Honda Car Forum

I'd like to hear some feedback on the situation I'm faced with. We just
bought a '99 Honda Civic EX Coupe, black, 62,000 miles, for $7,500.
Obvious needs at the time were a new windshield and a good cleaning,
floor mats and a remote (original keys were said to be lost by the
daughter who drove the car). The car has typical kid use damage.
Included were 17" wheels and new tires up front, newer in back. JVC cd
player, I want to say 200 watts (yikes!) with an amp in the trunk, Sony
speakers in the back.

Sounds like a great deal, huh? It might be, and I'm just being hyper
sensitive. That's where you come in. The plot thickens.

Once the car is home, we realize it's been in an accident. It looks like
airbags could've deployed as the cover for the dash bag looks newer than
the dash.
The front end driver's side was repaired.
New light, bumper and grill, and left front fender. They used '98 parts
and I've now been informed that '99 year is slightly different in size.
That explains why the bumper and fender are off by about an inch on the
driver's side... also explains gaps around the '99 light that was used
to replace the damaged one (have had to buy new light for passenger side
as it's a '98 and doesn't match the '99's style on the driver's side.)
Now, to look at the car from the front, you'd say, "nice car." It's good
from afar, but far from good. Well, sorta. The fit and finish are less
than perfect.

The back lights are of the '96-98 model year. Causes me much angst until
I realize the original's had been replaced and they weren't '99 model
year. This is not a huge biggie, as my son has already ordered new back
lights. But still. I had to run around finding the right size bolts (one
had only one bolt holding it in place!) as Honda was out of them.
Metric....

Had it to the mechanic. Hank says car is in good shape mechanically.
Needed new front brakes, tranny flush, radiator flush (almost all water
in rad.), tune up, lights replaced in taillights, battery holder. No
frame damage visible. Trunk rides up on driver side and back bumper
looks to have been pushed forward a bit. Not super noticeable, but I'm
picky.

California law states any damage over $750. be reported. This car came
back unreported which tells me daughter got in a fender bender and they
bought aftermarket parts of the wrong year to replace some of them and
repaired the damage without a report to the state. (I'm guessing the
bumper and grill are the two '98 parts.)

Do I contemplate some action, done very easily as there's lawyers in
immediate family, or do I suck up the experience and realize my son's
got a really nice looking and now mechanically sound car for a decent
price? ($7500, + $600 in maintenance/repair, $160. taillight, $50.
mats. = $8300.)

Oh, they didn't give us the smog certificate that's required by law,
either.
Novices that we are, failed to ask for it too. (-$68.)

Buyer beware? Or grounds for reimbursement to right the car with '99
parts, a bumper and grill? I'm looking for an ethical perspective before
talking to legal.

Thanks to all who respond.

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15859-3F215893-32@storefull-2335.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> I'd like to hear some feedback on the situation I'm faced with. We just
> bought a '99 Honda Civic EX Coupe, black, 62,000 miles, for $7,500.

dealer, or private party?

> Obvious needs at the time were a new windshield and a good cleaning,
> floor mats and a remote (original keys were said to be lost by the
> daughter who drove the car). The car has typical kid use damage.
> Included were 17" wheels and new tires up front, newer in back. JVC cd
> player, I want to say 200 watts (yikes!) with an amp in the trunk, Sony
> speakers in the back.
>
> Sounds like a great deal, huh? It might be, and I'm just being hyper
> sensitive. That's where you come in. The plot thickens.
>
> Once the car is home, we realize it's been in an accident. It looks like
> airbags could've deployed as the cover for the dash bag looks newer than
> the dash.

might wanna pull up the cover, and see if theres an airbag under there. id
be surprised if there was.

> The front end driver's side was repaired.
> New light, bumper and grill, and left front fender. They used '98 parts
> and I've now been informed that '99 year is slightly different in size.
> That explains why the bumper and fender are off by about an inch on the
> driver's side... also explains gaps around the '99 light that was used
> to replace the damaged one (have had to buy new light for passenger side
> as it's a '98 and doesn't match the '99's style on the driver's side.)
> Now, to look at the car from the front, you'd say, "nice car." It's good
> from afar, but far from good. Well, sorta. The fit and finish are less
> than perfect.
>
> The back lights are of the '96-98 model year. Causes me much angst until
> I realize the original's had been replaced and they weren't '99 model
> year. This is not a huge biggie, as my son has already ordered new back
> lights. But still. I had to run around finding the right size bolts (one
> had only one bolt holding it in place!) as Honda was out of them.
> Metric....
>
> Had it to the mechanic. Hank says car is in good shape mechanically.
> Needed new front brakes, tranny flush, radiator flush (almost all water
> in rad.), tune up, lights replaced in taillights, battery holder. No
> frame damage visible. Trunk rides up on driver side and back bumper
> looks to have been pushed forward a bit. Not super noticeable, but I'm
> picky.
>
> California law states any damage over $750. be reported. This car came
> back unreported which tells me daughter got in a fender bender and they
> bought aftermarket parts of the wrong year to replace some of them and
> repaired the damage without a report to the state. (I'm guessing the
> bumper and grill are the two '98 parts.)
>
> Do I contemplate some action, done very easily as there's lawyers in
> immediate family, or do I suck up the experience and realize my son's
> got a really nice looking and now mechanically sound car for a decent
> price? ($7500, + $600 in maintenance/repair, $160. taillight, $50.
> mats. = $8300.)
>
> Oh, they didn't give us the smog certificate that's required by law,
> either.
> Novices that we are, failed to ask for it too. (-$68.)
>
> Buyer beware? Or grounds for reimbursement to right the car with '99
> parts, a bumper and grill? I'm looking for an ethical perspective before
> talking to legal.

they had a reason to sell it for $7500, especially if its missing a $1000
airbag module, or 2.
>
> Thanks to all who respond.
>

mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com (SoCalMike) wrote:

>dealer, or private party?

Like the topic says, Private party. :^)

>might wanna pull up the cover, and see if
>theres an airbag under there. id be
>surprised if there was.

My mechanic felt that if they weren't in there, the dash light, which
comes on when the car starts and then goes out when appropriate, would
reflect a lack of bag.

>they had a reason to sell it for $7500,
>especially if its missing a $1000 airbag
>module, or 2.

Oh, if they're missing, there's no doubt I'm going to go after them,
because that *is* the law. I'll take it to Honda and get their opinion
as well. Like you, I'm skeptical...

>California law states any damage over $750. be reported.

You are required to report the accident to DMV if the accident caused $500 or
more in damage. So, even if your car suffered zero damage, you must still
report it if the other party suffers $500 in damages.

As far as I know, DMV does not keep record of damages to each car and how much.
They do keep track of your accidents and who was at fault for insurance and
other purposes.

This car came
>back unreported which tells me daughter got in a fender bender and they
>bought aftermarket parts of the wrong year to replace some of them and
>repaired the damage without a report to the state. (I'm guessing the
>bumper and grill are the two '98 parts.)

Could've been one of those "lets keep this between us" accidents, where they
don't report it to keep insurance costs down.

>
>Do I contemplate some action, done very easily as there's lawyers in
>immediate family, or do I suck up the experience and realize my son's
>got a really nice looking and now mechanically sound car for a decent
>price? ($7500, + $600 in maintenance/repair, $160. taillight, $50.
>mats. = $8300.)

You have a case, if you asked "was it in an accident?" and they flat out lied.
If you didn't ask, then it's your fault.

>
>Oh, they didn't give us the smog certificate that's required by law,
>either.
>Novices that we are, failed to ask for it too. (-$68.)

Well, in CA, everytime you transfer title, the new owner is REQUIRED to get it
smogged again. Doesn't matter if the previous owner had it smogged only few
months ago.

You do not need a smog "certificate" to register the car, since its done
electronically and DMV has a record whenever its smogged.

>Buyer beware? Or grounds for reimbursement to right the car with '99
>parts, a bumper and grill? I'm looking for an ethical perspective before
>talking to legal.
>

Obviously, it looked OK before you handed them your money, so why are you
making a big stink about it now. $7500 is a pretty good price for the car with
such low mileage. Now, if the frame is bent or a catastrophe happens due to the
less than professional body work, then you have a case.

Just to be safe, check www.carfax.com. If there are any red flags on there, I'd
ask for my money back.


-=-
I smell....

..... therefore, you stink.
-=-

drpimpdadi@cs.com4SARS (DrPimpDadi) wrote:

>California law states any damage over
>$750. be reported.

>You are required to report the accident to
>DMV if the accident caused $500 or
>more in damage.

I think it went up in '03 to $750.

>Could've been one of those "lets keep
>this between us" accidents, where they
>don't report it to keep insurance costs
>down.

The reason for this car purchase and its hastiness was my 16 year old
son was involved in an accident and the other party wanted to do just
that, keep the cops out of it. We're very glad we waited (1-12 hours!)
for them to arrive and file the report. The other guy was written
up/cited for failure to yield. He's certain it's my son's fault so it's
good to have the cop's take on the accident. It was a classic "some of
the lanes stopped and waved the guy through" only to have my son in an
open lane and they collided as the guy turned in front of him.

>Obviously, it looked OK before you
>handed them your money, so why are
>you making a big stink about it now.

There would be no stink if the right year parts were used for the
repair. I'd suck up and "buyer beware."

>$7500 is a pretty good price for the car
>with such low mileage. Now, if the
>frame is bent or a catastrophe happens
>due to the less than professional body
>work, then you have a case.

We felt like it was a good price too. I'm just bummed about the improper
fix job.

>Just to be safe, check www.carfax.com.
>If there are any red flags on there, I'd
>ask for my money back.

We used the service that's tied to Auto Trader, with Experian. No red
flags at all.
"This car checks out!!" it tells us.

no one forced you to buy the car

"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:27681-3F219606-18@storefull-2337.public.lawson.webtv.net...
>
> drpimpdadi@cs.com4SARS (DrPimpDadi) wrote:
>
> >California law states any damage over
> >$750. be reported.
>
> >You are required to report the accident to
> >DMV if the accident caused $500 or
> >more in damage.
>
> I think it went up in '03 to $750.
>
> >Could've been one of those "lets keep
> >this between us" accidents, where they
> >don't report it to keep insurance costs
> >down.
>
> The reason for this car purchase and its hastiness was my 16 year old
> son was involved in an accident and the other party wanted to do just
> that, keep the cops out of it. We're very glad we waited (1-12 hours!)
> for them to arrive and file the report. The other guy was written
> up/cited for failure to yield. He's certain it's my son's fault so it's
> good to have the cop's take on the accident. It was a classic "some of
> the lanes stopped and waved the guy through" only to have my son in an
> open lane and they collided as the guy turned in front of him.
>
> >Obviously, it looked OK before you
> >handed them your money, so why are
> >you making a big stink about it now.
>
> There would be no stink if the right year parts were used for the
> repair. I'd suck up and "buyer beware."
>
> >$7500 is a pretty good price for the car
> >with such low mileage. Now, if the
> >frame is bent or a catastrophe happens
> >due to the less than professional body
> >work, then you have a case.
>
> We felt like it was a good price too. I'm just bummed about the improper
> fix job.
>
> >Just to be safe, check www.carfax.com.
> >If there are any red flags on there, I'd
> >ask for my money back.
>
> We used the service that's tied to Auto Trader, with Experian. No red
> flags at all.
> "This car checks out!!" it tells us.
>

In article <15859-3F215893-32@storefull-2335.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
ravelation@webtv.net says...

<leaped before looked>

Sounds like a case of buyers remorse.
If you were so concerned, you should have
had it brought to your mechanic first.

--Gene


"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

dold@PrivateXPa.usenet.us.com wrote in message news:<bfrpju$50a$2@blue.rahul.net>...
> My daughter-in-law's 95
> Civic had the airbags deploy, and she was told that airbag deployment will
> total most used cars.

Huh? The chance of the airbag deployment totalling the car depends on
the value of the car, not whether it was purchased new or used. If I
bought an '01 Mercedes and wrecked it tomorrow, you can be sure it
would be less likely to be totalled than an '01 Neon or Kia you may
have bought new.

the only worry i would have about it would be how the idiot got a 98 bumper
on a 99 and thought it was the right one.

the grill opening is wider in 99 and the distance between the wheelwell and
light are different.

taillights aren't a big deal, except for the bulbs. I have 99 taillights on
my 96.





"ravelation" <ravelation@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15859-3F215893-32@storefull-2335.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> I'd like to hear some feedback on the situation I'm faced with. We just
> bought a '99 Honda Civic EX Coupe, black, 62,000 miles, for $7,500.
> Obvious needs at the time were a new windshield and a good cleaning,
> floor mats and a remote (original keys were said to be lost by the
> daughter who drove the car). The car has typical kid use damage.
> Included were 17" wheels and new tires up front, newer in back. JVC cd
> player, I want to say 200 watts (yikes!) with an amp in the trunk, Sony
> speakers in the back.
>
> Sounds like a great deal, huh? It might be, and I'm just being hyper
> sensitive. That's where you come in. The plot thickens.
>
> Once the car is home, we realize it's been in an accident. It looks like
> airbags could've deployed as the cover for the dash bag looks newer than
> the dash.
> The front end driver's side was repaired.
> New light, bumper and grill, and left front fender. They used '98 parts
> and I've now been informed that '99 year is slightly different in size.
> That explains why the bumper and fender are off by about an inch on the
> driver's side... also explains gaps around the '99 light that was used
> to replace the damaged one (have had to buy new light for passenger side
> as it's a '98 and doesn't match the '99's style on the driver's side.)
> Now, to look at the car from the front, you'd say, "nice car." It's good
> from afar, but far from good. Well, sorta. The fit and finish are less
> than perfect.
>
> The back lights are of the '96-98 model year. Causes me much angst until
> I realize the original's had been replaced and they weren't '99 model
> year. This is not a huge biggie, as my son has already ordered new back
> lights. But still. I had to run around finding the right size bolts (one
> had only one bolt holding it in place!) as Honda was out of them.
> Metric....
>
> Had it to the mechanic. Hank says car is in good shape mechanically.
> Needed new front brakes, tranny flush, radiator flush (almost all water
> in rad.), tune up, lights replaced in taillights, battery holder. No
> frame damage visible. Trunk rides up on driver side and back bumper
> looks to have been pushed forward a bit. Not super noticeable, but I'm
> picky.
>
> California law states any damage over $750. be reported. This car came
> back unreported which tells me daughter got in a fender bender and they
> bought aftermarket parts of the wrong year to replace some of them and
> repaired the damage without a report to the state. (I'm guessing the
> bumper and grill are the two '98 parts.)
>
> Do I contemplate some action, done very easily as there's lawyers in
> immediate family, or do I suck up the experience and realize my son's
> got a really nice looking and now mechanically sound car for a decent
> price? ($7500, + $600 in maintenance/repair, $160. taillight, $50.
> mats. = $8300.)
>
> Oh, they didn't give us the smog certificate that's required by law,
> either.
> Novices that we are, failed to ask for it too. (-$68.)
>
> Buyer beware? Or grounds for reimbursement to right the car with '99
> parts, a bumper and grill? I'm looking for an ethical perspective before
> talking to legal.
>
> Thanks to all who respond.
>

"a" <me@you.com> wrote in message
news:C3kVa.807$mJ2.777@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com. ..
> the only worry i would have about it would be how the idiot got a 98
bumper
> on a 99 and thought it was the right one.

sounds to me they took what they could find, slapped it on, and sold it.