GavinP

Maybe they have realised that the performance has taken a turn for the worse in the new model (along with everyone else) ....

Being serious, maybe parts prices are cheaper for the new car (?)

Thanks

Gavin

ndouglass

BT52..
The reason the insurance is cheaper is :

<B>"Who's gonna wanna nick an ugly bug like that ?"</B>

The police would catch anyone in one of those if it as reliable as Richard Burns'

Jolly Green Monster

iTrader: (4)

Perhaps it is because none of the new ones have been stolen yet.....?

BT52

Bit bored so I looked at Elephant.co.uk 's quoteline webpage thingy.

Got quote for the new WRX which was over £200 pounds cheaper than their quote for the old turbo! (850 vs 1080)

So maybe that smaller spoiler and those lurrrvely headlights do have a hidden advantage after all.
Similar thing with other companies anyone ?

Jza

No way mate !!!

Ive got stung for the insurance!! Its now group 20 not 17 - check again to make sure they KNOW its a UK MY01 WRX.

Most places i rang didnt know of the new model - and when pushed upped the premium by £700 when they realised !!!

Seriously - get them to confirm with their underwriters - otherwise you may be insuring the wrong car!!

You have been warned

Jza

BT52

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jza:
<B>No way mate !!!

Ive got stung for the insurance!! Its now group 20 not 17 - check again to make sure they KNOW its a UK MY01 WRX.

Most places i rang didnt know of the new model - and when pushed upped the premium by £700 when they realised !!!

Seriously - get them to confirm with their underwriters - otherwise you may be insuring the wrong car!!

You have been warned

Jza[/quote]

NO it's definitely still group 17 and yes they have definitely got the right cars.

Tried it through my wife's company as well and they gave a cheaper quote for the new one as well.(direct to Lloyds underwriters)

I suspect it's YOUR insurance company who think it is the OLD 280bhp WRX


[This message has been edited by BT52 (edited 04 April 2001).]

robski

Interesting, anyone know what group its supposed to be?

Parkers guides etc list them, just aint got one around.

I had heard that it was a higher group as well, but maybe this was wrong!?

robski

BT52

Group 17 according to Evo and group 17 according to the very helpful Honda dealer who looked in his little book for me after I told him the quotes I was getting for it.

He told me that they must be getting confused with the old madel Japanese WRX, especially Direct Line. He even offered to phone them up and set them straight!!

Such a nice guy considering I had just test driven an Accord Type-R and told him I had decided to go with the Scoob!!

Phoned them myself in the end and sure enough the quote dropped massively, to be slightly below the quote for a brand new old-model (was torn between the two).

[This message has been edited by BT52 (edited 04 April 2001).]

Orville

New cars are generally safer and harder to steal than the models they replace.

Safer+harder to steal = reduced chances of personal injury and theft claims = cheaper insurance.

MorayMackenzie

Slower cars will tend to do less damage if they fall off the road because they are not travelling as fast...

BT52

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by MorayMackenzie:
<B>Slower cars will tend to do less damage if they fall off the road because they are not travelling as fast... [/quote]

Problem with that theory is that the so-called 'slower' car will have to be travelling faster to fall off the road in the first place... (heh heh)

MorayMackenzie

...but it won't be travelling as fast as a fast car that's travelling fast enough to fall of the road. Isn't that obvious?

GM

According to the Assosiation of British Insurers (www.abi.org.uk) the MY01 WRX is group 19 - even the non-turbo 2 litre is up to group 14.

Quote from site:

"The factors used to calculate group ratings are:

Damage and Parts Costs
The likely extent of damage to each car model and the cost of the parts involved in its repair. The lower these costs, the more likelihood there is of a lower group rating.

Repair Times
Longer repair times mean higher costs and the greater likelihood of a higher group rating. Different paint finishes on modern cars are an important factor. These, too, are taken into account.

New Car Values
The prices of new cars identify the higher specification models within a model range.

Body Shells
The availability of body shells (the basic frame of the car) is taken into account in group ratings because they are essential for certain accidental damage repairs.

Performance
Acceleration and top speed are important factors. Insurance companies know very well, from their claims statistics, that high performance cars often result in more frequent insurance claims.

Car Security
Security features fitted as standard equipment by motor manufacturers can help to reduce insurance claims costs. Such features include high security door locks, alarm/immobilisation systems, glass etching, coded audio equipment, locking devices for alloy wheels and visible VIN numbers."

G




[This message has been edited by GM (edited 04 April 2001).]

Boost II

iTrader: (1)

As I understand, the main factor in determining premiums is simply statistics of how many are crashed/stolen/vandalised etc and strange things sometimes happen to new models since there is not much of a track record. I once looked at the new Astra and was amazed to see how much lower the insurance groups were than the mk3. To the extent that a new 1.8 Sport was cheaper to insure than a crappy 1.3 of the previous model.

BT52 - somebody crashed into the back of matey's NSX. Just looks like a scratch on the bumper to me but £4000 bill - ouch!

Jza

Sorry to disagree with BT52, but the 3 major companies i spoke to all ran a mile when they realised what car i was talking about - and if you check the Insurance section past threads you'll see that one of the insuracne guys agreeing that the WRX MY01 is now a group 20 (but not for all people - they dont have to agree with the "defacto" figure.

If you can get a quote for under £800 please tell me who with!!

Jza

BT52

Bizarre.
I couldn't get a quote under 800, but then I can't get under 1000 for the old one either.

No way on earth should it be a group 20. I still say they have got it wrong.
They do sometimes, I was quoted 1300 for a smart! They claimed it was group 17!

Try that elephant page, it definitely gives cheaper for the WRX than the MY00.


[This message has been edited by BT52 (edited 05 April 2001).]

MorayMackenzie

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BT52:
<B>
Um...
But the fast car going fast enough to fall off doesn't need to be travelling as fast as the not quite as fast car needs to be going to fall off.
And the fast car is more likely to be going faster than fast enough compared to the not quite as fast car.

Glad that's cleared up.[/quote]

(LOL)

But the fast car is considered "fast" because it is capable of negotiating the road (bendy and straight bits) faster than the slower car... so the fast car will make it round a bend that is just beyond the slower cars ability... so at the speed the slower car falls off, the fast car doesn't.

Remember that we are discussing cars and not car+driver combinations.

Oh, and seriously, IMHO genuinely fast cars tend to be driven more safely within the cars limits than slower cars do. I _could_ drive my runabout near it's limits (~110bhp/tonne) pretty much anywhere, but I could not do the same in my scooby (~255bhp/tonne).

[This message has been edited by MorayMackenzie (edited 05 April 2001).]

BT52

Aha now we have it. I would disagree about the bendy bits you see. I would claim that the 'slow' car is faster round those because it has more grip and handles better (in my hands anyway, however flawed they may be).

BT52

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by MorayMackenzie:
<B>...but it won't be travelling as fast as a fast car that's travelling fast enough to fall of the road. Isn't that obvious? [/quote]


Um...
But the fast car going fast enough to fall off doesn't need to be travelling as fast as the not quite as fast car needs to be going to fall off.
And the fast car is more likely to be going faster than fast enough compared to the not quite as fast car.

Glad that's cleared up.

wilf

Maybe the reason insurers have put the new WRX up a few groups is because they reckon that anyone driving round in a car that ugly is likely to either try to reshape it to improve the looks or will develop suicidal tendencies?

Or it could be because they can't see past the brown paper bag covering the windscreen.