Real-World Trade-In Values

kyfdx

More coverage = higher premiums

stickguy

seems like something insurance companies can add as an extra. Like new car replacement, or rental car coverage. Not standard, but if you want to pay extra for it, up to you.

andres3

stickguy said:

seems like something insurance companies can add as an extra. Like new car replacement, or rental car coverage. Not standard, but if you want to pay extra for it, up to you.

The difference here is you should be able to elect to pay only for other's negligence, and/or your own. I don't have to buy rental car coverage, because my theory is if I ever need one it'll be the other guys fault.

Only hole is uninsured rental car coverage for when an uninsured person hits .

andres3

kyfdx said:

More coverage = higher premiums

Theoreticallly higher premiums for those causing the relevant claims. Don't cause accidents, not much DV cost there.

kyfdx

andres3 said:

kyfdx said:

More coverage = higher premiums

Theoreticallly higher premiums for those causing the relevant claims. Don't cause accidents, not much DV cost there.

Do you think your premium is only based on your driving record?

I'll guess that like most people, you vastly over estimate your own driving ability, compared to everyone else.

andres3

kyfdx said:

andres3 said:

kyfdx said:

More coverage = higher premiums

Theoreticallly higher premiums for those causing the relevant claims. Don't cause accidents, not much DV cost there.

Do you think your premium is only based on your driving record?

I'll guess that like most people, you vastly over estimate your own driving ability, compared to everyone else.

No, I understand not-at-fault collisions can be unavoidable. A lesson I learned and was reminded of the hard way with the S4.

Still, as long as you are not out there causing at-fault collisions, you should not need rental or DV coverage, the other guys insurance pays for it.

I have my own "uninsured/underinsured coverages" but there is a GAP for uninsured DV and uninsured Rental. I will vote for a law that says un/under insured coverages will pay for rental car and DV losses. Currently the State of CA just leaves the victim hanging out to dry.

kyfdx

I might have said this, before...

I'll guess that, like most people, you vastly over estimate your own driving ability, compared to everyone else.

Sandman6472

I may not be the best driver but it wasn't me who floored my vehicle in a "parking lot"...I was the unfortunate soul who you didn't look to see because if you did look, you'd have seen me creeping out of my parking space, front first! I at leas know better but to creep out slowly in a parking lot when I am backing out of my space because some vehicle could be there within a second and I'd need to stop. Just common sense. Apparently, this guys common sense was on hold or something because who floors their vehicle backing out of a parking space? Well, he did, and he knew he f'd up because he kept apologizing to me about how sorry he was. Be as sorry as you want dude, but your actions made me bump my head and whole left side into my door upon impact. Your actions have my vehicle in a collision shop torn apart while they find more and more damage. Your actions sent me to the hospital to be checked over since I hit my head and side on my inside door.
But after all that, now you want to fix my vehicle but the Carfax will show an accident so it'll be worth less in real world value. And I want to be compensated for that loss because it's gonna be sold once I get it back!

The Sandman

andres3

kyfdx said:

I might have said this, before...

I'll guess that, like most people, you vastly over estimate your own driving ability, compared to everyone else.

The difference is, I, unlike many people, am willing to pay for my over-estimations in ability.

I don't mind taking on that risk. But in my small sample size of people that cause wrecks, they all seem like deadbeats that don't want to contribute to making you whole.

Mr_Shiftright

andres3 said:

kyfdx said:

More coverage = higher premiums

Theoreticallly higher premiums for those causing the relevant claims. Don't cause accidents, not much DV cost there.

I think in some states DV coverage might be an add-on option.

stickguy

well, you can go ahead and sue the driver. The insurance company is obligated to repair your car to "as it was" condition (whatever the term they use to that). So from their standpoint, they fix it, you drive it, done.

andres3

stickguy said:

well, you can go ahead and sue the driver. The insurance company is obligated to repair your car to "as it was" condition (whatever the term they use to that). So from their standpoint, they fix it, you drive it, done.

For me "as it was" condition is "as it was" value. Condition = value. I can't separate the two.

If you can, you'd be a judge finding in favor of Insurance.

If you are like me, you'll be a judge putting the hammer down on Insurance.

corvette

For me, "as it was" condition includes repairing the CarFax and making any paint work undetectable by a mil gauge.

Mr_Shiftright

Good luck getting CARFAX to change anything.

tjc78

My 2004 Grand Marquis had a false entry on the Carfax. It said it had a major accident in the first year of it's life. No way. Pop bought less than a year old with 10K miles and there certainly was no paint work when he bought it.

It didn't have a real accident until I got rear ended in it 12 years into it's life.

andres3

corvette said:

For me, "as it was" condition includes repairing the CarFax and making any paint work undetectable by a mil gauge.

Also undetectable to the average used car manager/inspector/appraiser. Good luck with that.

Why are repairs detectable? Well, the only logical answer is that the condition has not been returned to original. Close, but no cigar.

qbrozen

If paintwork is involved, it just can't be returned to factory condition. 

andres3

Another good example is diamonds. To the naked untrained eye, most diamonds look the same (at the same size and cut), but the colorless and flawless diamond is worth more.

It might take a specialist to tell the color rating and internal blemish rating apart from another, but that doesn't mean there is no difference in value.

My definition of diminished value would be if an expert can detect repairs. The market views previously repaired vehicles badly, hence the diminished value.

Insurance companies want you to believe something that looks the same from a mile away is "returned to original" condition.

cdnpinhead

The fact is that the moment your precious new or not-so-new car requires major maintenance by the dealer, a bodyshop, or anyone else, it'll never be the same. You can like it or not, but that's the way it is, particularly with today's vehicles that are designed for quick assembly, not maintainability.

Many are the times I've worked later on a vehicle that the dealer or bodyshop "fixed," only to find missing fasteners, washers, or whatever.

It's a crapshoot. OMG, it's "not fair."

Duh

andres3

cdnpinhead said:

The fact is that the moment your precious new or not-so-new car requires major maintenance by the dealer, a bodyshop, or anyone else, it'll never be the same. You can like it or not, but that's the way it is, particularly with today's vehicles that are designed for quick assembly, not maintainability.

Many are the times I've worked later on a vehicle that the dealer or bodyshop "fixed," only to find missing fasteners, washers, or whatever.

It's a crapshoot. OMG, it's "not fair."

Duh

That's why I choose reliable models. And independent shops that try not to lose fasteners or forget to put them on. Shops that care.

What you can't control, is other people's negligence, and it is harder to find a good body shop than it is a good repair shop (or so it seems).

Mr_Shiftright

Cars are liabilities, not assets. They depreciate no matter what.

explorerx4

My recently traded truck is fully for sale(pictures and everything).
Carfax is somewhat interesting(at least to me).
I keep my own records.
Rear window defroster stopped working. so had to be replaced.
It's listed only as maintenance.
Had service done on 11-1 last year.
That date is listed, but another service is listed on 11-17 with mileage I had on 11-1.
Hockey stick stripes don't show up well in he pictures.
https://www.monacoford.com/VehicleDetails/certified-2014-Ford-F_150-FX4-Glastonbury-CT/3170676373

qbrozen

Pretty pricey. 

At the same time, the market on F150 is so strange. The year just doesn't seem to matter. For example, 2014s and 2017s are worth damned near the same.

kyfdx

Shopping for used F-150s is like shopping for used Hondas.

corvette

Yeah, and the 2017 is a newer design. His 2014 has really low miles for the year, and it's a nice looking truck.

stickguy

My daughters BF closed the deal tonight on a 2015 Silverado. Too bad he already stretched the budget to the max, because a 2017 with a lot fewer miles was only about $6K more.

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

Cars are liabilities, not assets. They depreciate no matter what.

Don't all assets depreciate? Even housing, if you look at a certain years here or there.

My house built in 1960 will have little that is original left by 2020.

Mr_Shiftright

Certainly not all. There are longterm assets, and short term assets. You can certainly add value to an asset as well.

My point is that as a car ages, your ability to protect its value diminishes, or it just doesn't pay to protect its value anymore.

In terms of DV, a car reaches a point in its life where it is difficult to argue that DV is any longer a factor, nor is a CARFAX ding.

The reason DV has been so controversial is because it has so many variables, it is difficult to quantify.

breld

Uh oh. Should I put on my CPA hat and speak of assets and liabilities?

Mr_Shiftright

Please. I'm out of bluffs.

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

Certainly not all. There are longterm assets, and short term assets. You can certainly add value to an asset as well.

My point is that as a car ages, your ability to protect its value diminishes, or it just doesn't pay to protect its value anymore.

In terms of DV, a car reaches a point in its life where it is difficult to argue that DV is any longer a factor, nor is a CARFAX ding.

The reason DV has been so controversial is because it has so many variables, it is difficult to quantify.

I get that. But to me the arguments are all pretty darn weak against DV.

I suppose we need a law to clarify that the loss will be defined as the total loss at the time and date of the collision. That eliminates the "what if you keep it 10 more years" argument. Not sure why we need a law for this though, should be pretty straight-forward as why you would choose any other date to determine loss is beyond me.

I suppose we could enact a law that says DV only applies to vehicles less than 7 years or 100,000 miles old.

I suppose we could enact a law that says DV will be calculated using certain defined methodologies to determine value short of requiring a sale (or force the Insurance company to make the purchase thereby creating the sale at whatever DV they wish to use (doesn't effect the victim that way). Example. DV is 1,000 for my S4. OK , Mr. Insurance company, have it your way on the DV, since my Insurance company proclaimed the "totalled" value of my vehicle to be $48,000, please send me a check for $47,000 and the vehicle is yours!

The risk should be put on the negligent party, not on the owner/victim. Forcing Insurance companies to "buy-back" DV cars would be a great equalizer and honesty enforcer! Suddenly, I think you'll see low-ball bad-faith DV offers go out the window. Don't offer too little, the owner might just call your bluff!

We NEED THIS LAW enacted.

I've been on both sides of the coin as to what I wanted to do.

I had a '92 Honda that was bashed and I fought fiercely not to have it totaled and to have it repaired, and keep it. I felt it was worth more than book.

I had a '14 Audi that I fought to have totaled, or at least a fair DV paid out so that I could total/sell it myself after the repairs were made without going bankrupt.

My law would be a free-market approach to determining DV value. Sort of how Vegas figures odds on sports. Get too many bets going one direction, and the market has spoken, and the odds are changed. Why can't Insurance do this?

kyfdx

I'll take a pass on the new laws, and the resulting increase in auto insurance premiums.

I'd rather put the money into defensive driving classes. You get into a lot of accidents!

andres3

kyfdx said:

I'll take a pass on the new laws, and the resulting increase in auto insurance premiums.

I'd rather put the money into defensive driving classes. You get into a lot of accidents!

Me???? No, I get a lot of tickets, but into very few accidents, and zero at-fault accidents.

The uninsured incidents were all not-at-fault and happened to my wife (but I handled the claims as I'm the Insurance expert in the family).

The under-insured DV incident did happen to me and that was over 3 years ago now. Happened in March of 2014. At-Fault driver in the Lexus was 1,000% at-fault and the Small Claims court judge agreed, awarding me ultimately 100% of the court costs, fees, 3rd party service processing charges, my rental car costs, my $1,000 deductible and $3,000 in DV damages.

So in my sample size of 1 the Courts have spoken. That small claims judge might as well have been the Supreme Court as far as I'm concerned. Anyone tries to deny a DV claim in the future will get sued with the quickness, as I'm confident in my 100% win rate, and why shouldn't I be given that win percentage?

Before that, the last not-at-fault accident I had must have been about 10 years ago, when a La Mesa PD officer on a Harley gouged my rear bumper on the A3. I'm pretty good at avoiding the bad drivers in CA; better than most I'd say. Still, you can't avoid them all.

So when it comes to collisions, LAW Enforcement 1, Andres 0, where the lower score is better. So I will not get off my high-horse when I speak about law enforcement doing more harm than good.

andres3

kyfdx said:

I'll take a pass on the new laws, and the resulting increase in auto insurance premiums.

I'd rather put the money into defensive driving classes. You get into a lot of accidents!

Auto insurance premiums have been going up everywhere anyway. Might as well get some relevant coverage that pays back some of those premiums for it!

Sandman6472

Totaling out my Golf is looking more and more like a reality. An adjuster is going back this afternoon for more pics but according to the lead adjuster, " with the supplement price difference car will most likely be total because my estimate was cutting it close." So my question for Q, what amount might I get when all is said and done if it's totaled? Just curious as I will have to kick in the difference on any newer vehicle I get, be it either brand new or used? Not a real fan of used but only saw one unit at the Hyundai store, a 2017 Elantra GT with just over 17K miles for about $17.5K. Needs some paint work around the hatch opener on the rear door. Interior looked pretty clean as was the rest of the vehicle. It's a gray over black cloth unit with bolt on wheel covers. Not too bad but also saw a new 2018 Elantra Special Edition for just over $21K that had a lot of equipment. But even with the nicer alloys and the leather steering wheel, still looks too much like the rental Elantra SE we have at Hertz. Not sure I'd want that but on it's side, it also included a moonroof, something I've grown accustomed to.
You've given me a figure of $14.5K as recently as a couple of weeks ago. Hoping that that amount is still doable. Thanks again for your help Q. Basically, just want this chapter over but have to make a logical and correct decision going forward as won't make that Tucson mistake again. My wife already threw that at me earlier this morning after I told her that they might total the Golf.

The Sandman

explorerx4

That was a pretty pricey truck for a 2014. It pretty much had every option and the sticker was over 51k.

qbrozen

sandman_6472 said:

Totaling out my Golf is looking more and more like a reality. An adjuster is going back this afternoon for more pics but according to the lead adjuster, " with the supplement price difference car will most likely be total because my estimate was cutting it close." So my question for Q, what amount might I get when all is said and done if it's totaled? Just curious as I will have to kick in the difference on any newer vehicle I get, be it either brand new or used? Not a real fan of used but only saw one unit at the Hyundai store, a 2017 Elantra GT with just over 17K miles for about $17.5K. Needs some paint work around the hatch opener on the rear door. Interior looked pretty clean as was the rest of the vehicle. It's a gray over black cloth unit with bolt on wheel covers. Not too bad but also saw a new 2018 Elantra Special Edition for just over $21K that had a lot of equipment. But even with the nicer alloys and the leather steering wheel, still looks too much like the rental Elantra SE we have at Hertz. Not sure I'd want that but on it's side, it also included a moonroof, something I've grown accustomed to. You've given me a figure of $14.5K as recently as a couple of weeks ago. Hoping that that amount is still doable. Thanks again for your help Q. Basically, just want this chapter over but have to make a logical and correct decision going forward as won't make that Tucson mistake again. My wife already threw that at me earlier this morning after I told her that they might total the Golf. The Sandman

I'm sure it hasn't changed but you'll have to give me all the details again.

qbrozen

That's an absurd price on the Elantra. 2017 with 17k is $14.5k tops. Take into account the condition you describe and I'd be hard pressed to cough up $13.5k. Just find a clean one.

Is it gray? A gray low condition with 17,239 crossed Orlando for $11.4k. So my $13.5k isn't off base.

stickguy

plus he would quickly learn to hate it. Sandy should not be looking at a ratty car with steelies and hub caps.

nyccarguy

explorerx4 said:

That was a pretty pricey truck for a 2014. It pretty much had every option and the sticker was over 51k.

What did you pay wY back when?  

That's really a great looking truck!  Are you happy with the new one?

explorerx4

@nyc,
First congrats on your son's team winning their tournament.
My new boss sent me a video of his son scoring the tying goal in a high school league championship game.
Back to the link I posted, I paid just over 40, plus taxes and doc fee.
New truck is great. Still finding new features just about every day.
Thought I might try out the 4wd today, but no snow accumulated, so the roads were just wet.

nyccarguy

@explorerx4 - barely any snow here either.  They cancelled school.  It's ridiculous.

stickguy

PU pricing seems weird. And like some Hondas, make a ton more sense to buy new.

you can get massive discounts on a new one, but used ones seem to barely go down at all.

qbrozen

Actually, I think 1 yr old is the sweet spot. Mine is already valued at its residual another 15 mos from now. 

rmsokrates

2016 Honda Odyssey EX 14,200 miles. Want to downsize to CR-V. Dealer offering 22k. Is this a good offer? KBB is 22k

Michaell

rmsokrates said:

2016 Honda Odyssey EX 14,200 miles. Want to downsize to CR-V. Dealer offering 22k. Is this a good offer? KBB is 22k

Color, inside and out?
Condition?
Location?

rmsokrates

2016 Honda Odyssey EX 14,200 miles: condition is excellent; color outside is smokey topaz; color inside is grey or beige; location baltimore, MD

rmsokrates

Michaell said:

rmsokrates said:

2016 Honda Odyssey EX 14,200 miles. Want to downsize to CR-V. Dealer offering 22k. Is this a good offer? KBB is 22k

Color, inside and out? out: Smokey Topaz; In: beige or gray
Condition? Excellent condition
Location?

: Baltimore, MD

qbrozen

$22k is a top offer. They obviously want to keep it for their own lot.

rmsokrates

qbrozen said:

$22k is a top offer. They obviously want to keep it for their own lot.

Edmunds shows 22.9 for the car in excellent condition (which it is). Should I push for more (it is a Honda Dealer)?