Dodgy speedo?

General discussions on all non technical car related topics

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Dodgy speedo?

Postby thornz » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:17 am

http://www.carjam.co.nz/car/?plate=YB6613&search=Check

have just searched this car's plates and have noticeed that at one of its WOF inspections, the odometer has magically lost 444kms. Have spoken to the current owners and are admanat that the speedo hasnt been wound back, and that it must have been a error by the person recording the kms? Does that sound legitimate? The rest of the histroy seems pretty to fit, just that one instance?

Thoughts on this one?
User avatar
thornz
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 1436
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 1:36 pm
Location: Christchurch

Postby FXGTV » Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:25 am

Well you would think if someone was going to deceive you, they would take off more than 444 ks i.e a few thousand. Sounds like a clerical error to me, it happens.
1988 r31 TI Skyline.
1982 ra60 Celica (my Aussie Toyota and axle stand warrior).
ex: 1991 Corolla, 1989 fxgt-v, 1985 aw11. 1992 sw20 gt-s. 2002 glxi Lancer wagon (work hack)
next car - another a-dub please!
User avatar
FXGTV
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 1703
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: Brisbane

Postby thornz » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:03 am

Of course 444kms doesnt seem all that much, but then if you add on the distance actually travelled over that six months as well, who knows what the difference could actually be (if it is a case of being wound back, not a clerical error). The next two wofs they averaged 50kms and 40kms a day, which is a faier whack.
User avatar
thornz
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 1436
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 1:36 pm
Location: Christchurch

Postby ~SlideWays~ » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:12 am

Could have replaced a faulty gauge cluster?
User avatar
~SlideWays~
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 3:02 am
Location: Wellington

Postby TRD Man » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:18 am

Looks like a typo to me. I would think the person who entered the mileage in the computer has wrongly read a 125 or 126 as 123.

The averages are all over the place throughout it's recorded history so I wouldn't be using only the following two months as a guide.
User avatar
TRD Man
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 1414
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:26 pm
Location: Lower Hutt

Postby thornz » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:26 am

TRD Man wrote:Looks like a typo to me. I would think the person who entered the mileage in the computer has wrongly read a 125 or 126 as 123.

The averages are all over the place throughout it's recorded history so I wouldn't be using only the following two months as a guide.


I realise they are all over the place, merely just an example of a "worst" case scenario. I am thinking more of just a typo as well though.
User avatar
thornz
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 1436
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 1:36 pm
Location: Christchurch

Postby xsspeed » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:29 am

The average jumps up tp 50 because someone has entered a lower number that should have been there. At the next wof they probably got the number right, so then working it out by the recorded odo readings you would get 50kms/day where it probably should have been less.

Have seen it heaps on carjam, some cars say they have averaged 1000kms+ per day because of similar obvious stuff ups.

It will just have been misrecorded
xsspeed
Toyspeed Member
 
Posts: 3946
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Auckland


Return to General Car Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron