When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Buying a previously wrecked car as new, is not what montanaman bargained for. He's already experiencing seam paint flaking before he discovered that he had been hoodwinked by the Chev. dealer. Montanaman thought he was buying a new car. Not a new, wrecked car. I'm thinking he wouldn't have bought the car without the dealership having to hoodwink him.
If disclosing that the new wrecked car makes no difference to the hoodwinked customer, then why wasn't it disclosed by the Chev. dealer before he bought it?
im totally confused, the car was obviously nice looking enough for you to buy it. So there was body work done, seems like you couldn't tell? 800 miles after you drove it? That doesn't seem "new". Are you buying the car to sell it in a year or drive and enjoy it?
Letting the dealer set the price of the damage is like letting the foxes run the hen house....one fox will lie and the other will swear to it. At this point, if the repairs are good and something you would never have noticed, the only downside is the possible emergence of the damage on a carfax report in the future......which would cause you some diminished value. Good luck getting this resolved to your satisfaction.
As far as the price of damage, the OP is doing a good job and getting and independent estimate, so he'll know soon enough. That said, the dealer didn't give him a price after the fact, they gave him the work order they used. The body labor rates (usually much cheaper than mechanical rates) seemed reasonable, and the labor hours was likely generated by estimated software for body work. I'll be curious if another shop quotes something different, but from what I remember of the original attachments, it didn't seem fudged.
I'm sure it will be a while until we get updates, but I'l be watching for them.
No, the dealership acted in a legal manner and car-fax had no failure to report public information. The car-fax guarantee is when they fail to report a dmv branded title for flood damage, buy-back, odometer tampering, total damage, salvage, etc.
The way i see it...The car in question here SHOULD have this on its car fax ..."minor repair or damage to front & right side.... since its out of the hands of the manufacture and said damage appears to be WAY more than a simple door ding or "lot touch up".
BUT what the car fax does show is misleading to us... non car lot owners / legal experts like jallen4
Heres the deal ...had the $2222 in damage been disclosed prior to purchase i think its safe to say OP would have passed . AND so would most everyone else. Just because what happed is technically "legal" does not make it right.
As far as the price of damage, the OP is doing a good job and getting and independent estimate, so he'll know soon enough. That said, the dealer didn't give him a price after the fact, they gave him the work order they used. The body labor rates (usually much cheaper than mechanical rates) seemed reasonable, and the labor hours was likely generated by estimated software for body work. I'll be curious if another shop quotes something different, but from what I remember of the original attachments, it didn't seem fudged.
I'm sure it will be a while until we get updates, but I'l be watching for them.
I doubt $45 per hour is the going rate for a professional body shop. It's probably at least double that. I wonder if the law differentiates between dealer cost or retail cost. It should, otherwise it puts the repair cost into a gray area.
I doubt $45 per hour is the going rate for a professional body shop. It's probably at least double that. I wonder if the law differentiates between dealer cost or retail cost. It should, otherwise it puts the repair cost into a gray area.
Body labor is not double $45. In fact, it probably is exactly $45 at that shop. As I noted above, it is much cheaper than mechanical work.
I live in an a pretty expensive area (DC metro) and the shop I use, which does high very end cars, last repair for me (daily driver was rear ended while stopped) as $42/hour body work. $48/hour frame work, $42/hour paint (plus $27/hour paint supplies). That was through insurance - I believe the rack rate is another 10-20% above that. Which still is in the upper $40s to low $50s.
As an example, here is the average rate in Houston on a recently released survey, you'll see body and paint labor are $50 an hour. Not that much of a stretch to think Iowa might be $5 and hour less than houston.
Heres the deal ...had the $2222 in damage been disclosed prior to purchase i think its safe to say OP would have passed . AND so would most everyone else. Just because what happed is technically "legal" does not make it right.
It appears that although this is technically legal, the cost of the repair was most likely set to avoid disclosing something that most new car customers would expect to be told. It also appears to show very questionable business practices on the part of this dealer. JALLEN4 can defend this as being "legal" all day long but that does not make it right.
I love cars but generally hate buying them and with a few notable exceptions I hate most dealers. Dealers with this attitude are exactly why I feel this way and I can't imagine that over the long run it is good business policy to lie to your customers, no matter what the law in your state says.
Last edited by JimNeedsC7; 09-05-2018 at 07:04 PM.
Good luck to the OP in getting this resolved, but this is not a domestic car issue... it's a bad dealership issue although I would agree about never buying a Chrysler product. FCA has got to be the worst in regards to quality.
Body labor is not double $45. In fact, it probably is exactly $45 at that shop. As I noted above, it is much cheaper than mechanical work.
I live in an a pretty expensive area (DC metro) and the shop I use, which does high very end cars, last repair for me (daily driver was rear ended while stopped) as $42/hour body work. $48/hour frame work, $42/hour paint (plus $27/hour paint supplies). That was through insurance - I believe the rack rate is another 10-20% above that. Which still is in the upper $40s to low $50s.
As an example, here is the average rate in Houston on a recently released survey, you'll see body and paint labor are $50 an hour. Not that much of a stretch to think Iowa might be $5 and hour less than houston.
The law does indicate retail.
Local rates here are about $45 per hour, so I stand corrected.
What are you talking about??? This case has to do with a state law in the state it was purchased in....not an attorney writing a disclaimer!
Originally Posted by hntrgthrs
I'm still surprised that you're defending what amounts to a purposeful lack of disclosure even though it falls within the bounds of the law. That's the type of thing that sheds light on the character of the dealer and those involved, frankly.
You're exactly right & the type of thing that's given dealers in general a sleazy reputation. And in cases such as this, it's well deserved.
Integrity means nothing to them.
I came into this late. I hope you got more than $20k off when you bought a two model year old car off the new car lot. There had to had been a reason why it was still on the lot. This would had made me very curious. And I've found that some deals are too good to be true. I'm thinking several others passed up this smoking deal because they researched why it was still sitting on the lot for such a long time. If you did get $20k+ off for it, I would just keep it. If you didn't, you made a bad deal, plus got slickered.
Local body shop went over the whole car and had him specifically look over the area's that were repaired. To his expertise all the repairs/paint were done properly and show no evidence of overspray/damage etc. His estimated repairs were slightly higher than the dealer but still under the ridiculous 6% Idaho non-damage disclosure law. The dealer did not refute the damage.Just the fact that they were within their rights which still reeks to me. Typical car dealer BS keeping that lack of credibility image alive. That's ok..I'll have no problem telling my story on as many car blogs as I can find. Lot's of forums out there. If it helps one new car buyer ( especially Corvette's) stay away from a bad dealer or better yet to know to pull a Carfax ( hopefully its accurate) on a new car or have someone look at the body and check for damage than that's good.
Other answers.Yes I did get 20k off the MSRP on the car so I got a a good deal. It would have been a fair deal if the dealer had been honest and the CarFax was accurate. There would have been no way for a previously interested buyer to know of the damage. No it is not uncommon for cars of this nature to sit for a long time at rural lots in hard winter area's like Montana and Idaho. I looked at a dozen "new 2017's and 2018's" for the last few months. If these cars don't sell by labor day in these areas they usually sit at least until the next spring. There's was a new 2017 base C7 in Billings that was in contention as well that had been there for 2 years.
Bottom line I'm very happy with the car. Looks great, drive's great, is great. I just didn't need the drama of hearing some service person telling me the car was hit by a snow plow and then seeing the repair bill. Then only getting an impersonal legal response from the dealer because they got found out. Lame.
Appreciate the feedback and comments. And if you know anyone thinking of buying a car at Dave Smith Motors in Kellogg Idaho I'd tell them to spend their money elsewhere. They apparently have an internal edict to do what ever it takes to move a car including lying about the condition of a car they are selling as "new".
Laws have changed in the last few years ........again in corporates favor. Why do you think you see soooo many more 18 wheelers carrying damaged cars lately.
Right or wrong it still immoral and deserves an *** whooping.
Last edited by Ghostnotes; 09-13-2018 at 11:07 AM.
Montanaman, I’m glad you are happy with the car. Had you known about the repaired damage before you purchased the car, would you still have purchased it?
Laws have changed in the last few years ........again in corporates favor. Why do you think you see soooo many more 18 wheelers carrying damaged cars lately.
Right or wrong it still immoral and deserves an *** whooping.
IN "the last few years" would only be if you consider that span of time within three decades. The Idaho law was passed in 1988. Other states have had similar statutes for much longer.
I used to run an automotive inspection company. I don't anymore but have watched a. Lot of states relax the laws even further due to lobbying. I had a vested interest in this before i finally decided it was not even worth getting back into it.
So, it sounds like there isn't going to be a lawsuit? It appears the matter is settled even if both sides are not satisfied completely since the outside paint shop said all repairs were done correctly.
09-05-2018, 01:41 PM
