I'm not sure if the OP's problem was limited to the hood or not
He wrote there was some discoloration and swirl blemishes on the side of the car, which initially made me think he had gotten a bad wax job/buff. If so it's on him. If not then I'd be looking for a second opinion from a body shop... maybe look to have the whole car repainted.
To me the bottom line is, if the car was damaged and repaired at the dealership it should have been disclosed to any potential buyer. To not do so is fraudulent in my book, certainly unethical. You put so much as a speck of paint on an unsold car to cover up a scratch... it should be disclosed.
You can think that all you want but that is not how the law is written.
New cars get dinged or scratched at port all the time. The manufacturer fixes them and sometimes doesn't even till the dealer unless the cost was over a certain dollar amount.
If you have bought enough new cars, say six or seven, I almost guarantee you that you have a bought a car that was damaged at port in someway.
Wouldn't a new hood come unpainted and have to be shot with the color of the vehicle?
No idea. But the difference is that the new hood wouldn't be repainted. That's the key. It would only have the original coat of paint. The depreciation comes when you have more than one coat of paint.
But as Jipster pointed out, the damage was also on the side, so this is a moot point.
A competent shop can paint a car to look just as good as the factory---perhaps even better.
The key here to a successful resolution is the skill of the body shop that does the repair.
I doubt any law court would side with a claimant who did not permit the dealer to restore the car to a like new condition. The argument about depreciation for a repainted hood on a car that did not sustain accident damage is, IMO, very very weak.
You can think that all you want but that is not how the law is written.
Yeah, I know that's not how the law is written... that;s why I wrote, "in my book". Pretty sweet that the industry can get away with not having to disclose any damage (under a certain dollar amount). I'm sure most people here would prefer not to buy a vehicle dinged or scratched at port, as opposed to being indifferent whether it has been or not.
If you have bought enough new cars, say six or seven, I almost guarantee you that you have a bought a car that was damaged at port in some way.
One out of seven cars damaged at port? Sounds kind of high. Kinda makes you want to get a "new" car inspection by your mechanic before you buy. This certainly seems like a case where it would have paid off.
I am interested in knowing, who of you out there (boom, shifty, british, etc) would buy a brand new $30k car knowing that the hood had been repainted??? If you wouldn't buy, then you would have to admit depreciation in the value of the car. No way would I buy... throw in a couple grand and a paint warranty and I'd think about it.
The other problem with swapping hoods is that the VIN wouldn't match... which will raise more red flags than just repainting the hood. We're assuming here that the service manager that originally spoke of something being spilled prior to sale actually said this & had proof. Since obviously the damage wasn't there at the time of delivery, I'd say more likely it was something spilled on the car more recently. Simple things can cause havoc to paint jobs. Someone may have spit coca-cola on the hood - or a large bird dropping left on there for a day or so during hot summer months.
A competent shop can paint a car to look just as good as the factory---perhaps even better.
That is true, however a repainted hood or other panel will have thicker paint than the rest of the car. Any appraiser worth their salt will use a meter to detect that and reduce the value of the car accordingly, no matter how good it looks.
Simple things can cause havoc to paint jobs. Someone may have spit coca-cola on the hood - or a large bird dropping left on there for a day or so during hot summer months.
Maybe a diseased cat crawled on top of his car and died? :sick:
To me it initially sounded like a bad wax job. The detailer did not fess up, leading our original poster to go back to the dealership. Or, the dealerships body guy did a crappy job and just tried to buff the hail out of the paint and went overboard. But... if "ifs' and "butts" were coconuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. If we believe the OP then the dealership is responsible for making sure the customer is satisfied, which should be either a repaint, a full reimbursement, or a repaint with $2k thrown in for depreciation and pain and suffering.
Obviously if you know it's been repainted before buying then I'd probably look at another one of the same model. If there were none left and this was my last choice, I'd take it. If I'd find out afterwards, I mwould have been ticked off but as long as it's fixed properly then I would be ok with it. If your car gets keyed by a hooligan would you demand a new replacement car as well from your incurance company? We all want the best, cleanest, nicest, and least used. But sometimes in life things don't come that way, and there isn't much we can do about it. What I'm trying to say is that the OP can't do much after the fact other than take what the dealership is offering, which everyone here thinks is reasonable.
Sure, the vast majority are small dings or scratches. But, then you read the occasional horror story, like this one, and you want to go over that brand new car a lot closer than you normally would.
Many years ago ( probably twenty or more) I purchased a brand new Black Chevrolet pick-up truck. A super duper model.(It's been too long ago for me to remember the model, but it was loaded and really sharp looking)!!! After about owning it for a week, after I washed it, I noticed the hood looked slightly flakey but not that noticeable. I took it back to the Chevy dealer and after getting the service mgr. to look at it (at a certian angle) he agreed with me that there was definitely something wrong. (This was the only place of imperfection, the hood). They agred that the hood need to be repainted and I was a bit upset but naturally agrred with the stipulation that it would look like new again. They gave me a loaner and several days later, I returned to pick up the truck and it was a perfect paint job. The service mgr. told me that the problem was most likely caused by "rail dust". I don't know exactly what that is, but I was satisfied with the outcome. Kept the truck for about five years and traded it in and it still looked new, My advice to the claimant is to let them paint it. They are at least trying to please you and you want to get a lawyer or a new vehicle??? Please????
Sure, the vast majority are small dings or scratches. But, then you read the occasional horror story
Read this one in another forum. A guy had factory ordered a Grand Cherokee. I think it was a diesel with specific options. The combination was rare enough that he had to do a factory order.
A month passes and his car gets to the dealership. The guy unloading it from the truck backed it up into a concrete pillar. He did so much damage that the dealership immediately wrote it off. :sick:
They were upfront and pretty cool about it. Don't remember if he ended up doing another factory order, or if he bought off the lot. I do remember that he was happy with his new Jeep, and happy with the dealership.
Obviously if you know it's been repainted before buying then I'd probably look at another one of the same model
O.k. You are then saying there would be market preference/value of a "untouched" car over one that had it's hood repainted. Since the "untouched" car would be in more demand, would it not bring a higher price? How much more would you be willing to pay for the "untouched" car, over the one that had the hood repainted?
If there were none left and this was my last choice, I'd take it.
Interesting.
We all want the best, cleanest, nicest, and least used. But sometimes in life things don't come that way, and there isn't much we can do about it. What I'm trying to say is that the OP can't do much after the fact other than take what the dealership is offering, which everyone here thinks is reasonable.
True.. except the last part about the dealerships offer being reasonable. If the OP story is true, I think he's out a lot more than just his time in having the car brought back in to be repainted.
I suppose the dealership could insist on proof that the buyer hadn't damaged the hood after the purchase. It's 4 months after the buy and the paint is coming off due to something being spilled on it? Sounds fishy to me. :lemon:
Hey we are talking a Chevy Traverse not a High Dollar Merc or BMW. I doubt anyone would even bother to put a paint meter on it. I doubt we would bother to paint meter a car like that unless the carfax report looked funky or someone actually thought the hood looked wrong.
Even if they did just tell them what happened. Dealers see dinged up cars all the time. It upsets the general public because they just don't deal with it all the time.
I don't know if it is one and 7 new cars, I kind of pulled that number out of thin air like I said we don't even always know if they do get damaged, gets dinged at port but it wouldn't surprise me if it was about that number or maybe a little less. Think about it thousands of cars on a ship tightly packed driven out in mass and then parked tightly again on a port lot.
Dings, scratches, scrapes and dents are bound to happen.
How much more would you be willing to pay for the "untouched" car, over the one that had the hood repainted?
You'd have this one on the lot until it was the last available example of that model. It would then sell for the same price as the others. Same kind of thing when you go the market and buy produce. You pick the nicest ones out first. Someone else will eventually buy the more beat up produce, and pay the same price as the person who picked out the nicer ones earlier. So does that mean that the supermarket has to compensate the later buyers who bought beat up produce? No.
So if I have 5 cars on the lot, all identical, I'll pick the nicest ones out first, least mileage, built later, etc... But if there's one left with a 100 miles on it, and a repainted hood (that obviously I can't see), I'd still buy it providing I'm happy with the car. If issues arise after the fact, that's what warranty is for.
Rail dust? Your truck must have sat on the dealers lot for 6 months or so for it to have gotten that bad. I had a bit on the back of my MPV, had been on dealers lot for a few weeks, dealership wiped right off with some sort of clay or cleaner.
Rail dust is what's kicked up when a trains wheels are spinning on the metal track during transport. I believe after it's sat on the vehicle for a while, it becomes a rust like color that can damage the paint.
Glad your story had a happy ending, though I'm sure there are many "repaint" stories out there that didn't turn out so good. It's all about percentages though. You're probably talking about batting around 90% (.900) satisfaction with a repaint. Where as you are batting 99.99% with the factory original paint.
Someone else will eventually buy the more beat up produce, and pay the same price as the person who picked out the nicer ones earlier. So does that mean that the supermarket has to compensate the later buyers who bought beat up produce?
Well, you wait long enough and you can buy rotting bananas at half price... same nutritional value. :sick:
So if I have 5 cars on the lot, all identical, I'll pick the nicest ones out first, least mileage, built later, etc... But if there's one left with a 100 miles on it, and a repainted hood (that obviously I can't see), I'd still buy it providing I'm happy with the car.
I doubt anyone would even bother to put a paint meter on it.
They do in these parts. I traded in a 6.5 year old Odyssey and they went over every panel. Eventually found the tailgate had been repainted. They only had to ask and I'd have told them. They tried to reduce the trade-in value by $1000 because of it, but I think my laughter put a stop to that nonsense. Had it been 3 years old though they might have had a fair point.
"...Dings, scratches, scrapes and dents are bound to happen..."
Last time we bought a car the salesman was showing my wife the features. He opened the rear door of the car and scraped the one next to it. Later he opened the same door and dinged the adjacent car again, this time with a small dent.
Two weeks later when I was walking the dealer's lot I saw that the damage to this particular car had not been fixed. :lemon:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
If newsletter that came out suggested that engine flushing was not good for vehicles and suggested that companies no longer offer this service due to the possible damage to the vehicle. Should a company and its mechanics having this knowledge pass the full knowledge on to the consumer before suggesting this service ? If not informed shouldn't the company be responsible for damages ?
They say the same thing about transmission flushing. Seems to be the same speculation that flushing knocks crude loose that can lead to damage of a transmission or engine. I think if you start out flushing on a regular schedule you are okay. You probably don't want to have the first flush at 120,000 miles.
This looks to be another one of those long threads on the pro's and con's of flushing and dealer responsibiliity. You work for Edmunds? :surprise:
You pick the nicest ones out first. Someone else will eventually buy the more beat up produce, and pay the same price as the person who picked out the nicer ones earlier. So does that mean that the supermarket has to compensate the later buyers who bought beat up produce?
One slight flaw in your analogy. Like jipster said, same nutritional value on both. The difference is that you're not reselling the fruit to somebody else.
To follow your analogy, what happens if people sell the produce again to individuals outside of the super market? I bet the not so nice produce would not fetch as much in this secondary market, so it shouldn't fet as much in the primary market either.
I'm not saying this applies to the OP's situation. I just want to make sure we're not comparing apples to oranges :P
I understand that were comparing slightly rotten apples to fresh oranges. :P However, the owner of the Traverse is not reselling the vehicle either. At least not for now. By the time he does, if it's 5-10 years from now the whole vehicle would have aged so much that it wouldn't make a difference.
The dealer is in the business of reselling cars. They don't send back vehicles with chips on their hoods back to the factory either. They get them fixed and the factory reimburses them for it.
The "depreciation" on a new Traverse with a re-painted hood with undetectable repairs is NIL in relation to the entire value of the car. If it were a Ferrari I may rule differently because "virginity" if you will is of paramount importance. To give you an example, a Ferrari with over 30,000 miles on it is barely saleable except at serious depreciation. A Porsche on the other hand shrugs off high mileage in the marketplace. So it depends a great deal on the car how/what/why there might be diminution of value.
I just don't see the marketplace responding to a repainted hood on a Traverse---it's not THAT sensitive.
My feeling is that if I, as an appraiser, cannot detect a repair, then neither can 99% of all normal car buyers.
if your Traverse had overspray, orangepeel, wavy lines, curtains, fish-eyes, etc...you know, like the factory does it (that was just a joke), then of course it would depreciate exactly to the cost of re-doing it right. What's a hood repaint these days---$600--$1000 bucks. Okay then, if the repaint is screwed up, we're on the same page---depreciate the car $1000 bucks.
I may rule differently because "virginity" if you will is of paramount importance.
You must only do high end appraising. I think "virginity" is of paramount importance to most people buying a $20k or $30k car. We're not talking about a little kiss on the cheek here, we're talking about stripping, taping up, sand blasting and repainting around 15-20% of a new cars surface... that's getting down and dirty.
I just don't see the marketplace responding to a repainted hood on a Traverse
Sure, the marketplace wouldn't be responding to a repainted hood on a Traverse, most of the time they wouldn't know about it... due to dealership non-disclosure. How do you think they would respond if the repaint was disclosed though? I would feel obligated to report such a $1,000 repair if the car was mine and I needed to resell it to someone. I sure won't be getting as much compared to if the paint had remained pure... untouched by human buffing. I would argue that just because you and 99% of normal car buyers can't detect a repaint, doesn't make everything okay, (at least ethically), in terms of non-disclosure and depreciation.
I think "virginity" is of paramount importance to most people buying a $20k or $30k car. We're not talking about a little kiss on the cheek here, we're talking about stripping, taping up, sand blasting and repainting around 15-20% of a new cars surface... that's getting down and dirty.
Whoa jipster. Keep it clean. This is a family forum
OK, I have a 2002 ford explorer sport w/ 72695 miles, I have tried and tried to sell this for 5400 with no luck, now I have a guy who said he would trade me even a one owner 1997 Honda CR-V w/ 148000 . with all maintenance records . Am I a retard for even thinking about this trade .
Im confused. Im looking into buying an Outlander (OL) and Im confused about the models. I went into a Mitsubishi and all the OLs are 4 cyl. However, all the models, even the basic i can find in hometown are 6 cyl. All dealers tell that they dont make 4 cyl anymore. Thats weird with gas prices going up.
Secondly, the dealer showed a model ES-AP, which includes all standard basic features + alloy 16" wheels and bluetooth ready (but not available). The funny thing is that no fog lights are included. Isn't this a basic feature? I still dont know which alloy wheels are 2009. Ive seen the same models between different dealers with different alloy wheels.
Sometimes I believe im buying the basic features and they add up a couple of features inhouse to make it a more expensive model.
Can someone show me where I can find a list of the different models for an OL2009 and its features?
Yes. You are thinking about trading straight across a vehicle that is less than 10 years old for a vehicle that is almost twice its age and twice its mileage?? Granted it's a "Honda", but still why? The Ford Explorer is also a good vehicle and has less than 100K on it. Why trade? Why are you trying to get out of the vehicle? If it were me in the situation, I wouldn't do it. No way, no how.
Well it is just sitting , my son turned 16 and because it is a 2002 sport ,the insurance was going from $74 a month to $300 . I don't know what to do with it . tried to sell it but got notta . was asking $5400 uggg
"...virginity is of paramount importance...we're talking about stripping, taping up, sand blasting and..."
We're still talking about cars here, right? I just wanted to make sure.
For what it's worth I tend to agree with you Jip. If you bring a vehicle in for trade with a major re-paint the value drops. The dealer will laugh in your face if you try to explain "But it was a really,really good re-paint".
What the OP hasn't mentioned is the long-term prognosis for the entire car. If paint is going to hell all over the car it won't make any difference if the hood is repainted.
Also, how bad is the chipping problem. I see a few tiny chips in my hood after 18 months, I figure that's normal. If the paint is coming off in chunks then the problem is worse than a simple repair job will fix.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
How does trading help you get rid of a vehicle, though? The Honda may be easier to sell, but you'll have transaction costs, and you don't know what might be wrong with it.
If your car won't sell for $5400, then you are probably asking too much..
You can always check on real world trade in thread. Then put it on ebay with no reserve. Two similar to yours sold for $42-4300 Is it a dirty, filthy piece of junk--bald tires-cracked windshield-dents-ripped interior? Tough sale. If it's clean or made clean, someone will want it. You can also donate it to a variety of charities and get a tax deduction for whatever they sell it for.
You've made some funny posts, but I think this might be the best.
If you think someone who buys a "Traverse" is going to worry about a hood respray, then I think you've lost your mind. They will look for a clean CarFax and leave it at that.
When I sold low line used cars, I might have had a potential buyer check for paintwork once out of 100. It just doesn't happen. They check to make sure it looks good and that's it.
Edit: And on a sidenote, why is someone even buying something called a 'Traverse'. You've got to know it's going to be a hunk of crap.....
Moo, did you see those tv commercials comparing a Traverse to a Honda Pilot, and how much better the Traverse is? So funny, and that dude in the commercial gets on my nerves for some reason.
I agree with you. A repainted hood is a non-issue on a Traverse as far as the marketplace is concerned, because if it is repainted well, then nobody but nobody is going to know about it. Which is, after all, the entire point of repainting it---to make it good as new.
Arguing that a BAD paint job screws up resale is changing the argument. We are assuming that a body shop with a business license and trained personnel knows how to paint a car hood correctly.
A dealer can't hide a $1000 repair on a hood, but he's not going to be charged $1000 for the job. He will be charged (coincidentally) just under the maximum allowed for non-disclosure under the law.
Shifty, do I have internet B.O or something? You're responding to everyone but the person asking you the questions... jipster. You can type my name without your fingers burning off you know.
Arguing that a BAD paint job screws up resale is changing the argument
The argument was that ANY repaint job will screw up resale on a like new car. It is also being argued that such an expensive repair (hood repaint) should be disclosed to any potential buyer, whether the buyer can tell if it's been repainted or not.
That a dealership would manipulate what they charge on a repaint to avoid disclosure, further supports my contention that it is unethical, as well as increases the cars depreciation level.. even on a hunk of pooh like the Traverse. :sick:
The argument was that ANY repaint job will screw up resale on a like new car. It is also being argued that such an expensive repair (hood repaint) should be disclosed to any potential buyer, whether the buyer can tell if it's been repainted or not.
Ya, I'm disagreeing with you that a repaint on the hood will screw up resale value on that Traverse.
A dealer is under no obligations to disclose paintwork under a certain dollar amount. It might be nice to know, but then again, with low dollar cars it does nothing to take away from the value..... sooo.....
That a dealership would manipulate what they charge on a repaint to avoid disclosure, further supports my contention that it is unethical, as well as increases the cars depreciation level.. even on a hunk of pooh like the Traverse.
Hunk of poo is accurate. You can't depreciate poo.
Comments
He wrote there was some discoloration and swirl blemishes on the side of the car, which initially made me think he had gotten a bad wax job/buff. If so it's on him. If not then I'd be looking for a second opinion from a body shop... maybe look to have the whole car repainted.
You can think that all you want but that is not how the law is written.
New cars get dinged or scratched at port all the time. The manufacturer fixes them and sometimes doesn't even till the dealer unless the cost was over a certain dollar amount.
If you have bought enough new cars, say six or seven, I almost guarantee you that you have a bought a car that was damaged at port in someway.
And if something was spilled on the hood that caused paint discoloration, then it's not a paint defect, it's a boo boo that happened after the fact.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
No idea. But the difference is that the new hood wouldn't be repainted. That's the key. It would only have the original coat of paint. The depreciation comes when you have more than one coat of paint.
But as Jipster pointed out, the damage was also on the side, so this is a moot point.
The key here to a successful resolution is the skill of the body shop that does the repair.
I doubt any law court would side with a claimant who did not permit the dealer to restore the car to a like new condition. The argument about depreciation for a repainted hood on a car that did not sustain accident damage is, IMO, very very weak.
Yeah, I know that's not how the law is written... that;s why I wrote, "in my book". Pretty sweet that the industry can get away with not having to disclose any damage (under a certain dollar amount). I'm sure most people here would prefer not to buy a vehicle dinged or scratched at port, as opposed to being indifferent whether it has been or not.
If you have bought enough new cars, say six or seven, I almost guarantee you that you have a bought a car that was damaged at port in some way.
One out of seven cars damaged at port? Sounds kind of high. Kinda makes you want to get a "new" car inspection by your mechanic before you buy. This certainly seems like a case where it would have paid off.
I am interested in knowing, who of you out there (boom, shifty, british, etc) would buy a brand new $30k car knowing that the hood had been repainted??? If you wouldn't buy, then you would have to admit depreciation in the value of the car. No way would I buy... throw in a couple grand and a paint warranty and I'd think about it.
That is true, however a repainted hood or other panel will have thicker paint than the rest of the car. Any appraiser worth their salt will use a meter to detect that and reduce the value of the car accordingly, no matter how good it looks.
Maybe a diseased cat crawled on top of his car and died? :sick:
To me it initially sounded like a bad wax job. The detailer did not fess up, leading our original poster to go back to the dealership. Or, the dealerships body guy did a crappy job and just tried to buff the hail out of the paint and went overboard. But... if "ifs' and "butts" were coconuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. If we believe the OP then the dealership is responsible for making sure the customer is satisfied, which should be either a repaint, a full reimbursement, or a repaint with $2k thrown in for depreciation and pain and suffering.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
I took it back to the Chevy dealer and after getting the service mgr. to look at it (at a certian angle) he agreed with me that there was definitely something wrong. (This was the only place of imperfection, the hood).
They agred that the hood need to be repainted and I was a bit upset but naturally agrred with the stipulation that it would look like new again. They gave me a loaner and several days later, I returned to pick up the truck and it was a perfect paint job. The service mgr. told me that the problem was most likely caused by "rail dust". I don't know exactly what that is, but I was satisfied with the outcome. Kept the truck for about five years and traded it in and it still looked new,
My advice to the claimant is to let them paint it. They are at least trying to please you and you want to get a lawyer or a new vehicle??? Please????
Read this one in another forum. A guy had factory ordered a Grand Cherokee. I think it was a diesel with specific options. The combination was rare enough that he had to do a factory order.
A month passes and his car gets to the dealership. The guy unloading it from the truck backed it up into a concrete pillar. He did so much damage that the dealership immediately wrote it off. :sick:
They were upfront and pretty cool about it. Don't remember if he ended up doing another factory order, or if he bought off the lot. I do remember that he was happy with his new Jeep, and happy with the dealership.
O.k. You are then saying there would be market preference/value of a "untouched" car over one that had it's hood repainted. Since the "untouched" car would be in more demand, would it not bring a higher price? How much more would you be willing to pay for the "untouched" car, over the one that had the hood repainted?
If there were none left and this was my last choice, I'd take it.
Interesting.
We all want the best, cleanest, nicest, and least used. But sometimes in life things don't come that way, and there isn't much we can do about it. What I'm trying to say is that the OP can't do much after the fact other than take what the dealership is offering, which everyone here thinks is reasonable.
True.. except the last part about the dealerships offer being reasonable. If the OP story is true, I think he's out a lot more than just his time in having the car brought back in to be repainted.
I suppose the dealership could insist on proof that the buyer hadn't damaged the hood after the purchase. It's 4 months after the buy and the paint is coming off due to something being spilled on it? Sounds fishy to me. :lemon:
LOL... from what I've read that seems to happen an awful lot. Maybe, they should get rid of the concrete pillars, and get non-concrete pillows? :P
Even if they did just tell them what happened. Dealers see dinged up cars all the time. It upsets the general public because they just don't deal with it all the time.
I don't know if it is one and 7 new cars, I kind of pulled that number out of thin air like I said we don't even always know if they do get damaged, gets dinged at port but it wouldn't surprise me if it was about that number or maybe a little less. Think about it thousands of cars on a ship tightly packed driven out in mass and then parked tightly again on a port lot.
Dings, scratches, scrapes and dents are bound to happen.
You'd have this one on the lot until it was the last available example of that model. It would then sell for the same price as the others. Same kind of thing when you go the market and buy produce. You pick the nicest ones out first. Someone else will eventually buy the more beat up produce, and pay the same price as the person who picked out the nicer ones earlier. So does that mean that the supermarket has to compensate the later buyers who bought beat up produce? No.
So if I have 5 cars on the lot, all identical, I'll pick the nicest ones out first, least mileage, built later, etc... But if there's one left with a 100 miles on it, and a repainted hood (that obviously I can't see), I'd still buy it providing I'm happy with the car. If issues arise after the fact, that's what warranty is for.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Rail dust is what's kicked up when a trains wheels are spinning on the metal track during transport. I believe after it's sat on the vehicle for a while, it becomes a rust like color that can damage the paint.
Glad your story had a happy ending, though I'm sure there are many "repaint" stories out there that didn't turn out so good. It's all about percentages though. You're probably talking about batting around 90% (.900) satisfaction with a repaint. Where as you are batting 99.99% with the factory original paint.
You're probably talking about batting around 90% (.900) satisfaction with a repaint. Where as you are batting 99.99% with the factory original paint.
I have seen factory paint that is worse then bodyshop paint plenty of times.
Well, you wait long enough and you can buy rotting bananas at half price... same nutritional value. :sick:
So if I have 5 cars on the lot, all identical, I'll pick the nicest ones out first, least mileage, built later, etc... But if there's one left with a 100 miles on it, and a repainted hood (that obviously I can't see), I'd still buy it providing I'm happy with the car.
Fair enough. I appreciate your candor.
Ahhh, you lobbed me a big watermelon on that one b.r. Since you are the lost son returned, I shall respectfully decline.
edited: One would think quality control at the factory would catch a bad paint job.
They do in these parts. I traded in a 6.5 year old Odyssey and they went over every panel. Eventually found the tailgate had been repainted. They only had to ask and I'd have told them. They tried to reduce the trade-in value by $1000 because of it, but I think my laughter put a stop to that nonsense. Had it been 3 years old though they might have had a fair point.
Last time we bought a car the salesman was showing my wife the features. He opened the rear door of the car and scraped the one next to it. Later he opened the same door and dinged the adjacent car again, this time with a small dent.
Two weeks later when I was walking the dealer's lot I saw that the damage to this particular car had not been fixed. :lemon:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
This looks to be another one of those long threads on the pro's and con's of flushing and dealer responsibiliity. You work for Edmunds? :surprise:
And the 1,000 dollar reduction was ridiculous too.
One slight flaw in your analogy. Like jipster said, same nutritional value on both. The difference is that you're not reselling the fruit to somebody else.
To follow your analogy, what happens if people sell the produce again to individuals outside of the super market? I bet the not so nice produce would not fetch as much in this secondary market, so it shouldn't fet as much in the primary market either.
I'm not saying this applies to the OP's situation. I just want to make sure we're not comparing apples to oranges :P
The dealer is in the business of reselling cars. They don't send back vehicles with chips on their hoods back to the factory either. They get them fixed and the factory reimburses them for it.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
The "depreciation" on a new Traverse with a re-painted hood with undetectable repairs is NIL in relation to the entire value of the car. If it were a Ferrari I may rule differently because "virginity" if you will is of paramount importance. To give you an example, a Ferrari with over 30,000 miles on it is barely saleable except at serious depreciation. A Porsche on the other hand shrugs off high mileage in the marketplace. So it depends a great deal on the car how/what/why there might be diminution of value.
I just don't see the marketplace responding to a repainted hood on a Traverse---it's not THAT sensitive.
My feeling is that if I, as an appraiser, cannot detect a repair, then neither can 99% of all normal car buyers.
if your Traverse had overspray, orangepeel, wavy lines, curtains, fish-eyes, etc...you know, like the factory does it (that was just a joke), then of course it would depreciate exactly to the cost of re-doing it right. What's a hood repaint these days---$600--$1000 bucks. Okay then, if the repaint is screwed up, we're on the same page---depreciate the car $1000 bucks.
Will be interesting to see what the resolution is.
You must only do high end appraising. I think "virginity" is of paramount importance to most people buying a $20k or $30k car. We're not talking about a little kiss on the cheek here, we're talking about stripping, taping up, sand blasting and repainting around 15-20% of a new cars surface... that's getting down and dirty.
I just don't see the marketplace responding to a repainted hood on a Traverse
Sure, the marketplace wouldn't be responding to a repainted hood on a Traverse, most of the time they wouldn't know about it... due to dealership non-disclosure. How do you think they would respond if the repaint was disclosed though? I would feel obligated to report such a $1,000 repair if the car was mine and I needed to resell it to someone. I sure won't be getting as much compared to if the paint had remained pure... untouched by human buffing. I would argue that just because you and 99% of normal car buyers can't detect a repaint, doesn't make everything okay, (at least ethically), in terms of non-disclosure and depreciation.
Whoa jipster. Keep it clean. This is a family forum
Secondly, the dealer showed a model ES-AP, which includes all standard basic features + alloy 16" wheels and bluetooth ready (but not available). The funny thing is that no fog lights are included. Isn't this a basic feature? I still dont know which alloy wheels are 2009. Ive seen the same models between different dealers with different alloy wheels.
Sometimes I believe im buying the basic features and they add up a couple of features inhouse to make it a more expensive model.
Can someone show me where I can find a list of the different models for an OL2009 and its features?
We're still talking about cars here, right? I just wanted to make sure.
For what it's worth I tend to agree with you Jip. If you bring a vehicle in for trade with a major re-paint the value drops. The dealer will laugh in your face if you try to explain "But it was a really,really good re-paint".
What the OP hasn't mentioned is the long-term prognosis for the entire car. If paint is going to hell all over the car it won't make any difference if the hood is repainted.
Also, how bad is the chipping problem. I see a few tiny chips in my hood after 18 months, I figure that's normal. If the paint is coming off in chunks then the problem is worse than a simple repair job will fix.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
If your car won't sell for $5400, then you are probably asking too much..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
You've made some funny posts, but I think this might be the best.
If you think someone who buys a "Traverse" is going to worry about a hood respray, then I think you've lost your mind. They will look for a clean CarFax and leave it at that.
When I sold low line used cars, I might have had a potential buyer check for paintwork once out of 100. It just doesn't happen. They check to make sure it looks good and that's it.
Edit: And on a sidenote, why is someone even buying something called a 'Traverse'. You've got to know it's going to be a hunk of crap.....
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
Arguing that a BAD paint job screws up resale is changing the argument. We are assuming that a body shop with a business license and trained personnel knows how to paint a car hood correctly.
A dealer can't hide a $1000 repair on a hood, but he's not going to be charged $1000 for the job. He will be charged (coincidentally) just under the maximum allowed for non-disclosure under the law.
Arguing that a BAD paint job screws up resale is changing the argument
The argument was that ANY repaint job will screw up resale on a like new car. It is also being argued that such an expensive repair (hood repaint) should be disclosed to any potential buyer, whether the buyer can tell if it's been repainted or not.
That a dealership would manipulate what they charge on a repaint to avoid disclosure, further supports my contention that it is unethical, as well as increases the cars depreciation level.. even on a hunk of pooh like the Traverse. :sick:
Ya, I'm disagreeing with you that a repaint on the hood will screw up resale value on that Traverse.
A dealer is under no obligations to disclose paintwork under a certain dollar amount. It might be nice to know, but then again, with low dollar cars it does nothing to take away from the value..... sooo.....
That a dealership would manipulate what they charge on a repaint to avoid disclosure, further supports my contention that it is unethical, as well as increases the cars depreciation level.. even on a hunk of pooh like the Traverse.
Hunk of poo is accurate. You can't depreciate poo.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX