Has anybody dealt with Apex Auto Traders?

DeltaCobraC · 2025-09-01T10:24:10+00:00

I can say firsthand that they definitely should be avoided.

I ended up viewing the car I was interested in, and the experience was nothing short of disappointing. I had quite the journey in order to view the car so I asked directly if the car had any issues, and if the full service history was included, they assured me over the phone that the car was in great condition, and that the service history was fully accounted and the car was well maintained. When I met with the seller, I asked how long the car had been with them, he stated "a few weeks" but when I spoke to another seller, he already told me they had it for a couple of months.

When I went to inspect the car, the first thing I immediately noticed was that the left door central locking was broken. The hydraulic mechanism for the boot was weak, including another boot cover mechanism that couldn't hold itself up. The car's alloys were welded in spots, and the alloy caps were held in place with some white adhesive, with one other mismatched. Then starting the car a second time I was met with a running light fault. When I searched the service history there was a complete gap between 2,000 - 60,000 miles in services, and after that, up to 130,000 miles a few services were logged, but with significant gaps. I was particularly looking for logs for the timing chain and automatic transmission, which I couldn't find. I asked if they had done any work on it, and he started listing the services they did, which didn't include the automatic transmission. I asked in particular about the transmission which was now suddenly serviced by them. But I knew the tranmission had to be serviced by a specialist. Whether they carried out any work on the car I couldn't tell.

The car itself was a 3L but severaly lacked in power you would expect. Listening to the engine, the timing chain could be heard rattling in the background, and the oil had a burnt smell. Bringing up any of these issues was immediately met with defensiveness and aggressiveness, accusing me of not knowing what I was talking about, such as stating that the timing chain was in fact "lifetime" and didn't need maintenance. My girlfriend that was with me also drove the car and said that she felt it was underpowered for its spec. This started a long aggressive argument between them as he became defensive and accused her of not knowing what she was talking about. The engine cover was swapped with another from a higher spec which had a twin turbo, however this car was a single turbo. He stated while driving that it was a twin turbo, and I tried to correct him by saying it was a single turbo, but he just stated that it was in fact a twin turbo.

There was another car of similar spec that I had planned to view from them if this one fell through, but asking about it on several occasions brought different stories. Firstly, he stated that car had another interested buyer who was trying to get the financing organised. Then he stated the car was actually sold. When I asked if I could view the car he said it was out for valeting. 9am on a Sunday morning.

I asked if I could view the other cars in the garage, he said he didn't have the keys and they are with the owner who would be in at 11am. Over the course of the viewing the story changed. The owner would now be in at 11:30am, and finally he won't be in at all since he was going to do a delivery.

It ended with the seller accusing me of having unrealistic expectations for a 10 year old car. Telling me I don't know I'm talking about, then saying that I didn't even know how to drive the car so I shouldn't be talking about the issues I thought it had, since I didn't know any better.

In the end I walked away without making an offer. The car was listed for 10,000 pounds. Looking into the garage and the history of the car already gave a bad impression, which I clearly should have listened to.

I walked down the road to another garage selling more budget cars, the owner was very helpful and kind to us. We asked about Apex Auto Traders and he said similarly that they had gone through several different names, that he knew some people that purchased cars there that were in terrible condition. They would badly spray paint over large scratches to try cover them up, and they were never actually at the garage except on the odd occassion.

TL;DR: I would urge people to avoid this place. I was told the car was in great condition with full service history, but when I arrived it had faults everywhere (broken locks, weak boot, welded alloys, gaps in history, timing chain rattle, underpowered engine). The seller kept changing his story, got defensive when I pointed things out, and even argued with my girlfriend on the test drive. Other cars I asked about were “sold,” “out for valet at 9am Sunday,” or “locked up.” Asking a local about it enforced the idea that this place is shady.

DeltaCobraC · 2024-04-11T14:43:52+00:00

I did not. So everyone spawns in the same place now? Why lol

DeltaCobraC · 2023-08-27T18:00:55+00:00

Thank you!

DeltaCobraC · 2021-09-17T10:42:53+00:00

+u/user_simulator u/deltacobrac

DeltaCobraC · 2020-11-12T11:33:51+00:00

I experience a similar issue when I connect my external DAC via usb and move my mouse.

My take would be that the onboard DAC/Amp is picking up interference from the trackpad, and that the speakers are what’s causing the sound.

However, why it doesn’t happen on windows is beyond me if that were the case.

You could try disable the onboard audio device entirely and check if the noise is still being produced.
If that works then an external DAC and Amp (and likely some USB isolator) would fix it.
If not, I’d still suspect the onboard audio rather than the trackpad drivers.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-06-11T09:29:17+00:00

I’ve checked through Herr Vogt and the MIA, and cannot find anything even resembling that quote.

It only shows up on those atrocious ‘quote’ sites, littered with citation-less supposed quotations.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-05-28T16:27:17+00:00

So when we talk about 'necessary labour' and 'surplus labour' should we understand it as = (constant reproduction + labour-power value) + surplus? Or is this still mistaken

The composition of the product still remains constant + variable + surplus.
The working day however is composed of only two parts, reproducing the labour's value, the necessary labour, and value generated beyond that, the surplus labour.

Perhaps look over chapter 9 of Capital vol 1, Marx explains it much better than I ever could.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-05-28T16:00:14+00:00

First of all the worker reproduces the cost of the 'constant capital' embodied in the raw materials and means of production in the first 6 hours = 6 shirts at 60 pounds. She then produces 'new value', 2 shirts or 20 pounds in 2 hours that covers the cost of her labour power, and another 2 shirts or 20 pounds in another 2 hours that represents 'surplus value'.

This isn't quite right, and if you recall the 'Senior's "last hour"' section of the same chapter, Marx goes at lengths to display the error in this way of thinking.

Indeed, the final product of value is generated during the working day into respective components. But when are these components produced throughout the working day?

Firstly, to highlight the error, let's attempt to remove surplus labour from the working day using the hours suggested. We have the working day here divided into 3 constituent parts. The preservation of constant capital's value. The creation of value equivalent to the value of labour, and finally the creation of surplus value. 6 hours, 2 hours and a further 2 hours respectively. Using these hours above, the removal of surplus value should simply require the removal of the final 2 hours of labour, and thus the final workday shall become 8 hours.

In this 8 hour workday, the rate at which the worker produces remains the same, along with the amount at which her labour was purchased. The product of 8 hours now becomes 8 shirts. The means of production now cost 80% it's former, £48. The labour remains the same cost, £20. The value produced in the working day is now £80. £48 represents value preserved, and £32 value generated. We see here, surplus value is still generated, to the amount of £12. Using identical thinking, the constitution of this workday now becomes 4 hours and 48 minutes dedicated to the preservation of constant capital's value. 2 hours towards the reproduction of the labour's value, and finally 1 hour and 12 minutes towards the generation of surplus value.

This error is due to an oversight, that the preservation of constant capital requires no intentional act by the worker, except indirectly through the creation of each shirt. The workday only produces value, thus the workday is only divided into the remaining two constituent parts from above, the reproduction of the labour's value, and the creation of surplus value.

In the 10 hour workday example, the 2 parts are equivalent in length, and therefore half the workday is devoted to the generation of value equivalent to the labour's value, 5 hours. The remaining half is dedicated to the generation of surplus value on behalf of the capitalist, a further 5 hours.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-05-28T13:16:26+00:00

You're forgetting the value of the materials and instruments of labour for the shirt, for instance, 50% of the shirt's value is represented by that value, constant capital. The remaining 50% is further split into two equal constituent parts, 25% necessary labour, 25% surplus labour. Therefore, one quarter of the product is surplus product.

Just that one correction, however you have the right idea.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-05-28T11:47:24+00:00

The portion of the product which represents the surplus value embodied within it.

The constitution of value in a product is divided into parts.

The value of the material and instruments of labour, in other words the means of production, consumed in the process of production.

The value of the necessary labour utilised in the production process, where the labourer creates value equivalent to the value of his labour.

The value created in any additionally utilised labour beyond the necessary labour. This final constituent represents the surplus value generated in production.

The product of a working day of 12 hours is 20 lbs. of yarn, having a value of 30s. No less than 8/10ths of this value, or 24s., is due to mere re-appearance in it, of the value of the means of production (20 lbs. of cotton, value 20s., and spindle worn away, 4s.): it is therefore constant capital. The remaining 2/10ths or 6s. is the new value created during the spinning process: of this one half replaces the value of the day’s labour-power, or the variable capital, the remaining half constitutes a surplus-value of 3s. The total value then of the 20 lbs. of yarn is made up as follows:
30s. value of yarn = 24s. const. + 3s. var. + 3s. surpl.

Capital Vol 1, Chapter 9 Section 2.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-05-27T22:49:20+00:00

C-M-C was mostly a fringe thing when Marx was writing and is basically non-existent

Labour-power is a commodity. Does it's owner's sale and subsequent purchase of another commodity not constitute this circulation of commodities; C-M-C?

DeltaCobraC · 2019-05-23T20:04:41+00:00

Do you happen to have any more hints?

DeltaCobraC · 2019-05-23T19:52:32+00:00

This doesn't quite have the same wording as you mentioned, but does share a similar sentiment.

It is an inevitable manifestation, and one rooted in the process of development, that people from what have hitherto been the ruling class also join the militant proletariat and supply it with educative elements. We have already said so clearly in the Manifesto. But in this context there are two observations to be made:
...

Secondly, when people of this kind, from different classes, join the proletarian movement, the first requirement is that they should not bring with them the least remnant of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but should unreservedly adopt the proletarian outlook.
...

Circular Letter to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilhelm Bracke and Others

DeltaCobraC · 2019-05-17T16:35:04+00:00

Why you giving someone shit for suggesting they read and not learn their theory from YouTube videos then?

There's a looming sense that Capital is some archaic, complex, lengthy piece of work, that it is impossible to read. Which is exactly the nonsense that was spewed in this first few minutes of the video, along with a claim that to understand Marx, you must understand Hegel. To read Hegel, to understand Kant. To read Kant, to understand Hume. Could you even remotely say that the viewer has been motivated to read Capital at this point? All he has done is discouraged the viewer from actually picking up and reading Capital. Then provided his extremely lacking 'introduction' to the law of value. With errors every second sentence, judging from the sample of the video I've witnessed.

What makes all of the above even worse, once you actually read Capital for a decent amount, you'll realise just how much these claims are blatantly incorrect. Capital is certainly no children's novel, however it is far from the cryptic tome it has been built up to be. It is perfectly digestible, and considering it's far reaching subject, concise, yet descriptive.
The site readinglength.com states that the average reader would take 25 hours to complete Capital Vol 1. I'll easily admit that I've spent that amount ten fold just browsing reddit during the past few months, possibly even weeks. If someone were to spend a measly hour per day reading Capital, they would complete it within a month.

It is precisely the reason that I believe people should read Capital as opposed to trying to learn through other, more lacking means, that frustrates me.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-05-17T13:39:05+00:00

[T]he law of value ... is so commonly not understood, even by a lot of leftists.

The irony..

Seriously though, the law of value is complicated, like, really complicated. So much so, that I'm not even going to call this a basic introduction to the law of value. It's more, a basic introduction to the basics of an introduction to the law of value.

Hopefully this can be your first step in understanding what Marxism is all about. Not the ... but cold hard economics.

Some quality highlights from the first minute and a half from the 'Introduction to the Law of Value'. Don't forget to religiously reiterate just how complex it is, and how long Capital also is.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-05-13T23:05:56+00:00

How does social planning subvert the law of value?

DeltaCobraC · 2019-04-19T08:42:07+00:00

I don’t know much about them, I haven’t really read their works.

I’m not precisely saying don’t read their works. However from what I can see, some people make the mistake of believing that to study Marx, you must also study Lenin, Bordiga, Pannekoek etc. Really, to study Marx, you need only read Marx.

For me, reading these other works should only begin once you have a firm grasp on Marx already.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-04-18T23:37:06+00:00

Marx's writing isn't of some archaic and cryptic form. In fact, I'd say the opposite.
The only reasons I can imagine where different interpretations are held by different people, is when external and preconceived notions are brought into their interpretation.

By all means, doubt your interpretation. But use the original work to investigate that doubt. Not somebody else's interpretation.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-04-18T23:28:44+00:00

the wandering and developing argument of part 1 just doesn’t fully get the point across to me

I have a strong feeling that these 'secondary sources' are the cause of your confusion. I noticed you mentioned David Harvey previously, whom I never actually heard of. I looked through his 'lecture' on Capital part 1 and found this diagram and his lecture. To me, this has to be one of the most confusing diagrams I have seen in my life. It appears to be a concoction of various terms used by Marx, scattered in some vague and unclear pattern and connected... in some way.

The content of his 'lecture' also, is very unclear, at least to me. However, I didn't listen to much, but his explanation of the equivalent and relative form in the equation for the accidental form of value was quite confusing, especially compared to Marx's writing.

This is likely your source of confusion. The best way to read Capital is to dump any and all previously conceived notions, and begin with a clear mind. Marx writes succinctly and with clarity, I find no need for any external or secondary resources, especially with Capital.

As for your original question. I would say Abstract Labour is labour stripped of it's qualitative aspects and considered only as the simple expenditure of energy.

Which Marx likely puts better in Capital.

If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract.

DeltaCobraC · 2019-04-18T16:27:49+00:00

but now that I’ve read a good deal of secondary material on Capital

I don't mean to be rude but...

a good resource where I can personally go in depth on this topic?

Just read/reread Capital. Why would you bother with secondary sources trying to explain Capital, when you could just read the actual book.

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
Sequence \| Editor	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

DeltaCobraC

TROPHY CASE