Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Hey guys another one to avoid. While this car is not advertised on the dealer's website, I can assure you it is currently for sale at Elite Motorsports/ Sports auto group, being advertised with 38 xxxKM. It is a 2002 BNR34 M Spec Nur in pearl white.

What is most unusual about this car is that the seats have been retrimmed ( strange for a 30 xxx km car) in black without the GTR logo on the headrest .

A car that looks identical was sold by FC autosource, here is the link:

http://www.fcautosource.com/ListingDetail.aspx?fcauto_id=19560

Here is a screen shot:

post-133648-0-83082500-1404988271_thumb.png

Here is a pic of the seats

post-133648-0-83804100-1404986149_thumb.png

Here is the vin number taken from the car at the dealership in Sydney:

BNR34- 404019

I have aquired the Japanese registration certificate for the corresponding car in Japanese and English:

BNR34-404019 (2).pdf

Please note:

- The Name of owner is listed as FC autosource

-The last two records of registration are only 9 days and nearly 3000KM apart. Seems strange?

-These recordings were 1) 30 900KM and 2) 33 700KM.

Yet another example of a clocked GTR. It would be interesting to know just what % of R34 GTR's in Oz have genuine km's with solid supporting documentation. I suspect well under 25%. I'm currently advertising my Nur, with fully documented km's, japanese and Aussie service records etc etc, yet it gets compared with cars like the above with lower km's showing on the speedo and dodgy docs. Crazy. The people I feel most sorry for are the guys that don't do all the research and end up buying a 150,000km car without knowing. And Fair Trading NSW don't want to know. Great...

Here is the vin number taken from the car at the dealership in Sydney:

BNR34- 404019

I have aquired the Japanese registration certificate for the corresponding car in Japanese and English:

attachicon.gifBNR34-404019 (2).pdf

Please note:

- The Name of owner is listed as FC autosource

-The last two records of registration are only 9 days and nearly 3000KM apart. Seems strange?

-These recordings were 1) 30 900KM and 2) 33 700KM.

Nice work Steve - what you've stumbled on is an advanced technique called a "refresh".

The services of certain mileage verification services in getting hold of de-registration certificates have caused significant issues for import dealerships. The dealer you mentioned in particular has been using this technique to hide it's tracks. Unfortunately many consumers don't understand how a de-registration certificate is supposed to work, and therefore miss the point you've illustrated in regard to the 9-day gap between registrations. They look at the last mileage recorded and figure all must be hunky-dory.

Here is the auction sheet for the car:

nFeYY2q.jpg

X33Kk4Xs.jpg VPuc8XOs.jpg ZAlWjE8s.jpg

So the complete timeline looks like this:

1) [27/2/2014] Car sells at USS Tokyo - 173,414km

--- rewind occurs ---

2) [31/3/2014] Car is re-registered with 30,900km

3) [08/4/2014] Car is re-registered with 33,700km

Since the department of transport in Japan only record the previous two mileage readings, this scrubs the true mileage from the system. Inside Japan this would be a risky exercise as for a short window of time there is conclusive proof that an illegal odometer rewind occured. Unfortunately the car leaves the country a matter of days later, so it's unlikely anyone notices or that anything can be done.

Edited by dodgyimports

Nice work Steve - what you've stumbled on is an advanced technique called a "refresh".

The services of certain mileage verification services in getting hold of de-registration certificates have caused significant issues for import dealerships. The dealer you mentioned in particular has been using this technique to hide it's tracks. Unfortunately many consumers don't understand how a de-registration certificate is supposed to work, and therefore miss the point you've illustrated in regard to the 9-day gap between registrations. They look at the last mileage recorded and figure all must be hunky-dory.

Here is the auction sheet for the car:

nFeYY2q.jpg

X33Kk4Xs.jpg VPuc8XOs.jpg ZAlWjE8s.jpg

So the complete timeline looks like this:

1) [27/2/2014] Car sells at USS Tokyo - 173,414km

--- rewind occurs ---

2) [31/3/2014] Car is re-registered with 30,900km

3) [08/4/2014] Car is re-registered with 33,700km

Since the department of transport in Japan only record the previous two mileage readings, this scrubs the true mileage from the system. Inside Japan this would be a risky exercise as for a short window of time there is conclusive proof that an illegal odometer rewind occured. Unfortunately the car leaves the country a matter of days later, so it's unlikely anyone notices or that anything can be done.

^^^ this has been going on for a while in Japan by the dodgy people who operate there in the export industry.

^^^ this has been going on for a while in Japan by the dodgy people who operate there in the export industry.

Certainly, the local dealerships would like you to believe that it's the "dodgy exporters" when they point the finger of blame.

Look again at the above example, it wasn't the exporter who has advertised the car in question with super-low mileage.

Nevermind the fact that at the time the dealers get the cars complied, these examples are almost always inside the 3-month window whereby almost anyone can look up the auction records. As if the dealership, having operated in the industry for years wouldn't know where to look.

How likely is it as well for the dealer themselves to have facilitated the purchase at auction and then slipped their exporter some extra cash to make it happen?

If this was happening, they didn't know then were enlightened of the fact you'd think they would switch to a different exporter with a good reputation and it wouldn't happen anymore. Instead the same stuff has been going on for years and years with some of these mobs.

  • 8 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...