15 captured repliesPartial discussion capture · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHGT3 what''s it worth?
Leading reported evidence
Use ...)
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
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 performed work without a confirmed outcome
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.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
On the official government website it states as you say above (body shell to be crushed but parts can be used...)
Leading evidence: 'Use ...)' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Use ...)' (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.
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 win you have to pay them a fee for using their bidding facility which can be 5% of the hammer price...
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.
15 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: 20261028T015456Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Lots of nice parts there, although in some cases 3 out of the 4 you'd want.
Hard to value it as you don't know how knackered the bits are, what do people think would be a good price for it, 15k?
If the engine and gearbox are OK they are easily worth £15k. Other than that it looks like the value of a set of GT3 clocks, the seats (If you would trust them after the impact) and a front caliper
MC
There are a lot of maybes unless you can inspect it but if the following parts are working and structurally sound you're into the £20k's no problem.
Engine = £12000-£15000
Gearbox = £4000-5000
Seats, genuine nomex = £3k per pair
Rear wing = £1k +
Set of lights if Litronics = £500+
Wheels = £200+ each
Then there are all the small parts that add up, such as the rest of the interior, clocks, ECU, etc etc.
Only way the seats won't be salvageable will be if the drivers side floor is so crumpled it's bent the seats mounts and cracked the seats. If not then they'll be fine as that's not actually a huge smash. Certainly not enough to snap seat-backs or anything.
Brakes will be worth money, callipers, m/c etc, exhausts aren't available anymore new. GT3 carpets etc.
No mileage stated but my guess would be 20-22 ish
Subject to structural condition and engine; I'd have a go at straightening that out: fit a Cup steering wheel, carbon roof, a cage, some lightweight wheels... It would make for a cracking track car and if you are handy with the spanners could be very cheap. If I had the space I'd be making an offer for my next project
I cant see more that £22k in it but have seen worse go for more. I think some one will pay circa £25-28 so i am out
For the sum of parts i would happily pay £20k, sell the big items quick and then the rest would be gravy !
Yep, low mileage Clubsport with cage delete. Sold for £72k 18 months ago.
That's all "apparently" from someone I know who keeps a GT3 database, but there can't be many CS without the cage.
Get it bought Richard!
You can't use that car for anything other than parts being a CAT B write off.
They won't even sell it to anyone that does not have all the relevant paper work as it needs to be destroyed once all removable parts are stripped out.
The way they get round this is offering a service called BreakerBid4U and this puts bids on the car for you. If you win you have to pay them a fee for using their bidding facility which can be 5% of the hammer price... you don't remove the engine and gearbox yourself they do that part which I am not too happy about but it is what it is. You remove anything else you want.
£125 plus vat for the use of the breaker bay.
You have to also pay for recovery from the co-part facility to the breaker yard which is roughly £300-£600 depending on distance.
By the time you add the VAT into the equation and all those fees it gets very expensive and you only have one session to dismantle the car by the looks of it 9am-4pm.
It would need to be sub £15k to make it worthwhile....
Many thanks for this info:
On the official government website it states as you say above (body shell to be crushed but parts can be used...)
However on
this
website a CAT B can be reused but you may struggle to find
insurance
:
"Category B write-offs represent serious damage to a vehicle which could include body or parts damage that is beyond repair and should not re-appear on the roads. However if the vehicle is of significant value & either financial or sentimental, then you may think it is worth repairing to make it road worthy once more."
I'd be looking to use it in Germany so perhaps it may be a little easier. I am seriously considering this car if the price is stupidly cheap. I don't see anything in the pictures that looks particularly difficult to fix. The fact
ENGINE WILL NOT START - REASON UNKNOWN
may be down to
NUMBER OF KEYS WITH VEHICLE 0
I'm quite interested, the boss will no doubt go ballistic at the mere thought of this project :grin: but it wouldn't be the first time she has had to deal with my somewhat weird fascination with the 996...
My mate is a salvage dealer and he's kept a good few Cat B things as whole cars over the years, for track use etc.
Might be a recent change that Mike is on about though. I'll ask my mate out of interest when I next see him.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
