jester0618

AZ Pete is right. If the intake pipe contained the MAF, and now it's not there, won't run very well if at all.

stangdriver2007

Why are u having to pay out of your pocket? Did u not have insurance which I'm guessing is the case since that's how u described it. Well if u didn't have insurance it's ur own fault and won't get any sympathy from me.

Max_Apex

Where's the rest of the story? I'm finding it hard to believe the stang took this hard of a punch in the face, from being cut off. I also find it hard to believe you didn't get ticketed for rear ending someone. The law always finds the car that rear ends another, at fault, because A) your supposed to follow at a safe enough distance to stop in an emergency, and B) you should be traveling at a speed at which you can reduce speed to avoid an accident.
Both of which, you should have been ticketed for.
So, pardon me if this story sounds like bs. Maybe if you clarified, it would make sense. Add to that, your out of pocket costs. Did you not have insurance? If you did, the most out of pocket, you be dealing with is $500-$1500, depending on your deductable. Lastly, if the damage is that high, the insurance will just cut you a check for the value of the car, rather than fix it because the cost of fixing it is more than the cars value.

tbear853

Not so .... not with my agency or the guys I worked with. I'll agree that if one had to guess, the one behind is likely at fault because more often than not, they are at fault .... but you don't guess on accident investigations and I can recall a few where the rear car's driver didn't get a ticket because it wasn't their fault or because the driver ahead had far greater culpability.

Max_Apex

I could elaborate more on this, but it's a moot point. The op is canadian, so who knows what kund of laws they have there. The U.S, has 12 no-fault states, in which, neither driver gets ticketed, provided they have insurance. Any other state, the rear driver gets ticketed. They do have a small chance of beating the ticket, due to extenuating circumstances, but those are few and far between. Why? Because the umbrella of, "reducing speed to avoid an accident", and "maintaining a safe following distance", cast a big shadow. There are very few excuses or circumstances that would negate those.
Ask me how I know this? Here's a clue....I've been in my profession for 13 years.

Murgatroy

He could have had liability only, which would mean he is out of pocket to repair.