Porsche 911UK Forum

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

Unrecorded GR 996 GT3 via Copart; LX53NRN Updated!

NXI20 said:
Senoj said:
Car was a total loss. Ergo a write off. Every write off has a category A,B,C,D,N,S . So why didn't they, is it still in the post?

It's a peculiarity of the trackday Insurance AIUI. It's not one of those letters, it's a U (uncatagorised).

Hmmm. So its possibly in the no category category. Ergo, the ins co didn't tell Dvla it was a total loss. If so it's the same thing. If they didn't categorise it why not, is there an invisible force field stopping them telling Dvla or do the just want to maximise their salvage sale price.. :floor:
 
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.
 
What classes the car as a right off, the original owner was paid out we know that as a few of us track regularly with him.
So not sure why this car didn't get a cat status.

There seem to be no consistency from the insurers
 
stuttgartmetal said:
Could anyone point me towards where this car is for sale please

Piston heads or auto trader
 
rigsby99 said:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.

You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch
 
917k said:
rigsby99 said:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.

You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch

What witness statement are you referring too! There where a few of us at this event and you only get a glance at the vehicle as it goes passed on the lorry any comments from this are just that and not a true representation of cars condition.

The below are comments from previous owner on the condition after the accident and also after he was paid out so nothing to hide.
there are a lot worse out there which are being priced higher.




Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).
 
Cunno said:
917k said:
rigsby99 said:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.

You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch

What witness statement are you referring too! There where a few of us at this event and you only get a glance at the vehicle as it goes passed on the lorry any comments from this are just that and not a true representation of cars condition.

The below are comments from previous owner on the condition after the accident and also after he was paid out so nothing to hide.
there are a lot worse out there which are being priced higher.




Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).

It s mentioned earlier in the tread, by Cherubator I believe, who was going to buy the car but left it after the auction went over 35k

Not sure what the relevance of the being worse cars out there tbh, we're discussing this car, and the retailers who have all failed to disclose its history, despite it being widely know n amongst enthusiasts

And again, if the car was so lightly damaged why was the repair estimate 20k or 3 times that from Porsche??

Porsches are expensive, we all know that, but a those costs don't add up to a minor scratch
 
LaSource said:
A lot of obsession with this car.

Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).

I'm not connected to the repair or sale of the car - but was in it when it happened :)


= A bit more than 'a witness'.
 
T8 said:
LaSource said:
A lot of obsession with this car.

Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).

I'm not connected to the repair or sale of the car - but was in it when it happened :)


= A bit more than 'a witness'.
Yes, much more than a witness. He showed me the in car video over dinner at the Pistenklause on the eve of my first ever track day there. :eek:

It was not intended to scare, but rather part of some very generous and useful advice about the track.
 
917k said:
Cunno said:
917k said:
rigsby99 said:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.

You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch


What witness statement are you referring too! There where a few of us at this event and you only get a glance at the vehicle as it goes passed on the lorry any comments from this are just that and not a true representation of cars condition.

The below are comments from previous owner on the condition after the accident and also after he was paid out so nothing to hide.
there are a lot worse out there which are being priced higher.




Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).

It s mentioned earlier in the tread, by Cherubator I believe, who was going to buy the car but left it after the auction went over 35k

Not sure what the relevance of the being worse cars out there tbh, we're discussing this car, and the retailers who have all failed to disclose its history, despite it being widely know n amongst enthusiasts

And again, if the car was so lightly damaged why was the repair estimate 20k or 3 times that from Porsche??

Porsches are expensive, we all know that, but a those costs don't add up to a minor scratch

Cherubator was willing to pay £35k for the salvage from what I read + £20k repair has you in at £55k what I and I think most GT3 owner would consider a fare price for a repaired car. The fact that he was willing to spend £35k indicates to me that he thought it was repairable.
 
Cunno said:
917k said:
Cunno said:
917k said:
rigsby99 said:
This is getting bizarre . We have now decided that the car was a total write off with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What we do know is that the photos only show minor damage. The rear of the car is monocoque any damage to the chasis would be evident externally. The only first hand reports we have is from a witness to the incident and the op who both say that the damage was minor. The car fetched £39k at auction, maybe a bit much for a write off, so ergo it wasn't. Maybe it would be a good idea if before condemning the car and various retailers as fraudsters and cheats that the facts were establlshed.

You are now ignoring the fact the witness suggested there may have been chassis damage at the rear, along with the quoted repair costs which clearly show it was rather more than a scratch


What witness statement are you referring too! There where a few of us at this event and you only get a glance at the vehicle as it goes passed on the lorry any comments from this are just that and not a true representation of cars condition.

The below are comments from previous owner on the condition after the accident and also after he was paid out so nothing to hide.
there are a lot worse out there which are being priced higher.




Pictures look worse than the actual car/damage but make a more sensationalist story.

The PU units were removed for inspection as were the lights. In the above pics the wheels of course are also removed.

Actual damage was just left front wing (superficial) and left rear. Zero damage at dead on front, back, sides, or any other panel. The right rear corner (exposed in the pics) and exhaust bits and valance area are completely untouched / undamaged but with the panels off deceptively look like part of the damage. The bonnet is not shut properly in the pics and was undamaged.

Yes it will be a repaired car but the actual impact was probably not the worst out there (sideways impact and not head on).

It s mentioned earlier in the tread, by Cherubator I believe, who was going to buy the car but left it after the auction went over 35k

Not sure what the relevance of the being worse cars out there tbh, we're discussing this car, and the retailers who have all failed to disclose its history, despite it being widely know n amongst enthusiasts

And again, if the car was so lightly damaged why was the repair estimate 20k or 3 times that from Porsche??

Porsches are expensive, we all know that, but a those costs don't add up to a minor scratch

Cherubator was willing to pay £35k for the salvage from what I read + £20k repair has you in at £55k what I and I think most GT3 owner would consider a fare price for a repaired car. The fact that he was willing to spend £35k indicates to me that he thought it was repairable.

Who suggested it wasn't repairable?

The whole issue is about (a number of) dealers being less than forthcoming about the cars history, and therefore its value
 
Rossi911 said:
Senoj said:
917k said:
Now for sale with Phil Raby

Poor form for not mentioning the accident in the ad

Maybe he doesn't know? Would be surprised though as it's not to find out :)

Great car for the right money, just isn't the right money..

Phil Raby Porsche, not as squeaky clean as his scripted claims are :pc: having experience, wouldnt touch him with a barge pole

and this is the car that hasn't been serviced correctly since 2015, so full service history my arse

still a good car at the right price that starts wth a 4, but trying to punt it for full market price just shows at the end of the days it's dealer profit 1st
:wack:

the main issue is traders true to form, passing off the car as clean since it is unrecorded knowing the car's history

this ad is currently live on autotrader, the UK's biggest market place https://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201903226156391

:hand:
 

Attachments

  • 2019_03_25_11_54_40_110.jpg
    2019_03_25_11_54_40_110.jpg
    299.6 KB · Views: 5,282
Full service history, how have they achieved that as it was previously documented as having a 4 year gap :?:
 
I have seen 'full service history' to mean that details of all of the previous services are present. When I was looking for my DB9 I looked at one which was 8 years old, on 16k miles. I had just had a service, and had had 1 previous service. When asked, I was told it is due at 10k miles and had been done at 9k and 16k so was all good. I left.

MC
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
124,357
Messages
1,439,489
Members
48,717
Latest member
Atlas.997
Back
Top