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.