Automotive ennui

It would run on 6 cylinders, what else? I gave you a figure of ~ 26.5
for MIXED driving. That was Phoenix, Scottsdale, Chandler, the 101
loop, I-17 up to Camp Verde and back, etc. Around 450 miles all told
for the week.

No, mileage isn't everything. Neither is anecdotal information from you
concerning a DIFFERENT product that GM had out what, 15-20 years ago,
representative of what a SIMILAR engine is capable of today.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that this mixed mode Chevy
engine delivers ~ 25% better gas mileage (~21mpg vs 26.5mpg) . Over
100K miles - and I agree that most folks keep their cars at least that
long - at ~$3.00/gallon gas, that's a measly $3000 savings in fuel
during those 100,000 miles. This system appears to be largely
electronic based and just shutting down injectors so what would a blown
computer cost? a bad injector "switch"?

I admitted that the longevity factor is an unknown also. You seem
close-minded on the subject so this certainly isn't my attempt to
changer YOUR mind, only to clarify my opinion as one who's actually
driven, under realistic conditions, this new engine from GM.

I think I'd roll the dice. If you want to stand there and say "It
didn't work 15-20 years ago so it won't work now - without even trying
it - because you obviously are smarter than the engineers at GM who
designed the thing... be my guest.

 

In fact, I know he does. As well, I've experienced that with every claim
I've ever submitted through any insurance company.

Were those trim pieces part of a prior claim that had been paid Bill? What
was the background information on why you needed new trim, and it was not on
the car?

Though... it generally runs pretty true to street prices on cars. I don't
see how you can call it fraudently low.

I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true. When
my daughter totalled out my car about two years ago, the insurance company
even provided a print out of several cars in the area of like
make/model/etc. and their current selling price.

He might, but it is true. They are only in the business of covering your
financial loss relative to the condition of the car at the time of the
accident.

Our experiences differ greatly. I've had the displeasure of dealing with
two totals over the past two years, and both of my experiences radically
differed from yours. I received uplifts for added work we had done on the
cars and in both cases received either the high end of what those cars were
really selling for, or more than the high end.

 

Well, then we are basing both our claims on two very opposite real
experiences. Just because your friend is ethical doesn't mean the
industry in general is. Progressive (the insurer of the other driver
that ran me off the road last week and that I had to chase down for two
miles before he stopped) is refusing to add value for *ANY*
enhancements, other than for alloy wheels - and that only because NADA
lists wheels but nothing else.

They are absolutely refusing to add for my adding higher-end OEM radio,
300M instrument cluster, larger 300M brakes, and some other things to my
Concorde.

Prior claim? Where do you get that, and why would you assume I was
doing that. But the answer to that is no. It is exactly like I said -
the original black paint on the trim was peeling. I went to a junk yard
and got perfect conditon chrome trim (from a higher trim pacakge).
Pulled the old trim off my car a week before the accident, hadn't put
the new trim on yet, and the accident happened during that week. That's
it. So you think I was trying to defraud the insurance company. The
adjuster didn't even suggest that. He was just being an asshole and
helping his adjustment records by fraudulently devaluing the car to the
max. By the way - that was on a Mazda - their OEM parts prices are off
the charts - and that was what he was subtracting from the vehicle value.

You haven't done honest real world comparisons then. Nor have you
compared the condition of the crap you find on the market and level of
maintenance. IOW - you didn't actually look at the condition of the
vehicles that were selling at the low end NADA values. You would not
want to drive a car that was actually selling for the NADA value. Well
- maybe you would, but I wouldn't.

(see below where you contradict yourself on that point)

Well, I can't choose the quality of the insurers of the people who
destroy my cars, can I. The experiences I have had are that they refuse
to do that - they will stubbornly point to the NADA book and insist that
that is the only value thay will recognize.

Yet above, in direct response to my saying "Why do you think their
standard line when you challange them to find you an equivalent car for
the same money is 'We're not in the business of buying cars'?" you said
"I have never heard such a thing. In fact quite the opposite is true."
You're contradicting yourself. Now here you just said "They are only
in the business of covering your financial loss relative to the
condition of the car at the time of the accident." So which of the
contradictory things you said is true?

But that's just an obfuscation factor on their and your parts. You are
pretending to have missed where I said that I was not asking them to
find a replacement car and buy it for me. I was asking them to prove
that they could find one in the pre-accident condition of my car for the
actual selling price of the NADA valuation.

But because your experience is different, mine is invalid - that's what
you're saying. Next time, I will put the world in stop motion just
before he/she hits me or runs me off the road to get the credentials of
their insurer and then let him/her know whether I will allow them to
continue the accident. Geez.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I'm going to delurk and put in my .02 here as insurance claims are something
I have had some prior grief with. This was a home insurance case and the
insurance adjuster who came to my home to assess water damage to my ceilings
gave me a ridiculously low estimate. A bad windstorm had damaged the roof
and allowed leakage. He allowed $900, which was a joke. I contacted my
union as I knew one of my benefits was a free 30 minute consultation with
the lawyers they had contracted for us. He told me to find out who the
representative was for my state, as ins. companys usually contract out their
assessors and they don't work directly for the ins. company. Then find out
what the monetary limit was for small claims court in my state. It was
$4000, which was more than enough to cover the damage to my home. Have the
rep. of the ins. co. subpoenaed to appear in small claims court in my
county, and to really twist the knife, pay the $15 to have the subpoena
delivered directly by the Sheriff's dept. Did some calls and found out the
closest rep. of the ins. co. was about 400 miles away in an adjoining state.
Had the Sheriff's office in the county that the rep. was located in deliver
the subpoena that I filled out in the courthouse of my home county. Shortly
thereafter, a lawyer hired by the ins. co. from the closest large city
contacted me and tried to talk me into accepting the original damage
assessment, which I refused. So, he met me in small claims court, and we
argued our sides. I had plenty of pictures and it was obvious to the most
casual observer, and certainly this magistrate, that the ins. company was
giving a ridiculously low assessment of damages. The lawyer agreed to have
the ins. co. pay for a neutral assessor to reassess the damages, which the
magistrate recommended. I was leery, but agreed, as I didn't see where I
had much choice. This other assessor came out and reassessed the damage at
a little more than $4000 and seemed a little disgusted when he saw my first
estimate. The ins. co._had_to accept that assessment. Small claims court
is a free service in my state, and I was out $20 for the fee for the
subpoena, and $15 to have it hand delivered by the Sheriff's dept.
Depending on what the monetary limits in small claims court is in your
state, it might be worth pursuing. Judging from_all_my past experiences,
ins. adjusters are a low, crawling form of insect life. But sometimes the
system works.

(relurking)

Garrett Fulton

 

Another route you can take is to hire an independent insurance adjuster to
deal with the insurance company. I know a restaurant that recently had some
damage. The insurance company offered $25000 to settle. The hired gun got
him $200,000, or which he got 5%.

 

The new Chrysler Multi-Displacement-System (MDS) and GM
Displacement-on-Demand systems both work the same way and have been
totally reliable. Unlike the old Cadillac V-8-6-4-(0!) system that used
electric solenoids to jam the fulcrum in and out of the rocker arms, MDS
and DoD use special lifters on 4 cylinders, and a diverter valve that
either removes or applies oil pressure to the special lifters. In one
mode, they collapse preventing the valves from opening, in the other
mode they open the valves normally. The change takes milliseconds, is
almost undetectable to the driver, and the only electrical involvement
is to operate a small oil valve, not large solenoids. The oil does the
"heavy lifting" so the system is very reliable.

 

Amen. The Mustang and Charger R/T and SRT-8 are the *only* things that
have aroused an ounce of interest from me in many, many years.
Everything else is just your generic front-drive pill-on-wheels or
shoebox-on-wheels.

 

You do know that you don't have to take their appraisal - right? I'd be
getting another one. This guy seems to be a jerk and in NY, he wouldn't be
acting in accrd with the laws that govern the insurance industry.

Again - go to another appraiser - or better... to your own company.

Geezus Bill - chill. I simply asked a question. You're awfully touchy. I
didn't recall you stating that peeling paint was what caused you to remove
thr original trim. Prior damage is simply the most common reason for not
paying n a particular piece of damage, so I asked if there had been a prior
claim.

No - I don't look at the low end crap, but that does not make NADA
fraudulent. I most certainly have done very real world comparisons and I do
know what I'm talking about. I'm beginning to see you as whining that
everything from insurance companies to NADA is against you and you overreact
to simple questions. You seem to feel you are targeted by the world.

No contradiction below.

Sucks to be you then.

This is getting tiring. Let me explain since you clearly didn't try to
understand yourself. I was stating that I had never encountered the
attitude you spoke of - in fact I receive quite the opposite attitude. Ever
think it might have to do with how you present yourself

Which commonly proves to be no problem for 99% of the car buying public on a
daily basis.

No Bill - I said no such thing. You need to learn to read and get off your
self sympathy jag.

 

This is something that most people do NOT seem to know, and the insurance
companies certainly do not advertise it. They try to steer people to the
repair shops that give them the lowest prices, often with lower quality
repairs, and they scare the car owners into thinking that they will not
be warranted if they go somewhere else. And they certainly want you to
think that whatever they offer is what you have to take.

I have refused ridiculously low repair quotes from insurance adjusters in
the past, and they always grumble, but they always pay what my preferred
shop charges.

Luckily, I have never totaled a car, so I do not have any experience in
that venue.

 

Bill you know better than that.

The modern car engine has hundreds of technological improvements -
everything from special mold casting and cooling procedures, special
alloys, plastics, materials, piston designs, etc. etc.

If any one of those changes failed - well you have a big dead paperweight.

The reason they don't fail all the time is that they have been time-tested.
Catalyatic converters for example are time-tested. They used to fail all
the time, now they don't.

There's a good

Those add-ins add value to the used vehicle. So if they aren't failed, you
get a higher resale value. You either buy a stripped down car, don't
enjoy the extra amenities, and sell it for dirt prices, or you buy a full
featured car, enjoy those amenities, and take a gamble that your going to
sell it before that stuff starts failing.

What are you smoking? I have had cars totaled and near totaled and once
the blue book/NADA is low enough they don't give a shit about whether things
are not working or not. And when the book value is high enough the car
is likely still under warranty.

And you always have to fight over the value of any car that they total.
What
matters is whether the car value is high enough to bother hiring an
appraiser.
If a $150 appraisal can get you an extra $600 added to the car value, it's
money well spent. If it can only get you an extra $150 added, well then you
won't do it and just end up grumbling about fraudlently low starting
numbers.

Grumbling about the insurance company's attempt to pay as little as possible
for a total is akin to grumbling over a car dealer trying to sell a vehicle
as high
as possible. It's expected behavior by both groups and is to be taken in
stride.

Ted

 

Well of course they are. Your not their customer and they don't owe you
anything beyond what the minimum the law requires. And if there were no
witnesses, then Progressive is having to take you at your word as for the
damage their policy holder caused - and you can certainly imagine their
policyholder is claiming that the damage is minimal.

You said you chased him down - did you call the cops? Did he get cited
for failing to stop at an accident? If not, then looking at it from
Progressive's POV, you
could be lying through your teeth.

Just as if you hit someone else, and they made a claim against you, your
insurance company would nickel-and-dime their claim.

Insurance companies are in the business of acting to protect their
policyholders.
And you as a policyholder would be incensed if you hit someone's piece of
shit car old beater and they got your insurance company to give them a brand
new car. If insurance companies regularly did stuff like this, then people
would
be scamming them all the time and premiums would go through the roof.

Well, that is your fault.

When my wife's minivan was rear-ended a few years ago, one of the things
that
was busted was the taillight. Naturally this made it unsafe to drive so I
bought a
replacement taillight the following day from a wrecker to use while she was
driving
it around while we were waiting for the body shop schedule to open up.
(this one
was a real hit and run, the cops came and all of that) The day I took the
van in to
the shop (where it was estimated) I made sure to replace the taillight with
the busted
one before estimate. Then after the estimate and when the repair work was
being
done I gave the shop the good tailight and that was set against the
deductible with full
OEM value. Of course I hadn't paid full OEM value to the wrecker.

In which case you get your own appraisal and call their bluff in court.

Your a car guy Bill, you know how to access car forums. If you had done
so at the time you would have been told how to act and how to handle
the adjusters and what to expect. Then you would have put the trim on
and gotten credit for it, and this time around if you follow the advice we
are giving you you'll do the small claims thing.

It's pointless for you to get all upset about the tens of thousands of other
car owners out there who get in accidents and get suckered into taking
a low value for a total. Those people are adults and can choose to come
to car forums and ask for advice. They don't and so they don't do the
court route and they get screwed. Their choice. You ought to be happy
since their rolling over and taking it up the arse is keeping the premiums
lower for those of us who know how to handle these issues.

That's not their job. Their job is to protect the interests of their
policyholders
and stockholders and try to pay out as little as possible. It's your job to
prove what they are offering is too low - something that is simple enough
that
we would expect someone with your level of intelligence to be able to do it
in
your sleep.

He didn't say if he was claiming on his own policy or that of another
insurers.

If he had comprehensive insurance (which most people do who own financed
cars, or cars that are worth a lot of money) then if he was hit he would
make
the claim against his own policy and his insurance company would go after
the other driver's policy. Since the other driver would be declared to be
at
fault, such a claim wouldn't be set against his own policy and would not
cause
his premiums to rise. And of course his own insurance company is going to
make sure he is happy in how the claim was handled.

You (obviously) carry liability only on your own vehicle. So do I, by the
way.
Both of us are saving a ton of money because we are doing that. The
difference
however is that I have accepted the fact that if I get hit, I will have to
fight
the other insurance company for a fair payment - this is the price of the
money
savings I am having by not carrying comprehensive. This doesen't bother me
much since I tend not to own vehicles worth more than a few thousand bucks,
and when I fight over my nickles with the insurance companies of people
who hit me, it's not worth it to the other insurance company to pay out for
a lawyer to fight me back.

You obviously have not accepted this. -
perhaps you need to re-evaulate whether liability-only is the correct
insurance
product for you to carry.

Ted

 

Excellent observation - I was indeed speaking from the position of keeping
both Comp and Collision on all of my vehicles. And... as you state, I deal
with my insurance company and I let them deal with the other party's
company. If the other party's insurance company wants to see my car - fine,
but that's as far as it goes. I don't accept checks from them.

 

In the process of doing so now. Also threatening them with small claims
court (I am told that I would sue their customer, not the insurance
company - which will also give me the opportunity in court to point out
to the judge that he left the scene and that I had to chase him for 2
miles - I have pointed this out to the adjuster as wel as the fact that
I don't bluff).

It would take a really stupid person to be complaining that he couldn't
get paid twice for the same thing in separate insurance claims. That is
what you were suggesting that I was possibly trying to do. So yes -
that was rather insulting from a couple of standpoints.

OK. So I'm touchy.

OK - I see where you're coming from on that.

No - I just see insurance companies pulling crap that most people don't
know enough about to even realize they're being taken advantage of. If
that makes me paranoid (I think that's what you described without using
the word), then so be it.

Read your two paragraphs again about the exact same statement of mine.

Here it is again: In response to my claiming they say 'We're not in the
business of buying cars'?" you said "I have never heard such a thing.
In fact quite the opposite is true." Then, regarding my same statement,
you said "They are only in the business of covering your financial loss
relative to the condition of the car at the time of the accident."
Those are contradictory statements regaring the same statement of mine.

Again - your experience vs. my just as valid experience. In my case,
they are saying it's NADA - nothing else, and no adjustments for
condition or adders.

Yes - in this situation. Surely I am not the only one here who has
experienced this (and I'll quit calling you Shirley now).

No. And you don't know how I conducted myself. I gave them opportunity
to make an honest evaluation without assuming anything. Then I started
asking questions.

99%? I *seriously* doubt that "statistic". I'd maybe believe 60%, with
another 15% not realizing they're being taken.

Only if you accept that I am in a very small 1% of the majority - that
my experience is extremely atypical. I seriously doubt that.

In your opinion.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Yes - ethicaly and legally they owe me the fair market value of the car
based on several things. And that's exactly what they are not doing.

No - they (*both* insurance companies) have him on tape admitting fault.
Plus the deputy's witnessing him taking responsibility at the location
where he finally pulled over when the deputy was getting our statements.

That part is not an issue - at all. One complication is that the deputy
could not tell which county the accident happened in, so he did not file
an official report. Though his insurance company has already paid to
put the mail box back up. Believe me - the fault of the other driver
and the precise damage caused to my car by his forcing me off the road
is not an issue.

They shouldn't.

Funny thing - this is Progressive - the company whose CEO is a huge
contributor to the DNC. You know - the people who complain all the time
about "big business" always screwing the little guy.

But that's not what is happening here. I only ask for a fair
settlement. It's not as difficult as they want to make it seem.

Funny - according to Mr. Marlowe, I'm paranoid ("You seem to feel you
are targeted by the world"). According to you, I'm too trusting for
someone to do the right thing. It never occured to me that he would
subtract out, not only the cost of the parts that I had two of sitting
on the bench, but the 100% new OEM Mazda dealer part cost. That was
just way beyond unreasonable.

I guess I'm too honest and trusting that the adjuster was a reasonable
and honest person (as opposed to paranoid as Mike seems to think). I
bet if I had told someone "Hey - I've got to get home right away and put
the trim back on the car before the adjuster gets there!", on one hand,
one person would be telling me I was just being paranoid by thinking the
adjuster would do such a dishonest thing, and another person would be
telling me that that would be commiting fraud. You know - you just
can't win. You can't please anyone. So rather than try to, I try to do
the right thing.

I'm not sure you're characterizing me correctly, but OK.

Do I believe you or do I believe Mike, and which of his contradictroy
statements on that subject do I go by. According to Mike, 99% of people
in my situation get treated fairly. According to you, it's their job
and primary goal to try to screw me. Which one of you do I listen to?

It's a facetious question on my part. I know what I need to do.

Mike disagrees with you. Again - which one of you do I listen to (he
said with his tongue in his cheek)?

No - I carry full coverage *because* I know the value of my car, and I
drive it 80 miles a day, so my exposure (chances for an unavoidable
accident) is high - or statistically much higher than if I only drove,
say, 5 or 10 miles a day. I pay for full coverage because I expect the
car to be repaired to pre-accident condition at someone else's (whoever
caused the accident's) expense and not totalled out based on
non-applicable valuations based on me-too cars.

But I maintain my vehicles at an extremely high level, and I augment
them with safety as well as comfort upgrades that all go into their
*true* market value (not NADA generic low-ball values).

Because I don't do that. You have obviously misjudged me because you
are saying I do what I have not done (as far as coverage).

It's not. Possibly you just made my point.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I suspect we can agree that we've either had differing experiences with
insurance companies, or perceived those experiences to be different.

You wouldn't be confused by what you see as a contradiction if you read my
comments completely before inserting replies that totally ignore things I've
said. Below, I had already explained to you that you misunderstood my
earlier reply, and that I was talking about experiencing attitudes from an
adjuster, not about his responsibility to find you a car.

Well... it is better than being called late for dinner.

Never pretended to miss anything Bill. Even told you that I receive print
outs of like cars in the area when they total one.

Confession - I pulled that number out of mu butt. But - even though it's an
unsubstantiated number, I bet the real value is closer to my number than to
yours (60%).

Huh??? Our experiences do indeed differ, but at no time did I suggest yours
was invalid. That's the part of your comments that I was speaking of, which
you called paranoid. I've never said your experience or your opinion was
invalid. I've simply put factual experiences on the table.

 

That is indeed what they owe you. They probably can deduct for the trim,
just like they could deduct if a fender had been missing before the
accident. Deducting full OEM value is something I too would question as
well - but I'd be talking to my own carrier, who is paid to have my interest
at heart, so to speak.

No "e" in Marlow

Actually Bill - what I was referring to with my 99% comment was the number
of people who find NADA values to retty well represent the real world. The
comment that you had made, and which I replied to suggested (and had
previously been argued by you), that it was not possible to actually fid
cars at NADA prices. My comment was that 99% of the population does not
have this problem with NADA.

Huh??? Bill - you don't paint pictures vey well. You really should not try
to use my words which you misunderstood (even upon explanation). My comment
does not disagree with Ted's.

 

Park my car (in its pre-accident condition) beside the crap you find for
sale at the NADA value and then tell me they are equivalent. I have
shopped for the NADA value before - they are absolute junkers -
mechanically and aesthetically. *That's* my point. Also - why isn't
the KBB value (which I find to more truly represent the real market)
just as valid as NADA? That, in a nutshell, is what I mean by
fraudulently low.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I don't know anything about your cars Bill, so I can't comment. I get the
impression you my add quite a few aftermarket things to your cars, in which
case NADA would not be accurate for you, but only because it does not adress
added equipment. The adjuster should be adding for these things though.
Most people, dealers, insurance companies, etc. do not adhere to KBB. It
does not have the representation for standard values that NADA does. Like
you, I keep my cars in top mechanical condition and I keep the bodies up as
well. I don't throw much aftermarket stuff at my cars though. If NADA was
so low, you'd see all vehicles selling for significantly more than NADA, and
I just don't see that.

 

Then why on Earth are you even bothering with this? Call your insurance
agent and have him handle it. Seriously! Unless you live in one of those
God-awful "no-fault" insurance states, your paying comprehensive on the
car entitles you to have your insurance agent go to bat for you.

I expect to fight my own battles because I don't carry comprehensive. But
I wouldn't dream that someone carrying comprehensive would try arguing
with another insurance company - what would be the point of even buying
comprehensive at all?

Ted

 

One thing more I'll point out here is the principle of the pearl in
the mud. This usually applies to home sales. The idea is that if
you own a home in a crummy neighborhood, and you dump a huge
amount of money into fixing it up really nicely, when sale time
comes your not going to get as much for it as you put into it.

Conversely if you own a piece of crap home in a really nice
neighborhood, you will get more money for it than you put into it.

Most people, unfortunately, don't maintain their cars real well. So
when sale time comes, the few cars on the market that were maintained
really well, don't fetch as much as they should. As a seller your
competing with all the other same model and same year cars out there
as yours for sale, and all of the rest of the sellers can easily afford to
undercut you and still make more money than you since their cost
on maintainence is a lot lower than yours.

This is just the unfortunate facts of life. If your one who drives cars
until they are used up, this shouldn't bother you since your benefiting
from the advantages of a better maintained car. But if you don't, or
you have an accident, then you are going to get caught by this.

An understanding insurance agent, plus a folder full of receipts for
parts and labor, can go a long way towards helping.

Ted