is ever challenged). He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the accident. Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on the cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars were really selling for, or more than the high end. -- -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net |
Re: Automotive ennui
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message > news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net... > > >>We can disagree then. Ask your friend if he allows adders for upgrades >>done to the car. I'm going thru this right now. > In fact, I know he does. As well, I've experienced that with every claim > I've ever submitted through any insurance company. Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver that ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two miles before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY* enhancements, other than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA lists wheels but nothing else. They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio, 300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my Concorde. >>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my >>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total >>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition ones >>out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were >>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him >>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new >>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them >>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total out >>value work sheet. > Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill? What > was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it was not on > the car? Prior claim? Where do you get that, and why would you assume I was doing that. But the answer to that is no. It is exactly like I said - the original black paint on the trim was peeling. I went to a junk yard and got perfect conditon chrome trim (from a higher trim pacakge). Pulled the old trim off my car a week before the accident, hadn't put the new trim on yet, and the accident happened during that week. That's it. So you think I was trying to defraud the insurance company. The adjuster didn't even suggest that. He was just being an and helping his adjustment records by fraudulently devaluing the car to the max. By the way - that was on a Mazda - their OEM parts prices are off the charts - and that was what he was subtracting from the vehicle value. >>And yes - the NADA values are fraudulently low. Easily provable with real >>market numbers and with other blue books. The banking industry uses them >>to minimize the loan value on a car to cut their risk on collateral loans, >>and the insurance industry uses them to cut their costs on total outs, and >>it's fraudulent. The adjusters are trained in doing this, and no doubt >>your freind actually believes the BS he was trained in. > Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I don't > see how you can call it fraudently low. You haven't done honest real world comparisons then. Nor have you compared the condition of the crap you find on the market and level of maintenance. IOW - you didn't actually look at the condition of the vehicles that were selling at the low end NADA values. You would not want to drive a car that was actually selling for the NADA value. Well - maybe you would, but I wouldn't. >>Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you >>an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of >>buying cars"? > I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true. (see below where you contradict yourself on that point) > When > my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance company > even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like > make/model/etc. and their current selling price. Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who destroy my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse to do that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that that is the only value thay will recognize. >>It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out - >>by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying >>it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for you, >>you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go thru >>the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no answer >>beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little experiment >>and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would find one to >>replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line (that he was >>trained to use if he is ever challenged). > > > He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your > financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the > accident. Yet above, in direct response to my saying "Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for the same money is 'We're not in the business of buying cars'?" you said "I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true." You're contradicting yourself. Now here you just said "They are only in the business of covering your financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the accident." So which of the contradictory things you said is true? But that's just an obfuscation factor on their and your parts. You are pretending to have missed where I said that I was not asking them to find a replacement car and buy it for me. I was asking them to prove that they could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the actual selling price of the NADA valuation. > Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with > two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically > differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on the > cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars were > really selling for, or more than the high end. But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what you're saying. Next time, I will put the world in stop motion just before he/she hits me or runs me off the road to get the credentials of their insurer and then let him/her know whether I will allow them to continue the accident. Geez. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: Automotive ennui
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message > news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net... > > >>We can disagree then. Ask your friend if he allows adders for upgrades >>done to the car. I'm going thru this right now. > In fact, I know he does. As well, I've experienced that with every claim > I've ever submitted through any insurance company. Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver that ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two miles before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY* enhancements, other than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA lists wheels but nothing else. They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio, 300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my Concorde. >>A differnt twist, but about 6 years ago, I had an adjuster stand in my >>driveway and deduct full OEM price for all trim moldings from the total >>out value of a car because I had gotten "new" ones (perfect condition ones >>out of a junk yard) and had pulled the old ones off. Both sets were >>sitting on the bench in my garage during the accident and with him >>standing in my driveway doing the evaluation. I told him the old and new >>pieces were right over there in the garage. He refused to look at them >>and refused to take the brand new OEM part subtractor off of his total out >>value work sheet. > Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill? What > was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it was not on > the car? Prior claim? Where do you get that, and why would you assume I was doing that. But the answer to that is no. It is exactly like I said - the original black paint on the trim was peeling. I went to a junk yard and got perfect conditon chrome trim (from a higher trim pacakge). Pulled the old trim off my car a week before the accident, hadn't put the new trim on yet, and the accident happened during that week. That's it. So you think I was trying to defraud the insurance company. The adjuster didn't even suggest that. He was just being an and helping his adjustment records by fraudulently devaluing the car to the max. By the way - that was on a Mazda - their OEM parts prices are off the charts - and that was what he was subtracting from the vehicle value. >>And yes - the NADA values are fraudulently low. Easily provable with real >>market numbers and with other blue books. The banking industry uses them >>to minimize the loan value on a car to cut their risk on collateral loans, >>and the insurance industry uses them to cut their costs on total outs, and >>it's fraudulent. The adjusters are trained in doing this, and no doubt >>your freind actually believes the BS he was trained in. > Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I don't > see how you can call it fraudently low. You haven't done honest real world comparisons then. Nor have you compared the condition of the crap you find on the market and level of maintenance. IOW - you didn't actually look at the condition of the vehicles that were selling at the low end NADA values. You would not want to drive a car that was actually selling for the NADA value. Well - maybe you would, but I wouldn't. >>Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you >>an equivalent car for the same money is "We're not in the business of >>buying cars"? > I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true. (see below where you contradict yourself on that point) > When > my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance company > even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like > make/model/etc. and their current selling price. Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who destroy my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse to do that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that that is the only value thay will recognize. >>It's because you just called their bluff and that's their only way out - >>by not having to actually find an equivalent car for what they're saying >>it's worth. Tell them you're not asking them to find and buy one for you, >>you just want them to prove it's possible, and they'll refuse to go thru >>the effort. Once again, you called their bluff, and they have no answer >>beyond "We're not in the business of buying cars". Run a little experiment >>and ask your friend if your car was totalled, if they would find one to >>replace it with. See if he doesn't use that *exact* line (that he was >>trained to use if he is ever challenged). > > > He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your > financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the > accident. Yet above, in direct response to my saying "Why do you think their standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for the same money is 'We're not in the business of buying cars'?" you said "I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true." You're contradicting yourself. Now here you just said "They are only in the business of covering your financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the accident." So which of the contradictory things you said is true? But that's just an obfuscation factor on their and your parts. You are pretending to have missed where I said that I was not asking them to find a replacement car and buy it for me. I was asking them to prove that they could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the actual selling price of the NADA valuation. > Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with > two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically > differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on the > cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars were > really selling for, or more than the high end. But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what you're saying. Next time, I will put the world in stop motion just before he/she hits me or runs me off the road to get the credentials of their insurer and then let him/her know whether I will allow them to continue the accident. Geez. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: Automotive ennui
"Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message news:5m9mn6Fc6065U1@mid.individual.net... > Mike Marlow wrote: > >> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message >> news:5m7ap0F80tg4U1@mid.individual.net... >> >> (snippage of an interesting thread, at least to me) > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') I'm going to delurk and put in my .02 here as insurance claims are something I have had some prior grief with. This was a home insurance case and the insurance adjuster who came to my home to assess water damage to my ceilings gave me a ridiculously low estimate. A bad windstorm had damaged the roof and allowed leakage. He allowed $900, which was a joke. I contacted my union as I knew one of my benefits was a free 30 minute consultation with the lawyers they had contracted for us. He told me to find out who the representative was for my state, as ins. companys usually contract out their assessors and they don't work directly for the ins. company. Then find out what the monetary limit was for small claims court in my state. It was $4000, which was more than enough to cover the damage to my home. Have the rep. of the ins. co. subpoenaed to appear in small claims court in my county, and to really twist the knife, pay the $15 to have the subpoena delivered directly by the Sheriff's dept. Did some calls and found out the closest rep. of the ins. co. was about 400 miles away in an adjoining state. Had the Sheriff's office in the county that the rep. was located in deliver the subpoena that I filled out in the courthouse of my home county. Shortly thereafter, a lawyer hired by the ins. co. from the closest large city contacted me and tried to talk me into accepting the original damage assessment, which I refused. So, he met me in small claims court, and we argued our sides. I had plenty of pictures and it was obvious to the most casual observer, and certainly this magistrate, that the ins. company was giving a ridiculously low assessment of damages. The lawyer agreed to have the ins. co. pay for a neutral assessor to reassess the damages, which the magistrate recommended. I was leery, but agreed, as I didn't see where I had much choice. This other assessor came out and reassessed the damage at a little more than $4000 and seemed a little disgusted when he saw my first estimate. The ins. co._had_to accept that assessment. Small claims court is a free service in my state, and I was out $20 for the fee for the subpoena, and $15 to have it hand delivered by the Sheriff's dept. Depending on what the monetary limits in small claims court is in your state, it might be worth pursuing. Judging from_all_my past experiences, ins. adjusters are a low, crawling form of insect life. But sometimes the system works. (relurking) Garrett Fulton |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:56 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands