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.