I knew these CarFax reports were BS

[TripleDigitRide]

I'm sure some of you already knew not to trust these CarFax reports, but I can't tell you how many people I've met that swear by them.
Carfax Sued For $50 Million By 120+ U.S. Dealers

Edited June 22, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[E4 No More]

My wife was STOPPED in her fairly new Mustang GT when a SUV behind her cut-off a motorcyclist who laid his bike down. He pushed the bike away from him while doing so, and thus slid into/under her passenger rear tire. This popped the plastic bumper out slightly where it connects to the quarterpanel. Two wierd things: First, the accident is considered HER fault because once the guy separated himself from the motorcycle he was a pedestrian and thus SHE hit HIM, (that's according to our insurance company). Second, when we traded in her car the dealership asked us to explain the report of an accident on the Carfax that they pulled. What a bunch of crap!

[RobertNashville]

Where from this article do you get the idea that CarFax reports can't be trusted?

Frankly, if a bunch of used car dealers are suing CarFax I'm inclined to believe that it's not because CarFax has done anything wrong. Rather, I suspect these dealers don't want their potential customers to know the real history of the vehicles they are peddling...I mean, it's not like a used car sales would ever lie of course but they may not even know the real history! ;)

 

Unless a consumer does some real investigation he has no way of knowing what a vehicle has really been through and I wouldn't be surprised of some of these dealers are also ones that have been sued for doing things like selling flood damaged cars, etc.

 

A used car dealer not wanting to use CarFax does not automatically mean they have anything to hide just like that dealer not belonging to BBB is an immediate indication of a problem either but before I buy a used car from a dealer I'm going to want to see its real history and I'm only going to deal with a dealer with at least an "A" rating from the BBB.

Edited June 21, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

My wife was STOPPED in her fairly new Mustang GT when a SUV behind her cut-off a motorcyclist who laid his bike down. He pushed the bike away from him while doing so, and thus slid into/under her passenger rear tire. This popped the plastic bumper out slightly where it connects to the quarterpanel. Two wierd things: First, the accident is considered HER fault because once the guy separated himself from the motorcycle he was a pedestrian and thus SHE hit HIM, (that's according to our insurance company). Second, when we traded in her car the dealership asked us to explain the report of an accident on the Carfax that they pulled. What a bunch of crap!

I'd want to know about that "accident" too if I was considering buying that car.  Who caused it is immaterial but I am going to care about just how much "damage" in any was caused.

What's wrong with that??? :shrug:

[E4 No More]

I'd want to know about that "accident" too if I was considering buying that car.  Who caused it is immaterial but I am going to care about just how much "damage" in any was caused.
What's wrong with that??? :shrug:

Accident = collision resulting in damage...legally speaking in Missouri where I was a LEO

Most people also equate the word as damage as well. The Carfax doesn't distinguish no damage from damage in its report, and that's a problem.

[RobertNashville]

Accident = collision resulting in damage...legally speaking in Missouri where I was a LEO

Most people also equate the word as damage as well. The Carfax doesn't distinguish no damage from damage in its report, and that's a problem.

I understand that your/your wife's "accident" was not a big deal but I don't think that a buyer wouldn't want to know about it or shouldn't know about it.

 

CarFax is an indicator to the buyer that he needs to do some research before he decides if he wants to buy the vehicle. I don't see why that's a problem or a bad thing I also suspect that any of the other services that do the same thing as CarFax would have included your "accident" as well.

Edited June 22, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Patton]

Accident = collision resulting in damage...legally speaking in Missouri where I was a LEO

Most people also equate the word as damage as well. The Carfax doesn't distinguish no damage from damage in its report, and that's a problem.

I have heard of two occasions when an insurance company reported roadside service for a flat tire as a collision.

I have also seen totally wrecked cars come back clean and clear. Edited June 22, 2013 by Patton

[Mike.357]

and all of this is why I prefer to avoid used cars.

 

Yeah you may save some money,  most likely will I suppose.  But I always figure that used car was dumped by the owner for a reason.

[RobertNashville]

Nothing wrong with buying a used car but you can't take anyone quite at face value today.  Any car I buy used is going to have a history run on it and be inspected by my mechanic.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Yeah it isn't that these are bad, they are just one source you can use. No history matters if you take the correct step of having it inspected by your own mechanic and ask what they would pay for it.

[TripleDigitRide]

Where from this article do you get the idea that CarFax reports can't be trusted?


Frankly, if a bunch of used car dealers are suing CarFax I'm inclined to believe that it's not because CarFax has done anything wrong. Rather, I suspect these dealers don't want their potential customers to know the real history of the vehicles they are peddling...I mean, it's not like a used car sales would ever lie of course but they may not even know the real history! ;)

Unless a consumer does some real investigation he has no way of knowing what a vehicle has really been through and I wouldn't be surprised of some of these dealers are also ones that have been sued for doing things like selling flood damaged cars, etc.

A used car dealer not wanting to use CarFax does not automatically mean they have anything to hide just like that dealer not belonging to BBB is an immediate indication of a problem either but before I buy a used car from a dealer I'm going to want to see its real history and I'm only going to deal with a dealer with at least an "A" rating from the BBB.

Did you watch the video in the link I posted?


Edited June 22, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[TripleDigitRide]

. Edited June 22, 2013 by TripleDigitRide

[RobertNashville]

I did, yes....I guess I just don't agree that just because a history report isn't perfect means it's unreliable.

 

People need to do their due diligence; especially before they spend thousands of $$$...if they aren't willing to do that then they deserve the outcome they wind up with. A CarFax report or a report from any other similar service is a tool, it shouldn't be the only one.

[Sam1]

Carfax only reports what has been reported.  Honestly if I was in an at-fault accident and it was under a few grand $ to fix, I wouldn't report it either. This is why you always 100% of the time take someone with you that is experienced in bodywork

[jtmaze]

I was the parts manager at a New Car dealer for 15yrs and I always buy used with my own inspection. Yes , I take it to a shop with a lift and ask or pay to put the car on the lift and check it out myself. When I say used I mean 1-2 yrs old to let someone else take the $5000 title hit.

[TMF]

and all of this is why I prefer to avoid used cars.

Yeah you may save some money, most likely will I suppose. But I always figure that used car was dumped by the owner for a reason.

Yep, I'm now looking at only buying vehicles with 10 year + warranties, drive them for 10 years and trade it when the warranty runs out. Certainly seems cheaper in the long run than buying used every so often and paying for all the stuff that breaks over the life of ownership. This is for the wife's vehicles, of course. I will likely drive my pickup for the next couple of decades unless some moron wrecks into it.

[daddyo]

Yep, I'm now looking at only buying vehicles with 10 year + warranties, drive them for 10 years and trade it when the warranty runs out. Certainly seems cheaper in the long run than buying used every so often and paying for all the stuff that breaks over the life of ownership. This is for the wife's vehicles, of course. I will likely drive my pickup for the next couple of decades unless some moron wrecks into it.

 

I've always wondered about this. The last new car I bought was an '86 Mazda pickup. SInce then, it's been nothing but used. Several of them have been owned by family members who bought them new, so I have a pretty good idea of how they have been maintained and whether or not they've been in an accident.

 

I've never added up the cost of maintaining a used vehicle vs. a new one under warranty. It might be that the new one is less expensive in the long run, I dunno.

[TMF]

If not cheaper it is worth the peace of mind at least. I don't have to worry about my wife having vehicle issues that can't be corrected by the dealer at no charge out of pocket. I don't see a huge benefit of buying new vehicles with a 3 year / 36,000 mi warranty vs. a used vehicle with low mileage. However, 10 year / 120K is certainly worth it. Plus I respect any company that will stand by their product like that, which is why I won't be buying another dodge.

[Sam1]

If not cheaper it is worth the peace of mind at least. I don't have to worry about my wife having vehicle issues that can't be corrected by the dealer at no charge out of pocket. I don't see a huge benefit of buying new vehicles with a 3 year / 36,000 mi warranty vs. a used vehicle with low mileage. However, 10 year / 120K is certainly worth it. Plus I respect any company that will stand by their product like that, which is why I won't be buying another dodge.

 

Some mazda's now have a lifetime warranty on the drivetrain.  That's either phenomenal or smart business because they know they're planning on filing bankruptcy in a few years and having the warranties wiped out  :rofl:

[monkeylizard]

Mazda doesn't list that on their website.

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=ownersWarranty

 

When I have seen lifetime warranties on other things besides cars and that part of the warranty isn't usually transferrable even if other sectioons are. If Mazda, or any other maker, sets it up like that then it could be a good differentiating sales tactic. The average buyer isn't likely to keep the car more than 3-7 years before they get tired of it or other parts not covered by the "lifetime" begin to break down like suspension or electronics and the owner decides to get something else. Either way the lifetime on the powertrain wouldn't have to be honored more than 3-7 years on most vehicles they sell.

[Sam1]

Mazda dealer downtown Nashville on Broadway has a big banner hanging up on one of their SUV's (sorry don't know the model, am not familiar with the brand) that says lifetime warranty on the drivetrain.

 

WIll snap a photo next time I drive by.

[TripleDigitRide]

http://stiversmazda.com/Lifetime-Powertrain-Warranty/

[Links2k]

In the past couple of years I have purchased two used SUVs for my twins based purely on the Carfax report with the requirement/hope that the vehicles would safely transport them back and forth to school thru their senior year. So far I havent been disappointed.

[Lumber_Jack]

we used the carfax report when replacing my wifes SUV after our recent accident.  Most seem pretty accurate, but surely not perfect.  I cant fathom the thought of the depreciation a new car takes when it leaves the lot.  Ive never bought a brand new car for this reason.  However I have bought used cars with remaining factory warranties.  People trade cars all the time just because they want to, not because there is something wrong.  Plus if something is major wrong it will ususally present itself before the warranty expires.  We did purchase an extended factory warranty with my wifes SUV that takes us to 100K miles, maybe not a good value if we dont use it, but with one repair it can pay for itself.  Its all a gamble.

 

As to the original story and video, I wouldnt think its the salesmans job to dig into the vehicles comprehensive background as the News guy suggests.  Hell the only reason they offer carfax reports is because eveyone expects it now.  Believe me, theyd be just as happy NOT showing the history in most cases.