Ninehigh
|
| posted on 19/2/12 at 05:58 AM |
|
|
What the smeg? Do they make it up?
Missus spotted an X5 this week and remarked that she'd like a big BMW. So I've just had a look about and stuck in some quotes.
Short story is a 2005 one with the 3.0d came back at £788... Not too bad, so I changed it to the 4.3 petrol.. £639!
How is a far more powerful version of the same vehicle cheaper to insure?
|
|
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 19/2/12 at 06:56 AM |
|
|
I'm told thats often the case because of how they work out data. Fewer people with the more powerful engine claim.
It is mad though.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
Dusty
|
| posted on 19/2/12 at 09:12 AM |
|
|
Data is strange stuff. How the h*ll can a 60year old build a seven, a complete loon car and then insure it for £98 but find his insurance for a
decrepit watercooled vw camper is £350.
0 - 60 about 5 seconds compared to 0 - 60 with the wind on a good day downhillish about 20 seconds
[Edited on 19/2/12 by Dusty]
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 19/2/12 at 09:48 AM |
|
|
Or try this.....
My £20k, 2tonne Range Rover, fully comp for £345. Changed for a Transit Connect and the insurance shot up to £520!
I now have a nice safe Audi A4 quattro which is £350 to insure but my cronky, overpowered, underdesigned kit car is £98.
Statistics? Pffft.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
bi22le
|
| posted on 19/2/12 at 12:21 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
Missus spotted an X5 this week and remarked that she'd like a big BMW. So I've just had a look about and stuck in some quotes.
Short story is a 2005 one with the 3.0d came back at £788... Not too bad, so I changed it to the 4.3 petrol.. £639!
How is a far more powerful version of the same vehicle cheaper to insure?
Its obviously to do with the stats as people have said. My punt at this would be that there are more 3.0d on the roads and therefore involved in more
accidents ergo increase the insurance for the masses.
On this logic I wonder if having a mainstream car but with the unusual fuel would drop the insurance. I think petrol generally is the way to go these
days anyway. Cheaper to buy the car, cheaper to buy the fuel, more fun to drive and it seems lower insurance to!!
Track days ARE the best thing since sliced bread, until I get a supercharger that is!
Please read my ring story:
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/forum/13/viewthread.php?tid=139152&page=1
Me doing a sub 56sec lap around Brands Indy. I need a geo set up! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHksfvIGB3I
|
|
|
Slimy38
|
| posted on 19/2/12 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
Being on a SEAT forum I've also noticed that brand new cars tend to have the benefit of the doubt. I've seen people struggling with 200BHP
cars from 2000-2005, yet they can insure a 2011 car with 250BHP and at least five times the value with no problem. I reckon it's purely because
the older car has had the chance to build up a reputation as a 'crashed' car, whereas the newer car only has the 'insurance
group' to use as a calculation .
By far the biggest factor with insurance though is location, identical people in identical cars in adjacent postcodes will pay different rates.
There's a couple of postcodes in Manchester that are pretty much uninsurable for any car.
|
|
|
