Re: Which Car is a Wiser Buy?
 

On Nov 30, 7:54 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
wrote:
> In article <slrnfl01f4.du2.aznoma...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>,
> AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>
> > Get the 2002. But get one for $10K with 75K miles.
>
> Agreed. Absolutely.

Third that.

And don't depend on Carfax, especially with the '92. It's a 'garbage-
in, garbage-out' system. Example: my '96 VW Jetta broadsided another
car that ran a stop sign. Airbags deployed, $13k worth of damage (this
was in '98 when the car was worth about $14.5k). Car wasn't totalled,
and when I went to sell it in 2003, I pulled the Carfax on it.
Accident never showed up! I did disclose the accident to the seller,
however, and last time I checked, car had put on another 50k miles.

Dan D
'07 Ody EX
Central NJ USA

Re: Which Car is a Wiser Buy?
 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:25:44 -0800, Dano58 wrote:

> car that ran a stop sign. Airbags deployed, $13k worth of damage (this
> was in '98 when the car was worth about $14.5k). Car wasn't totalled,

That's pretty strange. Car is worth 14.5 and gets 13 worth of damage, and
it's not totalled? Any insurance company I've ever heard of would
consider that totalled. They generally operate on about a 60-70%
ratio of damage/value to decide that. How did you pull that off?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Re: Which Car is a Wiser Buy?
 

Dan C wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:25:44 -0800, Dano58 wrote:
>
>> car that ran a stop sign. Airbags deployed, $13k worth of damage (this
>> was in '98 when the car was worth about $14.5k). Car wasn't totalled,
>
> That's pretty strange. Car is worth 14.5 and gets 13 worth of damage, and
> it's not totalled? Any insurance company I've ever heard of would
> consider that totalled. They generally operate on about a 60-70%
> ratio of damage/value to decide that. How did you pull that off?
>
>

the insurer i settled claims for had a 75% threshold, and if the circumstances were right you could push it to 85% before writing it off but that
would only have been customer initiated to push it to 85% - claims would be more than happy to total loss it @ 75%.

Again, varies with all insurers.

Re: Which Car is a Wiser Buy?
 

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:19:40 -0500, bob wrote:

>>> car that ran a stop sign. Airbags deployed, $13k worth of damage (this
>>> was in '98 when the car was worth about $14.5k). Car wasn't totalled,

>> That's pretty strange. Car is worth 14.5 and gets 13 worth of damage,
>> and it's not totalled? Any insurance company I've ever heard of would
>> consider that totalled. They generally operate on about a 60-70% ratio
>> of damage/value to decide that. How did you pull that off?

> the insurer i settled claims for had a 75% threshold, and if the
> circumstances were right you could push it to 85% before writing it off
> but that would only have been customer initiated to push it to 85% -
> claims would be more than happy to total loss it @ 75%.

OK, but the above numbers come out to a 90% ratio. Hard to believe that
*ANY* insurer would not declare that a total loss, especially when you
throw in the fact that airbags deployed...

> Again, varies with all insurers.

No doubt, but the above sounds a little beyond normal variances.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Re: Which Car is a Wiser Buy?
 

On Nov 30, 9:19 pm, Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:19:40 -0500, bob wrote:
> >>> car that ran a stop sign. Airbags deployed, $13k worth of damage (this
> >>> was in '98 when the car was worth about $14.5k). Car wasn't totalled,
> >> That's pretty strange. Car is worth 14.5 and gets 13 worth of damage,
> >> and it's not totalled? Any insurance company I've ever heard of would
> >> consider that totalled. They generally operate on about a 60-70% ratio
> >> of damage/value to decide that. How did you pull that off?
> > the insurer i settled claims for had a 75% threshold, and if the
> > circumstances were right you could push it to 85% before writing it off
> > but that would only have been customer initiated to push it to 85% -
> > claims would be more than happy to total loss it @ 75%.
>
> OK, but the above numbers come out to a 90% ratio. Hard to believe that
> *ANY* insurer would not declare that a total loss, especially when you
> throw in the fact that airbags deployed...
>
> > Again, varies with all insurers.
>
> No doubt, but the above sounds a little beyond normal variances.
>
> --
> "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

I'm not sure how it happened but was glad it did, as the car wasn't
paid off at the time....

I think it might have been due to the airbags - they accounted for
about $5k of the damage. If you deduct the airbag cost (remember, this
was relatively early in the 'airbag' phase and they were being stolen
from cars because they were so expensive to replace) you get more like
55%.

None of the damage was structural - all of the front-end sheetmetal
was replaced (bumper, grille, hood fenders, driver's side door - along
with a lot of engine ancillaries - A/C compressor, radiator,
alternator, etc. But no glass was broken, no unibody bending, etc.
After the accident, I put another 90k miles on the car with absolutely
no issues - no bizarre tire wear, etc - other than the black paint
fading at a different rate on the new sheetmetal. The structural
integrity of that car was very, very good, and is why I still own VAG
products today.

Dan D
'07 Ody EX
'04 Audi A4 quattro
Central NJ USA