Buying Advice - '99 Integra, Salvage Title

Hey, all. Just want to get some input on what sort of deal this is.
I'm looking at a '99 Integra GS coupe, 59K miles - leather, spoiler,
new tires, AT, interior perfect and exterior fine except for a tiny
ding and a few scratches on rear bumper. All service records since
4500 miles and no major repairs.

Now here's the hitch - its a salvaged title. The seller claims that
they interior was stolen - seats, interior panels, stereo - and
replaced when the car was almost new. She bought it at 4500 miles and
has had no problems since. She wants $7500, and the KBB on this
vehicle is about $10K with a clean title. Obviously I'll have my
mechanic check it and see what he can see, but given all factors, is
this a good price? As I said, just looking for some experienced
feedback...

Thanks - Dan

 

Salvage means an insurance company wrote the car off in a collision or
flood or other catastrophic event, then the car was repaired and re-
certified for use on the road. It has NOTHING to do with the interior.

I wouldn't buy it at any price.

 

That's not true... a car can be have it interior stolen and still be
declared a total loss.
A write off is a result of a repair amount being to high, regards if it's
been accidented or not !!!!
Calculate the price of a radio, air bags, leather seats and door panels and
you'll easily be over 10 000$ of replacent parts.

The one thing you do need to know is that when the car was re-certified, the
owner was required to provide 5 pictures (each side and interior) of the car
before any repairs take place. I've seen many salvage titles and some have
been lemons while MANY others have NOT.

Ask for the pictures of the car... he should have 5 showing you a clean body
and no interior. If it's on;y the interior... I'd go for it.

 

It *could have been* the interior theft which caused it to be written off
in the insurance settlement.

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"If you take out the killings, Washington actually
has a very low crime rate."
- Marion Barry, mayor of Washington, D.C.

 

id consider it, but only if i was going to drive that thing until it
gets junked.

 

It loooks like only Massachusetts will brand a car Salvage due to
vandalism.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/branding/chart.htm

The OP appears to be in California. He is on thin ice with that car.

 

Total Loss is not the same as a Salvage brand.

Salvage means very badly damaged, then resurrected.

That car is trouble looking for a target.

 

Thanks for the advice, all. My inkling was that it was something to
steer clear of, but the temptation is strong - the car really is
immaculate and so are the service records.

Ler me ask this - if she can produce the photos showing a clean body
and no interior, is the price more or less fair? Or is it simply an
unacceptable risk at any cost, in your opinions?

 

I've never heard of the "pictures" thing in California.
A friend has bought and sold quite a few salvage vehicles, mostly for racing.
One was a Mazda Miata that just didn't look that bad, a crunch in the rear
that made the trunk hard to close. Must have tweaked the frame.
Many were motorcycles. If the ABS fairings get broken on motorcycles, the
factory replacement price is enough to total the bike, which might be
essentially unharmed and in good shape with aftermarket fairings.

I disagree with Tegger about the required cause for salvage. I think it is
any time the repair of a vehicle, plus its salvage value, exceeds the blue
book on the vehicle. It is registered with the state of California as
"unrepairable". It may, however, then be repaired and registered again,
with the words "salvage" appearing on the title. Often, all this requires
is a cursory inspection by any Highway Patrol officer. At this point, it
is no longer a Salvage Certificate. It is referred to as a "revived total
salvage vehicle".


The Canadian web site above refers to the vehicle during the time it is
registered as unrepairable. A California page:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d05/vc11515.htm

I do agree that it is a vehicle that should only be purchased as a
throwaway unless you can really determine the original cause. Flooding,
for instance, usually results in a salvage vehicle. Repair of that vehicle
for cosmetic purposes usually involves steam cleaning, and a replacement of
the interior. That doesn't leave you with a vehicle with long term value.

 

The interior means absolutely nothing.

Cars are not branded Salvage because their interiors were stripped, they're
branded because the front bumper ended up embedded in the firewall, or
because somebody else's front bumper ended up in the trunk.

You need to find out why Salvage was branded on the car. That means talking
to your insurance company, giving them the VIN of that vehicle. I've never
actually had to do this, but it seems to me they'd be the ones with access
to the details of the Salvage brand.

Unless you know EXACTLY (from a trusted party) what happened to brand that
car, you're risking being rooked of $7,500.

 

doesnt seem to me to be vandalism, just theft. if, instead of the
leather seats and interior panels being stolen it was the engine/tranny
and wheels would it have still been vandalism?

 

from what i understand, if the insurance pays off the loan for any
reason-wrecked, or stolen/stripped and the car is put back into service,
its going to have a salvage title. ive seen stolen/stripped cars for
sale that have been repaired, and they have salvage titles. why? the
cost to replace the missing parts was more than 50% of the book value of
the car.

if my 98 CX was stolen and the interior gutted, it would definately cost
more than half the $5000 book value for an excellent condition car.
replacement carpet alone is about $500. add in a couple seats, door
panels, miscellaneous trim, screws, fasteners.

now, if i recover the car and dont claim it to my insurance? then the
title is "clean" and i can replace the interior parts myself.

id agree with that.

 

if the car was that tacoed, putting it on a lift and inspecting all the
seams, etc should prove that. you cant make a totalled car perfectly
straight again. there will be wrinkled panels, bondo, weird weld marks, etc.

plus, the insurance co is NOT going to pay full coverage on a car like
that. ie: no "replacement cost" coverage.

should be easy enough if the original owner has all the insurance
paperwork, police report, impound recovery slip, etc.

 

itd be worth a carfax to see whether the car has been a california car
all its life. there was a while after the floods in texas where cars
were being sent to california to be resold.

 

That reminds me of another one that might be difficult to spot.

The airbags deployed in a wreck on a friend's 95 Civic.
She was told that the airbags alone cost $4000, and that they didn't need
to look at the rest of the car to determine that it was totalled.
I didn't see the car, but the body damage might have been repairable after
the salvage, but the repairer might not have put new airbags in it.

 

Well, it may depend upon the jurisdiction, and I will clarify with my
insurer on Monday.

Some state documentation:
http://www.mass.gov/rmv/titles/8define.htm
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/otherser/eir/eir_retentions.htm


It appears to be possible in some locales for the vehicle to be declared
Salvage on the basis of something like a stripped interior *IF* the value
of the repairs was deemed to be greater than what the insurance company was
willing to spend on the car.

I was assuming the OP's car had had its interior stripped very early in its
life. I suppose if the interior had been stripped when it was 4 or 5 years
old, the value of the replacement might come close to 80% of the car's
value.

Either way, purchasing a salvage vehicle is very risky unless it has been
ascertained that there has been no fire, flood, hail or collision damage.

One sure sign to check for: Body panel gaps. Hondas are just about perfect.
ANY uneven gaps AT ALL are cause for concern. Honda is fanatical about body
panel alignment.

And one more thing: Do ALL the major body panels have the VIN stickers
still on them?

 

Just thought of this:
Check all the fenders, doors, hood, trunk lid, etc for the VIN stickers.

I'm in Canada, where VIN stickers on body panels are not required. Your
intended car ought to have all of them if the seller is telling the truth.

 

Assuming I can get the Carfax report - which I'm trying to track down
right now - will that show me the details of the salvage (wreck, theft,
etc)? Or would I still be more or less in the dark?

 

like buying any used car, it depends. i have a civic with a salvage
title, but that was because the previous owner handed the plates back
rather than pay p.n.o. on it. utterly illogical as she destroyed the
vehicle's resale value, but hey, some people... the car is absolutely
perfect - probably straighter than one i bought new which had a small
front wheel camber issue from factory.

in your case, as others have pointed out, salvage does not mean the
vehicle sustained frame damage, the only thing that really matters. if
you're uncertain, look how well the doors, hood & rear hatch fits - not
when closed, but slightly open so the catches aren't holding things in
place. if the frame is truly straight, you'll see it then.

don't forget, insurance companies are all about ass covering and book
values. [imo, kbb has a lot to answer for here - here in the bay area,
clean, straight, un-riced hatchbacks will sell for well over kbb - kbb
holds values down because it sets expectations and becomes a
self-reinforcing price determinant.] if the cost of repair [also
remember that repair shops charge top dollar for insurance work] exceeds
whatever fraction of book the ass coverer has in their book, it gets
written off. interiors are time consuming & expensive to repair if
buying new parts. if yours was repaired by using parts from a wreck, it
would be a great car and would have made a tidy profit for the repairer.

 

"CVC Section 544 defines, in part, a total loss vehicle as a vehicle that
has been wrecked, destroyed, or damaged, to such an extent the insurance
company considers it uneconomical to make repairs to the vehicle and the
vehicle is not repaired by or for the person who owned the vehicle when the
damage occurred."

I say that "damaged" in this case is a financial issue, not necessarily
from a collision. "uneconomical" is in the same sentence.

It does clarify that a "total loss vehicle" can be retained and retitled by
the owner, where a "non-repairable" vehicle cannot, but the definition of
non-repairable is pretty tight.

Flood is my biggest hidden concern. The car looks fine for a few years, but
the electrical is probably going to fail, or maybe things will rust before
they ought to. Cars in California usually don't get retired due to rust.

That's an interesting point. Those puppies are all over the place on my
2003 Honda. I thought they were intended to slow down chop shops.
Verifying that all the major parts are original is probably a more valuable
application.