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.
Just advancing one car at a time at a stop sign, and the guy behind me (in a Jeep Gladiator with a front brush guard) didn't stop soon enough. . . . and hit my 2014 MT 911 50th Anniversary Edition in geyser grey.
Looks like only minimal damage to the rear bumper cover, and maybe or maybe not any paint damage, as the rear is covered in a PPF, but the "E" will definitely need to be replaced. Repair cost shouldn't be bad, but diminished value would probably be significant, which I would estimate at 10-15% of car value (say $15,000 off a $150,000 car). It's already been reported to insurance as a collision. Any other thoughts?
Dent on rear of 50th Anniversary 911 in geyser grey
Read The Emperor has no Clothes. No one in his right mind would care one iota about such minimal damage. Worrying about “DV” on this type of blemish is like the zero tolerance policies that don’t differentiate between a cough drop and heroin. Document the damage with photos, and if you ever sell the car it won’t make one iota of difference in the price you’ll get. Think about it. All anyone seems to care about is the “report card.” When it’s repaired, the car will literally be as good as new. There will be absolutely no way to tell it was ever repaired and your driving enjoyment will not be affected in any way. Carfax and lawyers (and Rennlist) created the entire artificial world of DV. It should only matter when there has been serious damage. What if you decided to replace the front or rear bumper covers to Sport Design? Just because you changed the covers, should the vehicle now be subject to DV? Of course not. But if you get a scratch or ding and you replace the covers, then your car is worth less? Oh, I forgot. It’s only worth less if it’s reported in Carfax. Give me a freaking break. This is pure insanity. There is no such thing as DV for cosmetic damage. The Emperor has no clothes.
Read The Emperor has no Clothes. No one in his right mind would care one iota about such minimal damage. Worrying about “DV” on this type of blemish is like the zero tolerance policies that don’t differentiate between a cough drop and heroin. Document the damage with photos, and if you ever sell the car it won’t make one iota of difference in the price you’ll get. Think about it. All anyone seems to care about is the “report card.” When it’s repaired, the car will literally be as good as new. There will be absolutely no way to tell it was ever repaired and your driving enjoyment will not be affected in any way. Carfax and lawyers (and Rennlist) created the entire artificial world of DV. It should only matter when there has been serious damage. What if you decided to replace the front or rear bumper covers to Sport Design? Just because you changed the covers, should the vehicle now be subject to DV? Of course not. But if you get a scratch or ding and you replace the covers, then your car is worth less? Oh, I forgot. It’s only worth less if it’s reported in Carfax. Give me a freaking break. This is pure insanity. There is no such thing as DV for cosmetic damage. The Emperor has no clothes.
....but the reality is that everyone does care about the CarFax, and it will sell for 10-15% less. . . .so there you go!
... and eventually, someone loses the photo, and all that's left is the CarFax report that says minor rear damage, and they take a 10% hit for losing the photo in the glove box. . . that's absurd. The reality is that someone has to take the hit, and you may as well account for it when it happens, which is now.
09-30-2023 | 03:34 PM
Any diminished value experts?
