My vehicle was wrecked by a red light runner. It is close to a total loss but not quite. The repairs will likely cost near $10,000 on a vehicle worth $21,000. I’ve been told by a car dealer that the trade-in value of the car after repair is one-half of what it was before the accident. The Insurance company insist that after proper repairs, the car has the same value as one that was never in a accident.

So I’m wondering how people here feel about purchasing a vehicle that has been repaired following a severe wreck. Would you buy one and if so, would you expect to pay less than for a comparable one that hadn’t been in an accident?

i wouldnt buy if there were other options... will never be "perfect" again imo,

quote Originally posted by spark1: My vehicle was wrecked by a red light runner. It is close to a total loss but not quite. The repairs will likely cost near $10,000 on a vehicle worth $21,000. I’ve been told by a car dealer that the trade-in value of the car after repair is one-half of what it was before the accident. The Insurance company insist that after proper repairs, the car has the same value as one that was never in a accident. So I’m wondering how people here feel about purchasing a vehicle that has been repaired following a severe wreck. Would you buy one and if so, would you expect to pay less than for a comparable one that hadn’t been in an accident?

For MOST people (IE: Non-Car Guys), any negative information on CarFax will result in a significantly lower value to the car. This is absolutely true. As a matter of fact, as a car guy myself, I would never buy a car for my wife that had a bad CarFax report.

My 2002 Ford Explorer Sport I bought over a year and a half ago with 35k miles on it for $6,995. It had a bad report on CarFax. The first being that it showed a long period (5 years) of no use. I assume it was garaged during that entire time, and also shows why it has almost no mileage on it. The second was that it showed a front-end colission. Like someone else said on here in another thread, CarFax made it sound like my car was involved in a high-speed head-on collission on the interstate. Really, all that I can see was that the front bumper was replaced, the headlight bucket, and the front drivers side fender. There is no damage to the frame, or anything else for that matter. I mean, I just changed the fuel filter the other day, and the entire underside of the car looks immaculate. It's never been off-road before I bought it, that's for sure. So... in this case, it didn't affect the value of the car, but I know for more expensive higher-end cars, it certainly does.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

I couldn't care less about a carfax report. I rarely reference carfax (or any reporting) when purchasing a vehicle and go off my personal inspection as well as that of a trusted mechanic. I really don't care what carfax has to say.

Carfax is unreliable. Check it you yourself first. Heavy damage does reduce value by a lot. Even if its completely repaired perfectly, there is always the perception that its been wrecked. I would buy a totalled car if the repairs satisfied me, but will pay substantially less for it.

quote Originally posted by Rainman: I couldn't care less about a carfax report. I rarely reference carfax (or any reporting) when purchasing a vehicle and go off my personal inspection as well as that of a trusted mechanic. I really don't care what carfax has to say.

I bought a 2002 Ford Explorer Sport in Naples, Florida. That's a ~2.5 hour drive from where I live.
I also bought a 2008 Jeep Patriot in Daytona, Florida. That's also a 2.5 hour drive.

I ended up using the CarFax report to give me a good idea of what I could expect in terms of maintenance, driving habits, and any major conditions prior to me going up there and buying them.

I got awesome deals on both cars, but it was nice to have.

For what it's worth though, eBay gave the CarFax for free... so I didn't pay for anything. I then did my own inspection prior to handing over the cash (and my trade-ins).

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

I would expect to pay less for a vehicle showing a major accident, yes. In fact, if Carfax showed a very large accident, I would turn the car down and look to another. I was going to buy an Aztek that was fairly costly, pulled the carfax, saw a major damage report, went back to the car to look in the "damage" areas and realized it had been fixed very poorly. I turned down that vehicle.

Carfax isn't the most reliable though,when it comes to "clean" cars.. I had a vehicle that showed clean carfax, and later on (year or two) carfax came up with new records showing an accident had occurred before I bought it.

Depends on my intent....and the level of damage, and the price...for the damage you are describing..

If I was buying/leasing to use for a year or 2, I wouldnt touch it since I would take a financial bath on it.

If I was buying to keep until its worn-out and scrap, I might take advantage of a wreck if it checked out mechanically

mind ya, with some newer cars "near right off" can mean 6 deployed airbags, a bent fender, and broken circuit board in some module....repair costs have gotten so high on the "fluff" systems that many-many cars are write-off ont for structural/mechanical/functionality damage--but simply because the "extras" are too pricey for the insurance to repair over replacing. My brother had an insurance company want to right off on older (relatively) Navigator because a thief had destroyed the center stack and electronics---nothing wrong with the truck, just cheaper to pay out rather than fix.

So, really--depends on the use, and the damage.

Right.

Unless you are going to drive it until it dies, you are going to resell it. And potential buyers are going to EXPECT a significantly reduced price versus a vehicle in the same year and mileage that hasn't been in an accident. Doesn't matter if it is justified or not. They will.


So if you don't BUY it with a reduction built in, then you are going to SELL it with the reduction built in and YOU are going to be the one to take the hit on it.


Now if you keep a car 5 years, say, the hit will be smaller because the car has less value. So if you keep it and a "non-wrecked" car can be sold for $5,000, and you have to sell it for $2,500, you aren't taking as big a hit.


I'd like to hear from rogergarrison, or some others, if they think the 50% reduction is about right, or is that a little high?

I really surprised by the responses, maybe because I've never had to sell a vehicle that had been wrecked.

If a vehicle is in good condition and the damage properly repaired, I don't care, and don't see the point of a lower vale.

Now, salvage title is a who 'nother ballgame. I will then agree with the 50% reduction in value, but if the title is still clean, I've never thought of or heard about a lower perceived value.

The whole concept behind insurance is to make you even. Your car got wrecked, they fixed it, you have car back.

The thing that bites is you take the hit on resale.

Unless you can convince them to buy it, you get kind of screwed.

Unfortunately, they don't want to buy every car in an accident.

quote Originally posted by Rainman: I really surprised by the responses, maybe because I've never had to sell a vehicle that had been wrecked. If a vehicle is in good condition and the damage properly repaired, I don't care, and don't see the point of a lower vale. Now, salvage title is a who 'nother ballgame. I will then agree with the 50% reduction in value, but if the title is still clean, I've never thought of or heard about a lower perceived value.

Properly repaired is one thing, but as a car buyer I have no "proof" that the vehicle was properly repaired. It could have damage that will only show itself in a year or so.

Once I see a Carfax come back with an accident, I immediately expect a lower price.

Brad

Check your auto insurance policy. Mine specifically excludes payment for diminution of value. There is a possibility of collecting something from the at-fault driver’s insurance but proving the amount of value lost is very difficult and inherently subjective. Possible court costs and lawyer fees must also be considered. Some States do not even allow such suits.

Like Gridlock said, “you get kind of screwed.”

edit to clarify: You cannot sue your own insurance company for diminished value in some States. In a few States you can sue your own company, even if you are at fault. You can always sue the at fault driver and/or his insurance company if necessary to recover monetary loss including your comprehensive deductible amount. Lawyers love this stuff.

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 09-04-2010).]