Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations

stickguy

not quite sure what the purpose of those window covers is, unless you just want to take away any rear quarter visibility!

stickguy

suydam said:

The main thing about repainting is everything just looks cleaner and brighter. I don’t do it myself anymore though.

I always noticed that when I repainted a room. when you pull everything off the walls, you realize how dirty they get (and dusty behind furniture). Just cleaning at that point would be a big improvement! and when you are done obviously it is all freshly cleaned.

explorerx4

They will probably end up in a high risk insurance pool.

stickguy

I recall the insurance agents being very clear about the rules around teenage drivers, so I was never willing to take that risk. Closest I came was accidently forgetting to mention when a kid happened to have a car with them at college. Though they were assigned to that car on the policy so they should be allowed to use it!

ab348

dad23 said:

Our youngest had a pretty cool experience over the past few weeks. He bought a roof rack from a local company a couple of months ago and they reached out to him to see if they could use his Sequoia to spec out new window racks. After a few visits, one to laser measure and another to test fit, they made a few tweaks and set him up with a free pair for his time and travel. They also took pictures for their website to display the new racks. The installer joked about him having the only 1st gen Sequoia in the world with a set of Sherpa window racks

I’m not sure I understand the purpose/use of window racks. All I can tell is that they would seem to really impair rear visibility.

nyccarguy

roadburner said:

@nyccarguy said:

File this one under, play stupid games & win stupid prizes:

A relative of a friend of mine is in some deep doo-doo. They leased their 16 year old a Korean Electric vehicle. The 16 year old was distracted, not paying attention, & rear ended an SUV. There is damage to the SUV, but the low slung Korean electric EV has a lot of damage. No air bag deployment, but both headlights, the hood, front 1/4 panels, bumper cover, bumper support... need to be replaced. Here's where the deep doo-doo part comes in. They didn't tell the insurance company that they had a 16 year old licensed driver in the house because they knew their rates were going to skyrocket. Now the insurance company is denying the collision claim to fix the Korean Car because the driver was not on the policy. I believe they are fixing the guy's SUV under liability. Any advice?

In the early ‘80s I clerked for one of the biggest insurance defense firms in Kentucky. Later on I owned part of an independent insurance agency. All this by way of telling you that I’m virtually certain that your friend’s relative is screwed. The case law is clear that an insured’s failure to report a change in circumstances that increases the risk of loss gives the insurer the right to deny coverage. On top of that, the insurance company will almost certainly refuse to renew the policy- or even cancel it outright. At that point, good luck finding coverage at anything close to a reasonable cost.

Thanks!

kyfdx

Can’t you detach them to use as traction boards, for when you get stuck?

explorerx4

@stickguy,
The insurance company wants to know if the car is not kept in the area it is insured for.

driver100

nyccarguy said:

File this one under, play stupid games & win stupid prizes:

A relative of a friend of mine is in some deep doo-doo. They leased their 16 year old a Korean Electric vehicle. The 16 year old was distracted, not paying attention, & rear ended an SUV. There is damage to the SUV, but the low slung Korean electric EV has a lot of damage. No air bag deployment, but both headlights, the hood, front 1/4 panels, bumper cover, bumper support... need to be replaced. Here's where the deep doo-doo part comes in. They didn't tell the insurance company that they had a 16 year old licensed driver in the house because they knew their rates were going to skyrocket. Now the insurance company is denying the collision claim to fix the Korean Car because the driver was not on the policy. I believe they are fixing the guy's SUV under liability. Any advice?

yeh, next time be sure to put anyone who drives the car on the insurance policy, especially a 16 year old.....what did they think would happen?
I see people on Judge Judy who drive without insurance. She usually finds them guilty since they obviously don't follow the laws. In most cases they don't think about the damage they could do if they get into an accident. Surprisingly, a lot of them don't even have a license but they actually drive a car....and of course try to lie their way out of an accident.

driver100

abacomike said:

I took my Genesis into service to have them replace the "GENESIS" lettering on the trunk of the car because the middle "E" fell off somewhere.

I just prefer driving a car that says "GENESIS" on the trunk rather than "GENSIS" or "GENESI"!

Next time just shorten it to GENI.....less chance of a letter falling off!

driver100

kyfdx said:

Can’t you detach them to use as traction boards, for when you get stuck?

How about snowboarding if you come across a mountain with snow?

mjfloyd1

@ab348 said:
I’m not sure I understand the purpose/use of window racks. All I can tell is that they would seem to really impair rear visibility.

Aren’t they attachment points for fuel cans, etc?

corvette

@nyccarguy - auto insurance and the laws surrounding it are state specific, so they might want to talk to a local attorney familiar with them. I'm a little surprised they are providing liability coverage for the damage to the vehicle the kid hit, although in my state, there is case law that says that even if a car is stolen, if it has an active policy on it, the carrier has to at least provide the state minimum limits for liability for an accident caused by the person who stole the car. My state also allows policies to contain a "permissive user step-down" of limits, so I could have a policy that gives me $500k/$1M liability limits, but it drops down to $25k/$50k if I lend my car to someone who is not listed on the policy.

I'm sure the carrier sent a reservation of rights letter to the policyholder in regard to the liability claim. I agree they will probably be nonrenewed or cancelled.

imidazol97

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays. Enjoy the season.

driver100

@imidazol97 Great card

snakeweasel

tjc78 said:

Hey everyone! Checking in tonight as the next few days will be crazy.

I hope everyone has a wonderful Christmas and Hanukkah! I’m taking my family and sister in law’s family to dinner for Xmas Eve in Philly tomorrow night and then a quiet dinner on Christmas with just my family.

Despite some craziness with my career we are going to still have the best time we can over the next few days and are thankful for all we have.

If anyone is traveling be safe!

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Festivus for the rest of us and anything else I missed.

Tom

And a merry Christmas to you as well as all my poster friends here.

oldfarmer50

nyccarguy said:

File this one under, play stupid games & win stupid prizes:

A relative of a friend of mine is in some deep doo-doo. They leased their 16 year old a Korean Electric vehicle. The 16 year old was distracted, not paying attention, & rear ended an SUV. There is damage to the SUV, but the low slung Korean electric EV has a lot of damage. No air bag deployment, but both headlights, the hood, front 1/4 panels, bumper cover, bumper support... need to be replaced. Here's where the deep doo-doo part comes in. They didn't tell the insurance company that they had a 16 year old licensed driver in the house because they knew their rates were going to skyrocket. Now the insurance company is denying the collision claim to fix the Korean Car because the driver was not on the policy. I believe they are fixing the guy's SUV under liability. Any advice?

Claim the 16 yo stole it. If this happened in NY they don’t prosecute car thieves.😥

snakeweasel

It's Christmas eve, the grand kids flew in from Florida (oh yeah the daughter did too). I am sitting here by the fireplace with a brandy sniffer filled with grandpas special eggnog, you know the kind the grands kids are not supposed to drink. Well the youngest grandchild had a toy that has a bunch of bubbles you push in and there is a block on the back that you can use to push them out. Well they went out and I spied the yoy on the table and started playing with it myself and quickly noticed there was a battery compartment. So as any good grandpa would do I put batteries in it. Now it lights up and makes a lot of noises with a few games that it has programed it.

Well they came back and my granddaughter grabbed the toy and found out that it now alive. She went upstairs to her mom and and started playing with it with all the wonderful noises. My daughter came down and thanked me for putting batteries in it.

My doctor said I should make a complete recovery.

roadburner

roadburner

roadburner

jmonroe1

snakeweasel said:

It's Christmas eve, the grand kids flew in from Florida (oh yeah the daughter did too). I am sitting here by the fireplace with a brandy sniffer filled with grandpas special eggnog, you know the kind the grands kids are not supposed to drink. Well the youngest grandchild had a toy that has a bunch of bubbles you push in and there is a block on the back that you can use to push them out. Well they went out and I spied the yoy on the table and started playing with it myself and quickly noticed there was a battery compartment. So as any good grandpa would do I put batteries in it. Now it lights up and makes a lot of noises with a few games that it has programed it.

Well they came back and my granddaughter grabbed the toy and found out that it now alive. She went upstairs to her mom and and started playing with it with all the wonderful noises. My daughter came down and thanked me for putting batteries in it.

My doctor said I should make a complete recovery.

————————————————
We always knew you were good for making noise.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to all my poster buddies.

jmonroe

jmonroe1

roadburner said:

————————————————
Looks like a snowmobile that should work all the time but it could also be good for making mixed drinks and milkshakes too for a chubby Santa Claus on a busy night.

jmonroe

oldfarmer50

jmonroe1 said:

roadburner said:

————————————————
Looks like a snowmobile that should work all the time but it could also be good for making mixed drinks and milkshakes too for a chubby Santa Claus on a busy night.

jmonroe

They were ahead of the curve.



Merry Christmas!

graphicguy

qbrozen said:

@nyccarguy said:

File this one under, play stupid games & win stupid prizes:

A relative of a friend of mine is in some deep doo-doo. They leased their 16 year old a Korean Electric vehicle. The 16 year old was distracted, not paying attention, & rear ended an SUV. There is damage to the SUV, but the low slung Korean electric EV has a lot of damage. No air bag deployment, but both headlights, the hood, front 1/4 panels, bumper cover, bumper support... need to be replaced. Here's where the deep doo-doo part comes in. They didn't tell the insurance company that they had a 16 year old licensed driver in the house because they knew their rates were going to skyrocket. Now the insurance company is denying the collision claim to fix the Korean Car because the driver was not on the policy. I believe they are fixing the guy's SUV under liability. Any advice?

Oof. I’m not sure, to be honest. On one hand, you can lend your car to someone and it is still covered (check policy under permissive use). So saying he isn’t on the policy is not a legit argument, I don’t think. On the other hand, they didn’t tell their insurance about a licensed driver in the household. The insurance probably has a leg to stand on to drop them completely.

Agree....this scenario doesn't leave much hope for insurance to cover anything for the young driver. True no matter what he was driving.

Laws being different state to state, my sister went through this same scenario about a dozen years ago. Trying to save money on insurance. 17 year old niece had a fender bender. Insurance dropped my niece and my sister as a result. They covered nothing. Ended up being a ~$10K mistake, plus having to buy high risk, very expensive state mandated insurance.

I get it. My son's insurance rate was crazy high when he was 16. At 17 he had an accident. Had to change to a high risk policy until he turned 18. It was not cheap.

But, the alternative is a hope and a prayer that the young driver won't have an accident. I forget the odds but odds of a teen having an accident are very high.

So, insurance is going to deny the claim. They may even drop the entire policy on everyone as the policy was written with the understanding the insured was being honest, which they obviously weren't.

Matter of fact, I'm kind of surprised the policy is covering the other person's car.

snakeweasel

oldfarmer50 said:

jmonroe1 said:

roadburner said:

————————————————
Looks like a snowmobile that should work all the time but it could also be good for making mixed drinks and milkshakes too for a chubby Santa Claus on a busy night.

jmonroe

They were ahead of the curve.



Merry Christmas!

How can the Altima be AWD when it doesn't have wheels?

snakeweasel

graphicguy said:

qbrozen said:

@nyccarguy said:

File this one under, play stupid games & win stupid prizes:

A relative of a friend of mine is in some deep doo-doo. They leased their 16 year old a Korean Electric vehicle. The 16 year old was distracted, not paying attention, & rear ended an SUV. There is damage to the SUV, but the low slung Korean electric EV has a lot of damage. No air bag deployment, but both headlights, the hood, front 1/4 panels, bumper cover, bumper support... need to be replaced. Here's where the deep doo-doo part comes in. They didn't tell the insurance company that they had a 16 year old licensed driver in the house because they knew their rates were going to skyrocket. Now the insurance company is denying the collision claim to fix the Korean Car because the driver was not on the policy. I believe they are fixing the guy's SUV under liability. Any advice?

Oof. I’m not sure, to be honest. On one hand, you can lend your car to someone and it is still covered (check policy under permissive use). So saying he isn’t on the policy is not a legit argument, I don’t think. On the other hand, they didn’t tell their insurance about a licensed driver in the household. The insurance probably has a leg to stand on to drop them completely.

Agree....this scenario doesn't leave much hope for insurance to cover anything for the young driver. True no matter what he was driving.

Laws being different state to state, my sister went through this same scenario about a dozen years ago. Trying to save money on insurance. 17 year old niece had a fender bender. Insurance dropped my niece and my sister as a result. They covered nothing. Ended up being a ~$10K mistake, plus having to buy high risk, very expensive state mandated insurance.

I get it. My son's insurance rate was crazy high when he was 16. At 17 he had an accident. Had to change to a high risk policy until he turned 18. It was not cheap.

But, the alternative is a hope and a prayer that the young driver won't have an accident. I forget the odds but odds of a teen having an accident are very high.

So, insurance is going to deny the claim. They may even drop the entire policy on everyone as the policy was written with the understanding the insured was being honest, which they obviously weren't.

Matter of fact, I'm kind of surprised the policy is covering the other person's car.



I would say contact your local bar association, most counties have a local bar association, they can get you in contact with a lawyer that specializes in your situation and could give you a consultation. That being said I don't think they have a leg to stand on since they basically lied to the insurance company about their 16 year old driver. Now while policies do cover any driver of the car they do require listing all drivers in the household.

The question that I had that isn't being asked is how this will affect the turning in of the car at the end of the lease?

explorerx4

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

jmonroe1

snakeweasel said:

oldfarmer50 said:

jmonroe1 said:

roadburner said:

————————————————
Looks like a snowmobile that should work all the time but it could also be good for making mixed drinks and milkshakes too for a chubby Santa Claus on a busy night.

jmonroe

They were ahead of the curve.



Merry Christmas!

How can the Altima be AWD when it doesn't have wheels?

————————————————
In some areas triangles count.

jmonroe

mlevine

On one of my assignments and working today. Not a fan of hotel breakfast. Down the block Sheetz was open. Had the breakfast sandwich which was an English Muffin with eggs and maple chicken sausage. Not bad. Coffee free from Christmas Eve to New Years. Price was right at $5.

driver100

snakeweasel said:

oldfarmer50 said:

jmonroe1 said:

roadburner said:

————————————————
Looks like a snowmobile that should work all the time but it could also be good for making mixed drinks and milkshakes too for a chubby Santa Claus on a busy night.

jmonroe

They were ahead of the curve.



Merry Christmas!

How can the Altima be AWD when it doesn't have wheels?

4TD........4 Track Drive.

driver100

explorerx4 said:

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

I haven't leased for a long time, so I am just throwing this out there.
MrsD100s 2004 Mercedes wagon was rear ended in about 2006.
When we traded the car in we had to sign a document that the car had never been in an accident. Since it was in an accident we gave them that information.
The car was completely repaired, but the trade in value was less....they knocked off a few $thousand because of the accident.
If what you say is true, and I am not saying it isn't, it would be better to lease a car, if they don't discount the value because of an accident.

Michaell

driver100 said:

explorerx4 said:

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

I haven't leased for a long time, so I am just throwing this out there.
MrsD100s 2004 Mercedes wagon was rear ended in about 2006.
When we traded the car in we had to sign a document that the car had never been in an accident. Since it was in an accident we gave them that information.
The car was completely repaired, but the trade in value was less....they knocked off a few $thousand because of the accident.
If what you say is true, and I am not saying it isn't, it would be better to lease a car, if they don't discount the value because of an accident.

I've leased a number of cars over the years, and have had accidents (both major and minor) with some of them.

Never once has that affected my turn in process at lease end.

driver100

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

explorerx4 said:

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

I haven't leased for a long time, so I am just throwing this out there.
MrsD100s 2004 Mercedes wagon was rear ended in about 2006.
When we traded the car in we had to sign a document that the car had never been in an accident. Since it was in an accident we gave them that information.
The car was completely repaired, but the trade in value was less....they knocked off a few $thousand because of the accident.
If what you say is true, and I am not saying it isn't, it would be better to lease a car, if they don't discount the value because of an accident.

I've leased a number of cars over the years, and have had accidents (both major and minor) with some of them.

Never once has that affected my turn in process at lease end.

Maybe it is better to lease than to own then, especially if you have lots of accidents

stickguy

It depends on the type of lease, open end or closed end. Most are closed so residual is fixed and you can turn in and walk away, just getting dinged for active damage.

corvette

Yeah, I think the bigger concern is insurance not covering the cost to repair the car.

Michaell

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

explorerx4 said:

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

I haven't leased for a long time, so I am just throwing this out there.
MrsD100s 2004 Mercedes wagon was rear ended in about 2006.
When we traded the car in we had to sign a document that the car had never been in an accident. Since it was in an accident we gave them that information.
The car was completely repaired, but the trade in value was less....they knocked off a few $thousand because of the accident.
If what you say is true, and I am not saying it isn't, it would be better to lease a car, if they don't discount the value because of an accident.

I've leased a number of cars over the years, and have had accidents (both major and minor) with some of them.

Never once has that affected my turn in process at lease end.

Maybe it is better to lease than to own then, especially if you have lots of accidents

I've owned my current car for almost 10 years now. No accidents but I did get a significant ding in the front driver fender from someone at Target who seemingly didn't know how to park their vehicle.

driver100

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

explorerx4 said:

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

I haven't leased for a long time, so I am just throwing this out there.
MrsD100s 2004 Mercedes wagon was rear ended in about 2006.
When we traded the car in we had to sign a document that the car had never been in an accident. Since it was in an accident we gave them that information.
The car was completely repaired, but the trade in value was less....they knocked off a few $thousand because of the accident.
If what you say is true, and I am not saying it isn't, it would be better to lease a car, if they don't discount the value because of an accident.

I've leased a number of cars over the years, and have had accidents (both major and minor) with some of them.

Never once has that affected my turn in process at lease end.

Maybe it is better to lease than to own then, especially if you have lots of accidents

I've owned my current car for almost 10 years now. No accidents but I did get a significant ding in the front driver fender from someone at Target who seemingly didn't know how to park their vehicle.

I like Costco....extra wide parking spaces! Walmart has the narrowest. I try to avoid Walmart but if I have to go there I park far away from the store in a deserted spot. I also find they don't like to put their buggies in a coral there either, they leave them in a parking space.

driver100

Well I am sorry to report I didn't win the $940 million Mega Millions Lottery last night. If I had won I would have bought a baby Bentley and I would have wished you all well and told you I had enjoyed knowing you....but, I am still around.
No one won so next week the lottery will be over $1 Billion, maybe it will be a blessing that I win next week instead.
I haven't bought a lottery ticket in years, there's more chance of getting struck by lightening. Besides, if I take the cash the $940 million becomes $600 million, after taxes maybe $400 million, kind of a rip off.

driver100

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

explorerx4 said:

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

I haven't leased for a long time, so I am just throwing this out there.
MrsD100s 2004 Mercedes wagon was rear ended in about 2006.
When we traded the car in we had to sign a document that the car had never been in an accident. Since it was in an accident we gave them that information.
The car was completely repaired, but the trade in value was less....they knocked off a few $thousand because of the accident.
If what you say is true, and I am not saying it isn't, it would be better to lease a car, if they don't discount the value because of an accident.

I've leased a number of cars over the years, and have had accidents (both major and minor) with some of them.

Never once has that affected my turn in process at lease end.

Maybe it is better to lease than to own then, especially if you have lots of accidents

I've owned my current car for almost 10 years now. No accidents but I did get a significant ding in the front driver fender from someone at Target who seemingly didn't know how to park their vehicle.

When I traded in the last few cars I had to sign the trade-in was not in an actual accident. For dings they do a walk around. But in the case of some structural damage, though the car was repaired through the insurance company, they reduced the value of the trade-in because it had been in an accident. Maybe that is only in Canada.

On a related but other topic. A friend in Florida said his windshield was smashed and his insurance company replaced it with one that wasn't original equipment...it was made in China.
He said he hated it, it distorted objects at the sides and he had to replace it again...himself.

jmonroe1

driver100 said:

Well I am sorry to report I didn't win the $940 million Mega Millions Lottery last night. If I had won I would have bought a baby Bentley and I would have wished you all well and told you I had enjoyed knowing you....but, I am still around.
No one won so next week the lottery will be over $1 Billion, maybe it will be a blessing that I win next week instead.
I haven't bought a lottery ticket in years, there's more chance of getting struck by lightening. Besides, if I take the cash the $940 million becomes $600 million, after taxes maybe $400 million, kind of a rip off.

————————————————
You’re right. Why bother?

I just thought of this. What are the odds of the lottery ever reaching $1 trillion? Probably something like being hit by lightning twice while walking on Jupiter on a sunny day.

jmonroe

Michaell

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

explorerx4 said:

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

I haven't leased for a long time, so I am just throwing this out there.
MrsD100s 2004 Mercedes wagon was rear ended in about 2006.
When we traded the car in we had to sign a document that the car had never been in an accident. Since it was in an accident we gave them that information.
The car was completely repaired, but the trade in value was less....they knocked off a few $thousand because of the accident.
If what you say is true, and I am not saying it isn't, it would be better to lease a car, if they don't discount the value because of an accident.

I've leased a number of cars over the years, and have had accidents (both major and minor) with some of them.

Never once has that affected my turn in process at lease end.

Maybe it is better to lease than to own then, especially if you have lots of accidents

I've owned my current car for almost 10 years now. No accidents but I did get a significant ding in the front driver fender from someone at Target who seemingly didn't know how to park their vehicle.

When I traded in the last few cars I had to sign the trade-in was not in an actual accident. For dings they do a walk around. But in the case of some structural damage, though the car was repaired through the insurance company, they reduced the value of the trade-in because it had been in an accident. Maybe that is only in Canada.

On a related but other topic. A friend in Florida said his windshield was smashed and his insurance company replaced it with one that wasn't original equipment...it was made in China.
He said he hated it, it distorted objects at the sides and he had to replace it again...himself.

If you are trading in a car you own, I can see having to sign that type of document.

With a lease, I'm not the owner - the bank is. I'm just "borrowing" the car for a certain period of time and miles. So long as the car is in good condition when I turn it in, it's the banks problem to deal with diminished value.

Which is a thing in the US, as well.

snakeweasel

jmonroe1 said:

driver100 said:

Well I am sorry to report I didn't win the $940 million Mega Millions Lottery last night. If I had won I would have bought a baby Bentley and I would have wished you all well and told you I had enjoyed knowing you....but, I am still around.
No one won so next week the lottery will be over $1 Billion, maybe it will be a blessing that I win next week instead.
I haven't bought a lottery ticket in years, there's more chance of getting struck by lightening. Besides, if I take the cash the $940 million becomes $600 million, after taxes maybe $400 million, kind of a rip off.

————————————————
You’re right. Why bother?

I just thought of this. What are the odds of the lottery ever reaching $1 trillion? Probably something like being hit by lightning twice while walking on Jupiter on a sunny day.

jmonroe

Back when the lotteries started up it was usually $1 million and $10 million was a big pot. I remember playing in the largest jackpot in history back in the 80's IIRC it was around $20 million give or take. Who would have thought back then that we would have billion dollar lottery jackpots

driver100

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

explorerx4 said:

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

I haven't leased for a long time, so I am just throwing this out there.
MrsD100s 2004 Mercedes wagon was rear ended in about 2006.
When we traded the car in we had to sign a document that the car had never been in an accident. Since it was in an accident we gave them that information.
The car was completely repaired, but the trade in value was less....they knocked off a few $thousand because of the accident.
If what you say is true, and I am not saying it isn't, it would be better to lease a car, if they don't discount the value because of an accident.

I've leased a number of cars over the years, and have had accidents (both major and minor) with some of them.

Never once has that affected my turn in process at lease end.

Maybe it is better to lease than to own then, especially if you have lots of accidents

I've owned my current car for almost 10 years now. No accidents but I did get a significant ding in the front driver fender from someone at Target who seemingly didn't know how to park their vehicle.

When I traded in the last few cars I had to sign the trade-in was not in an actual accident. For dings they do a walk around. But in the case of some structural damage, though the car was repaired through the insurance company, they reduced the value of the trade-in because it had been in an accident. Maybe that is only in Canada.

On a related but other topic. A friend in Florida said his windshield was smashed and his insurance company replaced it with one that wasn't original equipment...it was made in China.
He said he hated it, it distorted objects at the sides and he had to replace it again...himself.

If you are trading in a car you own, I can see having to sign that type of document.

With a lease, I'm not the owner - the bank is. I'm just "borrowing" the car for a certain period of time and miles. So long as the car is in good condition when I turn it in, it's the banks problem to deal with diminished value.

Which is a thing in the US, as well.

Good explanation.......I am surprised the real owner of the car - the bank in this case, allows that. These days most businesses close any loopholes, though they probably sell the cars off to a specific dealer for a set price anyway. The dealer gets everything, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Michaell

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

explorerx4 said:

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

I haven't leased for a long time, so I am just throwing this out there.
MrsD100s 2004 Mercedes wagon was rear ended in about 2006.
When we traded the car in we had to sign a document that the car had never been in an accident. Since it was in an accident we gave them that information.
The car was completely repaired, but the trade in value was less....they knocked off a few $thousand because of the accident.
If what you say is true, and I am not saying it isn't, it would be better to lease a car, if they don't discount the value because of an accident.

I've leased a number of cars over the years, and have had accidents (both major and minor) with some of them.

Never once has that affected my turn in process at lease end.

Maybe it is better to lease than to own then, especially if you have lots of accidents

I've owned my current car for almost 10 years now. No accidents but I did get a significant ding in the front driver fender from someone at Target who seemingly didn't know how to park their vehicle.

When I traded in the last few cars I had to sign the trade-in was not in an actual accident. For dings they do a walk around. But in the case of some structural damage, though the car was repaired through the insurance company, they reduced the value of the trade-in because it had been in an accident. Maybe that is only in Canada.

On a related but other topic. A friend in Florida said his windshield was smashed and his insurance company replaced it with one that wasn't original equipment...it was made in China.
He said he hated it, it distorted objects at the sides and he had to replace it again...himself.

If you are trading in a car you own, I can see having to sign that type of document.

With a lease, I'm not the owner - the bank is. I'm just "borrowing" the car for a certain period of time and miles. So long as the car is in good condition when I turn it in, it's the banks problem to deal with diminished value.

Which is a thing in the US, as well.

Good explanation.......I am surprised the real owner of the car - the bank in this case, allows that. These days most businesses close any loopholes, though they probably sell the cars off to a specific dealer for a set price anyway. The dealer gets everything, the good, the bad and the ugly.

The banks have insurance policies, so if the market value of the car is less than the contracted residual value, the bank gets the difference. With the volumes of vehicles that they lease, they rarely lose out.

And yes, dealers often get first crack at lease returns - often, at a price less than the residual value.

Which is why most brands have started to disallow lessors from "selling" their car to Carmax, etc., or to a different branded dealer to capture any lease equity.

stickguy

I don’t Think a dealer can make you do that. Or just fill it out as unknown. Really should be up to the dealer to inspect the car if they are concerned about it.

roadburner

We drove up to northern KY today to visit my wife's family. Only a few members of the Anti-Destination League were stationed on I-75 and holding up traffic. On the way home I noticed a Graphite Gray W204 C Class closing on me at a rapid clip. I moved into the right lane and the W204 pulled even with me,. The driver lowered the (heavily tinted) passenger window and gave me a big thumbs-up and a smile. He floored it and waved at me to follow but Mrs. RB was aboard so I politely declined. Still, a nice gesture.

driver100

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

explorerx4 said:

As long as the car is repaired correctly, it shouldn't affect the return of the car at lease end.
That's been my experience.

I haven't leased for a long time, so I am just throwing this out there.
MrsD100s 2004 Mercedes wagon was rear ended in about 2006.
When we traded the car in we had to sign a document that the car had never been in an accident. Since it was in an accident we gave them that information.
The car was completely repaired, but the trade in value was less....they knocked off a few $thousand because of the accident.
If what you say is true, and I am not saying it isn't, it would be better to lease a car, if they don't discount the value because of an accident.

I've leased a number of cars over the years, and have had accidents (both major and minor) with some of them.

Never once has that affected my turn in process at lease end.

Maybe it is better to lease than to own then, especially if you have lots of accidents

I've owned my current car for almost 10 years now. No accidents but I did get a significant ding in the front driver fender from someone at Target who seemingly didn't know how to park their vehicle.

When I traded in the last few cars I had to sign the trade-in was not in an actual accident. For dings they do a walk around. But in the case of some structural damage, though the car was repaired through the insurance company, they reduced the value of the trade-in because it had been in an accident. Maybe that is only in Canada.

On a related but other topic. A friend in Florida said his windshield was smashed and his insurance company replaced it with one that wasn't original equipment...it was made in China.
He said he hated it, it distorted objects at the sides and he had to replace it again...himself.

If you are trading in a car you own, I can see having to sign that type of document.

With a lease, I'm not the owner - the bank is. I'm just "borrowing" the car for a certain period of time and miles. So long as the car is in good condition when I turn it in, it's the banks problem to deal with diminished value.

Which is a thing in the US, as well.

Good explanation.......I am surprised the real owner of the car - the bank in this case, allows that. These days most businesses close any loopholes, though they probably sell the cars off to a specific dealer for a set price anyway. The dealer gets everything, the good, the bad and the ugly.

The banks have insurance policies, so if the market value of the car is less than the contracted residual value, the bank gets the difference. With the volumes of vehicles that they lease, they rarely lose out.

And yes, dealers often get first crack at lease returns - often, at a price less than the residual value.

Which is why most brands have started to disallow lessors from "selling" their car to Carmax, etc., or to a different branded dealer to capture any lease equity.

Very interesting. When I leased my cars for business purposes (easier to calculate the tax deductions) I always bought them at the end and sold them for a nice profit. I think the gap isn't as great these days.

driver100

stickguy said:

I don’t Think a dealer can make you do that. Or just fill it out as unknown. Really should be up to the dealer to inspect the car if they are concerned about it.

What can't a dealer make you do? Sign a document that says your car hasn't been in an accident. The first time I saw or heard of the document it surprised me, but I wouldn't sign that it hadn't been in an accident, and I think "unknown" would be very suspicious....they wouldn't accept that. Besides, it can be checked pretty easily in a Car Fax report.

driver100

I like the ads for Audi - I'm Going Home" and it has an eagle flying next to a green Audi SUV.
At the end the announcer says you can get $5000 off on an Audi hybrid plug in.
I am assuming they don't offer it on the no-plug-in models, but the plug-in models aren't selling that well. Is that the reason?