Cat S due to failed cats?
Discussion
-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 
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’
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
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 .
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?
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?
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...
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.
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.
"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.
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"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.
The car has had heavy and poorly repaired damage to the offside rear.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff