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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax?
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax?
On 09/23/2009 05:53 PM, Elle wrote:
> 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. elle, with respect, neither are going to be anywhere /near/ as useful as a proper physical inspection. you know a little bit more about engine inspection now than you did before. with the honda d-series engine, you can see if there's sludge/resin and you can see the cam lobes to inspect for wear. this is a good indicator of condition in the rest of the engine. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax?
On Sep 23, 9:04*pm, jim beam > wrote:
> On 09/23/2009 05:53 PM, Elle wrote: > > > 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. > > elle, with respect, neither are going to be anywhere /near/ as useful as > a proper physical inspection. *you know a little bit more about engine > inspection now than you did before. *with the honda d-series engine, you > can see if there's sludge/resin and you can see the cam lobes to inspect > for wear. *this is a good indicator of condition in the rest of the engine. Hi Jim. The purpose to me of these title check services is to offer some evidence for whether the car either (1) is a salvage vehicle (if it is, this is a car property insurance problem, for one); (2) has had more owners than the seller is claiming; or (3) has had the odometer tampered with. Carfaxdotcom and autocheckdotcom from my reading are not perfect, but to me they give more peace of mind. The physical car inspection is as important, absolutely. If I am not pleased with either the title check or the physical inspection, then I reject a used car. Believe me, my physical inspection checklist derives largely from reading here over the years. I am looking at 7th generation ( = 2001-2005) Civics with around 100k miles or less on them and documents to support length of ownership and maintenance, too. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. > I am just a rank amateur car buyer but IMHO I disagree with **not** using carfax. Sure if an experienced con/shyster wants to shyster someone, then someone will likely be shystered. And there are many car's that may not show all their histories on carfax but i doubt the number is significant compared to all the car's problems that will appear. I subscribed to carfax a few years ago for the intentional purpose of checking/buying a used car. One car that was on a large dealer's used lot was less than 1 yr old. When I inquired about why such a new car was on the used lot the reason given was that the customer/owner traded up. Well... car fax showed that the car was involved in an extensive front end collision about 3 months after it was purchased and it had bounced across 5 different *used* dealer lots before ending up at this dealer's used lot. That was one car and salesperson i needed to avoid. It only took minutes to get that info. and there are many more stories like that one, than a story like this, (fake story follows --->) "a friend bought a car and it was in 3 wrecks and was totaled out as a salvage because it was submerged in the great flood of New Orleans and carfax showed the car had only one owner and had never been in an accident, carfax sux" (<---end of fake story) I tend to think of carfax as a time saver. Inspection can take lots of ones time. If someone is trying to shyster you then it might take **more** inspection time. carfax can eliminate many (maybe not all) but many of those wastes. my $0.02 robb |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax?
robb 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. >> > > I am just a rank amateur car buyer but IMHO I disagree with > **not** using carfax. > > Sure if an experienced con/shyster wants to shyster someone, then > someone will likely be shystered. > > And there are many car's that may not show all their histories > on carfax but i doubt the number is significant compared to all > the car's problems that will appear. > > I subscribed to carfax a few years ago for the intentional > purpose of checking/buying a used car. One car that was on a > large dealer's used lot was less than 1 yr old. When I inquired > about why such a new car was on the used lot the reason given was > that the customer/owner traded up. > > Well... car fax showed that the car was involved in an extensive > front end collision about 3 months after it was purchased and it > had bounced across 5 different *used* dealer lots before ending > up at this dealer's used lot. That was one car and salesperson i > needed to avoid. It only took minutes to get that info. > > and there are many more stories like that one, than a story like > this, > (fake story follows --->) "a friend bought a car and it was in 3 > wrecks and was totaled out as a salvage because it was submerged > in the great flood of New Orleans and carfax showed the car had > only one owner and had never been in an accident, carfax sux" > (<---end of fake story) > > I tend to think of carfax as a time saver. Inspection can take > lots of ones time. > If someone is trying to shyster you then it might take **more** > inspection time. carfax can eliminate many (maybe not all) but > many of those wastes. > > my $0.02 > robb > CFX is not a credible sole source of positive info, but is hard to ignore as a potential red flag. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax?
On 09/24/2009 09:33 AM, robb 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. >> > > I am just a rank amateur car buyer but IMHO I disagree with > **not** using carfax. > > Sure if an experienced con/shyster wants to shyster someone, then > someone will likely be shystered. > > And there are many car's that may not show all their histories > on carfax but i doubt the number is significant compared to all > the car's problems that will appear. if you don't inspect, or take the vehicle to someone competent to inspect, you'd never know that - you're just guessing. > > I subscribed to carfax a few years ago for the intentional > purpose of checking/buying a used car. One car that was on a > large dealer's used lot was less than 1 yr old. When I inquired > about why such a new car was on the used lot the reason given was > that the customer/owner traded up. > > Well... car fax showed that the car was involved in an extensive > front end collision about 3 months after it was purchased and it > had bounced across 5 different *used* dealer lots before ending > up at this dealer's used lot. That was one car and salesperson i > needed to avoid. It only took minutes to get that info. you found one with a record. you didn't find one with the same history /without/ a record. > > and there are many more stories like that one, than a story like > this, > (fake story follows --->) "a friend bought a car and it was in 3 > wrecks and was totaled out as a salvage because it was submerged > in the great flood of New Orleans and carfax showed the car had > only one owner and had never been in an accident, carfax sux" > (<---end of fake story) > > I tend to think of carfax as a time saver. Inspection can take > lots of ones time. you're spending a thousands of dollars, and the safety of your self and family is at stake - so you want to save a few minutes??? that's a joke, right? > If someone is trying to shyster you then it might take **more** > inspection time. carfax can eliminate many (maybe not all) but > many of those wastes. > > my $0.02 again, that's bogus. inspection time is /less/ with the damaged car than the real deal. once it's shown to be dud, the inspection is over! you don't work for walletfax do you? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax?
On 09/24/2009 09:40 PM, Leftie wrote:
> robb 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. >>> >> >> I am just a rank amateur car buyer but IMHO I disagree with >> **not** using carfax. >> >> Sure if an experienced con/shyster wants to shyster someone, then >> someone will likely be shystered. >> >> And there are many car's that may not show all their histories >> on carfax but i doubt the number is significant compared to all >> the car's problems that will appear. >> >> I subscribed to carfax a few years ago for the intentional >> purpose of checking/buying a used car. One car that was on a >> large dealer's used lot was less than 1 yr old. When I inquired >> about why such a new car was on the used lot the reason given was >> that the customer/owner traded up. >> >> Well... car fax showed that the car was involved in an extensive >> front end collision about 3 months after it was purchased and it >> had bounced across 5 different *used* dealer lots before ending >> up at this dealer's used lot. That was one car and salesperson i >> needed to avoid. It only took minutes to get that info. >> >> and there are many more stories like that one, than a story like >> this, >> (fake story follows --->) "a friend bought a car and it was in 3 >> wrecks and was totaled out as a salvage because it was submerged >> in the great flood of New Orleans and carfax showed the car had >> only one owner and had never been in an accident, carfax sux" >> (<---end of fake story) >> >> I tend to think of carfax as a time saver. Inspection can take >> lots of ones time. >> If someone is trying to shyster you then it might take **more** >> inspection time. carfax can eliminate many (maybe not all) but >> many of those wastes. >> >> my $0.02 >> robb >> > > > Carfax is one test of many. It can turn up problems, but NEVER count on > it to do so. IOW, assume that a car they say is bad is indeed bad, but > don't assume that one they say is 'clean' is clean. even that is not very reliable. a 5-year old car has significantly depreciated, and a cosmetic fender bender will cause it to be written off. and yet you can get a structural rebuild done by [drunken] monkeys on a 3-month old car with no history. spend the money having aaa physically inspect for you. /wayyy/ more reliable. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Carfax?
robb 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. >> > > I am just a rank amateur car buyer but IMHO I disagree with > **not** using carfax. > > Sure if an experienced con/shyster wants to shyster someone, then > someone will likely be shystered. > > And there are many car's that may not show all their histories > on carfax but i doubt the number is significant compared to all > the car's problems that will appear. > > I subscribed to carfax a few years ago for the intentional > purpose of checking/buying a used car. One car that was on a > large dealer's used lot was less than 1 yr old. When I inquired > about why such a new car was on the used lot the reason given was > that the customer/owner traded up. > > Well... car fax showed that the car was involved in an extensive > front end collision about 3 months after it was purchased and it > had bounced across 5 different *used* dealer lots before ending > up at this dealer's used lot. That was one car and salesperson i > needed to avoid. It only took minutes to get that info. > > and there are many more stories like that one, than a story like > this, > (fake story follows --->) "a friend bought a car and it was in 3 > wrecks and was totaled out as a salvage because it was submerged > in the great flood of New Orleans and carfax showed the car had > only one owner and had never been in an accident, carfax sux" > (<---end of fake story) > > I tend to think of carfax as a time saver. Inspection can take > lots of ones time. > If someone is trying to shyster you then it might take **more** > inspection time. carfax can eliminate many (maybe not all) but > many of those wastes. > > my $0.02 > robb > Carfax is one test of many. It can turn up problems, but NEVER count on it to do so. IOW, assume that a car they say is bad is indeed bad, but don't assume that one they say is 'clean' is clean. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CarFAX Please! | LoTekGuru | Ford Mustang | 0 | November 28th 05 10:40 PM |
Anyone Have Carfax | Anonymous | BMW | 2 | November 23rd 05 01:15 PM |
Vuestra Merced | BMW | 2 | June 14th 05 12:48 AM | |
carfax | prajju | General | 0 | December 8th 04 10:39 PM |
Can someone run this Carfax for me? | The Radney's | General | 0 | August 16th 04 04:12 AM |