> > I was looking at a '98 Accord a couple of weeks ago, for my son (first
> > car). I didn't get the VIN till we actually looked at and drove the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> could have easily been confirmed by simply looking at her title. If the
> car was a salvage, it would say on the actual title.
Perhaps, but because the accident occurred in New York State, and the
car is registered in NJ, it could be that the accident info never made
it from NY to NJ. So, I decided not to take a chance on the car, if the
car HAD been totalled and rebuilt.
I have found that carfax's errors tend to be those of omission vs
having info in there that is untrue. For example, when I was selling my
'95 Jetta a few years ago, it had been in an accident - wasn't
totalled, but had 12k worth of damage. That info didn't show up on
Carfax. (I did tell the eventual buyer, however). Same with another car
I looked at late last year - owner told me it had been in an accident
that required fairly significant bodywork, but no mention of it in
Carfax. So, I tend to believe what is in Carfax but don't believe that
it is necessarily the entire story. But that's why they have their
buyback guarantee, I guess.
Dan D
'07 Ody EX
Central NJ USA
Michael Pardee - 18 Jan 2007 01:10 GMT
> I have found that carfax's errors tend to be those of omission vs
> having info in there that is untrue. For example, when I was selling my
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> it is necessarily the entire story. But that's why they have their
> buyback guarantee, I guess.
My experience is about 50/50. I am certain my daughter's Accord was never a
fleet car as Carfax reported; the official title made that clear enough.
Mike