If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Dave Garrett" > wrote
> I've found Carfax to be quite useful on several occasions > in the past. > The $35 30-day membership is cheap compared to the cost of > a car, and > the Carfax data isn't always 100% accurate or complete, > but as long as > you recognize that, it works pretty well for a > quick-and-dirty > assessment of past problems. > > One of those Carfax dealer ads is how I recently acquired > my '00 Civic > Si. I'd been looking for a clean, unmolested '99-'00 Si > for a couple of > months with limited results - most of the ones I ran > across via > Craigslist or another local forum were either ragged out > from rough > treatment, had high mileage with no way to verify the > service history > (or lack thereof), or had modifications I wasn't thrilled > about. I'm not > entirely averse to modded cars when they're well thought > out and done to > a professional standard, but those kinds of cars tend to > be the > exception rather than the rule. I am finding this problem with Craig's List, too: Too many darn kids with their crappy mods selling cars owned by a zillion people already. At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage (say 70k - 170k miles). > Anyway, I was checking the VIN on Carfax for an Si I was > considering > going to check out, when an ad popped up stating something > like "you > might also be interested in this vehicle" for an '00 Civic > Si with only > 53K miles. It was at a local dealer, so I got on the phone > and called > them immediately. The salesdroid sounded confused > initially when I asked > about the car, then after looking it up, hesitantly > offered that they > still had the car. I went out to look at it, and it turned > out that > they'd just gotten it as a trade-in a couple of days > previously. It was > still in the service bay awaiting cleanup and servicing, > was filthy > inside and out, and they wouldn't let me drive it until > they'd checked > it out. But it appeared to be solid, no evidence of ever > having been > wrecked (confirmed by Carfax, for what that's worth), and > the interior > was in really good shape for an 8-year-old car. It cleaned > up quite > nicely, and I wound up buying it before it ever hit the > lot. The only > flaw I've been able to find is that 5th gear grinds > slightly. There's a > TSB for this which recommends replacing the 5th-reverse > gear cluster > (and probably the synchros), but given how much that's > likely to cost, > I'll probably just live with it unless it gets worse. I am trying to pounce on these, too. Gotta pay dealer used prices, but as I say above I may be willing to at this point. Every time I call the dealer rep says it's been sold or they have to check on it. I will stick with it, though. The dealer cars seem to always check out with pretty clean titles on Carfax. I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and seeing the ads pop up. Good post. Thanks. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Dave Garrett" > wrote in message ...
> Anyway, I was checking the VIN on Carfax for an Si I was considering > going to check out, when an ad popped up stating something like "you > might also be interested in this vehicle" for an '00 Civic Si with only > 53K miles. It was at a local dealer, so I got on the phone and called > them immediately. The salesdroid sounded confused initially when I asked > about the car, then after looking it up, hesitantly offered that they > still had the car. I went out to look at it, and it turned out that > they'd just gotten it as a trade-in a couple of days previously. It was > still in the service bay awaiting cleanup and servicing, was filthy > inside and out, and they wouldn't let me drive it until they'd checked > it out. But it appeared to be solid, no evidence of ever having been > wrecked (confirmed by Carfax, for what that's worth), and the interior > was in really good shape for an 8-year-old car. It cleaned up quite > nicely, and I wound up buying it before it ever hit the lot. The only > flaw I've been able to find is that 5th gear grinds slightly. There's a > TSB for this which recommends replacing the 5th-reverse gear cluster > (and probably the synchros), but given how much that's likely to cost, > I'll probably just live with it unless it gets worse. Dave, I have bad news to you... I got a 94 sentra with same issue on 5th gear and after about 10 months there was no 5th gear anymore... I hope you did not pay a lot for it. Good luck! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Elle" > wrote in message ...
> At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth > another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage > (say 70k - 170k miles). Are you serious? This is what you call high-mileage for a 89-97 civic? Even taking the youngest from your model year list it is 11-12 years of service... Average mileage is 12000 miles per year, so you should on average expect 1997 to have 140k or more... Not mentioning 1989 :-) > I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this > info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and seeing > the ads pop up. There is an option to be notify with e-mail message when the car shows up listed in the range of model years / trims you selected... My subscription expired already I cannot check it for you. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Pszemol" > wrote in message ... > "Elle" > wrote in message > ... >> At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth >> another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage >> (say 70k - 170k miles). > > Are you serious? This is what you call high-mileage > for a 89-97 civic? Even taking the youngest from your > model year list it is 11-12 years of service... > Average mileage is 12000 miles per year, so you should > on average expect 1997 to have 140k or more... > Not mentioning 1989 :-) ? What is inconsistent with what I wrote? Of course 70k is rare, but I saw a 1995 with 55k miles on ebay this morning (it checks out with Carfax). I see a 95 with 177k tomorrow. It too checks out with Carfax. >> I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this >> info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and >> seeing the ads pop up. > > There is an option to be notify with e-mail message > when the car shows up listed in the range of model > years / trims you selected... > My subscription expired already I cannot check it for you. I tried the used car search engine carfax.com and it seems to pull up strictly dealers' offerings. But the darn dealers do not say a word about when the car came in, when it sold, etc. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Elle" > wrote in message ...
> "Pszemol" > wrote in message > ... >> "Elle" > wrote in message >> ... >>> At this point, clean and relatively unmolested is worth >>> another grand or two to me. I can deal with high mileage >>> (say 70k - 170k miles). >> >> Are you serious? This is what you call high-mileage >> for a 89-97 civic? Even taking the youngest from your >> model year list it is 11-12 years of service... >> Average mileage is 12000 miles per year, so you should >> on average expect 1997 to have 140k or more... >> Not mentioning 1989 :-) > > ? What is inconsistent with what I wrote? Of course 70k is > rare, but I saw a 1995 with 55k miles on ebay this morning > (it checks out with Carfax). I see a 95 with 177k tomorrow. > It too checks out with Carfax. I am not doubting cars like these are there on the market... You might want to wonder if 1995 with 55k miles is real or not. Inconsistent is that you call 70k a "high-mileage" in the range of model years you are considering for purchase. Maybe I am little strange, but for me 95 model year, 13-14 years old car with 177k miles (12k/year) would be low or average mileage car. 140k or anything elss than that would be extremely low mileage for an old car like this. >>> I am wondering if there is a quicker way of getting this >>> info out of Carfax, rather than putting in a VIN and >>> seeing the ads pop up. >> >> There is an option to be notify with e-mail message >> when the car shows up listed in the range of model >> years / trims you selected... >> My subscription expired already I cannot check it for you. > > I tried the used car search engine carfax.com and it seems > to pull up strictly dealers' offerings. But the darn dealers > do not say a word about when the car came in, when it sold, > etc. I am not talking about search engine. I am talking about automated system emailing you a list of new cars EVERY day to your inbox. Call their support phone line and ask for it if you cannot find it on their website. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
Elle wrote:
> I finally got serious about looking for a second Honda > Civic, c. 1989-1997. A few observations: > > -- A friend of mine convinced me Carfax was worth $35 for 30 > days, unlimited checks. For the four cars I checked, it > revealed: (a) > Odometer tampering with two, with the advertised mileage > being over 100k lower than the Carfax title reported > mileage; (b) lying about the number of owners for a third; > it had had four owners in 18 months. Many reports attest to > how Carfax is not perfect, but so far it sure saved me some > trouble. > > -- Most persistent major mechanical problems have been poor > air conditioning and suspect CV joints. I watch especially > for blown head gaskets. So far for around half a dozen cars > I have actually examined: no residue on the oil cap; oil in > the reservoir; smell from exhaust pipe; white puff from > exhaust pipe. > > -- craigslist.org has been my best resource. (Thanks to > regular poster JT for sending me there!) Ebay, > autotrader.com and dealers have turned up little. Dealers do > not like to deal in cars that do not involve financing, so > low price beaters generally are not advertised for sale by > them. Though oddly, on my Carfax checks, there's always an > advertisement by dealers for a 199- Civic, complete with > VIN. Then I call the dealer, and the car is not there. Maybe > when a car is traded in, carfax automatically retrieves it > and its filter puts the ad up? But in fact most of these > cars are sold at auction? Craigslist people have all been > good about meeting at the designated time and test driving > (though I almost always have a friend with me). Craigs list > sellers where I am have been mostly but not entirely honest, > at least insofar as the carfax checks indicate. > > -- used car dealers are a hoot! Unless you know what to look > for on these older Hondas, do not buy from a used dealer. A > fine looking Honda Civic DX came up on Craig's list at a mom > n' pop used car dealership. I went to see it. Great body, > engine compartment sparkled, fluids looked clean and topped > off; but no muffler; no radio; check engine light was on; > windshield was cracked, miles advertised were 124k and > carfax said it was in fact over 271k miles a year ago. I am > considering making a very low offer (after telling the > dealership about the flawed title tampered odometer) just > for the shell. > > Further advice? > > one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what i consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage - lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars on the ex and si models, not the lower models. i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive] maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration, especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"jim beam" > wrote in message t...
> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what i > consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage - > lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars on > the ex and si models, not the lower models. > > i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive] > maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned > thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars > as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no > excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on > the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety > factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up > retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not > feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration, > especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible. Talking about active safety - how about ABS? Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not? Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one? How would seat belts work after 20 years of service? Are you going to replace them with new ones? Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust? If you even neglect rust problem (let's say you live below snow band) then how the next model year compares to the older in crash tests? Do you think 2000 model year will have upgraded crash test performance and cabin cage compared to, let's say 1989 model year? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message > t... >> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what >> i consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage >> - lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars >> on the ex and si models, not the lower models. >> >> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive] >> maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned >> thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars >> as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no >> excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on >> the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety >> factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up >> retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not >> feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration, >> especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible. > > Talking about active safety - how about ABS? > Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not? do you know much about abs? did you know that it doesn't necessarily stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking distances? if you have an abs system on your car, open the owners manual and read what it says about that. abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do something like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit there pressing the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely no control of the vehicle whatsoever. when i'm old enough to drive like her, maybe i'll consider abs. in the mean time, as long as i know about cadence braking and friction coefficients, i'm quite happy with standard brakes thanks. > > Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you > prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one? i prefer to have /no/ airbag! if true driver safety were the concern of gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would be mandatory, not airbags. just like in race cars. > > How would seat belts work after 20 years of service? > Are you going to replace them with new ones? depends whether they work or not! as a matter of fact, i /have/ replaced a seat belt with a retractor problem, but that's just me. the inertial lock still worked ok. > > Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years > old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust? mine's california and it has no rust. and 8 years in the rust belt is no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic. > If you even neglect rust problem (let's say you live below snow band) > then how the next model year compares to the older in crash tests? > Do you think 2000 model year will have upgraded crash test > performance and cabin cage compared to, let's say 1989 model year? if it were rusty enough to be structural, i either wouldn't drive it or i would have it repaired. but it depends of the nature of the beast. cosmetic rust, say at the bottom of a door or the bottom of a wheel well, means nothing to crash safety. structural rust is the only kind that truly matters and, as you may imagine, it takes a /lot/ more to rust out thick structural components than thin cosmetic ones. i recall seeing some crash testing of rusty vehicles some years ago, and the researchers were "surprised" to find that the rusted out boxes of crap they'd found were no worse in crashes than the unrusted ones. i guess that, like you, they hadn't bothered to think about the facts. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"jim beam" > wrote in message t...
> Pszemol wrote: >> "jim beam" > wrote in message >> t... >>> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what >>> i consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage >>> - lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars >>> on the ex and si models, not the lower models. >>> >>> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive] >>> maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned >>> thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars >>> as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no >>> excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on >>> the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety >>> factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up >>> retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not >>> feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration, >>> especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible. >> >> Talking about active safety - how about ABS? >> Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not? > > do you know much about abs? did you know that it doesn't necessarily > stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking distances? if > you have an abs system on your car, open the owners manual and read > what it says about that. Don't be such arrogant! I know exactly how ABS works and what are its effects on driving/breaking. In my opinion the car with ABS in general is safer than the one without one. Buying older cars you loose this feature and some others, too. It is buyer choice, of course, but I considered it worth mentioning together with your coment about missing sway bars in newer model. > abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do something > like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit there pressing > the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely no control of the > vehicle whatsoever. when i'm old enough to drive like her, maybe i'll > consider abs. in the mean time, as long as i know about cadence braking > and friction coefficients, i'm quite happy with standard brakes thanks. Don't forget you are not talking about the car for yourself but for Elle. She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver little more educated in benefits of modern car safety systems than you... >> Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you >> prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one? > > i prefer to have /no/ airbag! if true driver safety were the concern of > gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would be mandatory, > not airbags. just like in race cars. This just tells me how uneducated/ignorant driver you are. Also, again I have to remind you that the choice is not yours but hers. It is her car we are talking about. It is her decision if she wants car with air bags or a death trap without one :-) >> Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years >> old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust? > > mine's california and it has no rust. and 8 years in the rust belt is > no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic. I am not talking about cosmetic rust but undercariage rust, ball joints, etc. Once again, I have to remind you that your advices are addressed to Elle. Do you know where is she located? I do not recall her mentioning this. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Pszemol" > wrote
> Don't forget you are not talking about the car for > yourself but for Elle. > She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver > little more educated in benefits of modern car safety > systems than you... Not to contradict you, but to get out my puny view: I have been restricting my search to older cars partly (very small part) because I do not want ABS. ABS is harder to maintain; has more that can go wrong; and I do not see significant advantage from a safety standpoint. I have always had a car without ABS. I would prefer airbags but I am not requiring them. > I am not talking about cosmetic rust but undercariage > rust, ball joints, etc. > Once again, I have to remind you that your advices are > addressed to Elle. I think JBeam is recalling, correctly, that I am in the southwest. No rust in general, though a few of the cars I have seen are from up north and show rust. I finally read the fine print on carfax.com's connection to dealers: Every time a dealer looks up a vehicle history on carfax, the lookup goes into their system as a car that /might/ be traded in or just got sold. I think it would be luck to run across a Honda through this approach. I really do not trust the salespeople there to call me as soon as another 92-95 Civic comes in. They deal in the here and now. A phone call does not seem to be worth it to them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
On Craigslist | Big Al[_2_] | Ford Mustang | 1 | December 31st 07 01:17 AM |
Saw this on Craigslist | Steve Foley | VW air cooled | 0 | May 17th 07 06:37 PM |
buying a used A6.Need carfax | brett | Audi | 3 | March 8th 05 03:43 AM |
carfax | prajju | Driving | 8 | December 11th 04 09:40 PM |
buying a Saturn-like buying a lottery ticket | misterfact | Saturn | 3 | July 2nd 04 10:02 PM |