My friend says they didn't replace the frame, too expensive... Did they?

[fleabag]

My mom was driving around in a '94 LS400 and in '98 she was rear ended HARD, they repaired the rear end of her car but she says that they weren't able to repair it so that it drove like it did before and the trunk still didn't close like it was suppose to. Then a year or two later, she was rear ended AGAIN but this time, she says they replaced the entire frame of the car because it wasn't salvageable. Now I'm wondering, should I believe my friend who says there is no way they could have done that because it would've totaled the car since it'd be too expensive? Or believe my mom who insists that they did in fact replace the unibody. Cause I'm pretty inclined to believe her considering that I've gotten a good look under her car and couldn't see any indication that it had ever been in an accident.

So, is my friend correct in saying that?

 

[Ronstang]

I am pretty sure the LS400 is a unibody. They could have replaced a section of the frame rails, but that would be about it and it would be expensive.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Really unlikely, at best it would be a subframe.

 

[fleabag]

I know it's a unibody, maybe what I should have said is, did they replace the entire unibody?

 

[woodie1]

Could have replaced the rear subframe but that would be about it.

 

[exdeath]

No. Does it have a new VIN?

Unibody cars have front and rear heavy gauge subframes mounted to the unibody via bushings and which carry all the drive train and suspension components. The unibody itself is still the important thing, since that is what determines if the front and rear are square and in line with each other, carries the strut loads and determines alignment, etc.

 

[suse920]

Originally posted by: fleabag
I know it's a unibody, maybe what I should have said is, did they replace the entire unibody?

No way.

 

[fleabag]

So how would I know for certain whether or not the unibody was repaired or not? I mean we know they repaired it the first time for sure, but the second time, she says they claimed that it wasn't possible to repair it and that they needed to replace the entire unibody which they did. Are you guys saying that they did such a fantastic job the second time around that it felt like the car had never been in an accident, everything closed perfectly and the gaps between everything looked normal? I have no idea if my mom got a new VIN number... So if they replaced only a fraction of the frame, then wouldn't that mean that fraction of the frame came from some other car as well? That one half of the car would have one VIN and the other a different VIN?

 

[brblx]

not to sound silly, but crawl under it and look? it would be somewhat hard to hide a large chunk of the car being cut out and welded back in, unless they cut and welded at all the factory seams. even then, they wouldn't copy factory overspray and/or undercoating.

there are probably some boxed rails at the rear of the car that form the structure to support the rear bumper. look to see if they look like they've ever been crunched.

 

[Sukhoi]

lol no they didn't replace the unibody. That would be replacing the car...

 

[daw123]

^^^^ Nope they didn't.

 

[fleabag]

So you're saying that just because the whole unibody is bad even on a 1 year old Lexus LS model car, that they would automatically total the car? What if the estimate makes it seem like they won't total the car, but then as more work is done, they realize it's going to cost more??

 

[daw123]

Originally posted by: fleabag
So you're saying that just because the whole unibody is bad even on a 1 year old Lexus LS model car, that they would automatically total the car? What if the estimate makes it seem like they won't total the car, but then as more work is done, they realize it's going to cost more??

Um, if my maths is correct from the OP, your mum's car is a '94. It was rear-ended in '98 (car is 4 years old), then again a year of two later in '99 - '00 (car is 5-6 years old).

The first time they repaired it and second time they may or may not have replaced the unibody.

It is highly unlikely that they would replace the unibody on a car 5-6 years old because it simply wouldn't be financially viable (the car would be written off).

 

[StageLeft]

Replacing the fame on a unibody is like asking if you think somebody's entire skeletal system could be replaced.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: daw123

Originally posted by: fleabag
So you're saying that just because the whole unibody is bad even on a 1 year old Lexus LS model car, that they would automatically total the car? What if the estimate makes it seem like they won't total the car, but then as more work is done, they realize it's going to cost more??

Um, if my maths is correct from the OP, your mum's car is a '94. It was rear-ended in '98 (car is 4 years old), then again a year of two later in '99 - '00 (car is 5-6 years old).

The first time they repaired it and second time they may or may not have replaced the unibody.

It is highly unlikely that they would replace the unibody on a car 5-6 years old because it simply wouldn't be financially viable (the car would be written off).

I don't think I have ever seen an accident that rendered the unibody useless where the car was not totaled.

I don't work in a body shop...but if you're wrecking the unibody of a car or frame of a truck, there's some significant damage.

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Replacing the fame on a unibody is like asking if you think somebody's entire skeletal system could be replaced.

:thumbsup:

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: daw123

Originally posted by: fleabag
So you're saying that just because the whole unibody is bad even on a 1 year old Lexus LS model car, that they would automatically total the car? What if the estimate makes it seem like they won't total the car, but then as more work is done, they realize it's going to cost more??

Um, if my maths is correct from the OP, your mum's car is a '94. It was rear-ended in '98 (car is 4 years old), then again a year of two later in '99 - '00 (car is 5-6 years old).

The first time they repaired it and second time they may or may not have replaced the unibody.

It is highly unlikely that they would replace the unibody on a car 5-6 years old because it simply wouldn't be financially viable (the car would be written off).

Well what would a $50K from 1994 be worth in the year 2000? And why would it be so expensive to just replace the frame when every other part inside the car is perfectly fine and can be transported over? I don't see how that is more expensive and labor intensive as cutting the car off from the engine bay and replacing that whole part of the car....?

 

[boomerang]

You're still struggling with the concept of unibody and frame whether you realize it or not.

The car you're talking about does not have a frame. Trucks have frames. (Before you know-it-alls jump in, this is a generalization)

If a car is damaged in an accident to the point that the unibody needs replacing, it is scrapped. The unibody consists of the rear quarter panels, the trunk floor, the partition behind the rear seat, the floor, both sides of the car (the frames around all the doors), the roof, the firewall, the windshield frame and all the secondary panels that the majority of people would never know exist. Besides the fact that no car manufacturer supplies that entire assembly as a replacement part, can you imagine the cost to transfer everything over from the crashed car to the new?

If a truck has a frame, and the vehicle is damaged to the point that the frame needs to be replaced, the vehicle is scrapped. The frame is not available as a replacement part. The cost to transfer everything over (if you could buy a frame) would be extremely high.

Frames can often be repaired using special equipment to pull the frame back into alignment. Likewise for a unibody car. At some point it is not cost effective to do that repair. At some point the vehicle cannot be repaired in a manner that would still render it safe to drive.

So, back to your original question, no they did not replace the frame. They pulled everything back into shape as best they could. Someone mentioned a rear subframe. If the car has a rear subframe, (where the rear suspension mounts to) that may have been replaced. The frame of the car no (it doesn't have one), the subframe - more likely if it was cost effective.

You're hung up on the semantics of all this.

 

[Demo24]

Originally posted by: fleabag
I know it's a unibody, maybe what I should have said is, did they replace the entire unibody?

No, what that effectively would have been doing is to strip everything out of the car until you are left with basically the metal shell of a car. Now, no body shop is ever going to do that. Replacing the 'unibody' would only be done if someone was purposely restoring the vehicle and for that to happen it would need to be worth a lot.

For example this is what the car would have looked like if they were to replace the unibody: http://static.howstuffworks.co...Ford_Freestyle_600.jpg

A completely empty metal shell. Now I don't even think it's possible to just get that by it's self.


Now what most likely happened is this:

a) in the first accident you got screwed and should never have accepted the car in that condition. They are suppose to repair it or get it written off, no in-betweens.

b)There's more than likely 'subframes' in both the front and back. These generally act as extra support and bracing, but in some cases also help attach items(suspension) to the rest of the car. It's very possible that when rear-ended the rails were bent. Instead of straightening them, they were replaced. That's actually a reasonably common job, and not really something to worry about unless it was not reinstalled within factory tolerances.

For example heres a front subframe off a Subaru: http://www.rallysportdirect.co...r_Light_Subframe_2.jpg

As you can see in this case the gold bars are not holding any components on but are strengthening the body.

 

[Jeff7181]

I mean no personal offense, but claiming a car's unibody was replaced by a collision shop is asinine. Your friend is correct, your mother doesn't know what she's talking about and/or the collision shop fed her a line of BS to justify the cost of the repairs.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: fleabag
So you're saying that just because the whole unibody is bad even on a 1 year old Lexus LS model car, that they would automatically total the car? What if the estimate makes it seem like they won't total the car, but then as more work is done, they realize it's going to cost more??

A unibody IS the car. The way you replace the unibody is driving down to the dealership and buying a new car off the lot.

 

[brblx]

it's not like pieces of the unibody can't be cut out and replaced, though. you can typically even buy things like quarter skins through the dealer.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I've seen a car that was t-boned, damaging the unibody structure on that side but the car was still straight overall. They took that whole passenger side off (mostly following factory welds aside from a few spots here and there) and welded the side of another car to it. Came out looking great, perfectly straight, and unless you were told or went hunting for the fresher welds, you'd have no idea it had been t-boned.

Just to say, it can be done. But it is rarely done.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: brblx
it's not like pieces of the unibody can't be cut out and replaced, though. you can typically even buy things like quarter skins through the dealer.

Quarter panels are not exactly load bearing sections. No reputable collision shop would chop up a unibody car and weld it back together and give it back to the customer. That's asking for a multi-million dollar lawsuit the next time the car is in an accident and it gets ripped apart at the welds.

 

[brblx]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: brblx
it's not like pieces of the unibody can't be cut out and replaced, though. you can typically even buy things like quarter skins through the dealer.

Quarter panels are not exactly load bearing sections. No reputable collision shop would chop up a unibody car and weld it back together and give it back to the customer. That's asking for a multi-million dollar lawsuit the next time the car is in an accident and it gets ripped apart at the welds.

i wasn't implying they cut the car in half. but some people in this thread seem to think that if a car is hit in the rear, it's totaled, period, which is just not true.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: brblx

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: brblx
it's not like pieces of the unibody can't be cut out and replaced, though. you can typically even buy things like quarter skins through the dealer.

Quarter panels are not exactly load bearing sections. No reputable collision shop would chop up a unibody car and weld it back together and give it back to the customer. That's asking for a multi-million dollar lawsuit the next time the car is in an accident and it gets ripped apart at the welds.

i wasn't implying they cut the car in half. but some people in this thread seem to think that if a car is hit in the rear, it's totaled, period, which is just not true.

Not at all - but if it's hit hard enough to render a significant portion of the unibody structurally unsound..