Board logo

Tintop insurance conundrum.
Staple balls - 31/1/13 at 12:13 AM

Me and the missus have been offered a 53 plate skoda superb (2.5tdi) for next to nothing, which was nice.

Aaanyway, we were doing the insurance comparison site thing and found that the skoda would actually be cheaper to insure than our current car (1.6 51 plate berlingo).

So yeah, what the feck makes a seriously nippy car cheaper to insure than a fairly naff shed thing that costs basically nothing for parts?

coyoteboy - 31/1/13 at 01:02 AM

Increased safety, less likely to contain expensive stuff due to not being a carrier of things, better handling, average owner being uninterested in fast fun cars.

Slimy38 - 31/1/13 at 06:10 AM

Also, distinct lack of previous insurance claims compared to the Berlingo (nowhere near as many bumps and bruises from school or supermarket run), the relatively 'unloved' nature of the Superb (get a quote for the same engine and year Octavia and it'll shoot up!!), the much enhanced security of the VW based car compared to Citroen, the list goes on.

Or it could be the insurance companies simply making up the numbers as they go...

britishtrident - 31/1/13 at 09:34 AM

All to do with the average user profile of the Skoda compared to the Fiat

mcerd1 - 31/1/13 at 09:44 AM

I just got a quote for a 1996 pug 106 rallye (the 100bhp 1.3 8v) - £205 fully comp !!!

my current tin-top is a 1.8 16v mk1 focus and they quoted me £260 for the same policy
and its 2 insurance groups lower (or it was under theold 1-20 groups, can't find the 106 on the new 1-50 ones)
the focus on paper is about the same 0-60, 13-15bhp more, 15-20mph higher top speed and has much better security....


so I'm keeping an eye open for a good rallye as we speak

[Edited on 31/1/2013 by mcerd1]

sdh2903 - 31/1/13 at 09:44 AM

Had the same a while ago, changed from a bmw 320d to a focus 2.5 st. the focus was cheaper on insurance, go figure!

clairetoo - 31/1/13 at 10:41 AM

This thread got me wondering .......... why am I paying more to insure my car than it cost ?
Its a 2000 Corsa 1.0 - group three ? ? ? While an 06 or newer similar model is group 1 ? ? ?

Am I really more likely to claim for 13 year old car than a brand new one , while limping along on whats left of the 58bhp that it left the factory with over a hundred thousand miles ago

mcerd1 - 31/1/13 at 11:26 AM

there is something funny about some of the small engined cars...

my old 106 1.0 (really 954cc) was ment to have 45bhp - yet it cost me about ~£100/year more than the 50bhp 1.1 fiesta I had before it


BTW whats going on with this new 1-50 insurance group thing, half the cars I look for arn't on it ???

[Edited on 31/1/2013 by mcerd1]

MikeRJ - 31/1/13 at 03:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by clairetoo
This thread got me wondering .......... why am I paying more to insure my car than it cost ?
Its a 2000 Corsa 1.0 - group three ? ? ? While an 06 or newer similar model is group 1 ? ? ?

Am I really more likely to claim for 13 year old car than a brand new one , while limping along on whats left of the 58bhp that it left the factory with over a hundred thousand miles ago


Because insurance not only covers the risk of damage/theft to your car, but also to third party liabilities.

Whilst a newer car may be more desirable to a thief, and may cost more to repair it will also be safer for the occupants and anyone you should be unfortunate enough to hit. There is also the point that crashing into a Veyron with your old, cheap car isn't going to cost an insurance company any less than hitting it with a new one.