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.

 

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.

 

On Sep 23, 9:04 pm, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> 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.

 

On 9/24/09 4:30 AM, in article
1d3ba2e5-bfec-46be-bcbe-f2e4788900d1...oglegroups.com, "Elle"
<honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 23, 9:04 pm, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> 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.

I wouldn't put much stock in carfax helping with number 2 on your list. I
have seen the carfax for a couple of vehicles I bought new with less than 20
miles on the odometer and it aready showed 3 owners. The explanation from
the dealer was that transfers between dealers were recorded. If this is
happening already with a brand new car that has never actually been sold to
a consumer, I can't imagine what will show up on one that has been traded in
and resold a couple of times.

But then, the number of owners is really irrelevant. Its the maintenance and
accident history you are more interested in.

 

On 09/24/2009 06:15 AM, E. Meyer wrote:
> On 9/24/09 4:30 AM, in article
> 1d3ba2e5-bfec-46be-bcbe-f2e4788900d1...oglegroups.com, "Elle"
> <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 23, 9:04�pm, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> 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.
>
> I wouldn't put much stock in carfax helping with number 2 on your list. I
> have seen the carfax for a couple of vehicles I bought new with less than 20
> miles on the odometer and it aready showed 3 owners. The explanation from
> the dealer was that transfers between dealers were recorded. If this is
> happening already with a brand new car that has never actually been sold to
> a consumer, I can't imagine what will show up on one that has been traded in
> and resold a couple of times.
>
> But then, the number of owners is really irrelevant. Its the maintenance and
> accident history you are more interested in.
>

and even that doesn't mean anything much. those sources only show you
what has been recorded, not unrecorded. i've seen "clean title"
vehicles that are clearly rebuilt serious accident victims. i've seen
"salvage" vehicles in perfect condition [i own one]. and i've had 300k
mile vehicles in better condition than 100k. the only reliable method
of determining quality is inspection. end of story.

 

"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.
>

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

 

robb 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.
>>
>
> 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.

 

On 09/24/2009 09:33 AM, robb 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.
>>
>
> 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?

 

On 09/24/2009 09:40 PM, Leftie wrote:
> robb 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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.

 

robb 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.
>>
>
> 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.

 

"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.

 

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.

 

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..

 

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?

I do both.

 

On 9/25/09 7:13 PM, in article
slrnhbqn5l.i9k.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.***.net, "AZ Nomad"
<aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> 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?
>

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.