11 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHOpinion on this 2000 C4
Leading reported evidence
Run away
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.
Leading evidence: 'Run away' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Run away' (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.
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.
11 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: 20261026T130754Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.js...ce=&cardist=25
The (used) car dealer is pretty up front about this car, especially since CarFax reports it as clean as a whistle.
So is this worth looking at? I'm concerned that there isn't enough information about the rear-end accident, but the new clutch, new flywheel and new engine makes it pretty tantalizing!
tom
IMO Skip it
They are trying to sell it for the same price as if it had ever been hit. It does not take much to cause frame damage. If they missed the leak that caused engine failure what else did they miss.
There is nothing special about this car... Run away
The reason they are being so upfront about the collision, is because they know that the damage/repair is so obvious so they are trying to soften you up before you actually see it.
i say buy it if it's $20K...... then i think it's a deal...... other then that you can look for another one... i think if they will offer you a 4 year warr. no hassle no problem... i would take it.. brand new engine with 4 years.....? sure... why not...
nada shows:
<img src="http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q152/einsteins_album/porsche2000.jpg">
i would stay away from it.
the price looks good but the past looks bad!
Thanks for the reality reminder.
I'll keep an eye on it to see if the price drops or they up the ante with a better warranty.
Meanwhile, I'll keep looking!
tom
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
