Cat S due to failed cats?

[karatemaserati]

Interesting...

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202403197...

[bennno]

Perhaps they caught fire and burnt a large part of the car?

[-jester-]

I'm suspecting that the cat/s failed due to a misfire which broke the cat honeycomb internals then the engine ingested it and subsequently damaged the engine.

[markiii]

why would it be an insurance claim to be written of though? Cat S or otherwise?

[karatemaserati]

-jester- said:

I'm suspecting that the cat/s failed due to a misfire which broke the cat honeycomb internals then the engine ingested it and subsequently damaged the engine.

My suspicion aswell... And any money if you looked in to it like i did on the last one of these i saw, the cat S will be water damage too

[Calinours]

Insurance categorisation follows an accident where there is a claim on the motor insurance policy. Service, warranty, maintenance and mechanical breakdown issues have nothing to do with motor insurance.

This just looks like a joker who thinks that one is born every minute…. yeah pal, that ‘Cat S’ thing?? It’s ’cats’ innit, they all ‘ave problems wiv ‘cats’

Edited by Calinours on Sunday 30th June 15:41

[bennno]

Perhaps it was deliberately shunted in to a wall following the cat failure

[bogie]

If its really had manifolds, sports cats, remap etc and now 520bhp then it initially looks like a great car for the cash,....except for the cat S ...so its been in a prang and repaired . I guess if there is some documentation on that repair it could be worth a look....but why try to mask over it? it just creates doubt before you have even got to the end of the advert. The seller might get more interest if they just stated the facts .

[JohnG1]

Did the catalytic convertor failure mean the boot was replaced? That boot was fitted by someone less than adequate...

[Jon39]

Seller is a clairvoyant;
'First to see this car will buy!'

An unusual colour;
Do we think the car was yellow when built?
No photos of engine compartment to reveal inner bodywork colour.

This car comes with;
'Deleted badging.'
- Hardly a sales benefit and might that have been included on the original build sheet, or perhaps a later action?

[Gary C]

Offside just behind the door doesn't look right and the boot line is high on that side too.

Its had an offside rear prang.

Edited by Gary C on Monday 1st July 07:37

[AdamV12V]

Jon39 said:

An unusual colour;
Do we think the car was yellow when built?
No photos of engine compartment to reveal inner bodywork colour.

This car comes with;
'Deleted badging.'
- Hardly a sales benefit and might that have been included on the original build sheet, or perhaps a later action?

Debadged whilst wrapping I would bet, as the yellow is Satin. Whilst there's an outside chance it was yellow from new, satin yellow is almost 100% a give away that its a wrap as Satin colours back then would have been exceptionally unusual. Again why not just state its wrapped, and again more warning bells about the state of the real paint underneath.

Description says walnut veneer trim, yet it appears black but the image is hardly a closeup so maybe it's painted or wrapped again too?

The price history seems to indicate the seller realises its only going one way... Odd that its had a couple of interim price increases on its journey to the bottom however...

Change -£18,000 (-36%)
11/06/2024 £31,950
27/05/2024 £29,950
07/05/2024 £34,950
29/04/2024 £32,950
09/04/2024 £35,950
31/03/2024 £39,950
25/03/2024 £44,950
19/03/2024 £49,950

One to view whilst equipped with a barge-pole me thinks...

[Import]

What the heck has been done to the a pillar trim I’m guessing meteorite grey if the door jam pic shows the yellow cut line…

[williamp]

Isnt cat S structural, cat N non-structural??? So cat ingestion wouldnt be structural but tye damage reapair might enough ££ for a cat N write off

[Calinours]

williamp said:

some confusing stuff

I guess like most I’d assumed this was a wind up, but just in case we genuinely do have folk who are confusing motor insurance post accident appraisal and payout processes with basic mechanical reliability..

williamp said:

Isnt cat S structural, cat N non-structural???

In terms of post accident motor insurance total loss or ‘write off’ categorisations, yes. They are the newer (post 2017) names for the old Cat C and Cat D.

However, insurance write off categories have absolutely nothing to do with any reliability or mechanical issues any car might have.

williamp said:

So cat ingestion wouldnt be structural but tye damage reapair might enough ££ for a cat N write off

If an engine is claimed or proven to have been damaged by ingesting parts of its own catalysts then that’s a problem for the owner (and maybe his warranty provider or mechanical breakdown insurance underwriter) - it’s of no concern or consequence to the motor insurer.

Accidents, however, are the business of the insurer, especially, of course, where they have to payout to sort things out.

Bottom line - This car was in an accident - offside rear it appears, it was written off by the then insurer and categorised as Cat S - structural damage. It looks like it’s been poorly repaired.

Any buggering about with any part of the exhaust system - prior or post accident - is entirely inconsequential.

[williamp]

Sorry if I seem confused- it is allowed you know.... When the advert says

"Cat S due to catalytic converter failure (common issue with DB9's),"

I thought they were implying the car was written off, insursnce wise, as a cat S due to the failure of the cats. The warning on the advert says "This vehicle has sustained damage to part of its structural frame or chassis in the past, and the insurer decided that repairing it would have cost more than replacing it."

Which, I was trying to say, was to question if the engine injesting the cats and the repair costing more than the value of the car.. would be classed as a structural write off. Which i dont get. I still dont.

[ds666]

I think the advert could be shortened to “avoid “

[Gary C]

williamp said:

Sorry if I seem confused- it is allowed you know.... When the advert says

"Cat S due to catalytic converter failure (common issue with DB9's),"

I thought they were implying the car was written off, insursnce wise, as a cat S due to the failure of the cats. The warning on the advert says "This vehicle has sustained damage to part of its structural frame or chassis in the past, and the insurer decided that repairing it would have cost more than replacing it."

Which, I was trying to say, was to question if the engine injesting the cats and the repair costing more than the value of the car.. would be classed as a structural write off. Which i dont get. I still dont.

Because its a lie

The car has had heavy and poorly repaired damage to the offside rear.

[Calinours]

williamp said:

if the engine injesting the cats and the repair costing more than the value of the car.. would be classed as a structural write off. Which i dont get. I still dont.

Mechanical breakdowns are not accidents. No form of ‘catalyst ingestion’ or any consequence thereof is of any interest whatsoever to any motor insurer. This is the key point you need to get clarity on.

Responsibility for mechanical breakdown (ie engine damage due to any reason) = owner (or warranty provider)

Responsibility for accidents = insurer (or owner if no or insufficient insurance cover)

As Gary says - the person/s responsible for this advert is just blatantly lying.

Why ? because they think it might help them get more money for their dodgy car. Because they know they can get away with it if they find the right punter.

While it is common for second hand car dealers to be economical with the truth it is still relatively uncommon for the bullst to be this blatant.

Edited by Calinours on Thursday 4th July 08:50

[Gary C]

Might be worth us all reporting the advert

go to the link at the bottom

Report it as its trying to claim its a Cat S due to catalytic converter failure which is an attempt to cover up the structural damage suffered by this car.