|
Carfax?
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. |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/23/2009 05:53 PM, Elle wrote:
> 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. elle, with respect, neither are going to be anywhere /near/ as useful as a proper physical inspection. you know a little bit more about engine inspection now than you did before. with the honda d-series engine, you can see if there's sludge/resin and you can see the cam lobes to inspect for wear. this is a good indicator of condition in the rest of the engine. |
Re: Carfax?
On Sep 23, 9:04 pm, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 09/23/2009 05:53 PM, Elle wrote: > > > 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. > > elle, with respect, neither are going to be anywhere /near/ as useful as > a proper physical inspection. you know a little bit more about engine > inspection now than you did before. with the honda d-series engine, you > can see if there's sludge/resin and you can see the cam lobes to inspect > for wear. this is a good indicator of condition in the rest of the engine. Hi Jim. The purpose to me of these title check services is to offer some evidence for whether the car either (1) is a salvage vehicle (if it is, this is a car property insurance problem, for one); (2) has had more owners than the seller is claiming; or (3) has had the odometer tampered with. Carfaxdotcom and autocheckdotcom from my reading are not perfect, but to me they give more peace of mind. The physical car inspection is as important, absolutely. If I am not pleased with either the title check or the physical inspection, then I reject a used car. Believe me, my physical inspection checklist derives largely from reading here over the years. I am looking at 7th generation ( = 2001-2005) Civics with around 100k miles or less on them and documents to support length of ownership and maintenance, too. |
Re: Carfax?
On 9/24/09 4:30 AM, in article
1d3ba2e5-bfec-46be-bcbe-f2e4788900d1...oglegroups.com, "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 23, 9:04 pm, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote: >> On 09/23/2009 05:53 PM, Elle wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> elle, with respect, neither are going to be anywhere /near/ as useful as >> a proper physical inspection. you know a little bit more about engine >> inspection now than you did before. with the honda d-series engine, you >> can see if there's sludge/resin and you can see the cam lobes to inspect >> for wear. this is a good indicator of condition in the rest of the engine. > > Hi Jim. The purpose to me of these title check services is to offer > some evidence for whether the car either (1) is a salvage vehicle (if > it is, this is a car property insurance problem, for one); (2) has had > more owners than the seller is claiming; or (3) has had the odometer > tampered with. Carfaxdotcom and autocheckdotcom from my reading are > not perfect, but to me they give more peace of mind. The physical car > inspection is as important, absolutely. If I am not pleased with > either the title check or the physical inspection, then I reject a > used car. Believe me, my physical inspection checklist derives largely > from reading here over the years. I am looking at 7th generation ( = > 2001-2005) Civics with around 100k miles or less on them and documents > to support length of ownership and maintenance, too. I wouldn't put much stock in carfax helping with number 2 on your list. I have seen the carfax for a couple of vehicles I bought new with less than 20 miles on the odometer and it aready showed 3 owners. The explanation from the dealer was that transfers between dealers were recorded. If this is happening already with a brand new car that has never actually been sold to a consumer, I can't imagine what will show up on one that has been traded in and resold a couple of times. But then, the number of owners is really irrelevant. Its the maintenance and accident history you are more interested in. |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/24/2009 06:15 AM, E. Meyer wrote:
> On 9/24/09 4:30 AM, in article > 1d3ba2e5-bfec-46be-bcbe-f2e4788900d1...oglegroups.com, "Elle" > <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 23, 9:04�pm, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote: >>> On 09/23/2009 05:53 PM, Elle wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> elle, with respect, neither are going to be anywhere /near/ as useful as >>> a proper physical inspection. �you know a little bit more about engine >>> inspection now than you did before. �with the honda d-series engine, you >>> can see if there's sludge/resin and you can see the cam lobes to inspect >>> for wear. �this is a good indicator of condition in the rest of the engine. >> >> Hi Jim. The purpose to me of these title check services is to offer >> some evidence for whether the car either (1) is a salvage vehicle (if >> it is, this is a car property insurance problem, for one); (2) has had >> more owners than the seller is claiming; or (3) has had the odometer >> tampered with. Carfaxdotcom and autocheckdotcom from my reading are >> not perfect, but to me they give more peace of mind. The physical car >> inspection is as important, absolutely. If I am not pleased with >> either the title check or the physical inspection, then I reject a >> used car. Believe me, my physical inspection checklist derives largely >> from reading here over the years. I am looking at 7th generation ( = >> 2001-2005) Civics with around 100k miles or less on them and documents >> to support length of ownership and maintenance, too. > > I wouldn't put much stock in carfax helping with number 2 on your list. I > have seen the carfax for a couple of vehicles I bought new with less than 20 > miles on the odometer and it aready showed 3 owners. The explanation from > the dealer was that transfers between dealers were recorded. If this is > happening already with a brand new car that has never actually been sold to > a consumer, I can't imagine what will show up on one that has been traded in > and resold a couple of times. > > But then, the number of owners is really irrelevant. Its the maintenance and > accident history you are more interested in. > and even that doesn't mean anything much. those sources only show you what has been recorded, not unrecorded. i've seen "clean title" vehicles that are clearly rebuilt serious accident victims. i've seen "salvage" vehicles in perfect condition [i own one]. and i've had 300k mile vehicles in better condition than 100k. the only reliable method of determining quality is inspection. end of story. |
Re: Carfax?
"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. > I am just a rank amateur car buyer but IMHO I disagree with **not** using carfax. Sure if an experienced con/shyster wants to shyster someone, then someone will likely be shystered. And there are many car's that may not show all their histories on carfax but i doubt the number is significant compared to all the car's problems that will appear. I subscribed to carfax a few years ago for the intentional purpose of checking/buying a used car. One car that was on a large dealer's used lot was less than 1 yr old. When I inquired about why such a new car was on the used lot the reason given was that the customer/owner traded up. Well... car fax showed that the car was involved in an extensive front end collision about 3 months after it was purchased and it had bounced across 5 different *used* dealer lots before ending up at this dealer's used lot. That was one car and salesperson i needed to avoid. It only took minutes to get that info. and there are many more stories like that one, than a story like this, (fake story follows --->) "a friend bought a car and it was in 3 wrecks and was totaled out as a salvage because it was submerged in the great flood of New Orleans and carfax showed the car had only one owner and had never been in an accident, carfax sux" (<---end of fake story) I tend to think of carfax as a time saver. Inspection can take lots of ones time. If someone is trying to shyster you then it might take **more** inspection time. carfax can eliminate many (maybe not all) but many of those wastes. my $0.02 robb |
Re: Carfax?
robb wrote:
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. >> > > I am just a rank amateur car buyer but IMHO I disagree with > **not** using carfax. > > Sure if an experienced con/shyster wants to shyster someone, then > someone will likely be shystered. > > And there are many car's that may not show all their histories > on carfax but i doubt the number is significant compared to all > the car's problems that will appear. > > I subscribed to carfax a few years ago for the intentional > purpose of checking/buying a used car. One car that was on a > large dealer's used lot was less than 1 yr old. When I inquired > about why such a new car was on the used lot the reason given was > that the customer/owner traded up. > > Well... car fax showed that the car was involved in an extensive > front end collision about 3 months after it was purchased and it > had bounced across 5 different *used* dealer lots before ending > up at this dealer's used lot. That was one car and salesperson i > needed to avoid. It only took minutes to get that info. > > and there are many more stories like that one, than a story like > this, > (fake story follows --->) "a friend bought a car and it was in 3 > wrecks and was totaled out as a salvage because it was submerged > in the great flood of New Orleans and carfax showed the car had > only one owner and had never been in an accident, carfax sux" > (<---end of fake story) > > I tend to think of carfax as a time saver. Inspection can take > lots of ones time. > If someone is trying to shyster you then it might take **more** > inspection time. carfax can eliminate many (maybe not all) but > many of those wastes. > > my $0.02 > robb > CFX is not a credible sole source of positive info, but is hard to ignore as a potential red flag. |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/24/2009 09:33 AM, robb wrote:
> > "Elle"<honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. >> > > I am just a rank amateur car buyer but IMHO I disagree with > **not** using carfax. > > Sure if an experienced con/shyster wants to shyster someone, then > someone will likely be shystered. > > And there are many car's that may not show all their histories > on carfax but i doubt the number is significant compared to all > the car's problems that will appear. if you don't inspect, or take the vehicle to someone competent to inspect, you'd never know that - you're just guessing. > > I subscribed to carfax a few years ago for the intentional > purpose of checking/buying a used car. One car that was on a > large dealer's used lot was less than 1 yr old. When I inquired > about why such a new car was on the used lot the reason given was > that the customer/owner traded up. > > Well... car fax showed that the car was involved in an extensive > front end collision about 3 months after it was purchased and it > had bounced across 5 different *used* dealer lots before ending > up at this dealer's used lot. That was one car and salesperson i > needed to avoid. It only took minutes to get that info. you found one with a record. you didn't find one with the same history /without/ a record. > > and there are many more stories like that one, than a story like > this, > (fake story follows --->) "a friend bought a car and it was in 3 > wrecks and was totaled out as a salvage because it was submerged > in the great flood of New Orleans and carfax showed the car had > only one owner and had never been in an accident, carfax sux" > (<---end of fake story) > > I tend to think of carfax as a time saver. Inspection can take > lots of ones time. you're spending a thousands of dollars, and the safety of your self and family is at stake - so you want to save a few minutes??? that's a joke, right? > If someone is trying to shyster you then it might take **more** > inspection time. carfax can eliminate many (maybe not all) but > many of those wastes. > > my $0.02 again, that's bogus. inspection time is /less/ with the damaged car than the real deal. once it's shown to be dud, the inspection is over! you don't work for walletfax do you? |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/24/2009 09:40 PM, Leftie wrote:
> robb wrote: >> "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. >>> >> >> I am just a rank amateur car buyer but IMHO I disagree with >> **not** using carfax. >> >> Sure if an experienced con/shyster wants to shyster someone, then >> someone will likely be shystered. >> >> And there are many car's that may not show all their histories >> on carfax but i doubt the number is significant compared to all >> the car's problems that will appear. >> >> I subscribed to carfax a few years ago for the intentional >> purpose of checking/buying a used car. One car that was on a >> large dealer's used lot was less than 1 yr old. When I inquired >> about why such a new car was on the used lot the reason given was >> that the customer/owner traded up. >> >> Well... car fax showed that the car was involved in an extensive >> front end collision about 3 months after it was purchased and it >> had bounced across 5 different *used* dealer lots before ending >> up at this dealer's used lot. That was one car and salesperson i >> needed to avoid. It only took minutes to get that info. >> >> and there are many more stories like that one, than a story like >> this, >> (fake story follows --->) "a friend bought a car and it was in 3 >> wrecks and was totaled out as a salvage because it was submerged >> in the great flood of New Orleans and carfax showed the car had >> only one owner and had never been in an accident, carfax sux" >> (<---end of fake story) >> >> I tend to think of carfax as a time saver. Inspection can take >> lots of ones time. >> If someone is trying to shyster you then it might take **more** >> inspection time. carfax can eliminate many (maybe not all) but >> many of those wastes. >> >> my $0.02 >> robb >> > > > Carfax is one test of many. It can turn up problems, but NEVER count on > it to do so. IOW, assume that a car they say is bad is indeed bad, but > don't assume that one they say is 'clean' is clean. even that is not very reliable. a 5-year old car has significantly depreciated, and a cosmetic fender bender will cause it to be written off. and yet you can get a structural rebuild done by [drunken] monkeys on a 3-month old car with no history. spend the money having aaa physically inspect for you. /wayyy/ more reliable. |
Re: Carfax?
robb wrote:
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. >> > > I am just a rank amateur car buyer but IMHO I disagree with > **not** using carfax. > > Sure if an experienced con/shyster wants to shyster someone, then > someone will likely be shystered. > > And there are many car's that may not show all their histories > on carfax but i doubt the number is significant compared to all > the car's problems that will appear. > > I subscribed to carfax a few years ago for the intentional > purpose of checking/buying a used car. One car that was on a > large dealer's used lot was less than 1 yr old. When I inquired > about why such a new car was on the used lot the reason given was > that the customer/owner traded up. > > Well... car fax showed that the car was involved in an extensive > front end collision about 3 months after it was purchased and it > had bounced across 5 different *used* dealer lots before ending > up at this dealer's used lot. That was one car and salesperson i > needed to avoid. It only took minutes to get that info. > > and there are many more stories like that one, than a story like > this, > (fake story follows --->) "a friend bought a car and it was in 3 > wrecks and was totaled out as a salvage because it was submerged > in the great flood of New Orleans and carfax showed the car had > only one owner and had never been in an accident, carfax sux" > (<---end of fake story) > > I tend to think of carfax as a time saver. Inspection can take > lots of ones time. > If someone is trying to shyster you then it might take **more** > inspection time. carfax can eliminate many (maybe not all) but > many of those wastes. > > my $0.02 > robb > Carfax is one test of many. It can turn up problems, but NEVER count on it to do so. IOW, assume that a car they say is bad is indeed bad, but don't assume that one they say is 'clean' is clean. |
Re: Carfax?
"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. |
Re: Carfax?
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass <iownauass@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Elle"<honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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.. |
Re: Carfax?
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> "Elle"<honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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? I do both. |
Re: Carfax?
On 9/25/09 7:13 PM, in article slrnhbqn5l.i9k.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net, "AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Elle"<honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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? > Depends on the price & physical condition of the car. I have owned cars that were previously declared totalled & gotten many years & many miles of good service out of them. But then, I don't even trust paying a mechanic to do a mechanical inspection before I buy a car. I do it myself. If there is anything seriously wrong with a car, its usually pretty obvious once you start looking closely at it. > I do both. |
Re: Carfax?
AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
> 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. I agree with robb, Leftie and you. To share experience for the archives, about a year ago when I was looking at Craig's List cars, the Carfax report showed that about one-third had had odometer tampering. Many also had a salvage title. This information was not being disclosed by the sellers. Also, a salvage title is important not because it is a clue to look for damage, a non-straight frame, etc. A salvage title is important because it means the car will not be fully insurable for damage to it in the future, regardless of the extent of repairs to the car in the past, because some insurance company somewhere has already paid out on the car for its full value. |
Re: Carfax?
On 9/26/09 9:22 AM, in article
5ef5d0cd-f3d1-45bd-89a3-f5187e77c109...oglegroups.com, "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote: > AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >> 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. > > I agree with robb, Leftie and you. To share experience for the > archives, about a year ago when I was looking at Craig's List cars, > the Carfax report showed that about one-third had had odometer > tampering. Many also had a salvage title. This information was not > being disclosed by the sellers. Also, a salvage title is important not > because it is a clue to look for damage, a non-straight frame, etc. A > salvage title is important because it means the car will not be fully > insurable for damage to it in the future, regardless of the extent of > repairs to the car in the past, because some insurance company > somewhere has already paid out on the car for its full value. I agree it won't be fully insurable. If you are going to buy a salvage car, its not really a viable idea unless its priced such that you would never consider putting collision coverage on it. You shouldn't need a salvage title to tell you to look for damage though. That's part of your inspection, CarFax or not. My feeling is if somebody wants to give me the Carfax free to look at, I'll look, but its not on my list of things I would spend money on. I also agree with you as far as what you find on craigslist & in the local paper car section. The last couple of times I looked at cars that way, all I found was sleazy guys set up in vacant apartments with cars that appeared to have been used as outhouses, essentially unlicensed used car lots. The only places I've seen consistently nice used cars around here (Dallas) the past several years has been in new car dealers' used car lots & even then it is still caveat emptor at a lot of them. |
Re: Carfax?
"Leftie" <No@Thanks.net> wrote in message news:2ruvm.230593$0e4.175795@newsfe19.iad... > Elle wrote: > > AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: > Just to counterpoint a bit, a friend just backed out of buying a > 2002 Camry with very low mileage, because Carfax showed an 'odometer > discrepancy'. It appears now that there was none. Most likely an > inspection station wrote down the wrong number. So heck, you really > can't even trust them 100% when they appear to find a problem... > I thought the only thing you can trust %100 are ... death and taxes ? |
Re: Carfax?
Elle wrote:
> AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >> 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. > > I agree with robb, Leftie and you. To share experience for the > archives, about a year ago when I was looking at Craig's List cars, > the Carfax report showed that about one-third had had odometer > tampering. Many also had a salvage title. This information was not > being disclosed by the sellers. Also, a salvage title is important not > because it is a clue to look for damage, a non-straight frame, etc. A > salvage title is important because it means the car will not be fully > insurable for damage to it in the future, regardless of the extent of > repairs to the car in the past, because some insurance company > somewhere has already paid out on the car for its full value. Just to counterpoint a bit, a friend just backed out of buying a 2002 Camry with very low mileage, because Carfax showed an 'odometer discrepancy'. It appears now that there was none. Most likely an inspection station wrote down the wrong number. So heck, you really can't even trust them 100% when they appear to find a problem... |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/25/2009 05:13 PM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >> On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Elle"<honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/26/2009 07:22 AM, Elle wrote:
> AZ Nomad<aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: >> 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. > > I agree with robb, Leftie and you. To share experience for the > archives, about a year ago when I was looking at Craig's List cars, > the Carfax report showed that about one-third had had odometer > tampering. Many also had a salvage title. This information was not > being disclosed by the sellers. Also, a salvage title is important not > because it is a clue to look for damage, a non-straight frame, etc. A > salvage title is important because it means the car will not be fully > insurable for damage to it in the future, regardless of the extent of > repairs to the car in the past, because some insurance company > somewhere has already paid out on the car for its full value. paying full coverage insurance on an old vehicle is a fools game. premiums outweigh the vehicle worth very quickly - and you lose your vehicle in the event of all but the teeniest fender bender. save the money and just get third party. then you can make your own decision on whether to repair, and pay for it out of your savings. |
Re: Carfax?
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:55:06 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 09/25/2009 05:13 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: >>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Elle"<honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/27/2009 08:29 PM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:55:06 -0700, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >> On 09/25/2009 05:13 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>> On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Elle"<honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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? |
Re: Carfax?
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:43:56 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 09/27/2009 08:29 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:55:06 -0700, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >>> On 09/25/2009 05:13 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: >>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>>> On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Elle"<honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/28/2009 12:50 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:43:56 -0700, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >> On 09/27/2009 08:29 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: >>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:55:06 -0700, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>> On 09/25/2009 05:13 PM, AZ Nomad wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass<iownauass@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Elle"<honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. indeed, ignorance isn't bliss. but with carfax, the ignorance not only remains, but one can be misled. |
Re: Carfax?
On Sep 27, 9:43 pm, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> 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? Perhaps you may not believe a Carfax (or autocheck.com) report that 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. |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/28/2009 06:26 AM, Elle wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:43�pm, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote: >> �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? > > Perhaps you may not believe a Carfax (or autocheck.com) report that > shows either (1) five owners in ten years (though the seller says he > is the only owner); what does the number of owners matter??? you only need one careless one to screw a vehicle up. > or (2) odometer tampering; what does that really matter? inspection will show if the vehicle has been properly maintained. you only need one careless... > or (3) a salvage > vehicle. i don't get the problem with salvage. sure, some can be garbage, but that shows up on inspection. fyi, my crx is salvage. the one prior lady owner had turned it in for the $600 california dmv clunker fee, and the junkyard wheeled it into their "whole vehicles" pound, then immediately sold it to me for $1000. the vehicle is all original, excellent condition [apart from paint because it lived outside], and well maintained. it's straighter than a vehicle damaged on the dealer's lot and repaired before first registration. but it's "salvage" because it had been de-registered. > 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. that's like people wanting "natural" diamond vs lab-grown diamond. if the latter is still crystallized carbon, flawless, cheaper, and doesn't come smeared in blood, i see absolutely no problem with it, yet the brainwashed masses think otherwise. > > 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. why not? i don't understand why paying more to /not/ own your own vehicle in the event of an accident makes sense. |
Re: Carfax?
Jim, I think your goals for owning a car are different from others'.
In particular you seem feel that how the market values a car is irrelevant, hence odometer readings and salvage status are irrelevant. Fine for your and some people's needs. Not for mine and others', though. I want a car for which a price has been "set" by a resource like Kelly Blue Book. KBB.com will not spew out a price for cars with unknown mileage or having salvage status. Your argument is probably more with kbb than anything else. |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/29/2009 11:26 AM, Elle wrote:
> Jim, I think your goals for owning a car are different from others'. > In particular you seem feel that how the market values a car is > irrelevant, hence odometer readings and salvage status are irrelevant. > Fine for your and some people's needs. Not for mine and others', > though. I want a car for which a price has been "set" by a resource > like Kelly Blue Book. KBB.com will not spew out a price for cars with > unknown mileage or having salvage status. Your argument is probably > more with kbb than anything else. again, i think you're the victim of kbb's self-promotion propaganda. kbb is simply "reported" prices [dmv taxes anyone?], not actual market transactions. example: honda crx. here in the san francsico bay area, kbb has a 91 crx si is listed as $2130 for "excellent condition". what an utter crock! a real "street" price of that vehicle in good shape is $4k - $6k. i've seen people selling non-rolling crx shells here on craigslist for $1500. and i have personally witnessed people outside a seller's door waving $100 bills and bidding the price of for-sale crx's up to 2 or 3x asking. bottom line - consider whose interests kbb pricing may serve. and consider how they get their "data". |
Re: Carfax?
jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> example: honda crx. > here in the san francsico bay area, kbb has a 91 crx si is listed as > $2130 for "excellent condition". what an utter crock! a real "street" > price of that vehicle in good shape is $4k - $6k. i've seen people > selling non-rolling crx shells here on craigslist for $1500. and i have > personally witnessed people outside a seller's door waving $100 bills > and bidding the price of for-sale crx's up to 2 or 3x asking. > > bottom line - consider whose interests kbb pricing may serve. and > consider how they get their "data". First I'd have to consider how you get your data, the paucity of it, whether what you are talking about is ricers, etc. ;-) |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/29/2009 08:11 PM, Elle wrote:
> jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote: >> example: honda crx. >> here in the san francsico bay area, kbb has a 91 crx si is listed as >> $2130 for "excellent condition". �what an utter crock! � a real "street" >> price of that vehicle in good shape is $4k - $6k. �i've seen people >> selling non-rolling crx shells here on craigslist for $1500. �and i have >> personally witnessed people outside a seller's door waving $100 bills >> and bidding the price of for-sale crx's up to 2 or 3x asking. >> >> bottom line - consider whose interests kbb pricing may serve. �and >> consider how they get their "data". > > 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? |
Re: Carfax?
"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in message news:373440f4-8ddb-4486-9c00-2be6d7b7879f@r36g2000vbn.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. If you still think that carfax is the way to go, here is a link to cbc's marketplace episode on used vehicle purchasing. http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2009/v...orts/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. |
Re: Carfax?
On Sep 29, 9:32 pm, jim beam <m...@privacy.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. |
Re: Carfax?
On 09/30/2009 07:02 AM, Elle wrote:
> On Sep 29, 9:32�pm, jim beam<m...@privacy.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. |
Re: Carfax?
In article <k9udnZo5KdvT71zXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote: >On 09/28/2009 06:26 AM, Elle wrote: >> or (2) odometer tampering; > >what does that really matter? inspection will show if the vehicle has >been properly maintained. you only need one careless... It is a little hard to do proper maintenance by the schedule if the odometer is incorrect. >> or (3) a salvage >> vehicle. > >fyi, my crx is salvage. the one prior lady owner had turned it in for >the $600 california dmv clunker fee, and the junkyard wheeled it into >their "whole vehicles" pound, then immediately sold it to me for $1000. > the vehicle is all original, excellent condition [apart from paint >because it lived outside], and well maintained. it's straighter than a >vehicle damaged on the dealer's lot and repaired before first >registration. but it's "salvage" because it had been de-registered. Knowing WHEN a salvage title vehicle was given a salvage title is useful. If the car was old and cheap when it was given a salvage title (like your car), then it may not be much of a concern (even minor cosmetic damage can cause an insurance company to declare such a cheap vehicle to be a "total loss"). But if the car was fairly new and valuable when it was given a salvage title, that is much more of a concern. In any case, a title / registration history like Carfax or Autocheck will not tell you if a car is good. But it will tell you if a car has a title problem that warrants either extra suspicion beyond the usual suspicion one gives any used car, or if it is just not worth bothering to go look at it at all. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:23 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands