ISF on Ebay

[scott-o]

Besides the really annoying and misinformed advert, does anyone have any info on this car?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2008-58-LEXUS-IS-F-5-0-V8-AUTO-TIP-SUPER-SALOON-417-BHP-NAVIGATION-DVD/142621278961?hash=item2134e402f1:g:zY0AAOSwR2RaLbXe

It looks like the private plate has only just gone on which stops you looking at past MOT history. It seems this may not be an accident that this is the case!

Thanks,

Scott

[Guest]

Looking at the eBay description I think it's owned by Barry Scott 

She says: 

Quote

Having driven nearly 70 Miles in the car I can, without reservation, say

Also it's just a northern Ireland plate isn't it?

I wouldn't buy it simply because of the advert. Imagine meeting them

Quote

I PREFER IT IF YOU VIEW THE CAR BEFORE BUYING/BIDDING.  (I prefer it as I am not trying to hide anything!) 

 mmmm hiding something?

Quote

My name is Gaynor and along with doing this I am both a full time mum and in my spare time I volunteer as a community outreach worker.

oh ok then - take my money

You need to wait for @Big Rat to cast his beady black eyes and whiskers over it.

 

[Big Rat]

If anybody is interested in this car I have the previous mainland reg numbers and some history of the car AG58FHC and DS04VYS it was originally registered in Armagh.

And if anybody is wondering it is not the White ISF that was stolen and recovered last year that hasn’t surfaced that was GN58TFX.

Big Rat

 

[Distant Sun]

Hello all,

That car was in Charles Hurst, Dundonald (near Belfast) until some time in October.  They had it advertised on Autotrader as a 2007 car for £17500.  The registration is a County Armagh plate which was put back on the car after it was traded in and the previous owner transferred their private plate on their new car.  It doesn't show up on the DVLA MOT check because Northern Ireland details aren't available centrally (since vehicle licencing and MOT's etc were all managed / recorded locally before it all went to Swansea).  It was previously registered as DS04VYS and AG58FHC.  I think the 04 plate was the one transferred when it was traded in.  I had thought about having a look at it when it was for sale in Belfast but I was a bit put off by the standard tail lights and the slight deformation in the rear bumper.  I wondered if it had been hit.  The original Charles Hurst photos also appeared to show that the boot trim wasn't fitted properly around the hinges but that looks like it's been fixed in the new photos.  In the end it went before I had a chance to get a closer look at it.

Hope this is helpful,

Gareth

[scott-o]

Thanks for the info, shes came back to me on eBay and has told me a previous reg was AG58FHC but that was last mot'd in 2013, so again no history. The NI story explains the lack of history showing up on the DVLA database, however.

 

I hadn't noticed the back lights, strange!

[Guest]

Boot seal, back lights, Dent in bumper.





Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[mrfunex]

That advert’s just given me a nosebleed! 

 

Not that it’d bother the seller presumably, but legally they’re on thin ice when describing the car as “absolutely, totally and utterly impossible to tell the difference between this and a brand new car..... Totally and utterly without any fault or wear and tear whatsoever” or some such...

[rayaans]

Where's the slight deformation in the rear bumper? Cant see it

Back lights are definitely not IS-F - they have amber turn signals

Rear boot seal looks fine. 

It's probably had its rear end shunted by a van or something - wouldn't stop me buying as long as it drove OK and nothing was amiss in the rear - would probably change those rear lights out though! Otherwise the car looks in decent nick and there's no odd panel gaps in the rear. 

However, another white one has just come up with 38k miles on it which looks good

[Warrington guy]

That looks a nice example at lexus Liverpool. And the price is good . Anyone in the hunt for one, it must be worth a trip to Liverpool 

[Linas.P]

4 hours ago, Distant Sun said:

I was a bit put off by the standard tail lights and the slight deformation in the rear bumper.  I wondered if it had been hit.  The original Charles Hurst photos also appeared to show that the boot trim wasn't fitted properly around the hinges but that looks like it's been fixed in the new photos.  In the end it went before I had a chance to get a closer look at it.

Great info... Nobody changes IS-F headlight which costs £1500+ for standard IS ones for £50 just for fun... with all other clues it almost certainly was hit.

Kind of sad thing as the people who don't know these cars would not notice such slight difference as white over yellow indicators.

[Big Rat]

12 minutes ago, Warrington guy said:

That looks a nice example at lexus Liverpool. And the price is good . Anyone in the hunt for one, it must be worth a trip to Liverpool 

@Warrington guy The white one at Liverpool is stevoevo off of here's car, he just chopped it in for a Gsf.

🐀

[EvoStevo]

Obviously I'm going to say it'I a good one, but it really is. Needed wheels tidying and getting ready for tyres. I know someone on here is already interested.  All I'll say is they have plenty of room for manoeuvre with the price...

[Big Rat]

@EvoStevo How's that Gsf behaving herself I hope 😂

🐀

[EvoStevo]

Not had much of a drive in it since bringing it home. Wifey won't let me go out in bad weather. Just wondering how to explain lack of Christmas presents to kids this year...

[Distant Sun]

1 hour ago, rayaans said:

Where's the slight deformation in the rear bumper? Cant see it

Back lights are definitely not IS-F - they have amber turn signals

Rear boot seal looks fine. 

It's probably had its rear end shunted by a van or something - wouldn't stop me buying as long as it drove OK and nothing was amiss in the rear - would probably change those rear lights out though! Otherwise the car looks in decent nick and there's no odd panel gaps in the rear. 

However, another white one has just come up with 38k miles on it which looks good

If you look at the rear photo the deformation is towards the right hand end of the number plate, you can see a narrowing of the panel gap between the bot lid and the bumper.  To be honest it was more obvious in the original sales pics from Charles Hurst as they had a straight on rear photo.  In the original sales pics the upper carpet trim beside the right hand boot hinge was coming away, but like I said it's fixed in the latest photos.

[Linas.P]

"Cheaping out" on signature lights is already bad sign - begs a question what else was missed. If the lights were damaged, then it means so was the rear quarter panels, bumper and boot lid... it wasn't that little deformation on the bumper only...

As it is not cat D, nor damage to the rear is mentioned anywhere.. for me that would be good enough reason to give it a miss. The whole listing is a bit cheesy and it doesn't give me any good impressions or adds trust in the seller at all.

As for the price .. obviously one would only need outer bits wit indicators, but they are quite pricey for IS-F.

[rayaans]

3 hours ago, EvoStevo said:

Obviously I'm going to say it'I a good one, but it really is. Needed wheels tidying and getting ready for tyres. I know someone on here is already interested.  All I'll say is they have plenty of room for manoeuvre with the price...

You say that but how much do you want to bet they won't give more than £500 off the listed price!?