- #579 of 2394
-
Re: Why are some dealers still hanging on to 2007 inventory? [volvomax]
by explorerx4
-
Jan 07, 2009 (5:36 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: volvomax (Jan 07, 2009 5:22 pm)
was there any reward for whomever sold it, or was the message 'it's about damn time', or nobody really noticed?
|
- #580 of 2394
-
Re: Why are some dealers still hanging on to 2007 inventory? [explorerx4]
by volvomax
-
Jan 08, 2009 (7:53 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (Jan 07, 2009 5:36 pm)
No, we had a nice flat on the car.
|
- #581 of 2394
-
Re: Why are some dealers still hanging on to 2007 inventory? [volvomax]
by explorerx4
-
Jan 09, 2009 (4:24 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: volvomax (Jan 08, 2009 7:53 am)
thanks for the answer to my question.
|
- #582 of 2394
-
Quick Question
by oldfarmer50
-
Jan 10, 2009 (9:47 am)
-
|
Which of two identical cars would you consider to be worth more, A car with 100K with original motor or a car with 100K which had the motor rebuilt at 80K?
I have my own ideas but I'm just curious what the rest of the world thinks.
|
- #583 of 2394
-
Re: Quick Question [oldfarmer50]
by joel0622
-
Jan 10, 2009 (10:04 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jan 10, 2009 9:47 am)
I would take door #2 depending on who did the rebuild
|
- #584 of 2394
-
Re: Quick Question [oldfarmer50]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Jan 10, 2009 (10:10 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jan 10, 2009 9:47 am)
If you are talking about relatively modern cars which are not specialty-built or exotic in any way, then there's no difference in value IMO since every used car is supposed to have a motor in it that's functioning; so you don't 'enhance' the value by putting in a rebuilt (although it might make a good "selling point").
Rebuilts have their own risk after all----who did the rebuild, did they disturb various parts of the car, etc.
Rebuilts also bring up doubts ----what's with these engines that they need rebuilding in 80K miles?
So the "advantage' of the rebuilt is offset by the unmolested qualities of an original untouched motor.
EXCEPTION: If it were 200K on a car with original engine, versus a rebuilt motor at 180K, I might think differently, but even there, the value would not be all that much.
|
- #585 of 2394
-
Re: Quick Question [oldfarmer50]
by tidester HOST
-
Jan 10, 2009 (10:24 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jan 10, 2009 9:47 am)
Depending on the make/model, I would go with the car that has the original engine. My suspicion would be that the previous owner of the one with the rebuilt engine drove the car pretty hard.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
|
- #586 of 2394
-
Re: Quick Question [oldfarmer50]
by boomchek
-
Jan 10, 2009 (10:51 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jan 10, 2009 9:47 am)
I'd probably take the original motor at 80k miles, but a rebuilt motor at 200k miles like tidester said.
It's very hard to verify what exactly was rebuilt in a motor, and if it was done properly unless paperwork is shown.
|
- #587 of 2394
-
Re: Quick Question [boomchek]
by the_big_al
-
Jan 10, 2009 (4:42 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Jan 10, 2009 10:51 am)
With today's cars, meaning anything less than about 5 years old, I would wonder what happened to that motor to cause to have to be rebuilt at 80K and if it was abuse that cause it need to be rebuilt. Most any vehicle will go well past 100K with out a major rebuild on the motor and so if the motor needed to be rebuilt, what else was neglected that will also need attention??
|
- #588 of 2394
-
Re: Quick Question [the_big_al]
by grandtotal
-
Jan 11, 2009 (6:42 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: the_big_al (Jan 10, 2009 4:42 pm)
There could be a good reason e.g. timing belt failure or something similar. Stuff happens, but I think I'd still be wary.
|