Nissan Note Owners Forum banner

21 - 40 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
Agent Cain, Agent Smith's my cousin :p

Im not completely clueless on things. I've been servicing the car. Im an engineer too, albeit not a car one, and have been studying the properties of materials. They would never cut off the part because only the front 4cm of the right chassis leg is squished in. The legs haven't moved sideways. What gave is the reinforcement bar mount. These mounts are spot welded in place and the welds are visible. They can be drilled out, new mounts in and then welded. The reinforcement bar bolts on brand new.

So its purely an economical decision based on ONE estimate from the insurer's garage. And that estimate includes the cost margin for a courtesy car. If that wasn't supplied, it would very well be the case that the car would be fixed by now.

I will go and have a look at the car myself, get the bumper off and take some more pictures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
Hard to argue with those facts Sineu.
Just scrap it and move on, (safety first with no worries.)
I liked agent Smith, he was a relentless character.
Won't do any harm to check the car out for peace of mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #26 (Edited)
So I took it apart. It took me roughly 2 hours.

Some interesting conclusions on my part. The left chassis leg is unharmed. The right chassis leg is affected on the first 5cm. Out of the components to be replaced that were listed, the following have absolutely no reason to be changed
manufacturer's badge
upper crossmember
lower crossmember
alternator belt
expansion tank

Out of the rest, many are still in working order, like the AC tube, the plastic reinforcement cover or the intercooler

What I found VERY INTERESTING,is the fact that the front reinforcement bar is lacking the FOAM INSERT! If the foam was there, chances are the chassis leg wouldn't be affected. Which means that the dealer who sold me the car 2 years ago or more probably the owner who had it before that dealer removed this foam. So, a question for the forum, are there any Notes out there who are sold WITHOUT this foam???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #27 (Edited)
It does go on i agree but i'm of the opinion that written off cars should NEVER be allowed to be repaired and put back on the road.
Agent Smiths Note clearly has deformed front "legs" which are part of the chassis,they are there for front end strength,once they are deformed they should be replaced completely ( if allowed ) and not have just the damage cut out and another bit welded in.The "shockwave" fron the collision could have have an effect on other parts of the frame and chassis that would not be seen by the untrained eye.The damage related costs will also factor in the cost of labour to do the repairs, that cost plus the cost of parts = too high a price for the net worth of the car = car written off.
Honestly, i don't see the point of banging a drum for no reason, just accept the decision,take the payout,say goodbye to the car and get something else.
I disagree with that. Writing of a car has NOTHING to do with its safety. A car which is 20 years old, which was keyed by someone on every possible panel, is a cat N written off car because the insurance won't cover the costs of painting the panels. That doesn't make the car unsafe. If it was a Cat A or B, then its another story. But in this case calling it a Cat S is purely because of the way the repair assessment is done.

As for the legs following my inspection, only the driver side leg needs fixing which in the case of the note includes drilling off the front mounting plate at the welding spots, straightening the end of the tube and spot welding another new plate on top. Anything else is literally bolt on. The whole front reinforcement bar assembly I spotted on ebay for £130.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
Cat S means repairable.
That means I'd repair it... Doddle.
But i fully respect and understand why many drivers wouldn't entertain it.
Which creates a fallacy as the insurer will put the flag on the car only if the claim resulted in a non economical repair.
How many cars have been sold out there that had an accident without the previous owner ever going to the insurance?

If I knew what would have happened with the insurance, I would have the end of the chassis leg fixed for under 1K and all else I would source myself. And 1K I believe is an overestimate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
Which creates a fallacy as the insurer will put the flag on the car only if the claim resulted in a non economical repair.
How many cars have been sold out there that had an accident without the previous owner ever going to the insurance?

If I knew what would have happened with the insurance, I would have the end of the chassis leg fixed for under 1K and all else I would source myself. And 1K I believe is an overestimate
More near to £200 at my local indie Agent Cain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
649 Posts
I stand firm on this issue.
Paint aside, if a car is written off for accident damage then it should be crushed,no if's but's or otherwise.
I most certainly would not risk my family in a car that has been written off and then repaired and i cannot understand anyone who would be prepared to take that risk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
I stand firm on this issue.
Paint aside, if a car is written off for accident damage then it should be crushed,no if's but's or otherwise.
I most certainly would not risk my family in a car that has been written off and then repaired and i cannot understand anyone who would be prepared to take that risk.
It's subjective, no one sane would drive a cut n shut, but insurers will bounce a vehicle with a dented wing and smashed front headlamp unit.
If repaired properly that car is as safe as any other.
But i think your rigid stance Sineu does you proud!
After all, your Note was also dangerous on our roads.
It was full of water and had a habit of losing power randomly!
I sincerely hope your Ford is doing well mate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
I stand firm on this issue.
Paint aside, if a car is written off for accident damage then it should be crushed,no if's but's or otherwise.
I most certainly would not risk my family in a car that has been written off and then repaired and i cannot understand anyone who would be prepared to take that risk.
Its your opinion and I fully respect it. It is my point though that I was much more endangered from the lack of foam than from a straightened end of a chassis leg. There are so many components between me and the crash bar, including the main cabin which is unaffected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
649 Posts
I sincerely hope your Ford is doing well mate.
It certainly is mate, thanks.
My last word on the subject of repaired written off vehicles is that no matter how well they are repaired they will NEVER be as strong as they were when they were first built.Some even have to be realigned on a vehicle jig which is very expensive, and they are allowed back onto our roads,total lunacy to drive such a car.A written off car should be just that, written off.
The OP even stated that he would not drive the car if he was told not to do so.
So why all the fuss over having it written off ?
Just go with it and accept the cheque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #35
Why do you live in houses that were build since the 1800s? And were repaired over and over again?
How does the strength of the car relate to an economical decision? Do you realise there are bolts and nuts on the car holding things together that get rusty and as soon as the car gets out the factory its structural integrity starts to decline?Who tells you that your 15 year old car that was never involved in an accident won't snap in half because of rust forming on the steel chassis.

Yes I told that in two occasions 1) if the crash severely affected the chassis which no one told me it did and I have no reason to believe so and 2) if the insurance tells me not to, because I want to be legal and drive a car with insurance.

This is seriously a case of scaremongering. We are not talking about a car like this
1023


or even this
1024


I have the opinion of two mechanics that the safety of the car is not compromised. The mechanic who actually said its not roadworthy, before that did say its repairable and gave a quote. So we know its not a Cat A or B, which are not to be used again.

You've all seen the pictures. Its purely a combination of a bad mechanic/garage, a stiff insurance company, and the unrealistic expectation that a 6 year old car should be fixed with new manufacturer parts. They just want to write it off!

Are you sure you're not just biased against the Notes? Because of all the hardship mentioned and your signature?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
649 Posts
I have the same opinion regardless of the make or model of a vehicle.
It seems to me that you are far more attached to a lump of metal and plastic than you first said you were.
If the insurance said it's a write off then why argue ? They obviously wrote it off on the basis of repair costs greater than the value of the car,If you repair it, it will cost more to insure anyway as it would need a full safety inspection which i believe costs around £400,and you would never recoup the cost when you sold it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
Remember some of the cranky cars they welded up on top gear? (mental but funny)
A person's safety and that of their family is their own responsibility.
Let's see what Agent Cain does with his motor in due course and give him the benefit of the doubt.
He's not stupid and he'll come to his own conclusions in the coming days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #38 (Edited)
I have the same opinion regardless of the make or model of a vehicle.
It seems to me that you are far more attached to a lump of metal and plastic than you first said you were.
If the insurance said it's a write off then why argue ? They obviously wrote it off on the basis of repair costs greater than the value of the car,If you repair it, it will cost more to insure anyway as it would need a full safety inspection which i believe costs around £400,and you would never recoup the cost when you sold it.
No its not that. Its the fact that poor handling from the insurance side renders me without a car for an extended amount of time. And if I were to buy the exact same car from a dealer, I still have to cover the extra profit on top of the market value. If I were to keep the salvage and repair it, I will have to jump though hoops to repair it and inspect it. That also takes time. It should be a simple case of paying the excess and wait for the car to be fixed.

For no reason the repair costs overcome the value of the car. One is 3700, the other is 4300. Even the 3700 is overpriced because as I said it lists the replacement of parts which are not related to the accident. Maybe they should replace the wheels too? Or the rear windscreen? how about the wipers? Just the crossmember costs 100-150 used, say 200 new, another 40 the tank, maybe another 30 the badge, perhaps 10 the belt. Add the repair of the one chassis too, which I just checked and its fine. The AC hose is not compromised in any way, just bent yet they wanted to change that too, 50£ used, perhaps 70 new? Add the AC recharging and all this extra labour to cover for all this. The daytime running lamp is another £90 and I just checked it and it is perfectly fine, just dislocated! Do the math and thats an added 440 just for parts that don't need replacement. And then you have other parts like the intercooler or the lights. Both are in one piece with a couple of broken tabs. Why would you change the whole thing for one tab??? Why does the number plate need replacement when there are just hairline cracks that pre-existed the accident? I should be present to tell them what did happen after the accident and what not. I should be able to tell them what does need replacement and what doesnt. If something works and doesn't fall off, I don't see how replacing it with a shiny one will make the car better. I have other dings and damage on the car, some of which caused by me or preexisting. Why don't they value that too?

I would much better prefer for them to fix the structural damage, make sure the car is safe and leave all other non vital repairs to me. I would agree to that. If the AC pipe bursts or the intercooler doesn't perform best, that will not compromise the safety of the car or my usage of it. But dragging this whole process forever does.

So no I don't believe that the comprehensive insurance actually does something good to me, more like bad. As I said, if I had never filed a claim, I would still drive the car and probably had it fixed with way less than 3700. And I don't see how this is unreasonable for me to expect.

And also, I believe that they were actively inflating the bill so that the garage will have better profits and the insurance to write it off more easily. If anything this exercise taught me is to never have comprehensive insurance on a cheap car. If I had third party only, this wouldn't have happened. It is totally not fair and puts me in a situation of great distress and makes me feel like a hostage to the situation, like I don't have control over my own property!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,750 Posts
I still don't get the distress. Just buy the salvage, hammer/pull it straight, get a few second hand parts and drive it, keeping the rest of the money, you are most of the way there now anyway. I'd suggest that the missing foam is from when it was crashed before, along with the rusty crack in the front beam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Discussion Starter #40
What is there not to understand???

Why should I suffer from a devaluation of the vehicle (it already has the reported accident on it, now it's written off too), no matter how small, and the process of getting it checked just because the garage and insurance tried to con me? I'm already suffering the aftermath of the accident itself and the increased premiums!

No the crack happened in the accident. When I looked at it after the accident there was no rust there and the crack was clean. Rust developed during the last month. As for the missing foam, is this something to press charges against the dealer or I'm barking up the wrong tree?
 
21 - 40 of 71 Posts
Top