My Si has a DX motor!
#136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
In article <MPG.2022b80cad2a539e98a158@207.14.116.130>,
dave@compassnet.com says...
> In article <1169734704.580895.81910@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> dan.dibiase@gmail.com says...
> > On Jan 25, 5:51 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <e...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > > In article <5bGdncC_8to7qyXYnZ2dnUVZ_uDin...@speakeasy.net> ,
> > > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> > > > > And a bogus Si sticker from the previous ricer owner.
> > >
> > > > check the vehicle reg docs? i doubt it's just a sticker job - the
> > > > conversion from 2pfi to 4pfi is non-trivial.The serial number will tell all. Carfax, anyone?
> >
> > I have an open account. What's the VIN?
>
> You've got mail - I didn't want to post the number on the net, but feel
> free to post the results here.
>
> I had a Carfax account briefly several years ago, and at that time I
> remember running a report for my car, but I don't recall seeing anything
> unusual then. It's been a while, however, and my memory could certainly
> be faulty, so I'll be interested to see what it says.
Thanks to Dan for running a Carfax report on my VIN - contrary to what I
mentioned in my email to him, I read it a bit too quickly at first; I
thought the second entry was when I'd purchased the car, but it's really
the fourth one:
10/25/1990 125 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #28972690 Title or registration issued
First owner reported
Loan or lien reported
06/08/1993 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #39182726 Title or registration issued
Loan or lien reported
08/19/1993 29,498 Service Plan Co.
Houston, TX Service Contract Issued
10/06/1993 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #40482739 Title or registration issued
Loan or lien reported
The fourth entry is when I purchased the car. So it certainly seems like
something fishy could've happened during the time period between the
second and third entries. Also interesting is that the Carfax record
refers to the car as a "1990 Honda Civic 1500 CRX Si", despite listing
the engine description as "1.6L L4 FI".
Dave
dave@compassnet.com says...
> In article <1169734704.580895.81910@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> dan.dibiase@gmail.com says...
> > On Jan 25, 5:51 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <e...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > > In article <5bGdncC_8to7qyXYnZ2dnUVZ_uDin...@speakeasy.net> ,
> > > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> > > > > And a bogus Si sticker from the previous ricer owner.
> > >
> > > > check the vehicle reg docs? i doubt it's just a sticker job - the
> > > > conversion from 2pfi to 4pfi is non-trivial.The serial number will tell all. Carfax, anyone?
> >
> > I have an open account. What's the VIN?
>
> You've got mail - I didn't want to post the number on the net, but feel
> free to post the results here.
>
> I had a Carfax account briefly several years ago, and at that time I
> remember running a report for my car, but I don't recall seeing anything
> unusual then. It's been a while, however, and my memory could certainly
> be faulty, so I'll be interested to see what it says.
Thanks to Dan for running a Carfax report on my VIN - contrary to what I
mentioned in my email to him, I read it a bit too quickly at first; I
thought the second entry was when I'd purchased the car, but it's really
the fourth one:
10/25/1990 125 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #28972690 Title or registration issued
First owner reported
Loan or lien reported
06/08/1993 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #39182726 Title or registration issued
Loan or lien reported
08/19/1993 29,498 Service Plan Co.
Houston, TX Service Contract Issued
10/06/1993 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #40482739 Title or registration issued
Loan or lien reported
The fourth entry is when I purchased the car. So it certainly seems like
something fishy could've happened during the time period between the
second and third entries. Also interesting is that the Carfax record
refers to the car as a "1990 Honda Civic 1500 CRX Si", despite listing
the engine description as "1.6L L4 FI".
Dave
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
In article <MPG.2022b80cad2a539e98a158@207.14.116.130>,
dave@compassnet.com says...
> In article <1169734704.580895.81910@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> dan.dibiase@gmail.com says...
> > On Jan 25, 5:51 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <e...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > > In article <5bGdncC_8to7qyXYnZ2dnUVZ_uDin...@speakeasy.net> ,
> > > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> > > > > And a bogus Si sticker from the previous ricer owner.
> > >
> > > > check the vehicle reg docs? i doubt it's just a sticker job - the
> > > > conversion from 2pfi to 4pfi is non-trivial.The serial number will tell all. Carfax, anyone?
> >
> > I have an open account. What's the VIN?
>
> You've got mail - I didn't want to post the number on the net, but feel
> free to post the results here.
>
> I had a Carfax account briefly several years ago, and at that time I
> remember running a report for my car, but I don't recall seeing anything
> unusual then. It's been a while, however, and my memory could certainly
> be faulty, so I'll be interested to see what it says.
Thanks to Dan for running a Carfax report on my VIN - contrary to what I
mentioned in my email to him, I read it a bit too quickly at first; I
thought the second entry was when I'd purchased the car, but it's really
the fourth one:
10/25/1990 125 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #28972690 Title or registration issued
First owner reported
Loan or lien reported
06/08/1993 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #39182726 Title or registration issued
Loan or lien reported
08/19/1993 29,498 Service Plan Co.
Houston, TX Service Contract Issued
10/06/1993 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #40482739 Title or registration issued
Loan or lien reported
The fourth entry is when I purchased the car. So it certainly seems like
something fishy could've happened during the time period between the
second and third entries. Also interesting is that the Carfax record
refers to the car as a "1990 Honda Civic 1500 CRX Si", despite listing
the engine description as "1.6L L4 FI".
Dave
dave@compassnet.com says...
> In article <1169734704.580895.81910@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> dan.dibiase@gmail.com says...
> > On Jan 25, 5:51 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <e...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > > In article <5bGdncC_8to7qyXYnZ2dnUVZ_uDin...@speakeasy.net> ,
> > > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> > > > > And a bogus Si sticker from the previous ricer owner.
> > >
> > > > check the vehicle reg docs? i doubt it's just a sticker job - the
> > > > conversion from 2pfi to 4pfi is non-trivial.The serial number will tell all. Carfax, anyone?
> >
> > I have an open account. What's the VIN?
>
> You've got mail - I didn't want to post the number on the net, but feel
> free to post the results here.
>
> I had a Carfax account briefly several years ago, and at that time I
> remember running a report for my car, but I don't recall seeing anything
> unusual then. It's been a while, however, and my memory could certainly
> be faulty, so I'll be interested to see what it says.
Thanks to Dan for running a Carfax report on my VIN - contrary to what I
mentioned in my email to him, I read it a bit too quickly at first; I
thought the second entry was when I'd purchased the car, but it's really
the fourth one:
10/25/1990 125 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #28972690 Title or registration issued
First owner reported
Loan or lien reported
06/08/1993 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #39182726 Title or registration issued
Loan or lien reported
08/19/1993 29,498 Service Plan Co.
Houston, TX Service Contract Issued
10/06/1993 Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Houston, TX
Title #40482739 Title or registration issued
Loan or lien reported
The fourth entry is when I purchased the car. So it certainly seems like
something fishy could've happened during the time period between the
second and third entries. Also interesting is that the Carfax record
refers to the car as a "1990 Honda Civic 1500 CRX Si", despite listing
the engine description as "1.6L L4 FI".
Dave
#138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
"Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>
>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>> what you were buying.
>>
>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>> interests. You're on your own.
>>
>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>
>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>
> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>
> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
> day.
>
> Dave
>
So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
**15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
it?
Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
"Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>
>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>> what you were buying.
>>
>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>> interests. You're on your own.
>>
>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>
>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>
> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>
> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
> day.
>
> Dave
>
So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
**15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
it?
Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
"Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>
>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>> what you were buying.
>>
>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>> interests. You're on your own.
>>
>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>
>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>
> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>
> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
> day.
>
> Dave
>
So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
**15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
it?
Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
#141
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
"Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>
>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>> what you were buying.
>>
>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>> interests. You're on your own.
>>
>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>
>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>
> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>
> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
> day.
>
> Dave
>
So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
**15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
it?
Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
#142
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
E Meyer wrote:
>
>
> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>> what you were buying.
>>>
>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>
>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>
>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>
>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>> day.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
> it?
>
> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>
buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
don't care /what/ edmunds say.
>
>
> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>> what you were buying.
>>>
>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>
>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>
>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>
>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>> day.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
> it?
>
> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>
buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
don't care /what/ edmunds say.
#143
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
E Meyer wrote:
>
>
> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>> what you were buying.
>>>
>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>
>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>
>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>
>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>> day.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
> it?
>
> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>
buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
don't care /what/ edmunds say.
>
>
> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>> what you were buying.
>>>
>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>
>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>
>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>
>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>> day.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
> it?
>
> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>
buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
don't care /what/ edmunds say.
#144
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
E Meyer wrote:
>
>
> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>> what you were buying.
>>>
>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>
>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>
>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>
>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>> day.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
> it?
>
> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>
buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
don't care /what/ edmunds say.
>
>
> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>> what you were buying.
>>>
>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>
>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>
>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>
>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>> day.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
> it?
>
> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>
buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
don't care /what/ edmunds say.
#145
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
E Meyer wrote:
>
>
> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>> what you were buying.
>>>
>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>
>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>
>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>
>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>> day.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
> it?
>
> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>
buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
don't care /what/ edmunds say.
>
>
> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>> what you were buying.
>>>
>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>
>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>
>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>
>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>> day.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
> it?
>
> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>
buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
don't care /what/ edmunds say.
#146
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
jim beam wrote:
> E Meyer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
>> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>>
>>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>>
>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>
>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>> not
>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>
>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>
>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>>
>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>
>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>> day.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test
>> drove it
>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>> bought
>> it?
>> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>
> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
> at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
> off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
> don't care /what/ edmunds say.
Hell, even my '82 Civic beater has a low retail of over $1K.
OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of what
exactly is in it???
JT
#147
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
jim beam wrote:
> E Meyer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
>> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>>
>>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>>
>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>
>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>> not
>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>
>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>
>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>>
>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>
>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>> day.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test
>> drove it
>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>> bought
>> it?
>> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>
> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
> at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
> off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
> don't care /what/ edmunds say.
Hell, even my '82 Civic beater has a low retail of over $1K.
OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of what
exactly is in it???
JT
#148
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
jim beam wrote:
> E Meyer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
>> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>>
>>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>>
>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>
>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>> not
>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>
>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>
>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>>
>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>
>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>> day.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test
>> drove it
>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>> bought
>> it?
>> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>
> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
> at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
> off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
> don't care /what/ edmunds say.
Hell, even my '82 Civic beater has a low retail of over $1K.
OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of what
exactly is in it???
JT
#149
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
jim beam wrote:
> E Meyer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
>> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>>
>>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>>
>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>
>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>> not
>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>
>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>
>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>>
>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>
>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>> day.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test
>> drove it
>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>> bought
>> it?
>> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>
> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
> at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
> off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
> don't care /what/ edmunds say.
Hell, even my '82 Civic beater has a low retail of over $1K.
OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of what
exactly is in it???
JT
#150
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
news:RvudnSzq1OSWAibYnZ2dnUVZ_oOonZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>E Meyer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article MPG.2023314d9ff46f5098a15f@207.14.116.130,
>> "Dave Garrett" <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
>>> elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
>>>> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
>>>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>
>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>> not
>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>
>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>
>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>
>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>> day.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove
>> it
>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>> bought
>> it? Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at
>> $704.
>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>
> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale at
> $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring off
> the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i don't
> care /what/ edmunds say.
I can't speak for San Francisco, but around here (Dallas area) I have found
the Edmunds numbers to be a maximum you can only aspire to. You did notice
that it is the trade-in value, not suggested retail? My experience has been
if you drive into a dealer with a 17 year old car of any type or pedigree,
the offer will be about $50.