I cannot recommend Steve and Test Drive Technologies enough! I placed a deposit on a 1969 Mach 1…read moreMustang that was being sold in St. Louis and I'm from MA. Due to my work schedule I was having a difficult time scheduling a trip to inspect the car myself. I contacted Steve through his website, almost immediately I received a text from Steve and we scheduled the inspection. The physical inspection and a report on the condition of the vehicle were completed in a timely manner and provided me with all the information required to make my decision on whether or not to purchase the vehicle. Steve provides a detailed report, hundreds of photos and several videos that really help consumers like me know what they are purchasing. Communication was great and Steve responded to emails and text messages, we also had a lengthy phone call upon completion of the inspection. You cannot go wrong with Test Drive Technologies A+++

AVOID AT ALL COSTS…read more had a genuinely astonishing phone call with Steven Paul. I contacted him about an RV valuation issue involving a trailer with substantially less certified max carrying capacity than represented. Steven's response was to fixate on the trailer's empty weight (irrelevant), insist I needed to weigh the trailer without the truck for reasons completely unrelated to the question, and suggest the manufacturer could basically defend the problem by telling me to "pack less." Brilliant. Bought a large pizza and got a small? No problem -- the restaurant can just tell you to eat less!!! What was most alarming was not that he disagreed with me. It was that he seemed unable to follow the basic logical structure of the issue. I called expecting an expert and somehow ended up explaining not just the problem, but what felt like the basic rules of reasoning to the person supposedly qualified to evaluate it. Steven markets himself as an appraiser and expert witness. Based on my interaction, DO NOT TRUST this guy to handle any issue that requires more than 1 ounce of critical thinking!! EDIT: His response is somehow an even better argument for my review than the review itself. "You weren't a customer." Correct. This phone call is why. And that's a pretty hilarious defense when you think about what it does to his review rating: how many people had the same kind of consultation I did, immediately realized they wanted nothing to do with him, and therefore never became "customers" in the first place? Apparently those experiences don't count because we had the good sense not to hand him money afterward. Keep that selection effect in mind when you're looking at the glowing rating he's so proud of. The issue was painfully simple: the trailer was represented with substantially more certified carrying capacity than it actually had. Somehow his big analytical hangup was that he needed to know what the trailer currently weighed before we could even meaningfully discuss the issue. The trailer could be empty, half-full, or packed wall-to-wall with bowling balls. None of that changes its certified maximum weight. Obviously, if this had progressed to a formal appraisal, you gather every relevant specification and measurement. But this was a consultation call. Acting like the basic valuation issue couldn't even be understood until he knew the trailer's current weight was ridiculous. It's like ordering a 20-inch pizza, receiving an 8-inch pizza, and having the "expert" insist we first weigh the 8" pizza before discussing whether you got what you paid for. And yes, he literally told me the company's defense could be that I should just pack less. He now claims he never said that. Why on earth would I invent something that absurd, then take time out of my day to write a detailed review about it? I couldn't have come up with that line if I tried. "Just pack less" is not a defense to receiving less carrying capacity than represented. It is literally a restatement of the problem. Now he's reframing this as though I demanded some predetermined conclusion. Nope. I would have settled for him understanding the question or even understanding what a GVWR was (yes I had to explain it to him!) Instead I somehow ended up explaining increasingly basic distinctions and eventually what felt like the basic rules of logic, to the guy advertising himself as the expert. So, lucky you yelper. He actually demonstrated the same brain dead thinking in his own reply for you to see, if you didn't trust me before!