7 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHI think I recognise this -
Leading reported evidence
Inspect by an indy or opc
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
It is a risk and should not only be inspected by an indy or opc but should also go passed a panel shop who know what to look for.
Leading evidence: 'Inspect by an indy or opc' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Inspect by an indy or opc' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Cat D though implies there is nothing unsafe about the damage and it's therefore suitable for repair by cheaper labour.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
company have decided it's not viable to repair from their point of view.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
If you can get info and pre repair pics, this could give you an idea if you are happy with it.
Repair versus write off is so close it's not viable
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
This can be from their policies, where they would prefer not hand back a car to a client that's had major repairs, or they decided the cost to repair versus write off is so close it's not viable to repair.
Repair versus write off is so close it's not viable
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
This can be from their policies, where they would prefer not hand back a car to a client that's had major repairs, or they decided the cost to repair versus write off is so close it's not viable to repair.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
7 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
911uk: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T005001Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I searched back in the 996 forum, but couldn't find it - a while ago someone was sticking a C4S front onto his C2 - and wanted to know if we thought it looked ok. I thought he was just doing it because he liked the look and it hadn't been crashed if I remember correctly??
http://www.pistonheads.com/SALES/958033.htm
Is this the same car??
LOJO
I would think not. The key in that advert is 'CAT - D' this means it has had light damage. I would say that is the reason the front bumper on that car has been modified, not just by choice.
Cat D is slipped in at the end, but it depends on what you feel about that.
Its well priced, compared to what I was looking at a couple of months ago, but I reckon that there would be further flexibility. Its very well specced.
A Cat D means that the car has definately been crashed. If you can get info and pre repair pics, this could give you an idea if you are happy with it.
A non Cat D means it may or may not have been crashed. I have seen many Cat D cars in better nick than some non Cat D cars.
The other thing that you need to think about is resale. People generally don't want written off cars, so you would struggle to sell it in a hurry(and would also need to price it accordingly)
The other big issue with a CAT D is
insurance
. If ever the car got stolen or damaged the payout is peanuts even though you will have paid the same premium as a straight car.
CAT D means the
insurance
company have decided it's not viable to repair from their point of view. This can be from their policies, where they would prefer not hand back a car to a client that's had major repairs, or they decided the cost to repair versus write off is so close it's not viable to repair. Cat D though implies there is nothing unsafe about the damage and it's therefore suitable for repair by cheaper labour. There in lies the problem. It's only viable to be repaired by a company who does lower quality work - or pays very cheap labour. They are typically bought by backyard companies or by panel beaters who personally invest their time to repair them and sell them. You could get a really nice car, or you could get a car that on the surface looks fine but underneath the panels it's as crumpled as the day it was crashed.
It is a risk and should not only be inspected by an indy or opc but should also go passed a panel shop who know what to look for.
It's a good way to pickup a cheaper car but will just bite you at the other end when you come to sell it.
