Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 16:39:11 GMT From: "Fred W." <kevinhorgan1nopsamcape.net> wrote in message news:bbp7jd$88i$1nopsamnews.rcn.net... > You would be crazy to even consider this car. Stop now and do not even > think about this car for a moment longer. If there was something in > particular you liked about this car, such as color, tranny choice, mileage, > then try www.cars.com and use that to perform a search in your area. I used > that this past week to find my new 'used' Saab. There are tons of cars out > there without questionable histories. Although sometimes 'mileage > rollbacks' can be 'flase' e.g. an insepction station records a car's miles > at 61K when it actually has 60,580 and then another official entry > chronolgically (occuring very soon after) records the exact miles e.g. > 60,700 then that might cause a 'false' rollback report. But that's rare - a > VW jetta I bought 6 years ago had a 40K mile rollback (I only discovered > that a couple weeks ago when I subsribed to CarFax for my current car > search). The car was nothing but problems. If someone was slimy enough to > roll back the vehicle, you don't know what else they did. Actually, I suspect that there are more mistakes in CarFax database than you can shake a stick at. I recently sold my '88 Mazda RX-7 convertible. It was originally sold in Canada and had the speedo and odometer in kilometers. Once it was brought into the US, each succesive owner had a different opinion on how the mileage should be reported to the DMV for their title (kms or miles). This caused an *apparent* "rollback" which never happened. Once a discrepancy is noted such as this there is no means for an honest owner to correct their database error. Luckily for me, the car was a true cream-puff and it was easy to convince the buyer of the situation even with out full service records to back it up (I never got them when I bough the car). -Fred PS - now that the good weather's here, I really miss the 'vert.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
