Where am I wrong:
A car categorised as Cat C is one that has been in an accident where the insurance company has deemed it to be of insufficient worth to repair. It has, however, been sold to a third party who has repaired it, MOTd it and now it is perfectly roadworth.
The alternative position would be that the car was repaired by the insurance company - under which circumstances I understand there would be no mark left on the car's record. Same car, same repair, different outcome.
So why is a car worth less under the first scenario than the second?
And in the view of the posters on here, how much less?
|
>>So why is a car worth less under the first scenario than the second?>>
Usually because the under the first scenario was more severely damaged than the under the second hence not being deemed to be economical to repair by the insurer.
|
>>So why is a car worth less under the first scenario than the second?<<
Knowledge is power, the power to choose to be scared about accident damage.
In truth, if a car was that badly damaged then someone with a bit of grey matter can suss it out if its a bad repair job anyway, which they often are.
|
|
Age has much to do with it. A cat C is usually an older car that's cheap anyway, so why would you pay the same for one that you know was damaged.
|
|
So, what effect does it have on value? 20%? 50%?
|
|
I wouldnt buy one at all, but at 50% cheaper I expect people would. It would have to be criminally cheaper than anything else to get the hardened bargin hunters who will overlook history.
|
|
So how do you know when a car has been in a crash that doesn't leave it on the Cat register? And doesn't the worry of so doing keep you awake at night?
|
Hear no evil, see no crash damage. Car prices are about perception of value relative to other cars.
Its like dating - if you KNOW the person your dating has been married 5 times before, you could well think your days may be numbered, but if you didnt know that, you would feel differently. The actual fact doesnt change, but perception does.
|
>> doesn't the worry of so doing keep you awake at night?
Having worked in a backstreet bodyshop many moons ago, I reckon I saw enough damaged repaired cars to know that often the quality of the repair would be the least of its problems.
Also, salvage dealers (such as in the back of AT) seem to price their smashed-up cars so as to leave little room for profit once the repairs have been done - i.e. a £4k car needing a grand's worth of parts fitting will be priced at £2895 as is. The only people who could turn a profit on these cars were, ironically, bodyshop staff (and owners!) who bought them as evening/weekend projects and sourced the parts second-hand, doing the work in their own time.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Mon 9 May 11 at 12:29
|
I think the difference is that (we hope) the repair, if the insurance company choose to do it, would be to a high standard.
I don't have too much of a problem with second hand parts being used to bring the repair price down (within reason) - so it might be possible to do it cheaper than the insurance company.
On a different forum, someone found that the airbags had been missed out of their recently bought car - rebuilt on the cheap following an accident. And one of my friends managed to buy a cut and shut which split in two when he was in a minor accident.
|
>> a cut and shut which split in two when he was in a minor accident
The usual problem with cut'n'shuts isn't weakness along the join, it's *too much* welding, giving excessive strength where it isn't supposed to be - causing the car's crumple zones to perform incorrectly in a crash. I was taught to only spot-weld in the manufacturers' original weld positions when stitching two halves of a car together.
A monocoque bodyshell is only an arrangement of panels welded together then sealed against the weather. You'd accept (for example) a new boot floor and back panel being welded in to replace damaged panels on your car, well all a cut'n'shut really is is wholesale replacement of several body panels in one go.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Mon 9 May 11 at 16:12
|
>> The usual problem
There speaks a voice of experience. How much for an s-class guv? :-)
|
>> The usual problem with cut'n'shuts isn't weakness along the join, it's *too much* welding, giving excessive strength where it isn't supposed to be - causing the car's crumple zones to perform incorrectly in a crash. I was taught to only spot-weld in the manufacturers' original weld positions when stitching two halves of a car together.
>>
>> A monocoque bodyshell is only an arrangement of panels welded together then sealed against the weather. You'd accept (for example) a new boot floor and back panel being welded in to replace damaged panels on your car, well all a cut'n'shut really is is wholesale
replacement of several body panels in one go.
I agree and disagree with you here.
Old shell + new panels is better than 2 old shells being stitched together, even when welded properly, which is the way you state - spot-welding in the manufacturers' original weld positions.
The reason I dislike cut n shuts is down to stress within the panels.
put in new (unstressed) panels, you are unlikely to have a junction where lines of stress join.
2 identical cars will have different stress lines, weld them together, there is a stronger likelihood of stress line crossing, or meeting, causing a weak point, where the metal/welds can tear away.
|
|
And this is where you need Bellboy. Rightly or wrongly, unfairly or not, you kinda think he would know about such things ;)
|
>> So, what effect does it have on value? 20%? 50%?
>>
While looking for a new car recently I saw a Cat-C A3 on Autotrader, reckon it would have been worth around £19-20k if 100% and was on for around £14k as I recall.
|
|
My mates old car was a cat C, it never really felt safe, and the repair was poor. Uneven panel gaps etc.
|
|
I like to read threads like this; keeps me from buying used cars. Although as a low mileage driver they would probably be my best option.
|
Cat C - effect on value - Hard Cheese
