Wish I could have such luck selling on eBay!

[1973Z]

Escanlon, I agree with your post. Too often members of this board get super critical on any Z-car bringing good money. We have to assume that the bidders did their research as to what the current market prices are bringing for the conditions sought, and that they probably went out to inspect the vehicle rather than just relying on pictures and forum board comments.

This site and others like Carl's provide fantastic information on what to look for when buying a Z - but to totally tear a car and seller down without having met either, doesn't seem right.

Let's not tear down Z-car values, let's try to raise both awareness and prices! I like seeing that my beloved 35+year old pride and joy is worth more than a 5 year old Honda Civic ...$.02

[Weasel73240Z]

Does look like a nice driver, but I wouldn't trust a 35 year old car to be "rust free" coming from a snow-belt state... I know it's possible, but I'm a wee bit skeptical.

I bought a "rust free" low mileage (26K) New England car, and found plenty of latent rust when I really got into it in the doglegs and in the rockers. Not so much rust that I'm unhappy, but I only paid $3,800 for my 73.

[Carl Beck]

Have to agree with the thoughts of not tearing down a car for sale here.

Hi E.

The above is what I quoted - note it says clearly "not tearing down a car for sale here".

I reinforced that by writing ... "We are talking about the car here..."

Yet the main jest of your entire response to my Post - was about assigning unscrupulous motives to sellers. I think I understood what you were originally saying... thus no response to your Post.

THEN:

Enrique,

....snipped....

So, when times get tough, or your interests change, and you go to sell your Z you should remember that the reason you don't get what you think it should be worth may have something to do with statements made on forums like those above. Folks may enjoy ripping into the condition of one car or the other, but I think in the end it may do more harm than good.

E, I'll see your $0.005 and raise you $0.02...

The Above statement brought my response:

"Then a car comes up for sale - and so that we don't hurt our own financial interests - we are supposed to stop finding, and pointing out all the faults with the cars offered for sale?? ."

To Which E replied:

Sorry Carl, that take is entirely your own misunderstanding. That's not what is being said, nor implied.

I think you are saying that's not what was said nor implied by YOU. I felt it was certainly implied in X-Ray's statement.

I know that this has been a confusing thread... but I think you have confused my Post, with anything you originally wrote, and I believe that within your farther responses you are intermixing comments about the cars and comments about the sellers.... then farther compounding the discussion by assigning motives to the people that made comments...

You did have a few clear statements - to which I agree.

It's how we PUBLICLY and OPENLY demonize and degrade the people who are selling their cars.

AND

There may be a bad apple or two, but from the last few threads that discuss car sales....you would swear that all sellers are like the corner drug dealer trying to sell you a bag of good sh!t.

But I hasten to add - I said NOTHING about the sellers, nor the discussion related to the sellers motives..

FWIW,

Carl B.

[ktm]

Interesting thoughts. Remember the guy trying to sell a high-dollar Z a while back ranting about how we Z enthusiasts are cheap b*****ds and aren't willing to pay what these cars are worth? He wasn't pleasant about it, but the gist of his rant was that we Z people are holding down the values on our own cars.

And you know what? Maybe he was right...

Tony D has been saying this for a while, and I agree. It seems as though a majority of S30 owners bought an S30 to begin with because they were inexpensive. They are used to the parts being inexpensive and try to do everything on a budget. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

However, many of them also fail to recognize that there are fewer S30s on the road (qualified-see end of paragraph); that pristine parts are harder to find; that clean examples of early S30s are becoming scarce; finally, while there are fewer S30s around, it seems as though many of the once "barn-stored/back-yard stored/on the driveway under a tarp stored" S30s are finding new owners. All of this adds up to increased prices for cars and parts.

[xray]

Hi E.

The above is what I quoted - note it says clearly "not tearing down a car for sale here".

I reinforced that by writing ... "We are talking about the car here..."

Yet the main jest of your entire response to my Post - was about assigning unscrupulous motives to sellers. I think I understood what you were originally saying... thus no response to your Post.

THEN:

The Above statement brought my response:

"Then a car comes up for sale - and so that we don't hurt our own financial interests - we are supposed to stop finding, and pointing out all the faults with the cars offered for sale?? ."

To Which E replied:

I think you are saying that's not what was said nor implied by YOU. I felt it was certainly implied in X-Ray's statement.

I know that this has been a confusing thread... but I think you have confused my Post, with anything you originally wrote, and I believe that within your farther responses you are intermixing comments about the cars and comments about the sellers.... then farther compounding the discussion by assigning motives to the people that made comments...

You did have a few clear statements - to which I agree.

But I hasten to add - I said NOTHING about the sellers, nor the discussion related to the sellers motives..

FWIW,

Carl B.

Now wait a minute here. Where do you get the idea that I support someone MISREPRESENTING a car for sale in an effort to maintain my financial interest in my own car!?!?! Holy cow. I think you read something into my post which is not correct, as there was no implication. Please re-read my prior post, particularly the section about other forums.

Here we have a car that looks good in pictures, and instead of saying the usual "needs better pics of floors, rockers, battery tray etc." or actually (heaven forbid) ASK THE SELLER what's up with the chrome, we immediately assign it as suspicious. And then we AGAIN presume it potentially fraudulent by somehow assigning cars in Pennsylvania as being suspicious--As if PA ZCar owners can't have a well-cared for car! What the heck!?!? That auction has been BRANDED as a potential scam, and if someone cruises here to look if there's discussion about it, will likely be scared away. Or try to pay less than what it's actually worth. That's not fair to the seller.

We should strive to be critical and NEUTRAL when discussing cars, unless we KNOW something for a fact that is being "hidden," with the basic understanding that caveat emptor is the correct approach in all potential sales.

Of COURSE I have an interest in seeing cars sell for better prices. But more to the point, I think some of our discussions have been holding DOWN prices, subsequently preventing some great cars from reaching a fair value. It is certainly fair to point out problems with a car, but presuming nefarious intent can be bad, especially without evidence, and keeps the resale value of otherwise good cars down. Caveat emptor? of course! But don't belittle a car (and by extension someone's efforts to make it presentable) just because you can. Maybe I assign too much value to our commentary on this forum, but I think the tone of our posts vis-a-vis cars for sale on public sites can influence the final outcome.

Just be fair to buyers and sellers. What's hard to understand about that?

PS....Use of the term "tear down," as I used it here primarily implies intent to denigrate the motives or character of someone or something. One can certainly be critical while not engaging in character-based discussions.

[Oiluj]

I can tell you I was surprised to see what 240's were fetching in the market when I started looking last September, but then I'd been out of touch with Z values for many years. I think recent collector & auction interest in S30's especially early 240Z's is influencing prices.

When shopping for my Z I found the average price for a nice "driver" with minor cosmetic issues or minmal rust issues was about $6K to $8K for a California / Arizona car. From what I saw, a "really nice", rust free 240Z ran from $9K to $14K.

Without a very complete inspection, I would not pay that much for a "snow-belt" car, or one from the post hurricane Katrina area. Call me picky, but once salt gets into those enclosed body sections, it's tough to clean-out and will lead to problems.

That said, I'll see for certain just how "rust-free" my Calif / Arizona car really is after media blasting... I already know of 2 small areas with a bit of surface rust (only), under the battery and a little on the driver's floorboard.

I'll have $22-$24K in mine before I'm done and hope that in 7-8 years I'll break-even on cost to market value. Excluding financial duress, I have no intention of selling my Zcar until I can't drive anymore. Of course that could be tomorrow or the year 2031, (assuming I stop driving at age 75)...

[EScanlon]

Interesting thoughts. Remember the guy trying to sell a high-dollar Z a while back ranting about how we Z enthusiasts are cheap b*****ds and aren't willing to pay what these cars are worth? He wasn't pleasant about it, but the gist of his rant was that we Z people are holding down the values on our own cars.

And you know what? Maybe he was right...

Tony D has been saying this for a while, and I agree. It seems as though a majority of S30 owners bought an S30 to begin with because they were inexpensive. They are used to the parts being inexpensive and try to do everything on a budget. This is not necessarily a bad thing...snip...

Good point, but I'll bet that many are pleased in the overall increase in value of the car, even though that may not have been their primary intent in buying it; while being displeased in the extra expense of refreshing and maintaining it.

That is, they bought the car because they had a longing for the car and not because it was inexpensive. They were able to realize a wish/dream earlier than later because the prices were low.

But it seems that Arne agrees with me in that it is our own outspoken attacks against sellers, etc. that MAY cause people to shy away from buying them. After all being a member of a community where the backstabbing, and insults are so open....why would you want to be involved?

...snip...

We should strive to be critical and NEUTRAL when discussing cars, unless we KNOW something for a fact that is being "hidden," with the basic understanding that caveat emptor is the correct approach in all potential sales.

It is certainly fair to point out problems with a car, but presuming nefarious intent can be bad, especially without evidence, and keeps the resale value of otherwise good cars down. Caveat emptor? of course! But don't belittle a car (and by extension someone's efforts to make it presentable) just because you can. Maybe I assign too much value to our commentary on this forum, but I think the tone of our posts vis-a-vis cars for sale on public sites can influence the final outcome.

...snip...

One can certainly be critical while not engaging in character-based discussions.

Steve...KUDOS!!!

Those are my thoughts almost to a "t".

If I may, I would ammend the first sentence I bolded to:

We should strive to be critical and FACTUAL when discussing cars offered up for sale, identifying obvious discrepancies and omissions, while remaining completely NEUTRAL with regards to a seller's intent. Only if we KNOW of something for a fact that is being "hidden" INTENTIONALLY, would we question those motives. Always with the basic understanding that caveat emptor is the correct approach in all potential sales.

The second sentence I bolded is again very prominent in my involvement with this forum and threads. As Carl has mentioned, I also feel that people who are interested in these cars do a simple Google or Yahoo or some form of internet search with "240 Z", or "240Z" as the search criteria and you'll see THIS site and Z-Home as the first and second links returned. The Wikipedia has come up first a couple of times I've searched. The point behind this is that it behooves us to act civilly, respectfully and openly inviting to new members. Yes, we welcome folks once they do show up. But if one were to search for "for sale" as the search criteria once on this site, you'd be buried with unacceptable commentary.

As your last sentence points out...criticizing a car's flaws need not be a character bashing exercise.

MY 2¢

E

[DeesZ]

"As your last sentence points out...criticizing a car's flaws need not be a character bashing exercise."

Nicely put... and well worth repeating, E....

I extend my sincere apologies to board members and visitors for being an early contributor to this thread which has been perceived as a crucifixion of an eBay seller (or sellers in general). To that I plead "mea culpa". Do not read any sarcasm into this, because there is none intended. My earlier intent was not in that direction, although, after re-reading it, I can see how it was taken that way by some. I also feel bad that the ensuing debate is causing friction among 'family' members here on the board. Let's say that DeesZ threw a can of kerosene on the smoldering embers, and the explosion that followed will hopefully leave no permanent scars or pain among us. Written communications are to a large degree disadvantaged - they are quite prone to being taken the wrong way (not as intended by the writer), and this whole thread seems to be taking advantage of our disadvantage. Let's not beat each other up over this. There have been some valid points brought up by some contributors, no matter what 'side' one is on. Food for thought for all....

As a ten-year veteran of eBay, I have (in the past) done public paid seminars on eBay, selling ethics, and fraudulent behavior. Of late, most of my non-selling activities have been geared towards setting up new sellers and positioning them to succeed in that environment. I am an individual who supports his habits (240Z, etc., not drugs) financially with eBay-related income, and I find myself being very critical of listings with scant information. I tend to disclose everything that I can with respect to my listings - in writing and with huge amounts of pictures - and I guess I think everyone else should do the same. It's not fair for me to publicly impose my standards on someone else, is it? I recall Arne saying in another thread that he feels that he over-discloses flaws, perhaps to his detriment. Well, so do I, but it leads to a good seller reputation and higher levels of credibility (and no returns or disappointed customers). I guess I value that more than some of the alternatives. I have stated "Let the buyer beware." many times here on this board in English and Latin. I should have said that in my earlier post and better explained my reasonings for that feeling.

As for car values, I am pleased to see them on the rise. This is long overdue in my opinion.

Forgive my transgression. I shall try to do better expressing myself in the future.

[Stickerman]

Every time a nice car shows up on Ebay, this forum tears it apart. Can anyone show me a thread about a car for sale where the general concensus is that it is a nice car? I haven't seen it since I have been here.

[EScanlon]

Actually John, it's Steve that deserves the credit for that gem. I simply paraphrased and repeated it. His succinct statement is a condensed version of my verbose ramblings.

As far as what Stickerman says, that is exactly why I rambled so vehemently.

I don't think we've thrown gas on a fire as much as had an open and somewhat lengthy diatribe that needed to be had. This forum IS a very prominent source of information on the Z, mostly the "early" 240 series, but more and more encompassing the 260, 280 and even a very few of the 300 owners. Heck, we've even seen a few 350 owners comment here and there.

This site as a result, kind of like Noblese Obligé, MUST hold it's content to a higher level of content than any other site. Because of the fact that this site is in the forefront of the search engines results, it WILL receive the lion's share of the traffic from the searches. That traffic is what the advertisers who promote their wares on this site count on. Advertisers for the most part, and search engines to a small degree are what help offset the cost of running this forum...I would presume. The actual finances of the forum are Mike's business. But I'll bet that ONE little lawsuit from a disgruntled seller with a sharp lawyer could bring this whole thing down faster than we could apologize. Not saying that would necessarily happen, but the innuendo's have a tendency to get bigger and bolder.

That is why I spoke up as I did.

E

[yor5150]

I'm posting the eBay ad for the '73 240 I bought in 2005. The seller represented the car accurately. There were a few minor issues such as the horn button was broken and not firmly attached. There was an exhaust leak not mentioned in the ad as well. Both of these were pointed out by the seller when I went to pick up the car. It's no big deal to me really.

I drove it from Burbank, CA. to the San Francisco Bay Area. Other than being hard to start one time after stopping for a bite to eat, it ran fine all the way home.

Anyway, comments are welcome, even negative ones. I'm glad I bought the car which is all that really matters!

Peace!

eBay Motors_ Datsun _ Z-Series (item 4584624872 end time Oct-...pdf

[yor5150]

This pic was also included in the ad. It did have some rust....