[floridaorange]

[QUOTE=Poochie;24916607][QUOTE=floridaorange;24916589]

Originally Posted by Poochie

Alrighty then, you go "draw that line in the sad..."

It's a movie quote, couldn't help myself.

[MmmmmM2]

[QUOTE=floridaorange;24916589][QUOTE=Poochie;24915800]

Originally Posted by learntocode

The Chinaman is not the issue here, we're talking about drawing a line in the sand!

One of my favorite movies!

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by The Airman

Exactly. Signs of tampering.

If the OP files a claim with the insurance company, believe me, the investigator will be highly trained in car fires and their origins.

Insurance companies have gotten tired of paying off on people who burn their cars to get out of payments, and a multitude of other reasons they burn their cars. He'll zoom right in on that other headlight stuck on from the photos the firemen took, and trace any non-factory modifications on the good headlight back to the burnt one.

Although clearly not arson, if they find a cheap Chinese HID upgrade or something like that, just thrown in there on the good headlight, they may be under no obligation to pay because of non-factory upgrades that should be done at your own risk.

This will be interesting to see the outcome. I wish the OP much luck for a good outcome. Buyer beware.

The car had Adjustable HID Xenon from factory.

I don't believe the OP has anything to worry about.

Odds are the wiring might have been damaged or in a position where eventually the shielding wore through when the MSport Bumper replaced the Sportsline Bumper.

Again, the Insurance will cover the OP.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by npe

For someone constantly giving flack to other forum members for not looking at fine details, you're no better

Look at the OP's third pic and the photos in his past threads if you're bright enough

Touché

I see you created another account after mods permanently banned you.

Welcome back.

And don't make same mistakes again....if you are bright enough.

[upsidedownfunnel]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

How can you tell it's a Sportsline that had MSport Bumpers retrofitted?

Rockers and wheels. I believe only the front bumper was retrofitted, too.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by upsidedownfunnel

Rockers and wheels. I believe only the front bumper was retrofitted, too.

Rear Bumper is an MSport as well based on Facebook Photo after the fire.

As I could use an Alpine White Rear MSport Bumper for a project it obviously crossed my mind as it had no damage, lol.

Unfortunately it's Mineral White.

[upsidedownfunnel]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Rear Bumper is an MSport as well based on Facebook Photo after the fire.

Ah OK. yeah I thought I could see it from the first photo, but I wasn't sure.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by upsidedownfunnel

Ah OK. yeah I thought I could see it from the first photo, but I wasn't sure.

It might have been on here with license plate and later deleted.

[Zanity]

why is the trunk black ? Did it have a rear ender and the previous owner just bought some black trunk to replace it ? this car definitely looks more likely to be tampered with then...

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by The Airman

Exactly. Signs of tampering.

If the OP files a claim with the insurance company, believe me, the investigator will be highly trained in car fires and their origins.

Insurance companies have gotten tired of paying off on people who burn their cars to get out of payments, and a multitude of other reasons they burn their cars. He'll zoom right in on that other headlight stuck on from the photos the firemen took, and trace any non-factory modifications on the good headlight back to the burnt one.

Although clearly not arson, if they find a cheap Chinese HID upgrade or something like that, just thrown in there on the good headlight, they may be under no obligation to pay because of non-factory upgrades that should be done at your own risk.

This will be interesting to see the outcome. I wish the OP much luck for a good outcome. Buyer beware.

As long as there is no signs of intentional fraud, his insurance will pay for it.

Insurance practically covers everything including negligence and to quote my claims representative; "even stupidity."

He'll be fine, as far the claim goes but it might get flagged by an SIU investigator assigned by his insurance company.

Nothing to worry about really, standard practice for total loss, fire claims.




.

[neonnblack]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Rear Bumper is an MSport as well based on Facebook Photo after the fire.

As I could use an Alpine White Rear MSport Bumper for a project it obviously crossed my mind as it had no damage, lol.

Unfortunately it's Mineral White.

lmao that's why you asked.

Originally Posted by Zanity

why is the trunk black ? Did it have a rear ender and the previous owner just bought some black trunk to replace it ? this car definitely looks more likely to be tampered with then...

It's a carbon fiber seibon trunk. Also an addition by me.

[Wolfus Aurelius]

Neonnblack,

Sorry for your loss and the inconvenience of being without a car (are you?). In 1985 I had something similar happen to me with a used Volvo 164 sedan I had just bought. My then-wife and I were driving home when suddenly flames began to lick out from under the dash. I wrenched the Volvo to the side of the road and we sprang out and jogged to a safe distance in time to watch the car burn from end to end.

We were outside a dance club, and people came out to watch. One asked me, "Is that your car?"

I said "It was. . . ."

Turned out those 1975 Volvos had a known problem with a fuel line breaking. This was long before Internet, so I had no way to research the cars' problems. And I'd had it inspected before buying, but not by my usual mechanic, who was on vacation that week. The whole thing put me off foreign cars for many years.

Good luck to you!

[The Airman]

Originally Posted by Poochie

As long as there is no signs of intentional fraud, his insurance will pay for it.

Insurance practically covers everything including negligence and to quote my claims representative; "even stupidity."

He'll be fine, as far the claim goes but it might get flagged by an SIU investigator assigned by his insurance company.

Nothing to worry about really, standard practice for total loss, fire claims.




.

Not always. The insurance companies aren't your friends.

Here is a situation that happened around here involving car fires and insurance:
https://www.thedrive.com/news/27935/...upwards-of-60m

Seems the building owner had the fire alarms and sprinklers off line due to "maintenance". Some companies are paying, some are not. The car owners will end up having to sue to recover.

The insurance company is not going to say, "here's your million dollars. So sorry for you taking it upon yourself to park your million dollar Ferrari in a cheap dump were the owner didn't have the good sense or responsibility to have an operating fire suppression system. Go buy yourself a new Ferrari."

Some pay on "stupidity". Some don't. Mine won't. Although, mine will pay out (one time, before cancelation) for a pitbull attack. Others don't pay at all.

Car fires are extremely rare under these conditions. It'll be interesting, but I hope the OP can go new car shopping soon, though!!

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by The Airman

Not always. The insurance companies aren't your friends.

Here is a situation that happened around here involving car fires and insurance:
https://www.thedrive.com/news/27935/...upwards-of-60m

Seems the building owner had the fire alarms and sprinklers off line due to "maintenance". Some companies are paying, some are not. The car owners will end up having to sue to recover.

The insurance company is not going to say, "here's your million dollars. So sorry for you taking it upon yourself to park your million dollar Ferrari in a cheap dump were the owner didn't have the good sense or responsibility to have an operating fire suppression system. Go buy yourself a new Ferrari."

Some pay on "stupidity". Some don't. Mine won't. Although, mine will pay out (one time, before cancelation) for a pitbull attack. Others don't pay at all.

Car fires are extremely rare under these conditions. It'll be interesting, but I hope the OP can go new car shopping soon, though!!

There is nothing in that story that says anything about Insurance not paying.

That's what Insurance is for.

You are only fueling concern for OP.

[bacon_45]

Why are people acting like most cars here are not "tampered" with? Half of the cars here are running aggressive tunes, but this isn't a car blowing up. Insurance will cover a car due to a fire, but of course investigate it for foul play.

[Savageenterprise]

Originally Posted by neonnblack

And it was pretty bad. No idea what caused it, started in the passenger head light area. Funny thing, the car restarted on its own while they were putting the fire out. And the driver headlight won't turn off.

Oh man, that is horrible! Sorry to hear and see that bud.

Thankfully you got out of the car and weren't injured but that looks bonkers.

[obert]

The only thing that I see being a possible issue is you owing more than the insurance is willing to pay.

Sorry if you said you have gap insurance, to lazy to read the thread

[supermarket]

Originally Posted by Poochie

You misunderstood why I asked that question; him possible coding the side markers out have absolutely nothing to do with the fire but it shows evidence of coding.

Plus, the glare from increase in wattage to the rings and obvious missing or altered government mandated side markers reveals signs of tampering, whatever they might be.

Not singling anyone out here, but this quote summarizes a couple of points that I think are off base here.

It isn’t constructive to try to work out whether the original poster’s car has been modified or tampered with or coded or anything else. This car just set itself on fire while the owner was sitting inside it, which can be anxiety-inducing enough. Now here comes the echo chamber with its bogus reasons that an insurance underwriter might justify a refusal to pay for the damage.

Here’s what’s bogus about the analysis here so far:

Even on a healthy car, it’s difficult to impossible to tell what’s going on with the running light rings or sidemarkers from a photo taken with the headlamps burning. There’s really no way to say from these photos which lights were on and which were off. The headlamps alone are glaring enough to the camera to make it impossible to say what else is happening in there, certainly with the comparatively lower-intensity DRLs and sidemarkers.

But this car isn’t healthy. The photos show that it’s badly broken, and the original poster has said that headlamps won’t turn off, pointing to electrical damage. We can’t determine anything about cause and effect here, but we do know that the photos we’re seeing are the product of a badly damaged electrical system. Are the sidemarkers really too bright or the DRLs really off in the pictures? So what? It’s more likely to be the product of a broken car than it is to be the result of coding or anything like that. In fact, in the photos that “clearly” show the headlamp on, the fire department’s already been on the scene, and they surely left the car with as much switched “off” as possible. I’d be comfortable assuming that when the original poster said that the driver’s headlight won't turn off, they already tried, um, turning it off, and that’s what we’re looking at here.

So, nothing to see here other than a burned-out broken car whose current or previous owners don’t really deserve any of this finger-pointing, or any of the anxiety about not being paid for a totaled car.

To the original poster: my sympathy. I’m glad you’re uninjured, and I hope that your insurance makes you whole. You’ve got a remarkably positive attitude about this, all things considered.

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by supermarket

Not singling anyone out here, but this quote summarizes a couple of points that I think are off base here.

It isn't constructive to try to work out whether the original poster's car has been modified or tampered with or coded or anything else. This car just set itself on fire while the owner was sitting inside it, which can be anxiety-inducing enough. Now here comes the echo chamber with its bogus reasons that an insurance underwriter might justify a refusal to pay for the damage.

Here's what's bogus about the analysis here so far:

Even on a healthy car, it's difficult to impossible to tell what's going on with the running light rings or sidemarkers from a photo taken with the headlamps burning. There's really no way to say from these photos which lights were on and which were off. The headlamps alone are glaring enough to the camera to make it impossible to say what else is happening in there, certainly with the comparatively lower-intensity DRLs and sidemarkers.

But this car isn't healthy. The photos show that it's badly broken, and the original poster has said that headlamps won't turn off, pointing to electrical damage. We can't determine anything about cause and effect here, but we do know that the photos we're seeing are the product of a badly damaged electrical system. Are the sidemarkers really too bright or the DRLs really off in the pictures? So what? It's more likely to be the product of a broken car than it is to be the result of coding or anything like that. In fact, in the photos that "clearly" show the headlamp on, the fire department's already been on the scene, and they surely left the car with as much switched "off" as possible. I'd be comfortable assuming that when the original poster said that the driver's headlight won't turn off, they already tried, um, turning it off, and that's what we're looking at here.

So, nothing to see here other than a burned-out broken car whose current or previous owners don't really deserve any of this finger-pointing, or any of the anxiety about not being paid for a totaled car.

To the original poster: my sympathy. I'm glad you're uninjured, and I hope that your insurance makes you whole. You've got a remarkably positive attitude about this, all things considered.

TL: DR Relax, I didn't accuse the OP of anything; I spoke in hypotheticals and asked questions instead of just assuming.

Cars don't just spontaneously combust and I was just trying to get a rough idea why, I wasn't trying to play fire marshal. Just spitballing theories.

Excuse me for having a discussion on a discussion forum.

If the OP was a private person and didn't want to open a line or dialogue on the subject, he wouldn't of shared the story in the first place.

[bacon_45]

Originally Posted by Poochie

TL: DR Relax, I didn't accuse the OP of anything; I spoke in hypotheticals and asked questions instead of just assuming.

Cars don't just spontaneously combust and I was just trying to get a rough idea why, I wasn't trying to play fire marshal. Just spitballing theories.

Excuse me for having a discussion on a discussion forum.

If the OP was a private person and didn't want to open a line or dialogue on the subject, he wouldn't of shared the story in the first place.

Poochie, the way you said it makes it seem like you are 100% accusing OP. Coding comes in standard in cars now, the whole "tampering" thing is annoying.

[Gen13 F36]

Originally Posted by Zanity

why is the trunk black ? Did it have a rear ender and the previous owner just bought some black trunk to replace it ? this car definitely looks more likely to be tampered with then...

Carbon fiber trunk

[Poochie]

Originally Posted by bacon_45

Poochie, the way you said it makes it seem like you are 100% accusing OP. Coding comes in standard in cars now, the whole "tampering" thing is annoying.

My bad, I didn't realized you was his keeper..