does your luxury / exotic vehicle lose its value after respray or repaint?

[David Fermani]

There is a difference in people's mind. Collision damage would make me worry a lot more than if a car had hail damage repaired.

Well, now you're talking about hail damage. :nervous2:That right there could range in the replacement of a panel and/or the entire panel being loaded with body filler. For a car involved in a hail storm to require body repair, that means the car took a pretty substantial beating. Either way the value of the vehicle has decreased. Some would want to retain thier original panel(s) and some would insist on a replacement. It depends. But regardless, if a luxury/high-end/exotic vehicle has any kind of paintwork (with or w/o filler underneath the existing or replacement panel) its value has decreased.

It depends. If you are talking about a late model luxury/exotic that is fully and PROPERLY repainted due to something like acid rain damage or being keyed, that shouldn't affect the value. If it was due to collision damage, you will take a hit on the value.



When it comes to collectibles, if the original paint is in good condition or you want to show in a "survivor" class, you are better off not repainting.

If two identical vehicles were for sale and 1 of them had a perfect quality repaint due to acid rain or from being keyed would you be prepared to offer each one the same amount? I wouldn't. Even if the perfectly repainted one's repair couldn't be detected and had a clean Carfax report.

 

[Barry Theal]

If I may chime in on the hail damage. If a car has been fixed by a pdr guy lets say 20 dings on a hood. I don't car who is doing the repair some metal streching is required and it may look great to the average eye. once the metal is streched like that the paint will lead to failure down the road. This will decrease the value. Plus you also have to consider how the access point was done to get to the panel! While pdr is a lucrative skill and a good fix. the wrong tech can do some serious damage often unnoticed till a year down the road.

 

[David Fermani]

I'd say you know a thing or two about PDR huh? Hence this thread right here:



http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-detailing/114501-can-anyone-guess-what.html

 

[Bobby G]

I'd say you know a thing or two about PDR huh? Hence this thread right here:



http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-detailing/114501-can-anyone-guess-what.html

David, come on now, fight fair. It would be difficult for anyone to know what caused that paint cracking without knowing the history of that car.



Back on track... I think the car in question and the type of paint restoration has a lot to do with diminished value. I have done minor paint repair (bumpers, fenders, doors) on a few of my cars with zero reduction in value. In fact, on two cars I increased the value by doing the work. I agree that anytime "body repair" work is done it should decrease the value. Big different in body work and repaint.

Ben Leonedetailer or [email protected] i am moving to the next thread BE WELL !!!

Ben, you need to stop dropping your email in threads, please. People will send you a PM if they want to reach you... Thanks!

 

[Barry Theal]

I'd say you know a thing or two about PDR huh? Hence this thread right here:



http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-detailing/114501-can-anyone-guess-what.html

Why yes I do!!!!!!!!!

Oh yea and top that smile lol

 

[David Fermani]

David, come on now, fight fair. It would be difficult for anyone to know what caused that paint cracking without knowing the history of that car.!

You're absolutely right. I do know the history. The owner had PRD in that spot and it caused the cracking.

I have done minor paint repair (bumpers, fenders, doors) on a few of my cars with zero reduction in value. In fact, on two cars I increased the value by doing the work.

I agree that anytime "body repair" work is done it should decrease the value.

This might be the exception, but not the rule. I think you got really lucky. Did the purchaser of the repaired car know it was repaired? How are you gauging an increase in value? Based on another vehicle w/o damage? Or, are you considering it an increase in value by comparing it to not repairing it for resale?

 

[Bobby G]

This might be the exception, but not the rule. I think you got really lucky. Did the purchaser of the repaired car know it was repaired?

Yes. Pioneer Porsche did the repair on my 996 (replaced rear bumper cap and repainted engine lid and bumper cap). Frankly, there was zero evidence of any repair. The paint texture and color was a perfect match to the original. Pioneer Porsche had a buyer ready on the day I traded it in. Repair work was in the documentation.

How are you gauging an increase in value? Based on another vehicle w/o damage? Or, are you considering it an increase in value by comparing it to not repairing it for resale?

Yes. Purchased my 1995 M3 in need of paint work on the hood, bumper, grill and side rockers. Sold the car in *PERFECT* condition for more than I purchased it after using it for over a year.



The point is, I don't think you can make a blanket statement about paint reconditioning work. The reason I say this is because quite a few exotic and luxury cars have paint reconditioning/repair work done to them before delivery. Stuff happens and it needs to be fixed. The quality of the repair is more of the question to me, not that it had repair.



Now... body work; that's a different story!

 

[Scottwax]

If two identical vehicles were for sale and 1 of them had a perfect quality repaint due to acid rain or from being keyed would you be prepared to offer each one the same amount? I wouldn't. Even if the perfectly repainted one's repair couldn't be detected and had a clean Carfax report.

Considering it has newer, properly applied paint and hasn't had any collision damage, yeah, I'd probably pay the same. If you are talking about a classic "survivor" car, then no.

 

[David Fermani]

Yes. Pioneer Porsche did the repair on my 996 (replaced rear bumper cap and repainted engine lid and bumper cap). Frankly, there was zero evidence of any repair. The paint texture and color was a perfect match to the original. Pioneer Porsche had a buyer ready on the day I traded it in. Repair work was in the documentation.

Again, exception not the rule. I'm sure it looked absolutely perfect! You and I both having been in car sales know how dealers whittle down people's trade-ins when anything shows up on a CarFax. They'll easily cut your car's value up front when it's time to trade, but hold steady when they retail it (even if it's a train wreck). This seems to more prevalent with higher priced vehicles. There are many dealers (like Carmax) that do a though inspection where they inspect cars on their hoist and take paint readings. I also know a couple exotic wholesalers that go to extreme legnths just to find paint work.

Yes. Purchased my 1995 M3 in need of paint work on the hood, bumper, grill and side rockers. Sold the car in *PERFECT* condition for more than I purchased it after using it for over a year.

I imagine you bought this car well below market because of this prior damage? If so, that might explain the increase. I try doing this on every used car I buy. :LOLOL

The point is, I don't think you can make a blanket statement about paint reconditioning work. The reason I say this is because quite a few exotic and luxury cars have paint reconditioning/repair work done to them before delivery. Stuff happens and it needs to be fixed. The quality of the repair is more of the question to me, not that it had repair.



Now... body work; that's a different story!

I'd not only question the quality of repair, but the extent of the repair. Body work = repair work = body work = recondition work. Many states require dealers to disclose new cars with damage over $500. Probably because of the perception (or deception) of reduced value. If it wasn't a big deal, they wouldn't be required to do so. But yes, cars get damaged and repaired at the factory (before getting shipped) and I guess there's no need for disclosure in that case. Maybe because people think because the factory fixed it, it's still just like new. We all know this is far from reality. .I’ve seen and heard of a couple people having the car manufacturer do buy backs on new cars with excessive damage just because they blew their horn in the right persons ear.





If you special ordered a brand new 911 Turbo and the tops of it were deeply pitted with acid rain and it required 75% of it to be repainted, would you want to still pay sticker for it? Or, how about all the dealers where their whole inventory gets hit with hail damage. Insurance companies pay out millions in diminished value settlements every year. Why? Because insurance companies as well as the courts that represent the public scream loss of value.



I myself can totally look beyond and through a repair to determine its quality. It usually won’t bother me in most situations. On the other hand, it only takes that 1 particularly anal, over the top customer to blow their stack.



Imagine the DMV claim on these poor innocent cars that got hit for no reason? I can assure that they’ll be repaired to 100% factory spec too.

(photos NOT property of TIC)

 

[David Fermani]

Considering it has newer, properly applied paint and hasn't had any collision damage, yeah, I'd probably pay the same. If you are talking about a classic "survivor" car, then no.

What's the difference? It might be a classic down the road. How can you tell if a car's been in a collision, keyed or just needed a basic repaint. A car in a collison with new parts could be better(or equal to) than one with very lightly repaired panels(from say hail). Properly applied doesn't mean factory applied. It's never exactly like the factory (+ or -). That might be why classics are worth more with factory original paint. You can't duplicate the paint quality (or lack of) on a Muscle car.