Nice Blue Surprise At The Back Of My Rx

[lemon]

Way back in June, some jackass who was texting while he was driving drove into the back of my 2006 while my wife was driving it on the highway (in stop and go traffic, so it wasn't a huge accident). I ended up with a new bumper cover, impact absorbers, new styrofoam filling in the bumper etc. etc., and they also sprayed that waxy anti-rust coating on all the new parts and into the liftgate. The bodyshop (recommended by the dealership) did a fantastic job - the paint looks better than the factory paint, I kid you not).

Anyway, when I was reading the invoice ($2100 repair) I noticed "liftgate adhesive emblem 44.20, liftgate adhesive nameplate 36.40 and liftgate adhesive nameplate 41.70. I thought this was odd, since all the damage was to the bumper, and there was none to the liftgate itself. But whatever, insurance paid for it and it didn't affect my rate at all, since the other driver was 100% at fault. I can only guess that maybe the old ones had to come off so they could paint the liftgate to better match the newly painted bumper? I know something was done to the tailgate, since as I said, they did spray the waxy coating into the tailgate (it's been dripping out the drain holes at the bottom of the liftgate, especially when it's hot out - you can see it in one of the pictures).

Fast forward to today, two months since the repairs. I'm almost embarrassed to admit it, but I only NOW noticed that the "400h" emblem on the tailgate is silver with the nice blue filling. I'm 100% sure that the old "400h", was only silver with no blue (all the 2006 were like that). I like the blue - it looks good.

Just one question for others with the blue - is it only blue on the 400h or is the RX blue as well?

[cduluk]

Hmm... that's odd. They must have done a color blend into the tailgate (but i don't know why, since there wasn't any damage to the tailgate itself). In order to paint the tailgate they'd need to remove the emblems, and the double sided tape on the reverse of the emblems would be ruined, so they'd need to order new ones. They must have just ordered the wrong year emblems.

The 06 "RX400h" emblems were all chrome but for 07 and 08 just the "400h" had that blue. But only the "400h" part would have the blue, the "RX" part is left only chrome.

I've never heard of this "anti-rust coating" and i don't know why they'd be worrying about rust, since neither the impact absorber, styrofoam absorber, bumper or little components that attach them to the car could ever rust. The bumper is rubber and the impact absorber is aluminum. Can you list everything else that's on the invoice?

And is it just me or is the "RX" a little higher than the "400h"?

This is how it should look, level with the "400h" part.

[lemon]

Hmm... that's odd. They must have done a color blend into the tailgate (but i don't know why, since there wasn't any damage to the tailgate itself). In order to paint the tailgate they'd need to remove the emblems, and the double sided tape on the reverse of the emblems would be ruined, so they'd need to order new ones. They must have just ordered the wrong year emblems.

The 06 "RX400h" emblems were all chrome but for 07 and 08 just the "400h" had that blue. But only the "400h" part would have the blue, the "RX" part is left only chrome.

I've never heard of this "anti-rust coating" and i don't know why they'd be worrying about rust, since neither the impact absorber, styrofoam absorber, bumper or little components that attach them to the car could ever rust. The bumper is rubber and the impact absorber is aluminum. Can you list everything else that's on the invoice?

And is it just me or is the "RX" a little higher than the "400h"?

This is how it should look, level with the "400h" part.

You must be OPCD (obsessive compulsive personality disorder (not OCD, which is different) like me, because that's the first thing I noticed as well (that the 400h was lower) and it's more noticeable in real life than in the pic. It looks like they lined up the horizontal line of the 4 with the bottom of the RX, rather than the bottom of the '00', which is what I would have lined up. It also looks like the 400h is too close to the RX, based on your pic.

They replaced these metal triangular shaped things behind the bumper. I assumed they were the impact absorbers (I'll take a pic when I get home), and then sprayed the waxy coating all over. Like I said, they also sprayed the waxy coating inside the tailgate (you can see some of the goo leaking out of the tailgate drainhole in one of the pictures). Maybe it's a Canadian thing?

Hard to tell from this diagram but I think some of these parts were replaced as well, hence the need to reapply the rustproofing. I think the bumper arm support, left and right were replaced (the diagram shows one, but there are two (it's part #2 in the diagram). and the rear body panel (part #1) were replaced.

[SW03ES]

First thing I noticed too ;)

Very common after accident repairs. I would take that back and make them take it off and re-adhere it.

[lemon]

cduluk, or anyone else, would you do me a favour and take a close up pic like the one I have so I can show the body shop. I called today, and he said they'd gladly do it, but didn't think it would be worth it for a few millimetres. I think it's more than a few mm, and would like a comparison shot to show him.

He did say that the adhesive is pretty much permanent. I asked if they could just heat it up or something to get it off and then use some 3M two sided tape or something to stick it back and he said not likely. He even advised that just trying to peel it off, heat or not, may well damage the paint and they would have to repaint the hatch and then put a new emblem on. Mind you, he did say that he would do it if the emblem really bothers me - I just wonder if it's worth all the trouble...I'll see if my OCPD keeps me up at night thinking about it...lol.

[cduluk]

Oh definitely have them replace it... It'll bother you forever (i know it would drive me crazy!)

Here are some pics/measurements of mine. All original, never had the tailgate damaged.

I hope this helps! :)

[SW03ES]

And the emblems can be easily removed, he will just have to order new emblems. He just doesn't want to go through the hassle of doing this which is why he's telling you that.

[Jim Nazium]

How good a paint job, and work performed did they really do, when they couldn't even replace an emblem???

Jeeze Louise, it just isn't rocket science...

Cheers,

MadloR

[Peter400h]

How good a paint job, and work performed did they really do, when they couldn't even replace an emblem???

Jeeze Louise, it just isn't rocket science...

Cheers,

MadloR

Thoughts on this?

[lemon]

Cduluk, thanks...you've gone above and beyond in those pics...I didn't expect measurements but they will come in handy.

To answer the last few posts - hard to tell without seeing my rx in person, but the bodyshop truly did an excellent job on the parts replacement and the paint. The colour match is perfect and the finish is extremely good (no orange peel effect etc, no dust or bubbles in the clear coat etc.)

I really think whoever installed it lined up the horizontal line of the 4 which may have looked right to him.

The bodyshop also didn't try to dissuade me from the repair..he said he would put a new emblem on if I wanted. It was only when I asked how easy/hard it would be that he explained it couldn't be reused, and it 'might' damage the paint when taken off. He did say that if it damaged the paint they would repaint the hatch.

[cduluk]

Hmm, I would definitely make them move the emblems to where they're supposed to be. If they damage the emblems or damage the tailgate, they'll fix it.

Make sure they put the emblems back to the right measurements too LOL =)

[lemon]

I finally figured out why the hatch was repainted. Prior to the accident there were two vertical scratches in the paint just below the hatch handle (I think it was caused by the garage door closing, but wife's mantra is deny deny deny...lol. She did admit that she scuffed the passenger side mirror on the garage entrance, but it was kind of hard to deny that one when the paint from the garage door trim was on the mirror).

Anyway, I can only assume that the body shop assumed that that damage was caused in the accident and included it in the estimate for repairs, and the insurance company OK'd it. It wasn't caused in the accident, but it worked out well for me. There was also a big scuff in the corner of the bumper on the driver's side, caused by the previous owner, which is now gone since I got a new bumper skin. In the end, this fender bender actually worked in my benefit.

[cduluk]

Oh that's good! :D That saved you a bunch. <_<

[riwyle]

I finally figured out why the hatch was repainted. Prior to the accident there were two vertical scratches in the paint just below the hatch handle (I think it was caused by the garage door closing, but wife's mantra is deny deny deny...lol. She did admit that she scuffed the passenger side mirror on the garage entrance, but it was kind of hard to deny that one when the paint from the garage door trim was on the mirror).

Anyway, I can only assume that the body shop assumed that that damage was caused in the accident and included it in the estimate for repairs, and the insurance company OK'd it. It wasn't caused in the accident, but it worked out well for me. There was also a big scuff in the corner of the bumper on the driver's side, caused by the previous owner, which is now gone since I got a new bumper skin. In the end, this fender bender actually worked in my benefit.

Just curious- Had the insurance company asked you before the body shop started the work if those scratches had preexisted the accident, would you have told the truth and so stated yes?

[LEXIRX330]

Just curious- Had the insurance company asked you before the body shop started the work if those scratches had preexisted the accident, would you have told the truth and so stated yes?

Yea... <_< I am not going to start my rant about why everyone's insurance goes up because of claims like this. At least in this case he did not "try" to get the shop to fix the existing damage which is done all of the time. If the shop fixed it and the insurance company did not question it then it worked out well for you. It is one thing if they had to paint that area anyway but...

I handle quite a few claims and most of the time the question is always asked "was there any previous damage to the car?" So they may have asked you or your wife and like most people not thinking of any major damage to it you would have said no. This happens all of the time and unless it is on a complete different area of the car or it is clear that it was previous damage then they fix it. Not worth trying to dispute it.

[lemon]

I called the insurance company, told them the vehicle had been rear ended, gave them the other driver's information. A week later I dropped the RX off at the body shop, told them it had been rear ended, got into a rental vehicle and roughly a week later (it was over a long weekend) the body shop called me and said it was ready. Neither the body shop, or the insurance company called me at any time to approve the repairs or to ask any questions. My wife was never questioned about damage by the insurance company, only about what happened, and that was on the day of the accident.

As you can probably tell, (it took me two months to notice the new emblem, and another week to finally figure out why the hatch was painted) I don't pay a lot of attention to the back of the RX. If the insurance company/body shop had asked me at the time, I probably would have said I had no idea (I couldn't remember the damage when I first posted this, I doubt I would have remembered it then).

The pre existing scrape to the corner of the bumper is a moot point, as the entire thing had to be replaced due to the new damage at the back caused by the accident.

LEXIRX330, I find your comment "I am not going to start my rant about why everyone's insurance goes up because of claims like this." highly offensive, as you insinuate that this was some sort of fraudulent claim. Everyone's insurance goes up when someone backs into a pole, then claims the vehicle was hit in the parking lot by another vehicle that left the scene, or when a driver/passenger claims injury that didn't happen. When some doofus who is texting while he is driving hits my vehicle THAT is a legitimate careless accident on his part. The police officer that charged him under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act seemed to think so as well, especially after talking to an independent witness that saw this guy texting and driving. There is no fraud here at all and if anyone's insurance will go up, it will be the other driver, who was 100% at fault.

[LEXIRX330]

LEXIRX330, I find your comment "I am not going to start my rant about why everyone's insurance goes up because of claims like this." highly offensive, as you insinuate that this was some sort of fraudulent claim. Everyone's insurance goes up when someone backs into a pole, then claims the vehicle was hit in the parking lot by another vehicle that left the scene, or when a driver/passenger claims injury that didn't happen. When some doofus who is texting while he is driving hits my vehicle THAT is a legitimate careless accident on his part. The police officer that charged him under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act seemed to think so as well, especially after talking to an independent witness that saw this guy texting and driving. There is no fraud here at all and if anyone's insurance will go up, it will be the other driver, who was 100% at fault.

You can take it how you want but that comment was not directed at you in anyway. The person it was directed at knows. But I think that he is a good guy and if he had to do things over he may not do the same thing he did before. He is also a great resource for this site.

I also never said that you did anything wrong. I even said that at least you did not try to get them to fix it. I think you mis read my post or you just took it the wrong way. I still dont see how can you say things like this don't cause everyones insurance to go up? The insurance company paid out for damage that they should not have. It wasn't your fault that they fixed it.

[lemon]

The other driver's rates will go up due to the 'at fault' decision against him. His insurance company will recoup their expense of fixing my car through his higher premium. I don't see how this will affect 'everyone' else's insurance. However, I'm not in the insurance business so I don't claim to understand their inner workings. Now, out and out fraud, like claiming a fail to remain accident when you did in fact hit a pole, or faking injury after an accident to collect accident benefits...I can see that affecting all rates.

[LEXIRX330]

The other driver's rates will go up due to the 'at fault' decision against him. His insurance company will recoup their expense of fixing my car through his higher premium. I don't see how this will affect 'everyone' else's insurance. However, I'm not in the insurance business so I don't claim to understand their inner workings. Now, out and out fraud, like claiming a fail to remain accident when you did in fact hit a pole, or faking injury after an accident to collect accident benefits...I can see that affecting all rates.

Ok his insurance company will surcharge him for his loss so if he keeps the policy they "may" recoup the money. The bigger picture is what I am saying the problem is "not you or this specific claim" the fact that the company is paying for damage that they should not. Now say he is with company abc company abc has a higher loss ratio based on paying out more on a claim then they should have. So this one time no big deal but over 50 or 100 times it adds up and will cost everyone with company abc more money not just the bad drivers. You are still missing my point though I was saying that people claim damage all of the time that was not due to the accident and claim it was which is fraud and that is what I said causes everyones premiums to go up in the original post. I keep saying you did not do anything wrong.

[cduluk]

Oh come on, he was obviously talking about me. :whistles:

[rx400h2007]

I was a little put off by the childish behavior from "you know who". There were no questions asked by the insurance company/adjuster from what I gathered so no false statements could be given. This goes back to people not doing their job, which is something I cannot handle...

At any rate, the waxy substance is not a rust inhibitor. It is a substance applied (possibly to the entire vehicle unless taped and bagged) that prevents over spray from adhering to the paint that did not need painting. A rust inhibitor would be applied to bare metal.

Hope this helps your mind...I am a bit of an OCPD as well, and that emblem thing has worried me to death! Haha!

[LEXIRX330]

I was a little put off by the childish behavior from "you know who". There were no questions asked by the insurance company/adjuster from what I gathered so no false statements could be given. This goes back to people not doing their job, which is something I cannot handle...

At any rate, the waxy substance is not a rust inhibitor. It is a substance applied (possibly to the entire vehicle unless taped and bagged) that prevents over spray from adhering to the paint that did not need painting. A rust inhibitor would be applied to bare metal.

Hope this helps your mind...I am a bit of an OCPD as well, and that emblem thing has worried me to death! Haha!

Since I assume I am the childish one. How on earth do you know what was asked! It is extremely frustrating that people do not do their jobs. And the adjuster is the one who screwed up read all of my post I never said that lemon was doing anything wrong. As a matter of fact the other poster questioned what he would have done if he had been asked about the damage not me.

As I said I file many claims with many companies about 15 to give you a idea progressive allstate travelers farmers Penn national to name a few every single one of the companies in the claim reports specifically ask was there any existing damage to the car? That question should have been asked but because someone as you say was not doing their job it probably wasn't. The other thing that I suggested was simply that Lemon or his wife just didn't even think about it when asked. Was not trying to make a big deal of it.

If I wasn't the childish one. My mistake.

[lemon]

I was a little put off by the childish behavior from "you know who". There were no questions asked by the insurance company/adjuster from what I gathered so no false statements could be given. This goes back to people not doing their job, which is something I cannot handle...

At any rate, the waxy substance is not a rust inhibitor. It is a substance applied (possibly to the entire vehicle unless taped and bagged) that prevents over spray from adhering to the paint that did not need painting. A rust inhibitor would be applied to bare metal.

Hope this helps your mind...I am a bit of an OCPD as well, and that emblem thing has worried me to death! Haha!

No, it's rust inhibitor. Says right in my invoice - RESTORE CORROSION PROTECTION. The fact that it was sprayed into the inside of the rear hatch through the drain holes and onto the rear underbody forward of the rear bumper shows it has nothing to do with overspray. I can take a picture of the goo if you want.

[lemon]

I was a little put off by the childish behavior from "you know who". There were no questions asked by the insurance company/adjuster from what I gathered so no false statements could be given. This goes back to people not doing their job, which is something I cannot handle...

At any rate, the waxy substance is not a rust inhibitor. It is a substance applied (possibly to the entire vehicle unless taped and bagged) that prevents over spray from adhering to the paint that did not need painting. A rust inhibitor would be applied to bare metal.

Hope this helps your mind...I am a bit of an OCPD as well, and that emblem thing has worried me to death! Haha!

Since I assume I am the childish one. How on earth do you know what was asked! It is extremely frustrating that people do not do their jobs. And the adjuster is the one who screwed up read all of my post I never said that lemon was doing anything wrong. As a matter of fact the other poster questioned what he would have done if he had been asked about the damage not me.

As I said I file many claims with many companies about 15 to give you a idea progressive allstate travelers farmers Penn national to name a few every single one of the companies in the claim reports specifically ask was there any existing damage to the car? That question should have been asked but because someone as you say was not doing their job it probably wasn't. The other thing that I suggested was simply that Lemon or his wife just didn't even think about it when asked. Was not trying to make a big deal of it.

If I wasn't the childish one. My mistake.

And just to clarify, I was never asked if there was any pre existing damage so I never had a chance to not even think about it when asked.

The whole process was this - idiot driver rear ends my Lexus (wife driving) - Police Officer takes accident report and charges other driver - I call my insurance company to report the accident - they have 'recommended' bodyshops they work with - call my local Lexus dealer and it turns out the bodyshop they use is one of the recommended ones - I call insurance company back and tell them I'm using this bodyshop - almost all the bodyshops are online with the major insurance companies and the insurance company sends the claim number to the bodyshop online - when I drop the car off, the bodyshop already has all my infomation, the car information and the insurance information in the computer - I leave the car there, get a rental car and a week or so later, my car is fixed.

At no time did I see an adjuster, speak to an adjuster, or hear back from the insurance company AFTER I dropped the car off, aside from them calling me AFTER the repair was done to make sure I was satisfied with the work the bodyshop did.

[riwyle]

I was a little put off by the childish behavior from "you know who". There were no questions asked by the insurance company/adjuster from what I gathered so no false statements could be given. This goes back to people not doing their job, which is something I cannot handle...

At any rate, the waxy substance is not a rust inhibitor. It is a substance applied (possibly to the entire vehicle unless taped and bagged) that prevents over spray from adhering to the paint that did not need painting. A rust inhibitor would be applied to bare metal.

Hope this helps your mind...I am a bit of an OCPD as well, and that emblem thing has worried me to death! Haha!

Since I assume I am the childish one. How on earth do you know what was asked! It is extremely frustrating that people do not do their jobs. And the adjuster is the one who screwed up read all of my post I never said that lemon was doing anything wrong. As a matter of fact the other poster questioned what he would have done if he had been asked about the damage not me.

As I said I file many claims with many companies about 15 to give you a idea progressive allstate travelers farmers Penn national to name a few every single one of the companies in the claim reports specifically ask was there any existing damage to the car? That question should have been asked but because someone as you say was not doing their job it probably wasn't. The other thing that I suggested was simply that Lemon or his wife just didn't even think about it when asked. Was not trying to make a big deal of it.

If I wasn't the childish one. My mistake.

I am the one referred to above who originally asked the question. It was meant to be a "thought question" to illustrate the moral dilemmas we each face daily and not a judgment on anyone. I did not intend to initiate this apparent rancor that I really think is out of place in a forum created to discuss our experiences and opinions of our automobiles. I am sorry I started it, apologize if I offended, and if I have a vote, would love to see it end.

Wyle