 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / January 2008Toyota trans question
From the VIN of a 92 Camry, is it possible to tell if it came with a stick or auto trans? jt2sk12f4n0077268 Thanks, Ray > From the VIN of a 92 Camry, is it possible to tell if it came with a > stick or auto trans? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > Ray That is a 4 cylinder, which I have never seen paired with a stick, so I'll say it has an automatic. The only (Camry) sticks I've seen from 1992 to 1996 were in the SE V6 coupe. BTW, that VIN doesn't quite look legitimate but I'm no VIN expert. At minimum I'm thinking the "F" is wrong. Toyota MDT in MO >> From the VIN of a 92 Camry, is it possible to tell if it came with a >> stick or auto trans? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Toyota MDT in MO from carfax: 1992 TOYOTA CAMRY LE JT2SK12F4N0077268 SEDAN 4 DR 2.2L L4 FI 16V / FRONT WHEEL DRIVE short version of why I want to know - this car bumped my wife's car in a parking lot 2 years ago. They left it touching her car. The other driver was found at fault. Now, they're trying to get it overturned. By what I don't know, but my theory was it was a stick and they left it in neutral when parking it and it rolled. Ray >short version of why I want to know - this car bumped my wife's car in a >parking lot 2 years ago. They left it touching her car. The other >driver was found at fault. Now, they're trying to get it overturned. >By what I don't know, but my theory was it was a stick and they left it >in neutral when parking it and it rolled. That's irrelevent. >> short version of why I want to know - this car bumped my wife's car in a >> parking lot 2 years ago. They left it touching her car. The other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's irrelevent. no it's not. Side note: In manitoba, we have public insurance, so it's only one insurance company. My wife's car was parked and hit by another car. The other driver denies doing it despite the fact the cars were touching when my wife came back to her car. The accident was deemed the fault of the other driver, who maintains her innocence. She's now taking us to small claims court in the hope a judge will overturn the liability for the accident. (that's the final appeals process here for car accidents.) How is that possible? One scenario I can see her trying is the fact that it's a she said - she said thing - my wife can't prove anything, and the other driver could say that my wife hit HER car and is covering it up. (although, if she was, why would she leave a note, file a security report, file an insurance claim, and a police report too?) I'm not worried about losing in court, just looking to cover all my bases. I've wondered if the other car was a stick and was left in neutral and rolled forward into my wife's car, because what kind of idiot leaves their car TOUCHING another car? So, because no one actually can prove what happened, and there's no witnesses, I'm trying to make sure that any loopholes work out in our favor. (For example, on the accident report, the other driver mentions that she was involved in another accident the SAME DAY. that'll look real good in front of the judge.) Court sucks. And because it's small claims court, a lawyer @ $100/hour is out, because I can't even recover my costs if they're greater than $100. All this for virtually no damage, and if the owner of the Toyota had left a message saying "oops, sorry, I bumped your car" we would have said "sh*t happens, it's a 16 year old car." But instead, they left this Camry humping the Beretta. Ray "Ray" <ray@!rollingviolation.example.com.invalid> wrote in message news:p%nlj.65532 > My wife's car was parked and hit by another car. The other driver denies > doing it despite the fact the cars were touching when my wife came back to > her car. If you wife's car were legally parked, and she was not in it, it would seem that is a platform of your case. Did your car roll, as you might suspect that the other car did? (If your wife's car were still in the legal parking limits, then this might offset the possibility that your car rolled.) Was the other car outside its parking limit? Whether the other woman drove into your car, or the car made contact by rolling, if it nudged into your space, the other woman should be liable for failure to control her vehicle. Dont know anything about law there, but if you can support your position I might think you would be in good shape before a judge. > "Ray" <ray@!rollingviolation.example.com.invalid> wrote in message > news:p%nlj.65532 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I might > think you would be in good shape before a judge. Our car is an automatic, so it's not rolling anywhere. Actually, the parking pawl is buggered, so it DOES roll about a foot, which is why you have to set the park brake on it. Been like that for about 5 years. Still, our car was parked at 7:30 am, the other driver got there around 3:30pm, so our car hadn't moved in about 8 hours... We're actually planning on contacting the other party to see if we can work something out instead of going to court. The total damage to a 16 year old Beretta was under $500 and had they left a note we probably would have said "whatever" and not worried about it. As we haven't had our car fixed yet, we can still withdraw the claim if they pay us out. Manitoba Public insurance also allows them to purchase the accident and keep a claims-free status. We're pretty sure that's why they're suing as the other driver had another accident the same day with the same car, totalling it, and we're guessing at fault for - all the damage to the other driver's car was right side near the rear door and tire... like maybe they ran a light and got T-boned or turned left in front of someone. Anyway, still want to know if it's a stick. Toyota of Canada hasn't emailed me back, so I'll just go visit a dealer and ask. On Jan 23, 7:48 am, Ray <ray@!rollingviolation.example.com.invalid> wrote: > > "Ray" <ray@!rollingviolation.example.com.invalid> wrote in message > > news:p%nlj.65532 [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I have incomplete info for 1992 and no OEM vin decoder. Knowing that you are in Canada changes things from my last answer. If this is a Canada spec car the "F" digit may be legitimate, but I don't know what it stands for. From my info and from some guessing it looks like a Canada spec DX or LX 4 cylinder *can* be equipped with the 5 speed manual transaxle, but I would guess thay are made in limited number. It's still highly likely that this Camry has an automatic. Nothing beats asking the owner or looking at it. Toyota MDT in MO > I have incomplete info for 1992 and no OEM vin decoder. Knowing that > you are in Canada changes things from my last answer. If this is a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Toyota MDT in MO thanks. I thought about asking them, but not sure if I want to really talk to someone who's suing me without a lawyer. Might just bring it up in court... Whee. > I have incomplete info for 1992 and no OEM vin decoder. Knowing that > you are in Canada changes things from my last answer. If this is a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's still highly likely that this Camry has an automatic. Nothing > beats asking the owner or looking at it. I'm sort of baffled why the OP hasn't simply telephoned a Toyota dealer to ask. Wouldn't that be the simplest way?  SignatureTegger >> I have incomplete info for 1992 and no OEM vin decoder. Knowing that >> you are in Canada changes things from my last answer. If this is a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm sort of baffled why the OP hasn't simply telephoned a Toyota dealer to > ask. Wouldn't that be the simplest way? I gave up after being on hold for 20 minutes. I emailed Toyota and got no response. So, I turned here because I knew there's a couple of Toyota techs. I'm back to visiting a dealer. >>> I have incomplete info for 1992 and no OEM vin decoder. Knowing >>> that you are in Canada changes things from my last answer. If this [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'm back to visiting a dealer. This is your lucky day: I just did your work for you by phoning a local Toyota dealer here in Canada. The VIN number in question is in Toyota's records as having an automatic transmission. This took me all of two minutes. You're welcome. SignatureTegger > >> short version of why I want to know - this car bumped my wife's car in a > >> parking lot 2 years ago. They left it touching her car. The other [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > neutral and rolled forward into my wife's car, because what kind of > idiot leaves their car TOUCHING another car? I suspect your wife is going to be found at fault. Not because you have presented evidence for that, but because you haven't described what happened in a way any one reading your post could tell what happened. If you describe what happened in court in the same way you will lose. -jim > So, because no one actually can prove what happened, and there's no > witnesses, I'm trying to make sure that any loopholes work out in our [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ray > I suspect your wife is going to be found at fault. Not because you have > presented evidence for that, but because you haven't described what > happened in a way any one reading your post could tell what happened. If > you describe what happened in court in the same way you will lose. > > -jim well, I won't be bringing it up if they don't. It's my wife's word vs the other driver's. A vehicle hit a parked unmanned vehicle, so it can't be 50-50. My wife left a note, contacted security (who took pictures and amended the note for the other driver to contact security), had the driver paged, contacted the insurance company, had to file a hit and run report, has a clean driving record, and according to the security guard's notes, "was very upset." the other driver: Told the police she thought the note was a joke, didn't call because she didn't want to talk to strangers (she's 28!), was involved in another $4000 car accident the same day, was driving her father's car. The insurance company has already found in our favor once. I'm 99% convinced of a win. We have contacted the other party to discuss settling this outside of court - it was $450 damage to our car, and they can either buy us out (haven't had it fixed yet) or pay off the insurance company and have a clean record. That's cheaper than what their premiums will go up by. We still haven't ruled out a $100/hour shark lawyer, because I don't want to lose. Also, the other driver said there was no damage to her car, so even if we lose, all we have to do is pull the claim and we don't even lose because then the insurance company pays nothing and nothing happens to anyone's license/insurance. My wife's still pissed about it tho - someone smacked her car and LEFT IT THERE. Ray > > I suspect your wife is going to be found at fault. Not because you have > > presented evidence for that, but because you haven't described what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's my wife's word vs the other driver's. > A vehicle hit a parked unmanned vehicle, so it can't be 50-50. Well that is why you are going to lose. This whole issue with what type of transmission - it is is just an attempt to muddy the waters and the judge isn't going to buy it. First of all the other car didn't roll into your wife's car. If it had rolled then when your wife's care was moved it would continue to roll and the security guard would attest to that and there would be no question as to what happened. It wouldn't be your "wife's word vs the other driver's". Looking at it from the point of view of the other driver. She arrives at her car and finds a note saying her car struck another car. There is no damage to her car, no sign of an accident and her car is where she left it - she thinks its a joke. Later she finds she has been assigned blame for the accident mostly because she failed to respond. So her appeal seems reasonable. As to what really happened. Your wife could be lying. The other driver could be lying. Or another car may have bumped one of the 2 vehicles pushing it into the other. There may even be more possibilities that the actual evidence might suggest. -jim > My wife left a note, contacted security (who took pictures and amended > the note for the other driver to contact security), had the driver [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ray >>> I suspect your wife is going to be found at fault. Not because you have >>> presented evidence for that, but because you haven't described what [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > -jim Good point on the fact the other car would continue to move after my wife moved her car. I wasn't going to bring up the type of trans in the other car unless I thought it would help. Actually, I probably won't bring up anything because I only get to go to court because I'm listed as a co-owner of the car. I wasn't in the car. If the other driver really thought it was a joke, she could have checked in with the security people, as the note was amended by them. Also, from her insurance statement "I remember it being hard to park in the parkade that day" - wtf does that mean? If my wife is lying, why would she have bothered to get security, the police, and the insurance company involved for a damage claim that's barely visible and barely over her deductible? Plus, a friend of mine works for a body shop and is the one that painted the car a couple of years before this, so he could probably have fixed it for 1/2 the official estimate. Oh, and the insurance company has already found in our favor once. (public insurance, so same insurance company.) But yes, the fact that it's all circumstantial evidence is why I'd still rather NOT go to court, because we could still lose. Guilty people get off all the time. Ray > If my wife is lying, why would she have bothered to get security, the > police, and the insurance company involved for a damage claim that's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > official estimate. Oh, and the insurance company has already found in > our favor once. (public insurance, so same insurance company.) The reason your wife did what she did is $400 (i.e. if she didn't do all those things she wouldn't get $400). The judge knows she has to follow certain procedure whether she is lying or telling the truth. You are just going to insult the judge's intelligence if you try to make the above argument. You might as well tell the judge that the fact that your wife showed up in court proves she is not lying. The court is interested in facts. You want to talk about everything but the facts. The court is going to decide against you. And the fact that you can get the car repaired for half of what the insurance paid doesn't really speak well for the honesty of you or your wife. But somehow you think that makes her story more believable. -jim >> If my wife is lying, why would she have bothered to get security, the >> police, and the insurance company involved for a damage claim that's [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > -jim The facts are this: My wife claims the other car hit hers. My wife's car was parked there first (receipts and snow can prove that.) My wife contacted security when she returned to her car. Security took pictures and attempted to contact the other driver. My wife left a note. My wife contacted the insurance company. My wife was told to file a hit and run report with the police. The police were told by the other driver she thought the note was a joke. The other driver had a second car accident that same day. The insurance company has found in our favor. (public insurance, so only one insurance company involved.) My wife's driving record is clean. If we lose in court, we can pull the claim, and are out nothing. We really have nothing to gain by winning, and nothing to gain by losing, my wife only went after this because she was furious that someone would hit her car and leave it there touching the bumper. I can get the car fixed for half the price because my friend works for a body shop. He painted the car back in 2000. I can R&R the parts, he can paint them. Hell, I painted my race car, I can paint a bumper. MPI would even allow that, I'd just have to get it inspected after. They'd even pay me to do the work. The only reason the car hasn't been fixed yet is the kid factor. We had a 10 month old at the time, and my wife got pregnant before this was resolved, so we've been a bit busy to deal with it. The car has also been "retired" as we bought a wagon, so we've been unsure what to do with it - it needs a full safety if we sell it, and the car's in good shape, but the windshield is cracked, the AC is busted, and it's 18 years old with 240,000km on it. And it's a Beretta... whoopee. So, it sits. (ever tried to put two car seats in a Beretta?) Anyway, I don't care if you think my wife is lying or not. She tells me she's not, so I believe her. Manitoba Public Insurance believed her. Now she just has to convince the judge of that. FWIW, what I'd like to do to the Beretta... is cut out the floor and graft a Camaro floor and powertrain in there. Look stock, carry a 350 and RWD. :) Ray > >> If my wife is lying, why would she have bothered to get security, the > >> police, and the insurance company involved for a damage claim that's [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The facts are this: > My wife claims the other car hit hers. Your wife's claim is an opinion. How does she know that somebody in big SUV didn't come along and push her Barrets into the Camry? If that is what happened why would the Camry owner be at fault? I never said your wife was lying - I said you are going to lose in court. One of the reasons you are going to lose is you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion. What you are presenting as the facts are either opinions or irrelevant facts. That's just going to annoy the judge. -Jim > My wife's car was parked there first (receipts and snow can prove that.) > My wife contacted security when she returned to her car. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Ray > My wife's still pissed about it tho - someone smacked her car and LEFT > IT THERE. > > Ray Was your wife LEGALLY parked, fully within the lines? There was an incident some years ago where a cow-orker was parking her car way over a line at the back of a parking space so that it would be in the shade of a tree. That rendered the parking place directly behind her car basically unusable because the rear of her car extended a few feet into that parking spot. Someone pulled into the spot, gently touched her rear bumper with his rubber bumper gards, and then applied pressure to her car (not enough to cause damage, just enough to make the car move slightly), set his brake, and went in to work. When she came out to leave and pulled her car out of gear, it must have jumped forward 5 feet because the other car was pushing quite firmly against her parking pawl. It must've been pretty hard to get out of gear, too, but I digress ;-) . She left a nasty note and contacted security. Next day, same thing, another note and another call to the parking police. And again the next day... at which time SHE was cited for being illegally parked. From that point on, all the spaces in the parking lot were usable every day.... >> My wife's still pissed about it tho - someone smacked her car and LEFT >> IT THERE. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > parked. From that point on, all the spaces in the parking lot were > usable every day.... Hard to tell from the pics. It's a parking garage in the winter, but security took pics, so you think they would have said something if she was parked stupidly. I once got a parking ticket in a gravel parking lot for taking up two spots. That was quite the conversation - they asked about lines and stuff, I told them it was gravel. They said they had pictures, I said "good.... look at them" - they then told me to rip up the ticket. I still laugh at that one. I worked late that day, and this is overflow parking for the baseball stadium, so they park the cars very close together, and I guess my car screwed up their system because I had a monthly pass and was right in the middle of the row... which didn't exist at 8am when I went to work. Still, even if she was parked in the middle of the row, that doesn't give you permission to hit her car. Are you telling me if my car were to stall at the lights like my co-worker's did, it would be ok to rear end him like the old guy did? I'm not sure how a parked car can be at fault for an accident. Ray > Still, even if she was parked in the middle of the row, that doesn't > give you permission to hit her car. Are you telling me if my car were > to stall at the lights like my co-worker's did, it would be ok to rear > end him like the old guy did? What does a stalled car have in common with an illegally parked car? Technically speaking, its probably not "legal" to push an illegally parked car around. But the owner of the illegally parked car is in an indefensible position (hich is what makes it fun). Its kinda hard to point the finger at someone else when its YOUR car that is 3 feet over the line, after all. And its "he said she said" as to which car was there first. Which is why I asked which car was over the line- yours, or your wifes? If your wife's car was over the line, she might be morally in the right because she was there first, but legally indefensible. You can probably tell that I take an unhealthy pleasure from messing with people that like to park across 3 spaces to "protect" their precious rides (usually ricer-boys with huge wings and 20-inch wheels on an 80-horsepower Civic). I've even been known to gang up with a friend to block them hopelessly in, and there's not a darn thing they can do about it since our cars were legally parked. It also helps to drive a very large piece of Detroit or German iron when doing this. >I'm not sure how a parked car can be at > fault for an accident. > > Ray I can think of one example- a car parked too close to a railroad track. Train hits the car, destroys it. Testimony recorded in court when the car owner was trying to get the railroad to pay for the car- the engineer was on the stand and made the statement that the car was illegally parked. The opposing lawyer interrupted and asked, 'How do YOU know it was illegally parked?' Train engineer says, 'Because I hit it.' The whole courtroom cracks up, except for the lawyer who still doesn't get the fact that trains can't steer themselves, and the space they take up is fixed and beyond the control of the engineer. The car owner lost that one big time. But yeah, its hard to think of other examples that are so clear-cut. >> Still, even if she was parked in the middle of the row, that doesn't >> give you permission to hit her car. Are you telling me if my car were [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > or your wifes? If your wife's car was over the line, she might be > morally in the right because she was there first, but legally indefensible. Well, she hasn't gotten a parking ticket in 10+ years, so I'm pretty sure she was legally parked. My point is that if you are driving a car (not a train) and you hit something that's not moving (tree, car, road debris) even if it's not supposed to be there, it's the fault of the moving car. > You can probably tell that I take an unhealthy pleasure from messing > with people that like to park across 3 spaces to "protect" their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about it since our cars were legally parked. It also helps to drive a > very large piece of Detroit or German iron when doing this. What are you, 12? I used to think that kind of stuff is funny, but it's also stupid. Do you key their car too? >> From the VIN of a 92 Camry, is it possible to tell if it came with a >>stick or auto trans? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Toyota MDT in MO A friend of mine had a 4-cyl. with a stick; couldn't tell you what year it was though. was right about in the 96-98 timeframe. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> From the VIN of a 92 Camry, is it possible to tell if it came with a >> stick or auto trans? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Toyota MDT in MO Hey, COF, we had a '94 4 cyl with a 5-speed at the dealer I worked for. And I saw another (I think '98) the other day getting my Suby inspected. They are rare, but they're out there! Also, IIRC, the 5-speeds were made in Japan only... > >> From the VIN of a 92 Camry, is it possible to tell if it came with a > >> stick or auto trans? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > And I saw another (I think '98) the other day getting my Suby inspected. > They are rare, but they're out there! Yup, I've never even seen a 92-96 w/ 5 speed aside from the V6 SE for whatever reason. Just lucky, 'spose. In the US, the 97-up bodystyle could be had w/ 5 speed on a CE only, fairly rare to begin with. > Also, IIRC, the 5-speeds were made in Japan only... Perhaps on the 3rd gen and early 4th gen. My info shows that all of the 5 speeds for the 97-up Camry hail from Kentucky. Going back to 96 they show most 5 speeds built in the US, but 4cyl DX has both US and Jap plant possibilities. I'm going to stop before I go blind. Toyota MDT in MO |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.