Re: Negative - MX-3.COM
Posted: December 31st, 2008, 3:08 pm
EDIT: Added link to original "For Sale" thread for reference purposes. http://www.mx-3.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67143" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mike,
I'm sorry this isn't working out for you. Your financial situation does not play a role in this. I offered the car for sale "AS-IS" for $1500.
As-is, means, what you see is what you get. Buyer Beware. I gave you plenty of time to look over the car. You and your friend both had ample opportunity to check for things on the car that you may or may not have been comfortable with.
You started the car, and seemed happy with how it ran. I won't say too much about the fact that when you started it, you promptly stalled the car, as it was still in gear and you took it off the clutch. Good thing the brakes were working well enough to stop the car from going through my garage wall and into my kitchen.
Unfortunately, when my insurance on the car ran out in the beginning of November, I decided not to reinsure it for the road, as it was a 3rd car for us at the time, and I had no reason to drive it anymore. My new daily driver is a 2000 Honda Civic, and my wife now drives our 2005 Honda CR-V. As much as I loved my MX-3, driving a 9 year old car, is obviously better than driving a 14 year old car.
Having no insurance on the car, was my reason for not allowing a test drive. Your friend backed it out of the driveway, and drove it over to the shoulder, without any issues. Granted that is not a test drive, but it shows that it shifts fine, and brakes fine.
If the brakes didn't work as you mention, you or he would have/should have noticed.
I claimed the brakes work fine, and stand by that. Yes the rear brakes were worn down, and needed replacing, but that is why I supplied you with the brand new set of rear brake shoes.
The emergency brake mechanism works, although yes, it seems the right side may be seized. The left rear E-brake still operates as normal.
Regarding the underlying problems with the transmission/belt are not required to have the car "running". First of all you blame the belt squeak on the transmission. There are no belts in the transmission. The squeaking/squealing you hear on start up of the car, is a common issue with many cars, both old and new. The alternator/power steering belt is slipping on the pulleys, and causes the noise. You can either adjust the pulleys or have a lubrication put on them, which should stop the noise.
The transmission issue you mentioned I have a hard time believing. The clutch was replaced on the car in May 2007, and I have been driving manual transmissions since the first day I drove a car over 18 years ago. I know how to drive a manual transmission, and only ever changed the clutch once in the life of the car at 220,000km's. The shifter bushings were also replaced by Mazda at 234,000km's. I never noticed anything wrong with the transmission, and when I called the garage this morning to get more details, he admitted he heard a bit of a noise, but nothing that affects how it can drive.
I don't feel I should have to take the car back. I was selling a used car, AS-IS, which by the way passed all emissions testing every year it was tested. I even provided you with last May's test results.
The manifold crack, the resonator leak, and the muffler weld, are minor repairs which the mechanic said he could most likely just weld over.
The car is not worth scrap, and it is not a lemon. The car is a 14 year old car, which was obviously worth $1500 to you, as you were more than willing to pay that amount for the car, without any further, investigations. Now that you find it has some minor repairs to be done, you want to bail out and get your money back. And believe me, these are minor repairs.
The shop I recommended is in my opinion honest and is not trying to rip you or anyone else off. I am glad we both agree on that point.
If I was out to be malicious, I don't think I would have posted it on my very own web site/forum. I have had this site up and running for almost 12 years, and would not want to ruin my reputation on the site over the sale of this car, and trying to get a few extra dollars. I just wanted what I feel is a fair price for the car, and to have the car off of my hands. I have two other cars, a family and a home to worry about. No time or interest in having a third car to tinker around with.
Although I have a fair knowledge of cars, I do not claim to be an expert or a mechanic for cars. Yes I did say that I didn't see any major issues getting it safety tested, and think the items that have come up will be similar on most 14 year old cars.
Your claim about the term "as-is" having no grounds in court, is incorrect. My post says as-is, which means you need to do the repairs to certify the car to be plated by the Ministry of Transportation. I never misled you, or tried to tell you otherwise.
Your example about the brakes is a little misleading in itself. We did not have that exchange of words, and you make it look like we did. I hope you meant that as only an example.
In our discussions this morning after you found out the cost of the repairs, you hung up on me not once, but twice. Not a very mature way to deal with this. The first time I thought my cell phone may have cut out, so I called back. You then said you were very frustrated. I am sorry about that. The second time you promptly muttered, "I'll see you in court." then hung up again. At this point I figured, it was not worth my time to try and call you back. You brought this upon yourself.
The threat of Small-claims court and Uncle Lawyer does not scare me. Everyone has an uncle that is a lawyer...
By the way, if you think you are in tough financial times right now, try having a mortgage, 2 cars, and a family with daycare expenses to support, among other things.
Jeff
Mike,
I'm sorry this isn't working out for you. Your financial situation does not play a role in this. I offered the car for sale "AS-IS" for $1500.
As-is, means, what you see is what you get. Buyer Beware. I gave you plenty of time to look over the car. You and your friend both had ample opportunity to check for things on the car that you may or may not have been comfortable with.
You started the car, and seemed happy with how it ran. I won't say too much about the fact that when you started it, you promptly stalled the car, as it was still in gear and you took it off the clutch. Good thing the brakes were working well enough to stop the car from going through my garage wall and into my kitchen.
Unfortunately, when my insurance on the car ran out in the beginning of November, I decided not to reinsure it for the road, as it was a 3rd car for us at the time, and I had no reason to drive it anymore. My new daily driver is a 2000 Honda Civic, and my wife now drives our 2005 Honda CR-V. As much as I loved my MX-3, driving a 9 year old car, is obviously better than driving a 14 year old car.
Having no insurance on the car, was my reason for not allowing a test drive. Your friend backed it out of the driveway, and drove it over to the shoulder, without any issues. Granted that is not a test drive, but it shows that it shifts fine, and brakes fine.
If the brakes didn't work as you mention, you or he would have/should have noticed.
I claimed the brakes work fine, and stand by that. Yes the rear brakes were worn down, and needed replacing, but that is why I supplied you with the brand new set of rear brake shoes.
The emergency brake mechanism works, although yes, it seems the right side may be seized. The left rear E-brake still operates as normal.
Regarding the underlying problems with the transmission/belt are not required to have the car "running". First of all you blame the belt squeak on the transmission. There are no belts in the transmission. The squeaking/squealing you hear on start up of the car, is a common issue with many cars, both old and new. The alternator/power steering belt is slipping on the pulleys, and causes the noise. You can either adjust the pulleys or have a lubrication put on them, which should stop the noise.
The transmission issue you mentioned I have a hard time believing. The clutch was replaced on the car in May 2007, and I have been driving manual transmissions since the first day I drove a car over 18 years ago. I know how to drive a manual transmission, and only ever changed the clutch once in the life of the car at 220,000km's. The shifter bushings were also replaced by Mazda at 234,000km's. I never noticed anything wrong with the transmission, and when I called the garage this morning to get more details, he admitted he heard a bit of a noise, but nothing that affects how it can drive.
I don't feel I should have to take the car back. I was selling a used car, AS-IS, which by the way passed all emissions testing every year it was tested. I even provided you with last May's test results.
The manifold crack, the resonator leak, and the muffler weld, are minor repairs which the mechanic said he could most likely just weld over.
The car is not worth scrap, and it is not a lemon. The car is a 14 year old car, which was obviously worth $1500 to you, as you were more than willing to pay that amount for the car, without any further, investigations. Now that you find it has some minor repairs to be done, you want to bail out and get your money back. And believe me, these are minor repairs.
The shop I recommended is in my opinion honest and is not trying to rip you or anyone else off. I am glad we both agree on that point.
If I was out to be malicious, I don't think I would have posted it on my very own web site/forum. I have had this site up and running for almost 12 years, and would not want to ruin my reputation on the site over the sale of this car, and trying to get a few extra dollars. I just wanted what I feel is a fair price for the car, and to have the car off of my hands. I have two other cars, a family and a home to worry about. No time or interest in having a third car to tinker around with.
Although I have a fair knowledge of cars, I do not claim to be an expert or a mechanic for cars. Yes I did say that I didn't see any major issues getting it safety tested, and think the items that have come up will be similar on most 14 year old cars.
Your claim about the term "as-is" having no grounds in court, is incorrect. My post says as-is, which means you need to do the repairs to certify the car to be plated by the Ministry of Transportation. I never misled you, or tried to tell you otherwise.
Your example about the brakes is a little misleading in itself. We did not have that exchange of words, and you make it look like we did. I hope you meant that as only an example.
In our discussions this morning after you found out the cost of the repairs, you hung up on me not once, but twice. Not a very mature way to deal with this. The first time I thought my cell phone may have cut out, so I called back. You then said you were very frustrated. I am sorry about that. The second time you promptly muttered, "I'll see you in court." then hung up again. At this point I figured, it was not worth my time to try and call you back. You brought this upon yourself.
The threat of Small-claims court and Uncle Lawyer does not scare me. Everyone has an uncle that is a lawyer...
By the way, if you think you are in tough financial times right now, try having a mortgage, 2 cars, and a family with daycare expenses to support, among other things.
Jeff