Bought a Cat-D - problems.

[Colvette]

Hey all,

Last week, I bought a Cat-D, which had been stolen and recovered, but had sustained some damage on the near-side rear of the car.

I checked this out, saw the repairs by pulling up the carpets in the boot etc, and was happy with what I saw. The car drives straight (even at excessive leptons) isn't wobbly, doesn't look like it's wearing tyres unevenly and there are no vibrations.

When I was parking the car the other day, though, I bumped up over a kerb to reach the parking space. This was at VERY low speed (sub 10mph), and I heard a creak (sounded like suspension - not especially concerning).

This morning, I've come out to the car and discovered 2 cracks in the paint around the repaired area (where the NS rear panel meets the roof mount, and slightly further down toward the rear light), and the wheel-arch trim has come away from near the back door.

Obviously I'm thinking the worst here. Does this sound like a twisted chassis, given that everything else is OK, or is it more likely to be just a shonky bit of body-repair and paintwork near the repaired area?

[Colvette]

The original repair was done in 2010, and the guy who I bought it from has owned it for the 3 years since. When I put him under pressure about it this morning, he said that he'd recently had that section repainted because there was some cracking which the paint shop said was 'because there was smoothed filler' there.

Movements in the body causing this kind of thing freak me out. If it's likely to be just a stty panel repair job, I'm happy with that, and I can sort it (or get the seller to sort it considering I paid for a repaired cat-d), but I'm just keen to ensure it's not because the car is as bent as a nine-bob note. It drives brilliantly, which is why I thought it was fine...

Oh yeah - panel gaps look all good to me. Was one of the first things I checked...

[Colvette]

Private seller. I was very clear that I was only buying the car if it was solid, and would come back if there was an issue in the near future. I'd call 4 days of ownership 'the near future'

I don't want to get rid of the car (I LOVE it!), but I'm keen to understand what's going on here. As I said, if it's just a stty repair, I know enough bodyshops to get that sorted out without too much of an issue.

[Colvette]

Yup, I understand all that - I did before I bought it. This isn't really about who pays to fix it, it's more about what's wrong with the car...

I'm planning on keeping it for the duration (I've wanted one of these for years), but I need to get it to a point where this is possible as opposed to being broken.

[Colvette]

rallycross said:

This attitude really stinks, you buy a cat D privately but you think the previous owner will somehow be liable for future problems, get real FFS. Cat D cars are cheaper than non cat D cars for this exact reason, things are likely to not be as good as a non cat D, you bought it knowing its cat D, suck it up.

Helpful. Read the point of the thread and stop being an ahole.

[Colvette]

Chrysler 300C SRT-8. 6.1 Hemi V8.

I've had another look, and I'm thinking it is just a shonky panel repair - the strut mounts in the boot all look straight and not messed with (all the bolts are tight in their holes and there's no rippling), so I've booked it into a bodyshop on Saturday.

I realise the whole 'oo! cat-d!' thing, but not only was the car generally out of my price range, but they're also relatively rare. As I said, I have no intention of selling it (I'd sooner park it on my drive and declare it as SORN so I could just roll it backward and forward on my drive!), but I just want to make sure it's in as good a shape as I can get it so I know I'm not going to have any properly nasty long-term problems.

[Colvette]

Cupramax said:

Colvette said:

Yup, I understand all that - I did before I bought it. This isn't really about who pays to fix it, it's more about what's wrong with the car...

You clearly dont or you wouldnt have said this

Colvette said:

Private seller. I was very clear that I was only buying the car if it was solid, and would come back if there was an issue in the near future. I'd call 4 days of ownership 'the near future'

Meh. The seller has agreed to cover the costs of repairs if there's something serious wrong with it. I'm all good, thanks.

[Colvette]

-sigh-

I didn't come here asking for advice on how to deal with this, I came here asking for opinions about the damage. There's a significant difference. Afterall, this isn't called "Legal Situations-Heads", it's called "PistonHeads".

Thanks, all, for your input. Especially the people who helped me out with my actual query.

[Colvette]

^^ See my previous post.

[Colvette]

I'm reasonably mechanically aware - I think I know what to look for with regard to general serious damage (panel gaps, signs of trauma around suspension struts etc), but obviously this is just being fastidious with your eyes. I identified where the car had been repaired, no problem. Also paid attention to the way it drove (at low and high speed). It was solid, no scuttling, no vibration, steering was in alignment with no pulling etc. In addition, the twin exhausts are aligned, which (to me) suggests that the chassis itself is straight.

That being the case, it looked like a reasonable punt. Obviously what I don't know is if my checks haven't uncovered something which wouldn't be apparent to the more switched on punter.

I guess it's more of an engineering question, really. Given all the information above, which suggests that the car is straight, is there any danger that there could be more serious damage that wouldn't be revealed by a decent visual once-over?

[Colvette]

Tonberry said:

Bizarre thread.

If the damage to the vehicle were serious it would have been a CAT C or worse due to cost to fix.

The only way the car will be damaged to any extent that your safety is at risk is if additional damage wasn't reported to the insurance company and fixed privately.

Good luck.

Nope, wasn't repaired privately. Cat D recorded.

[Colvette]

Du1point8 said:

Was it the old model?

they are not exactly expensive for a straight one:

http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/c...

That's a 5.7 litre V8, not an SRT8. Big difference. You'll be lucky to find an SRT8 with decent milage for less than £12k.

[Colvette]

Du1point8 said:

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/2014...

Well done! You found a car that's not only more money than I had to spend, but which also doesn't fit what I wanted.

I'll get on and see if I can sell this one!

[Colvette]

Neonblau said:

I think you've summed it up in the bits in bold. I once had a similar situation on an old Impala. Everything looked straight, no obvious damage to the floor or suspension mounts, no rattle or vibration when driving. It went into the bodyshop to check the diagonals etc and some were almost 1/2" out. The advice I got was that it would get worse over time - doors not shutting, tyre wear and so on. I sold the 427 for more than the car cost me and a few bits of trim and scrapped the rest.

Best advice is as above get it into the bodyshop, then you'll know what you're dealing with. Until then it's all guesswork.

Nice car, hope it works out for you.

Thanks

I'm hoping that as this is a more modern car than the Impala (so not strictly 'chassis' based) that won't be the case here. You're right, though - won't know (unfortunately) until I get it to the bodyshop.

[Colvette]

As the body shop is closed today due to the yearly festival of chocolate, I decided to take the car to the local tyre place and have the alignment looked at to see if it was out.

Remember that when I looked at the car, it was quite obvious (with inspection) where the damage had occurred when the car was stolen - it was at the back on the Driver's side.

I asked them for a laser alignment, to see if anything was off.

The results that came back were good (I think), but also a little unexpected.

Apparently, the back end of the car is perfectly aligned - absolutely no changes needed (to a point they didn't even charge me for rear alignment). It was the front that was out - and not by a massive amount, by all accounts:

Before Alignment
Front Left
-0°29' Camber, --- Caster, 0°14' Toe

Front Right
-0°54' Camber, --- Caster, 0°20' Toe

Combined
0°34' Total Toe, -0°03' Steer Ahead

---

Rear Left
-0°23' Camber, 0°05' Toe

Rear Right
-0°45' Camber, 0°04' Toe

Combined
0°08' Total Toe, 0°00' Thrust Angle

After Alignment
Front Left
-0°27' Camber, --- Caster, 0°06' Toe

Front Right
-0°54' Camber, --- Caster, 0°06' Toe

Combined
0°12' Total Toe, -0°00' Steer Ahead

---

Rear Left
-0°23' Camber, 0°05' Toe

Rear Right
-0°45' Camber, 0°04' Toe

Combined
0°08' Total Toe, 0°00' Thrust Angle

I asked the guy who did the measurements and alignment if he the results suggested that the car had been in an accident. He said 'no, it just looks like wear and tear to me'.

I don't know too much about this aspect (other than the function of handling caused by wheel alignment), but given those measurements and the fact that the back (where the car was damaged) was spot on, does this go some way to confirming a lack of chassis damage to the car?

[Colvette]

Jesus. People just can't focus on the actual topic, can they. Incredible, really.

The seller is being fine about all this, as he's a decent bloke. The fact I was aware of it doesn't mean it would be morally right to rip someone off, and he appreciates that. But, again, that wasn't what this thread was about in the first place. I don't want to spank him for cash. I don't want to give him the car back - I absolutely want to keep the car, and if this had happened 6 months down the line, I would have been very much in agreement that this was 'my fault for buying crash damaged'. This was 4 days in, so it's not as if I wasn't going to mention it, really.

Now, please. If you don't have anything to say which would help me work out if the car is cool (as I intend to keep it *for good*), please do me a favour and shut the fk up?

[Colvette]

Terminator X said:

You seem to be missing the point, bold bit above applies as soon as you drive off in the car + this is the internet, people will post whether you like it or not.

TX.

I haven't missed any point. Especially the point where comments like yours are essentially just being an internet trolling dick.

Just saying.

[Colvette]

The Spruce goose said:

sub low speed on a 2 tonne car even below 10 mph is some force. i imagine any repair would be put under some stress and this has been shown. i would suggest the initial repair was adequate..

I didn't 'hit' anything - literally pulled onto a kerb. Did you mean inadequate? This is my 55th car, and I've never seen anything like this before...?

[Colvette]

dfen5 said:

Problem is, most damaged cars get a little bit of a tug and the obvious damage got shot of before the punter buys it to repair. Seen it done with my own eyes..

If it creaked/bent on a 10mph kerb impact, what's it going to do if you have a proper shunt?

I'll find out tomorrow, obviously, but I'm hoping that given the car is straight on the suspension (or at least appears to be), it was simply a case that the low profile tyres, the bump up the kerb and a less than brilliant repair job on that panel caused the paint to crack.

There's no sign of damage anywhere else. Everything lines up OK.

[Colvette]

northandy said:

I'd be amazed if driving up a kerb could twist a big lump of a car enough to crack paint. However has it been filled where there would normally be a panel gap?.

I think pictures would help in making a stab at the reason.

Pics:


The area where the rear of the roof connects to the rear side panel near the boot.


About 3/4 of the way down the rear drivers panel.


The protruding wheel arch trim.