My $1,900 Test Drive

[Standman]

it's not worth it. he just doesnt get it. :headbonk::headbonk::headbonk:

We are in agreement

Sponsored

 

[akwal07]

We are in agreement

I admit I got confused about the tires that were on the car, still doesn't change the point that they dont have to be replaced

 

[akwal07]

Damn, I actually just did on TireRack:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...5YR0P0XL&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...R0P0XLV2&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes

+1

 

[Standman]

Damn, I actually just did on TireRack:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...5YR0P0XL&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...R0P0XLV2&vehicleSearch=false&fromCompare1=yes

One thing you have to be careful about is the age of the tires you're buying. I've seen a lot of "old stock" tires that get deeply discounted. That's probably what you're looking at there. They've got some 2010 production ones listed for $215

 

[RisingForce]

I admit I got confused about the tires that were on the car, still doesn't change the point that they dont have to be replaced

you dont think they should be replaced, cause you arent affected by it.
Those who are affected by it ( The dealer and the new owner) would disagree with you.

 

[Standman]

I admit I got confused about the tires that were on the car, still doesn't change the point that they dont have to be replaced

And I would probably agree with you if it was just a minor scuff on the sidewall. We have no way of knowing that, though. If my wife drove it, all 4 would be sandpapered down within a month :tsk:

 

[HobokenStang]

One thing you have to be careful about is the age of the tires you're buying. I've seen a lot of "old stock" tires that get deeply discounted. That's probably what you're looking at there. They've got some 2010 production ones listed for $215

Granted, but it's still a new and unused tire.

 

[USPSALIMITED]

If it was me I wouldn't pay & let them take me to small claims. For a small scratch I doubt they'll go through the trouble of taking you to court. They could easily fix that scratch in house for less than $20. If it does go to court & win then they'll be forced to come up with a more accurate quote which will be no near what they claimed. Besides I'm sure the judge will not favor a rediculous amount under the circumstances

+1

Any business that has a fleet of vehicles needs insurance, it is a certainty that accidents will happen.

If they were asking you to pay a reasonable deductible fee (say $500) that might be worthy of discussion. If they are asking you to pay 1900 because they were either too negligent to purchase insurance or too negligent to make you fully aware that you were driving at high financial risk, that is not something you need to fret about.

 

[Standman]

Granted, but it's still a new and unused tire.

True, and I wouldn't be scared of it. It is, however, a factor in the value of the tire.

 

[akwal07]

you dont think they should be replaced, cause you arent affected by it.
Those who are affected by it ( The dealer and the new owner) would disagree with you.

The dealer knows there is a risk with giving test drives #1

The dealer gets damaged vehicles from transport and the new owner will never know #2

It's a scratch #3

If I opened a door of the car and put a tiny ding into it do you think I'd pay for a new door? Lol

If the dealer did this to your car they would fix it without even telling you, they would never replace it.

 

[USPSALIMITED]

The dealer knows there is a risk with giving test drives #1
.

As I think more about it, I doubt that the dealer in this case has a leg to stand on.
I suspect that consumer protection legalities exist to protect the driver.

"Oops, now give me $1900.00" sounds like fraud.

 

[akwal07]

As I think more about it, I doubt that the dealer in this case has a leg to stand on.
I suspect that consumer protection legalities exist to protect the driver.

"Oops, now give me $1900.00" sounds like fraud.

It is fraud they gave you permission to drive they should have insurance to cover test drive situations like this

 

[POOPonYOU]

It is fraud they gave you permission to drive they should have insurance to cover test drive situations like this

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought this. The crazy thing is that most dealers don't even ask if you're insured when you test drive. They ask for your driver's license. What if I went into a dealer but didn't own a car? Isn't the owner of the vehicle responsible for the vehicle, any injuries caused to the public and damage to public property? If they didn't make the OP sign a waiver then I don't see why he's legally responsible for damage.

 

[akwal07]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought this. The crazy thing is that most dealers don't even ask if you're insured when you test drive. They ask for your driver's license. What if I went into a dealer but didn't own a car? Isn't the owner of the vehicle responsible for the vehicle, any injuries caused to the public and damage to public property? If they didn't make the OP sign a waiver then I don't see why he's legally responsible for damage.

Insurance follows the car not the driver

 

[POOPonYOU]

Really? But that doesn't make sense to me. Cause when you get pulled over they ask for proof of insurance for the car you're driving. Good thing I've never had to find this out.

Sponsored