"talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth?"

[Tumu Rock]

I just bought a used car. Still have the ability to get nine more Carfax reports until sometime in February. If you're currently car shopping and want to run the VIN email me off list and you can use my account. Not looking for any payment, no strings attached, just figured I'd offer it up rather than waste it... da Vermonster

[dooden]

So.... What kind of tyres, what kind of Oil and what about buffeting are you expecting out of this unnamed car ? Dooden A15 Green Ape

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Tumu Rock" wrote: > > I just bought a used car. Still have the ability to get nine more > Carfax reports until sometime in February. If you're currently car > shopping and want to run the VIN email me off list and you can use my > account. Not looking for any payment, no strings attached, just > figured I'd offer it up rather than waste it... > > da Vermonster >

[Tumu Rock]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Dooden" wrote:

> > So.... What kind of tyres, what kind of Oil and what about buffeting > are you expecting out of this unnamed car ? > > Dooden > A15 Green Ape >

Already got plenty of buffeting from the dealer and since buffets are all you can eat, I chewed him a new a$$^&*%$. Plan on buying up a bunch of used KLR front rims off of ebay and run the SUV on 21" spoked wheels with D606s mounted f/r. I think I'll get the little glow in the daylight skull valve caps too. For oil, I always run fresh and pure turn signal oil in all of the lighting equipment and WD40 in every engine compartment... da Vermonster 2000 Town & Country - died on Xmas eve 1996 KLR650 - MIA 1997 KLR650 - RIP 2004 KLR650 - Saki 1992 KLR650 - li'l red leaky hood 1999 KTM640 - Kitty 1996 Camry - Mr. Y 2001 Sequoia- Qoi Dog

[ltslpr]

Apparently, Carfax may be a waste of money; saved this from my local paper in San Jose, CA last week. Glenn Action Line: Carfax reports leave out 22 states' accident data By Dennis Rockstroh Mercury News Posted: 01/27/2009 12:00:00 AM PST Q I recently paid $40 for a one-year subscription to Carfax. My daughter is selling her car and so am I, and we both need to buy cars, so I thought it would be a good idea to ensure that we can verify if there are any issues with a potential car we would buy. The Carfax Web site states that it is "the first step to protecting yourself against buying used cars with costly hidden problems. Carfax searches its nationwide database and provides a detailed vehicle history report in seconds." They claim that they report on car damage and repairs. My car was involved in a front-end accident that required a new hood and left front fender, and my daughter's car was rear-ended. Yet when I ran reports on both of our cars, Carfax showed clean records on both cars with no damage or repairs. So, using Carfax will not assure a buyer that a used car was not involved in an accident. I feel that I just wasted my $40. Do you know anything about this? R.B. San Jose A Yes, R.B. Public Citizen, a consumer advocate group, claimed in a 2007 class-action settlement that Carfax consumers are being deceived by the company's claim that its vehicle history reports are based on searches of its nationwide database, when, in fact, the database does not include police accident data from 22 states and the District of Columbia. If the company mentions this to prospective customers, I haven't seen it. The 2007 settlement allowed some former customers who complained about this to choose between a coupon for another Carfax report or a coupon for $20 off a car inspection by another company. You might ask for that. Or, you might want to seek a refund because it is against California law to deceive a customer. While Carfax's limitation is not mentioned on its Web site, as you said and it's worth repeating, the company does warn that its reports are "the first step to protecting yourself against buying used cars with costly hidden problems." "In addition to getting a Carfax Report, before you buy a vehicle we recommend taking a test drive and having the vehicle inspected by a qualified mechanic," says the company. Always a good idea. I sent your complaint to Carfax, R.B., and haven't heard back Here is how to reach Action Line: Mail: San Jose Mercury News, 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, Calif. 95190 E-mail: actionline@... Fax: (408) 288-8060 Please include full name, address and phone number.

[Tumu Rock]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "ltslpr" wrote:

> > Apparently, Carfax may be a waste of money; saved this from my local > paper in San Jose, CA last week. > > Glenn >

It's certainly not a panacea for used car woes. But saying that it's worthless because it does not catch all mishaps with a vehicle is like saying seatbelts are worthless because they don't stop all injuries. da Vermonster (not affiliated with Carfax, just think that for ~$30 prior to an investment in a vehicle that can cost upwards of $20K, it's still a good idea)

[ltslpr]

1. Documenting and reporting repaired damage on any one vehicle is problematic under the best circumstances. 2. It appears reporting from 22 state is not accumulated, a fact not stated in any Carfax advertising I have read; worse yet, the vehicle may still appear and the report indicate no damage, as was the case with the two vehicles in the article. 3. If you live in one of the (22) states where no reporting is accumulated, you're chances of getting a factual report are near nil, unless the vehicle's origin is out-of-state, and then only if it originated from one of the (28) reporting states. 4. If my seatbelt buckle failed nearly half the time (including just not working at all in nearly half the areas I drove in, but I would be unaware which areas these are), I wouldn't bother using it. 5. The money spent on Carfax is much better spent toward an inspection by a trusted mechanic. 6. Your logic apparently differs. Glenn

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Tumu Rock" wrote: > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "ltslpr" wrote: > > > > Apparently, Carfax may be a waste of money; saved this from my local > > paper in San Jose, CA last week. > > > > Glenn > > > > > It's certainly not a panacea for used car woes. But saying that it's > worthless because it does not catch all mishaps with a vehicle is like > saying seatbelts are worthless because they don't stop all injuries. > > da Vermonster > > (not affiliated with Carfax, just think that for ~$30 prior to an > investment in a vehicle that can cost upwards of $20K, it's still a > good idea) >

[Tumu Rock]

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "ltslpr" wrote:

> > 1. Documenting and reporting repaired damage on any one vehicle is > problematic under the best circumstances. >

Yup

> 2. It appears reporting from 22 state is not accumulated, a fact not > stated in any Carfax advertising I have read; worse yet, the vehicle > may still appear and the report indicate no damage, as was the case > with the two vehicles in the article. >

mmkay

> 3. If you live in one of the (22) states where no reporting is > accumulated, you're chances of getting a factual report are near

nil,

> unless the vehicle's origin is out-of-state, and then only if it > originated from one of the (28) reporting states. >

Well if they aren't fictionalizing the report then it still could be considered factual. Not complete, but the facts as known.

> 4. If my seatbelt buckle failed nearly half the time (including just > not working at all in nearly half the areas I drove in, but I would

be

> unaware which areas these are), I wouldn't bother using it. >

Really? If it could save your life half of the time you just wouldn't use it all?

> 5. The money spent on Carfax is much better spent toward an

inspection

> by a trusted mechanic. >

A mechanic that will inspect a vehicle for $30 is just as likely, if not more, than Carfax to miss something.

> 6. Your logic apparently differs. > >

Yup. da Vermonster who reminds you that I offered for others to use this service with NO charge rather than waste the money I had spent. Another lister has taken me up on that and I feel better knowing that I helped someone out.

[ltslpr]

Tumu Rock: "Really? If it could save your life half of the time you just wouldn't use it all?" Here's a recommendation: save your life 100% of the time from a motorcycle accident by not riding a motorcycle. Drive a Volvo instead. I have not ever, nor will I ever, use anything with a failure rate of near 50%. If seatbelts had a failure rate approaching 50%, there would be no federal and state mandate for their use. Further, use of seatbelts has not saved the life of me, or anyone I know, "half of the time." "A mechanic that will inspect a vehicle for $30 is just as likely, if not more, than Carfax to miss something." Having an understanding of English language is necessary for complete understanding of communication. Putting money toward a purchase generally does not mean paying the entire purchase amount; it means adding to an accumulating amount to pay the intended future cost. As in, parents putting a portion of their monthly income "toward" a child's future college tuition. Thus, the money for a subscription to Carfax would be applied toward the larger cost of a full and careful inspection of a target vehicle. Going with your seatbelt analogy, and with your new understanding of the meaning of "toward" in my previous email, were I fearful of an accident and I knew seatbelts provide half-time protection, I would put my money toward a 5-point racing harness. In a Volvo. You may use Carfax if you want, however my understanding is the uncertainty of using the site is near 50%. For that, you could flip a coin, and still keep the coin. Now THAT'S logic! Glenn Disclaimer from Carfax: NOR DO THEY MAKE ANY WARRANTY AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE SITE, OR AS TO THE ACCURACY OR RELIABILITY OF ANY INFORMATION, SERVICE, OR MATERIALS PROVIDED THROUGH THE SITE. THE SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED I did not change the font of the disclaimer, this is Carfax's font - no doubt a mandated caveat emptor resulting from the lost lawsuit - Glenn

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Tumu Rock" wrote: > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "ltslpr" wrote: > > > > 1. Documenting and reporting repaired damage on any one vehicle is > > problematic under the best circumstances. > > > > Yup > > > 2. It appears reporting from 22 state is not accumulated, a fact not > > stated in any Carfax advertising I have read; worse yet, the vehicle > > may still appear and the report indicate no damage, as was the case > > with the two vehicles in the article. > > > > mmkay > > > 3. If you live in one of the (22) states where no reporting is > > accumulated, you're chances of getting a factual report are near > nil, > > unless the vehicle's origin is out-of-state, and then only if it > > originated from one of the (28) reporting states. > > > > Well if they aren't fictionalizing the report then it still could be > considered factual. Not complete, but the facts as known. > > > 4. If my seatbelt buckle failed nearly half the time (including just > > not working at all in nearly half the areas I drove in, but I would > be > > unaware which areas these are), I wouldn't bother using it. > > > > Really? If it could save your life half of the time you just > wouldn't use it all? > > > 5. The money spent on Carfax is much better spent toward an > inspection > > by a trusted mechanic. > > > > A mechanic that will inspect a vehicle for $30 is just as likely, if > not more, than Carfax to miss something. > > > 6. Your logic apparently differs. > > > > > > Yup. > > da Vermonster > > who reminds you that I offered for others to use this service with NO > charge rather than waste the money I had spent. Another lister has > taken me up on that and I feel better knowing that I helped someone > out. >

[Jim Douglas]

Tumu Rock wrote:

> > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com > , "ltslpr" wrote: > > > > 1. Documenting and reporting repaired damage on any one vehicle is > > problematic under the best circumstances. > > > > Yup > > > 2. It appears reporting from 22 state is not accumulated, a fact not > > stated in any Carfax advertising I have read; worse yet, the vehicle > > may still appear and the report indicate no damage, as was the case > > with the two vehicles in the article. > > > > mmkay > > > 3. If you live in one of the (22) states where no reporting is > > accumulated, you're chances of getting a factual report are near > nil, > > unless the vehicle's origin is out-of-state, and then only if it > > originated from one of the (28) reporting states. > > > > Well if they aren't fictionalizing the report then it still could be > considered factual. Not complete, but the facts as known. > > > 4. If my seatbelt buckle failed nearly half the time (including just > > not working at all in nearly half the areas I drove in, but I would > be > > unaware which areas these are), I wouldn't bother using it. > > > > Really? If it could save your life half of the time you just > wouldn't use it all? > > > 5. The money spent on Carfax is much better spent toward an > inspection > > by a trusted mechanic. > > > > A mechanic that will inspect a vehicle for $30 is just as likely, if > not more, than Carfax to miss something. > > > 6. Your logic apparently differs. > > > > > > Yup. > > da Vermonster > > who reminds you that I offered for others to use this service with NO > charge rather than waste the money I had spent. Another lister has > taken me up on that and I feel better knowing that I helped someone > out. > >

A mechanic's inspection for $30.00, you have entered the twilight zone.... round these ways that won't get them to come out and look a tire with a railroad spike in it!

[Tumu Rock]

All useless posting removed... So, Glenn, I take it you don't want to use the Carfax service? That's cool. And I appreciate the incite (intentional misuse of the english language) into the services they provide. That said, if you're in CA, why aren't you out riding? I live in VT and have an excuse... da Vermonster

>