Carfax?

"Elle" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna Uass > wrote:

>"Elle" > wrote in message
...
>> 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.

On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> 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..

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam > wrote:
>On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna > wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> 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?

I do both.

On 9/25/09 7:13 PM, in article
, "AZ Nomad"
> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim beam > wrote:
>> On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> 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?
>

Depends on the price & physical condition of the car. I have owned cars
that were previously declared totalled & gotten many years & many miles of
good service out of them. But then, I don't even trust paying a mechanic to
do a mechanical inspection before I buy a car. I do it myself. If there is
anything seriously wrong with a car, its usually pretty obvious once you
start looking closely at it.

> I do both.

AZ Nomad > 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.

On 9/26/09 9:22 AM, in article
, "Elle"
> wrote:

> AZ Nomad > 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.

I agree it won't be fully insurable. If you are going to buy a salvage car,
its not really a viable idea unless its priced such that you would never
consider putting collision coverage on it. You shouldn't need a salvage
title to tell you to look for damage though. That's part of your
inspection, CarFax or not. My feeling is if somebody wants to give me the
Carfax free to look at, I'll look, but its not on my list of things I would
spend money on.

I also agree with you as far as what you find on craigslist & in the local
paper car section. The last couple of times I looked at cars that way, all
I found was sleazy guys set up in vacant apartments with cars that appeared
to have been used as outhouses, essentially unlicensed used car lots. The
only places I've seen consistently nice used cars around here (Dallas) the
past several years has been in new car dealers' used car lots & even then it
is still caveat emptor at a lot of them.

"Leftie" > wrote in message
...
> Elle wrote:
> > AZ Nomad > wrote:
> Just to counterpoint a bit, a friend just backed out of
buying a
> 2002 Camry with very low mileage, because Carfax showed an
'odometer
> discrepancy'. It appears now that there was none. Most likely
an
> inspection station wrote down the wrong number. So heck, you
really
> can't even trust them 100% when they appear to find a
problem...
>

I thought the only thing you can trust %100 are ... death and
taxes ?

Elle wrote:
> AZ Nomad > 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.


Just to counterpoint a bit, a friend just backed out of buying a
2002 Camry with very low mileage, because Carfax showed an 'odometer
discrepancy'. It appears now that there was none. Most likely an
inspection station wrote down the wrong number. So heck, you really
can't even trust them 100% when they appear to find a problem...

On 09/25/2009 05:13 PM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:11:54 -0700, jim > wrote:
>> On 09/25/2009 07:46 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:27:07 -0500, Iowna > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> 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.