Honda Car Forum

On 09/26/2009 07:22 AM, Elle wrote:
> AZ Nomad<aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I agree with robb, Leftie and you. To share experience for the
> archives, about a year ago when I was looking at Craig's List cars,
> the Carfax report showed that about one-third had had odometer
> tampering. Many also had a salvage title. This information was not
> being disclosed by the sellers. Also, a salvage title is important not
> because it is a clue to look for damage, a non-straight frame, etc. A
> salvage title is important because it means the car will not be fully
> insurable for damage to it in the future, regardless of the extent of
> repairs to the car in the past, because some insurance company
> somewhere has already paid out on the car for its full value.

paying full coverage insurance on an old vehicle is a fools game.
premiums outweigh the vehicle worth very quickly - and you lose your
vehicle in the event of all but the teeniest fender bender. save the
money and just get third party. then you can make your own decision on
whether to repair, and pay for it out of your savings.

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.

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?

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.

On 09/28/2009 12:50 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> 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.

indeed, ignorance isn't bliss. but with carfax, the ignorance not only
remains, but one can be misled.

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); or (2) odometer tampering; or (3) a salvage
vehicle. 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.

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.

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.

Jim, I think your goals for owning a car are different from others'.
In particular you seem feel that how the market values a car is
irrelevant, hence odometer readings and salvage status are irrelevant.
Fine for your and some people's needs. Not for mine and others',
though. I want a car for which a price has been "set" by a resource
like Kelly Blue Book. KBB.com will not spew out a price for cars with
unknown mileage or having salvage status. Your argument is probably
more with kbb than anything else.

On 09/29/2009 11:26 AM, Elle wrote:
> Jim, I think your goals for owning a car are different from others'.
> In particular you seem feel that how the market values a car is
> irrelevant, hence odometer readings and salvage status are irrelevant.
> Fine for your and some people's needs. Not for mine and others',
> though. I want a car for which a price has been "set" by a resource
> like Kelly Blue Book. KBB.com will not spew out a price for cars with
> unknown mileage or having salvage status. Your argument is probably
> more with kbb than anything else.

again, i think you're the victim of kbb's self-promotion propaganda.
kbb is simply "reported" prices [dmv taxes anyone?], not actual market
transactions.

example: honda crx.
here in the san francsico bay area, kbb has a 91 crx si is listed as
$2130 for "excellent condition". what an utter crock! a real "street"
price of that vehicle in good shape is $4k - $6k. i've seen people
selling non-rolling crx shells here on craigslist for $1500. and i have
personally witnessed people outside a seller's door waving $100 bills
and bidding the price of for-sale crx's up to 2 or 3x asking.

bottom line - consider whose interests kbb pricing may serve. and
consider how they get their "data".

jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> example: honda crx.
> here in the san francsico bay area, kbb has a 91 crx si is listed as
> $2130 for "excellent condition". *what an utter crock! * a real "street"
> price of that vehicle in good shape is $4k - $6k. *i've seen people
> selling non-rolling crx shells here on craigslist for $1500. *and i have
> personally witnessed people outside a seller's door waving $100 bills
> and bidding the price of for-sale crx's up to 2 or 3x asking.
>
> bottom line - consider whose interests kbb pricing may serve. *and
> consider how they get their "data".

First I'd have to consider how you get your data, the paucity of it,
whether what you are talking about is ricers, etc. ;-)