38 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHLooks like Harvey claimed at least 10 996s
Leading reported evidence
Adjust "total" loss
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
Insurance companies are going to use the smallest number they can justify in adjusting a "total" loss.
Leading evidence: 'Adjust "total" loss' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Adjust "total" loss' (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 · Original poster
If you go to the detail page of each listing it also says what the estimated repair number would be.
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
i wouldn't think you would need to replace TOO many parts
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 · Original poster
You would think typically insurance companies would use the lowest figure possible.
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 · Original poster
The number that they are using for retail value on Copart is the same number that the insurance company told him, and what he got as the payout, minus the deductible, so it is not Copart inflating the retail number.
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 · Original poster
The number that they are using for retail value on Copart is the same number that the insurance company told him, and what he got as the payout, minus the deductible, so it is not Copart inflating the retail number.
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.
38 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 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: 20261026T183130Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Browsing Copart for 996s as I do on a weekly basis, I noticed a ton at the Houston location.
Some in much worse shape than others.
Somewhat encouraging is the estimated retail values they have on some of these cars.
High teens to low 20's for the 3.4L and over 30K for the 3.6L.
https://www.copart.com/vehicleFinder...null%7D&page=1
is a submerged motor rebuildable?
i wouldn't think you would need to replace TOO many parts
if they're cheap, someone (Raby) should snag them - rebuild them with his upgrades - and have some type of "exchange program"
Yep...it breaks my heart to see all those cars get destroyed (and even more so when I look at the lives that are ruined). However, fewer cars will mean higher prices.
Well we know of at least two from one of our own:
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...e-for-now.html
From his history (
https://rennlist.com/forums/996-foru...w-2002-c2.html
) we find
these pics
which could be
this car
yeah...really terrible....I saw that picture of the car before....I couldn't figure out how it could look so bad....what is all of that stuff on the interior.
My bodyshop has a XK8 from NJ or somewhere that a customer sent to him after the late 2012 hurricane that hit there. The guy keeps swearing he wants to restore it, but it's been sitting there ever since. You couldn't see any original surface after about 2 months and a year in and you could no longer see through the windows anymore. I can't even imagine what it looks like inside if you open the door at this point
Wonder how many of these will get their titles washed and get foisted onto some unsuspecting person that will come to hate the 996
I wonder what those estimated values are based on. I'm not complaining about the numbers, just wondering if they really mean anything. Insurance companies are going to use the smallest number they can justify in adjusting a "total" loss.
yeah, that is why I was surprised they were so high. You would think typically insurance companies would use the lowest figure possible.
I have a friend that just had his 2008 GTI totaled, which is currently on Copart. The number that they are using for retail value on Copart is the same number that the insurance company told him, and what he got as the payout, minus the deductible, so it is not Copart inflating the retail number.
I wonder what is listed if it was an agreed value policy?
"Somewhat encouraging is the estimated retail values they have on some of these cars.
High teens to low 20's for the 3.4L and over 30K for the 3.6L."
Those are "dream" prices, not salvage prices. That's supposedly what they would be worth retail if they weren't wrecked. Too bad there's nothing to base that on since the car is already totaled. What if it had a dead engine before it was flooded? There's no way to tell at this point, so those numbers are totally moot! Those cars are worse less than nothing as "re-buildable"... I'm sure someone will pay something for them, but not much - I'd be surprised if someone paid more than $1k in that condition... That shift **** is nice though...
** Not laughing at the owners misfortune (thankfully he was covered by insurance) I just thought it a little ironic that the most desirable part of the car at this point is the shift ****!
Yeah I hope anyone having to open those cars (and god forbid sticking their head in) had a full biohazard suit on. Somehow doubt it though
I'm not super paranoid over mold like some, but I wouldn't want to breath within 20' of those cars
I believe what the estimate retail value is referring to is what the car would be worth if not totaled. If you go to the detail page of each listing it also says what the estimated repair number would be.
Using my friend's example, he was paid out what the estimated retail value listed on Copart is for his car.
I was not saying that these cars were worth that money in their current state. I was saying that is what insurance believed they were worth before the incident, and those numbers seem pretty healthy.
Just an uneducated guess, but if the Ins Cos can make claims against the disaster recovery funds then they would have motivation to inflate values so that they could claim higher losses.
The estimated value of the 2002 that *might* have belonged to a member here is $32,087. If that car was in perfect shape, I think you'd be hard pressed to get $25k for it. I just don't see that car going for $32k unless you happen to find the biggest moron in the world.
Pretty sure that they didn't payout to the former owner based on $32k either.
This smells of Copart trying to entice higher bids or the Ins Cos playing games.
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlist.com-vbulletin/1200x680/cosply_4310d8a4f18fb8c8ca1b671dd9b3441750265312.jpg
Tony, time to fess up. You're an exec at one of the Fake Media empires aren't you? Only someone expertly trained in political obfuscation could have so badly quoted me to come up with that!
An exchange program isn't for my way of creating engines. Its not about hasty assembly, or swapping engines out. I build engines from the customer's existing core, which matches their car, and is "known".
Leave the "exchanging" to the mass producers.
