Well I encountered something today for the first time.Background: the man who's basically my father-in-law wants a used Sequoia for grandchild duty and he found a 2005 (SR5, 2wd) with 94,000mi for an asking price of $8900 (private seller in Phoenix).A little research unearths the fact that $8900 is a SMOKIN' price on an 05 Sequoia with 94,000mi; most 05s are in that $13-15g range. I went with him to check it out and condition-wise, I put it as a 7 of 10...normal amount of carpet and seat wear, drove well with a slight pull to the right that was present but not horrible, decent brakes, rode well enough, has a few nicks & scratches here & there but, hey, for the price that's to be expected right?Anyhow, it's looking like he's found his Sequoia-- until we run the Carfax...ODOMETER ROLLBACK!! ACCIDENT WITH AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT!!It had 190,000+ miles in Sept of 2012, yet magically now has 94,000.Needlessly to say, not going to make this guy an offer; we had planned to go see it again later this afternoon with my creeper so I could do a more thorough inspection...that's now not going to happen, and I'm going to call the seller in a bit and let him know what we now know. The guy says he's owned it a year...no idea if he knows and was trying to pull a proverbial fast one or if he'll be as surprised as I was.Moral of the story: if you are in the used car market, spend the money & get a subscription to Carfax or an equivalent service! (Note: I do not work for nor am in any way affiliated with Carfax or any similar service) If I hadn't insisted on doing so, a nice old fella would have just plunked down several thousand dollars on a fraudulent vehicle.

Will check back for an update after you talk to him. I bet he plays dumb.

Carfax's are a very UN reliable way to buy a car.They are good to find some that you don't want to buy.But there are millions of vehicles out there that could have issues that a carfax will never show.If things are not reported, a carfax is useless. Taking a "good" carfax report and buying because of that is not a good idea.

yep, the only value of a Carfax to me is to deny a purchase.bumpy

popupcamping wrote:Carfax's are a very UN reliable way to buy a car.They are good to find some that you don't want to buy.But there are millions of vehicles out there that could have issues that a carfax will never show.If things are not reported, a carfax is useless. Taking a "good" carfax report and buying because of that is not a good idea.Amen! I find that a "good trusted mechanic check" far exceeds the capabilities of a carfax report.

Agreed; a "clean" Carfax may have limited value, but in THIS case, it prevented purchasing a vehicle whose odo reads about 100,000 less miles than it actually has.Slice it any way you like, in this instance it was a valuable tool.

Caveat Emptor!! Run that Carfax!! | Good Sam Community

Jarlaxle
Explorer II
Aug 18, 2013
bmanning wrote:
Fordlover wrote:
catfishmontana wrote:
Fordlover wrote:

It is one tool that is helpful, out of many that should be used when evaluating a used vehicle.

Not if you are paying for the carfax yourself. I personally will not support a business such as carfax. Seems such a waste of money to get hit or miss info to me.

In this case, the Carfax eliminated a vehicle from consideration. You think that was a mistake???

I wouldn't take a Carfax as gospel, but if it says, hey, this vehicle was found at the bottom of lake pontratrain, I wouldn't discredit the data. I personally don't use Carfax, as I have a few years experience in a body shop, and I can typically spot a problem car in the first 5 minutes. But not everybody has the luxury of hands on experience.

And that was my logic; I wasn't going to ignore a document (based upon Motor Vehicle Registration information) that pointed to odometer rollback.

Call me crazy, that's not something you just brush off with a "well maybe the carfax is wrong."

In my mind, evidence that I made the right decision- and evidence that the carfax may have been correct- is that the seller DIDN'T call me back with a "Man, you're crazy and carfax is wrong, the 94k is actually mileage."

I think it's 1 of 2 scenarios:

a) the guy had something to do with the rollback
b) the guy bought it innocently, found out about the rollback himself after the fact, and is trying to sell it

FWIW, FIL is dragging me along to look at another Sequoia tonight; a 2007 with 150k miles, Limited/loaded, moonroof, nav, asking $11900.

Granted it's high-mile but if it's in as good a shape as the pics make it appear, and if they can work on the price a little bit, we may bite on it.

And to the chagrin of many who've contributed to this thread, yes, I'll run a carfax on it :W

c) Someone at the DMV entered "190,000" instead of "90,000" for mileage.
bmanning
Explorer
Aug 14, 2013
gmcsmoke wrote:
how can a toyota with 190k and deployed airbags not be considered totaled?

I had similar thoughts initially but a PM I received enlightened me to the fact that airbag deployment is not that uncommon, or at least more common than I realized.

And whether you're a Toyota fan or not, they hold book much better than most other brands; that's a fact, not an opinion.
bmanning
Explorer
Aug 14, 2013
Fordlover wrote:
catfishmontana wrote:
Fordlover wrote:

It is one tool that is helpful, out of many that should be used when evaluating a used vehicle.

Not if you are paying for the carfax yourself. I personally will not support a business such as carfax. Seems such a waste of money to get hit or miss info to me.

In this case, the Carfax eliminated a vehicle from consideration. You think that was a mistake???

I wouldn't take a Carfax as gospel, but if it says, hey, this vehicle was found at the bottom of lake pontratrain, I wouldn't discredit the data. I personally don't use Carfax, as I have a few years experience in a body shop, and I can typically spot a problem car in the first 5 minutes. But not everybody has the luxury of hands on experience.

And that was my logic; I wasn't going to ignore a document (based upon Motor Vehicle Registration information) that pointed to odometer rollback.

Call me crazy, that's not something you just brush off with a "well maybe the carfax is wrong."

In my mind, evidence that I made the right decision- and evidence that the carfax may have been correct- is that the seller DIDN'T call me back with a "Man, you're crazy and carfax is wrong, the 94k is actually mileage."

I think it's 1 of 2 scenarios:

a) the guy had something to do with the rollback
b) the guy bought it innocently, found out about the rollback himself after the fact, and is trying to sell it

FWIW, FIL is dragging me along to look at another Sequoia tonight; a 2007 with 150k miles, Limited/loaded, moonroof, nav, asking $11900.

Granted it's high-mile but if it's in as good a shape as the pics make it appear, and if they can work on the price a little bit, we may bite on it.

And to the chagrin of many who've contributed to this thread, yes, I'll run a carfax on it :W
Fordlover
Explorer
Aug 14, 2013
catfishmontana wrote:
Fordlover wrote:

It is one tool that is helpful, out of many that should be used when evaluating a used vehicle.

Not if you are paying for the carfax yourself. I personally will not support a business such as carfax. Seems such a waste of money to get hit or miss info to me.

In this case, the Carfax eliminated a vehicle from consideration. You think that was a mistake???

I wouldn't take a Carfax as gospel, but if it says, hey, this vehicle was found at the bottom of lake pontratrain, I wouldn't discredit the data. I personally don't use Carfax, as I have a few years experience in a body shop, and I can typically spot a problem car in the first 5 minutes. But not everybody has the luxury of hands on experience.
Trail-Mate
Explorer
Aug 13, 2013
CarFax and Autocheck are good tools to use. The info I use most when using them is Registration Info. That can tell a lot on it own. Example 2002 Dodge Diesel Reg Cab 2 wheel drive truck with 260K on it. Checked it out and just the registration info confirmed what I was seeing . A One Owner Truck that stayed in an area near me its whole time owned. So I knew where it had been, Not from a state that had floods or other disaster issues or from one that you can clean a title in.
Bought the Above Truck, Been a Great Truck.
apr67
Explorer
Aug 13, 2013
I would generally trust carfax if it says a car has a problem. The actual size of the problem could be mis-stated, but in general the chance if a problem free car being listed as a problem car is very small.

In this day and age its easy for someone to refurbish a car that has had several trips around the 100k mark and make it look like new. Order new belts, replace the rubber pads on the pedals, and a few other of the old tricks are known by the people who cheat for a living.

Its a tool, its not a panacea.
bmanning
Explorer
Aug 13, 2013
Update for anyone interested in the Sequoia search for the FIL:

Took a pass on the black 05 SR5 2wd with 122k; lots of nicks & scratches, missing the 3rd row seat, some rear bumper damage, pass side power mirror not working, timing belt never replaced, tires had less than 1yr left on them. Besides all that, it was dirty; I very politely told the guy that spending $150 on a good detailing would make a night-and-day difference in how it showed. Not sure if he appreciated the advice or not, LOL, but I really was trying to help the guy out.

He was asking $10900, I told him we're buyers at $7500, he countered at $9000, I told him we couldn't budge off of $7500, and the story ends there. IF my FIL had bought it, right off the bat we'd have had to find 3rd row seats and get the timing belt done, so I'm almost relieved he didn't take our offer.

And yes, the carfax was clean, LOL.
Skid_Row_Joe
Explorer
Aug 13, 2013
I would never, ever buy a used car or truck without a Carfax.
dpatt67
Explorer
Aug 13, 2013
While I see the need to find out a vehicles history, I find it veeeerrrryyy hard to trust Carfax for anything. My experience was I had a small incident to the front of a Ram I had around 2004. Broke the grill and had some bumper damage. Several years later I went to sell it and a prospective buyer told me he couldn't buy it because of past frame damage..what?!? I call Carfax and tell them their info on my truck is wrong, even sent them the bodyshops paperwork that said the grill "frame" was replaced. They wouldn't listen, refused to budge on anything. So, I call my local news station and they did a special report on it, and miraculously they changed it. Idiots.
bmanning
Explorer
Aug 12, 2013
catfishmontana wrote:
bmanning wrote:
catfishmontana wrote:
Fordlover wrote:
popupcamping wrote:
Carfax's are a very UN reliable way to buy a car.

They are good to find some that you don't want to buy.

But there are millions of vehicles out there that could have issues that a carfax will never show.

If things are not reported, a carfax is useless. Taking a "good" carfax report and buying because of that is not a good idea.

It is one tool that is helpful, out of many that should be used when evaluating a used vehicle.

Not if you are paying for the carfax yourself. I personally will not support a business such as carfax. Seems such a waste of money to get hit or miss info to me.

I did pay for it, and however isolated this case may be, spending $55 prevented me green-lighting my FIL to spend thousands of dollars under the premise of buying a 94k mile truck when in actuality he'd have bought a nearly 200k miles truck.

Everyone is free to hate Carfax, but it saved me a headache and my FIL a bad car deal.

Thing is, you could have also passed up a deal on a car with half the miles you though it had. See what I am saying? On principle alone, I refuse to support a business such as carfax.

Not denying that that "could" have been the case, but I'm keeping it simple-- carfax said odo rollback, vehicle is priced WAY below most others with similar year/mileage, owner never challenged accusation of rollback, on to the next one for sale we go.

I can't say it enough: I'm not defending carfax in general, but let me put it this way-- in this case, it appears there's a good chance it helped my family avoiding buying a rectangle that was being sold as a square.