You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Ok, car insurance is expensive. I get that. What I don't get it how they actually work out the prices they charge.
I'm 31, live in an ok postcode, 6 years no claims, 14 years license. Currently carless, but I may be inheriting a battered old Almera, so I put my details into Confused to get an idea on prices. Fully comp, £444.
Fair enough. Not cheap, but I didn't think it would be. Out of curiosity, I stuck in another car I've been looking at - a 1.6 205GTi. A quicker car, I put the value as twice as much, and I would have thought much higher risk. Fully comp, £470.
Surely a tiny French GTi renowned for ending up backwards in a ditch is more of a higher risk than a 1.6 Almera, renowned for being driven at 30mph by octogenarians? Or am I missing something?
**edited for typo**
Maybe it's easier to steal?
Than a 22 year old Peugeot? Really? You could virtually pick it up and put it in your pocket!
Cost of repairs, likely hood to be stolen, value of the car the list is pretty much endless as to what makes a difference. My guess is the Almera is also a 1.6.
They have all sorts of weird metrics to work out age, location, car etc which all serve to calculate the average risk of the average person of your age driving that car in that location.
The big risk on insurance claims now is personal injury. Neither of those cars are worth enough to make any difference to the premium bar few pence and neither are sporty enough to make a significant change.
You are missing the point - you are over 30 and therefore paying for those under 30 to be insured, you are lower risk than they are and therefore pay a minimum amount based on your details and car value, not perceived car risk at that point ... well I think so anyway given that mates of a similar age and history page not dis-similar amounts to me for insurance across a range of cars.
they're probably factoring that a 20 year year 205 gti with a high value is a cherished car and you therefore fall into a cheaper category.
if you did want a 205, try phoning people like Adrian Flux, you'll prob get it even cheaper, particularly if yo mileage limit it.
Always fancied a 205 GTi
Its the amount of damage you can do to other things. Hit a greenhouse at 90mph in a Pug 205 and the Pug will fold up like a wet paper bag,the greenhouse won't have a mark on it.
Hit something far more solid in the heavier, newer, Nissan, and the thing you hit will come out far worse, thus requiring more of a payout.
having same random number generator insurance woes this week, current 106 gti is £474, almost bought a wrx impreza which was a reasonable £617, thought I'd be sensible and look at a 1995 caravelle
£800-1000
I could insure a 911 for that
205 might qualify for classic insurance and threfore be cheaper (ie >20 years old)
Cost of parts / repair? Nissan might be hard to get bits for, 205 is unlikely to need repairs.
The big risk on insurance claims now is personal injury. Neither of those cars are worth enough to make any difference to the premium bar few pence and neither are sporty enough to make a significant change.
I agree that [i]should[/i] be the case, but how come my 2.7 tonne, 7 seat Land Rover costs the same (within a few pounds) as my Passat. The Disco ould do waaaay more damage to a load more people.
agree that should be the case, but how come my 2.7 tonne, 7 seat Land Rover costs the same (within a few pounds) as my Passat. The Disco ould do waaaay more damage to a load more people.
Yes, but
Disco hits a car at 70, all occupants dead
Passat taps a cars rear bumper ever so slightly, then everyone in the next 8 cars sues for whiplash, and their dog get to see a pet psycologist to get over the trauma, this all costs moeny.
Yup, that all makes sense... Either way, the 205GTi is now top of the list of potential next cars!