Dealer Inspection vs. PPI strategy????

I was just wondering, lots of deals are lost during the PPI process. You spend lots of time talking to a dealer, investigating the car of choice and once you are ready to make a move, you get a PPI done. Either on your own, with help of the dealer or some other option. Why wouldnt it be a better strategy if the dealer had the car already PPI'ed / inspected by a reputable shop (preferably a P Shop to avoid any conflict of interest) so that when we are discussing our "car of choice", the dealer can say "here's the report, we have already done it. Here is what was wrong, here is what we already fixed and here is what remains." This seems like a good strategy for all. The dealer spends a litlle which helps to ensure not losing a deal to a bad PPI, the buyer (us), know what we are getting and everyone wins. Am I missing something or is this an idea thats destined to FAIL???

For the same reason the person selling the house doesn't pay for and get the inspection. We are talking about upwards of $80k cars, used. For the same reason that when someone is suing you, you don't share attorneys. A dealer/salesman getting the car PPI'd for you IS a conflict of interests. It's called due-dilligence. You do it yourself for peace-of-mind.

Gant, I agree, maybe. If I am a dealer, and I spend lets say $300 for an inspection AND I do it at a reputable PORSCHE dealer, is it still a confict? If I am a buyer and I can see a report from a local PORSCHE dealer, wouldnt that be a good thing? PPI's are the same cost for a $30k or $80K car, so why not do it ahead of time if I am the dealer. I can see NOT doing it or using it as a buyer if its from the same place as the seller, but a 3rd party PPI seems like a good thing in advance of moving ahead with the car

I'm with Gant, it's a conflict of interest. Even with a 3rd party, if arranged by the dealer, there is the potential for bias (i.e. the the dealer sends a lot of business to this same shop for PPI's, so that shop starts looking a little less closely at the cars). The best way for a buyer to ensure no bias is to select the shop and pay for the PPI himself. This brings to mind another question of bias, which I will post on a separate thread.

Ok, for the sake-of-argument, lets say the dealer gets the car PPI'd on Monday and it passes with flying colors, then Wed they wreck the car, get it fixed by Sat, now you have a wrecked car, and you'd never know without your own PPI. This is just ONE example of a million things like this, that COULD happen. If you wanna trust the dealer to do your work, go ahead. My peace-of-mind is worth a lot more, to me.

I suspect that if dealers performed inspections it would just be another cost which would be passed along to the customer. Ultimately the buyer would end up footing the bill one way or another.