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.