Need Advice - Lexus ISF write off

[Twellsie]

the key point is whether it has deformed the inner C pillar, if it has the shell is scrap, yes it could be repaired, but I would never trust it with my or my families life as the structural integrity is is gone

[olliesgrandad]

20 hours ago, wibzo said:

@Hangie I would most likely take it to Poland if I had it done, I would be grateful if you know any good garages there? but its early days yet I dont know what insurance will say, and how they go about stamping a category on the car, I would rather take it and have it unrecorded. 

@dandydons I cant say exactly where but it wasnt in Fife. I will try negotiate but dont really have many options in my corner 😕 I bought the car for me. I was gonna keep it for next 10 years at least so I am gutted to let her go to salvage so easy

@olliesgrandad I'm not quite sure what you mean. I dont think it folded that bad

The point I am trying to make is that if repaired the car could never offer the same level of protection if you were unfortunate enough to be involved in another big accident. 

30 years ago a similar accident would probably have involved you being removed in a body bag because cars weren't so well designed for crash safety. The various areas of a modern car bodyshell use special steels to help in a bad accident. I don't believe after a big accident the integrity of the shell can ever be the same. 

[leelacey17]

I wouldn't even consider trying to rebuild this car. It saved your life by folding correctly and absorbing all the kinetic energy that would have scrambled your insides. I don't believe anyone could give the car the accident safety to factory standards. I once went to an accident where a Saab got hit by an Artic. The kinetic energy from the impact was so great that the Saab suffered very little damage but unlike your car didn't dissipate the energy (older technology). 
Both occupants barely marked but stone dead from their innards absorbing all the energy rather than the car dissipating it. 
This is why would take the money and run. 

I think this is an excellent point.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Northern isf]

Seen about three shells this year for sale with minor damage it's just having patients and waiting it out seem to be a lot of parts coming from over seas too so maybe that's your best chance but all depends on the insurance payout really.

[NothernDan]

What did you decide to do in the end mate? 

[Linas.P]

Buy IS220d and swap the engine why hurt IS250....

Just joking... I am sure somebody already pointed out that IS-F engine does not fit IS220d/250/350. IS-F actually has extended front by almost 8cm to accommodate that engine. 

On the serious note, the damage doesn't look "that bad" - all the parts from A pillar back are direct fit, you can get entire IS220d for £600. The question is only how you going to "legalise" the car? When you say "total loss" I guess you mean they gave cat S (old cat C), which means it is structural damage and needs to be certified to get back on road, cat N (or old D) would not be "total loss" and to be honest when I hear "total loss" I think of cat B, which means car has to be crushed and cannot go back on the road, in which case the only option is to part it.

I personally do not agree that "repaired car cannot offer same protection". It depends how the car has been damaged and how it was repaired, as the rule of thumb - yes, most cars are repaired for profit, economically (hence the insurance term "uneconomical repair") and they do not offer same protection. I am not even talking about body, but as well airbags not being fitted etc. On this specific car the cabin has not been hurt, so the damage is almost cosmetic - if that pole would have hit between 2 doors and you have kink in roof line - that is another matter, now it hit after C pillar. If you look to blueprint of IS-F you will see that structural parts are spaced from outer panels, and looking to the pictures its seems only outer shell has been bent. Replacing outer shell is standard job described in repair manual:

The doors etc are all bolt on and all interchangeable from IS220d.

 

[wibzo]

@NothernDan Still waiting to hear on insurance. They waiting from response from Police to see they taking it further. I will keep it, I need to assess the damage myself or get someone to have a proper look at it. 

@Linas.P So are you saying I could get the damaged panel from an IS220/IS250? The insurance have given a CAT S. That's interesting! where did you find this? well I hope it's not a cut entire body sort of job otherwise I probably wont do it. If the body easy enough to repair I will go ahead and fix it over time. 

 

[Linas.P]

Anything in terms of body after A-pillar will fit - Doors, quarter panel.. Obviously rear bumper is styled differently. The front of the car is slightly longer as mentioned. As for cat-S that is standard category:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/what-is-an-insurance-write-off/

 

[FTBBCVoodoo]

7 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Anything in terms of body after A-pillar will fit - Doors, quarter panel.. Obviously rear bumper is styled differently. The front of the car is slightly longer as mentioned. As for cat-S that is standard category:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/know-how/what-is-an-insurance-write-off/

 

I thought the rear arches are wider than standard on an ISF?

[Linas.P]

1 minute ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

I thought the rear arches are wider than standard on an ISF?

If I am honest - I haven't personally measured, but the lights and rear doors are interchangeable - literally bolt on. IS-F wheels as well fit IS250/220d without rolling the arches. If the arches would be wider, that would not be the case. I cannot find any information which would suggest IS-F had wider arches in the back.

[FTBBCVoodoo]

4 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

If I am honest - I haven't personally measured, but the lights and rear doors are interchangeable - literally bolt on. IS-F wheels as well fit IS250/220d without rolling the arches. If the arches would be wider, that would not be the case. I cannot find any information which would suggest IS-F had wider arches in the back.

The front arches are definitely wider.

The rears look wider visually but that may be my eyes playing tricks on me.  The rear bumper would then need to line up with said arches if so.

[Linas.P]

23 hours ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

The front arches are definitely wider.

The rears look wider visually but that may be my eyes playing tricks on me.  The rear bumper would then need to line up with said arches if so.

Well looking to some threads from US Lexus forum - that seems to be exactly the case, IS-F bumper is direct fit on ISX50 except of obvious, like exhaust holes and slightly different style lines. 

[FTBBCVoodoo]

47 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Well looking to some threads from US Lexus forum - that seems to be exactly the case, IS-F bumper is direct fit on ISX50 except of obvious, like exhaust holes and slightly different style lines. 

I did not know that.  Every day is a school day 🙂

I assumed if fronts were wider then rears would be as well.

[Linas.P]

Actually, I double checked my facts several times as I could not believe it. Rear track and overall width on IS-F is not only narrower then IS250, but as well narrower then IS-F front itself. Calculations gets little bit complex, because of different width wheels and tyres available, but as a rule of thumb rear wheels on IS-F sits ~15mm narrower on both sides compared to IS250 and fronts are about ~25mm wider then the IS250 and ~20mm wider then the rears.

[-nick-]

are you insured?

not sure what you originally posted makes much sense unless either you aren't insured or are insured 3PO.

[Grey One]

I really don't want to show any discourtesy, but honestly, you'd have to be bonkers to consider a rebuild of this wreck/write-off except in purely theoretical terms.  You wouldn't be able to resell it, insurance would be nuts expensive, safety of the shell/structure questionable, not taking into account the cost of a rebuild and getting engineering sign-off for it being roadworthy.

Why???

 

Sorry mate, my candid tuppence worth.

[wibzo]

@Grey One I get where you coming from. I planned to keep this car for the next 10 years. I've requested the car back from insurance, So will get it dropped home, get a few bodyshop guys to come and assess and get quotes. I spoke to one today who seems to think only the outer shell has taken the hit and thinks he can sort it, but wants to see it first. 

@NothernDanIt's a good day for me. Insurance did pay out, not quite what I was expecting, but I'm happy to get something.

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Grey One said:

I really don't want to show any discourtesy, but honestly, you'd have to be bonkers to consider a rebuild of this wreck/write-off except in purely theoretical terms.  You wouldn't be able to resell it, insurance would be nuts expensive, safety of the shell/structure questionable, not taking into account the cost of a rebuild and getting engineering sign-off for it being roadworthy.

Sometimes I agree, especially when it comes to expensive and complex cars like IS-F. However, the damage in this case is superficial - rear quarter panel is not structural damage - one can literally saw off whole back of the car right above rear wheel and it would make no difference to structural integrity of the cabin (well maybe except rear crumple zone). Broken rear suspension can be replaced as unit - it is not structural damage either. Finally, considering interchangeability of the parts of lesser models this really makes cheap repair. 

Even if not repairing - you get insurance money back, keeping the car for parts alone is most sensible thing. Insurance rarely even care if you keep it or not and even in this state one can get reasonable money to cover gap between what car was worth and what insurance paid out. 

Cat-S has no impact on insurance cost, you would simply get less if you make another claim. It being cat-S I have as well questioned how OP is planning to go trough expertise, but it seems the plan is take car out of country... where I guess it does not matter?

Anyhow, looking at the car I would have 0 worries about safety, cost of repair can be kept economical (heck whole IS220d can be had for under £1000). What makes you question shell/structure? There is even white one - so the doors could be bolted on without painting:

https://www.copart.co.uk/lot/56704318

The only thing I agree - yes reselling it would be tricky, unless you keep evidence of all repairs etc.

[olliesgrandad]

I still ask the question 'Why?'... 

If the car is repaired abroad surely there will be tax to pay when it is brought back into the UK. It can't be driven back as it is effectively scrap and needs to be examined and new V5 issued,taxed and insured. We have all seen the Eastern European guy glueing the roof onto the BMW 5 series on YouTube...

My life is worth more than driving a heap of parts that have been cobbled together back into a mode of transport. 

Let's face it when my IS300h got hit in the same area causing minor panel damage, it cost nearly £6000 repair and the insurance companies repairers failed miserably to get it right taking 4 attempts to sort it - it was the hidden damage to the suspension that cost the big bucks. That is a supposed professional repairer doing the work who didn't initially spot the beggared suspension. 

How do we know in this case that the shell isn't twisted? 

[Linas.P]

It costed £6000, because insurance has repaired it... heck... Insurance nearly write-off my IS250 for what was literally scratch:

Fair enough, I said 2 wheels were scratched and tyre walls were damaged, still now way near £3700 insurance has estimated. 

The point I am trying to get across - not all damaged cars are scrap and the russian guy gluing roof is mental (or those who buy cars from him). Not every repair means you have to put your wife at risk. In this particular case, with this particular car it is salvageable - the damage has missed crucial structural parts and the replacement parts are cheap to source. I am not saying it should be done, but it could. I agree it being cat-S things gets complicated, but I have no gone trough expertise and don't know how difficult or easy it is to pass. Considering how many Cat-S/C cars are on the roads it probably isn't that bad.

Again it could be asked - why do you think it cannot be repaired? Anything specific reason you know which would make it not worth it? That is why I am saying it is superficial damage - yes car looks banged-up but when I look to the diagrams in repair manual (I can share manual if needed) there are no single structural part in that place.

To really give a good advice, it would be better to see inside of the boot i.e. floor pan and reinforcements - I doubt they are damaged, but if so then we can start questioning if it is worth it or not. The quarter panel outer shell is just style lines, inner shell is just to keep outer shell straight, the real structural parts forms boot floor and is in between wheels - I would be surprised if it would be damaged.

[olliesgrandad]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

It costed £6000, because insurance has repaired it... heck... Insurance nearly write-off my IS250 for what was literally scratch:

Fair enough, I said 2 wheels were scratched and tyre walls were damaged, still now way near £3700 insurance has estimated. 

The point I am trying to get across - not all damaged cars are scrap and the russian guy gluing roof is mental (or those who buy cars from him). Not every repair means you have to put your wife at risk. In this particular case, with this particular car it is salvageable - the damage has missed crucial structural parts and the replacement parts are cheap to source. I am not saying it should be done, but it could. I agree it being cat-S things gets complicated, but I have no gone trough expertise and don't know how difficult or easy it is to pass. Considering how many Cat-S/C cars are on the roads it probably isn't that bad.

Again it could be asked - why do you think it cannot be repaired? Anything specific reason you know which would make it not worth it? That is why I am saying it is superficial damage - yes car looks banged-up but when I look to the diagrams in repair manual (I can share manual if needed) there are no single structural part in that place.

To really give a good advice, it would be better to see inside of the boot i.e. floor pan and reinforcements - I doubt they are damaged, but if so then we can start questioning if it is worth it or not. The quarter panel outer shell is just style lines, inner shell is just to keep outer shell straight, the real structural parts forms boot floor and is in between wheels - I would be surprised if it would be damaged.

The point I'm trying to make is that my car had a slight crease in the panel which looked like a paintless repair but the hidden damage required completely replacing all the suspension as everything was bent  underneath from the impact. The other car (a mini) had full airbag deployment and lost its front offside wheel completely. 

[Linas.P]

Don't get me wrong - it will be big job. Will it be expensive job ... it depends - your price and my price are based on insurance estimate using new parts, using used part might not be as expensive... but it does not automatically mean car will be unsafe to drive. Rule of thumb - if car would be unsafe to repair it would have been classed as Cat-B.

[olliesgrandad]

20 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Don't get me wrong - it will be big job. Will it be expensive job ... it depends - your price and my price are based on insurance estimate using new parts, using used part might not be as expensive... but it does not automatically mean car will be unsafe to drive. Rule of thumb - if car would be unsafe to repair it would have been classed as Cat-B.

Agreed to a point. I knew my cars rear offside wheel had moved inward by a fraction. The repairer failed to check it on a jig before ordering parts as the assessor didn't spot this. Subsequently a further 21 parts had to be ordered and fitted. So this car certainly will need checking before repair. 

[Linas.P]

More like simply replacing all rear suspension on the right side 🙂  Looking at the angle of that wheel there is not much to be checked - my guess things like spring and shock absorbed will be fine, but all control arms will be mangled beyond recognition. In this case I don't think there is much difference between repair you had on your car and this one, even where visually there is massive difference - when suspension part is bend it doesn't really matter if it is bent by 1mm or in this case maybe 35mm, it still needs replacing and still costs the same. 

That is what it looks like:

But lets take for example the rod on the bottom of picture 48710-30220, it is the same as one on IS220d, whereas next one up 48705-30090 is unique to IS-F... I guess my point - if the car is repaired using new IS-F parts or even used parts taken of IS-F it would make uneconomical repair, but if all common parts are sourced from IS220d and only the IS-F specific ones from IS-F then massive saving can be made.

[ilovemylexus72]

looks complicated!