The GT3 and RS avoidance thread!
Discussion
Kettmark said:
He wrights for Total 911 magazine so should know these cars inside out. Maybe he is unaware of the car s history..
Crazy. He was meant to be one of the good guys - I am sure he would have done the necessary inspections to be aware of any damage.What was the extent of the original damage?
SidewaysSi said:
Crazy. He was meant to be one of the good guys - I am sure he would have done the necessary inspections to be aware of any damage.
What was the extent of the original damage?
Relatively minor - I was trying to buy it - front and rear PU and perhaps a bent rear driver’s side chassis leg. If properly repaired there is absolutely no way you can tell the car has been damaged. Even if you are a specialist...What was the extent of the original damage?
SidewaysSi said:
Kettmark said:
He wrights for Total 911 magazine so should know these cars inside out. Maybe he is unaware of the car s history..
Crazy. He was meant to be one of the good guys - I am sure he would have done the necessary inspections to be aware of any damage.What was the extent of the original damage?
http://911uk.com/viewtopic.php?t=118405&postda...
Cheburator mk2 said:
SidewaysSi said:
Crazy. He was meant to be one of the good guys - I am sure he would have done the necessary inspections to be aware of any damage.
What was the extent of the original damage?
Relatively minor - I was trying to buy it - front and rear PU and perhaps a bent rear driver’s side chassis leg. If properly repaired there is absolutely no way you can tell the car has been damaged. Even if you are a specialist...What was the extent of the original damage?
IanG1 said:
looks like this one has resurfaced again. thought I recognised the plate LX53NRN, quick google brings you to this thread LOL
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
No mention that it’s been damaged in the advert, feel for the poor sod who ends up buying thinking it’s not been crash repaired. https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
So much debate on 911uk about the car and terminology about the meaning of the word superficial. Think the bottom line is if he car was advertised in a way advising of its past then potential buyers can make the necessary checks as they see fit. But by not disclosing its past fires the forum flames and keeps the story burning. Surely if sold as repaired and priced accordingly then the story ends?
The car has now disappeared off PB,s website stock list. So guessing it was being sold as SOR, the owner is really having a good go to punt it on, can’t be many independents that not had it in the last couple of years?
The car has now disappeared off PB,s website stock list. So guessing it was being sold as SOR, the owner is really having a good go to punt it on, can’t be many independents that not had it in the last couple of years?
The damage may have been “superficial”. However the car ended up with Copart. So far as I know they only deal with write-offs usually sent to them on behalf of insurance companies.
I base this on my experience with a Land Rover which I owned and was written off by Aviva. I had to send all my paperwork to Copart so that the insurance payout could be calculated.
I base this on my experience with a Land Rover which I owned and was written off by Aviva. I had to send all my paperwork to Copart so that the insurance payout could be calculated.
The issue is not in and of the extent of the damage, or the efficacy of repair, but rather it rests on the fact that if someone bought the car, without knowledge of the fact, it would be grossly unfair. Not only might it affect their enjoyment of the car, it obviously also has ramifications if/when they try to sell it too.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff