bc6152

Well there's no frame on these cars so not to worry... No frame = no frame damage...

Arty101

Bob- Good point.

BTW, I've dealt with this dealership before, albeit 10+years ago. Based on my impressions only, I don't think neither the sales nor service dept embodies the Lexus culture. Without going into details, I suspect since all dealership are franchised (excl. Tesla) and each dealer is operated by their GM which sets the tone of their operation, even with the overall training and goals set by cooperate. Suffice to say, I have not gone back for either sales or service.

swfla

iTrader: (1)

bc6152 - You're good at pointing out other's errors and when asked to provide a positive alternative, you won't or can't. That's a shame. "Either you're part of the solution or you're part of the problem" Eldridge Cleaver.

JDR76

Unibody cars can still suffer frame/structural damage. While they don't have a stand alone/traditional frame, the frame is incorporated into the body. Here's a decent article:

http://www.carfax.com/guides/buying-...d/frame-damage

bc6152

I didn't point out anyone's errors. You didn't make an error in your post asking for an interpretation of frame damage. I merely stated that our cars do not have a frame because they are unibody as most cars built today are. Sorry if you're offended but there was no intention there. This make me "part of the problem"? GMAB.

BTW I never liked Eldridge Cleaver anyway...He was a convicted rapist. Look it up...

swfla

iTrader: (1)

Structural damage seems like a good term for us to use in the place of frame. Good post.

Poppa

I'm afraid I don't have any advise for you but I do think it's a damn shame the dealer didn't disclose it to you before hand.. I think that should be mandatory. I know some years back I sold a home that had a slight crack in the slab... had a letter from an engineer that said the crack was due to part of the house being built on a "fill" area, but stated it was not a structural issue... after I sold the house I got sued.. lawyer said I was legally obligated to disclose the crack to the buyer..... now, in my current house, a drought from 2 years back caused a slab issue in my garage... had it fixed ( quite expensive I might add ).. got a letter from the company that fixed the slab stating the warranty on the repair was transferrable, but that i did have to disclose the slab / repair work if I ever sell the house... why should it be any different on a car.. if a dealer's selling a car that he knows was damaged, he should have to disclose it... anything short of that is dishonest in my opinion. maybe not illegal, but sure as hell dishonest... just sayin...

Poppa

lesz

I believe that there are valid comparisons that can be made between disclosure related to the sale of a home and disclosure related to the sale of a vehicle, but I don't think that the comparison that you are making is a valid one.

When you sell a home, you are required (in most states) to disclose issues and repairs made to things like the foundation, if the home has been in a flood, etc. Similarly, in most states (perhaps, all states) the seller of a vehicle is required to disclose things like frame/structural repairs, flood damage, major collision repairs (as defined by repairs reaching some dollar threshold). On the other hand, when you sell your home, you do not disclose things like repairing a broken window, fixing a leaky porch roof, etc. Similarly, the seller of a vehicle is not required to disclose things like non-major sheet metal work, fixing a flat tire, etc.

I completely accept the possibility that the OP was not treated properly by the dealer; however, I'm not willing to come to the conclusion with only the OP's (vague) description of the repairs that were done to the vehicle or with knowing that the dealer's version of the repair details is likely quite different from that of the OP.

Without full knowledge of the details of the repairs that were done to the vehicle, it would be wrong, I believe, to conclude that the OP is out of line, but it would be equally wrong to conclude that it is a "shame" that the dealer cheated the OP.

12jimmyjam

My opinion is that if a dealer performs any significant bodywork, doesn't report it to carfax, and then presents a carfax as a selling point, then that is shady.

That being said I don't think I've ever owned a vehicle that hasn't had some form of paintwork done to it. Also, carfax sucks.

gregjhonda

There is a dealer near me that moves a LOT of used cars that are 12 months old or newer. He buys them from the auction with moderate collision damage ( usually sheet metal on one side or maybe some steering alignment defects). He gets these cars at a tremendous discount and has them repaired at his buddy's body shop in a small town about 7 miles from here. The body man does not have CarFax and does not report any of these repairs to CarFax. Thus all these cars look absolutely stunning but many have a lot of body putty on them. These are not repairs made with new fenders and doors but patch jobs done at low cost for cosmetic effect. All of these cars have a clean CarFax report!

These cars also have the balance of the factory warranty which the dealer touts as great buyer protection. Of course the factory warranty is not going to cover shoddy collision repairs which have nothing to do with the manufacturer.

I agree that a dealer who brags about offering the CarFax service and about a given car having a clean CarFax is shady. He is implying by the clean CarFax that the car is clean when he knows it has been damaged. In this case I say, spread the word with specifics about the dealer! This is not an illegal practice but it's still dishonest and I would hope that Lexus cars about the reputation of it's dealers.