Why would a year 2000 subaru legacy cost less to insure than a 2004 model? The design is exactly the same, and the safety systems are the same. The newer one, in fact, should be safer, since none of the parts are rusting and ready to fall apart, and the mileage is lower. Is it all just a question of insurance companies squeezing as much money as they can, since a person with a newer car is more likely to be able to pay more?
Are insurance rates all just made up?
- Thread starter oilyriser
- Start date
- Status
My 2002 absolute base-model Sunfire costs $2400 per year to insure on it's own. Red-book is about $3K (only 40K miles).
My 2007 Yaris loaded with the 'b' canadian convenience package costs...
$2400 per year to insure. Red-book lists it at $14k.
I am happy insurance companies are moving away from age and more torwards experience. I was getting pretty fed up paying out of my @ss for arrogant [censored], stupid drivers, and new-to-the-system 40 year-old immigrants.
Too bad irresponsible women don't pay their own tab.
My 2007 Yaris loaded with the 'b' canadian convenience package costs...
$2400 per year to insure. Red-book lists it at $14k.
I am happy insurance companies are moving away from age and more torwards experience. I was getting pretty fed up paying out of my @ss for arrogant [censored], stupid drivers, and new-to-the-system 40 year-old immigrants.
Too bad irresponsible women don't pay their own tab.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Why would a year 2000 subaru legacy cost less to insure than a 2004 model? The design is exactly the same, and the safety systems are the same. The newer one, in fact, should be safer, since none of the parts are rusting and ready to fall apart, and the mileage is lower. Is it all just a question of insurance companies squeezing as much money as they can, since a person with a newer car is more likely to be able to pay more?
Indemnity, because if you total a 2000 they only have to write a cheque for the 2000, instead of the 2004. The difference in values for a total loss versus repair represents less risk and therefore a lower premium.
Sunfires show up bad in insurance because they are cheap, plentiful and in my personal experience usually driven by the worst drivers on the roads. Look for Sunfires and Neons when driving and you can avoid a lot of accidents.
Why would a year 2000 subaru legacy cost less to insure than a 2004 model? The design is exactly the same, and the safety systems are the same. The newer one, in fact, should be safer, since none of the parts are rusting and ready to fall apart, and the mileage is lower. Is it all just a question of insurance companies squeezing as much money as they can, since a person with a newer car is more likely to be able to pay more?
Indemnity, because if you total a 2000 they only have to write a cheque for the 2000, instead of the 2004. The difference in values for a total loss versus repair represents less risk and therefore a lower premium.
Sunfires show up bad in insurance because they are cheap, plentiful and in my personal experience usually driven by the worst drivers on the roads. Look for Sunfires and Neons when driving and you can avoid a lot of accidents.
I was comparing only liability, no theft or collision. If someone else totals my car, yes, it costs more, but that is paid by the other guy's insurance and not mine, so I should not have to pay more for someone else's problem.
These days I always get insurance quotes before buying a car.
For some reason, a two door Sunfire is more expensive to insure than a 4 door.
$2400 for liability on a Sunfire? Time to get out of Canada, unless you're a high risk driver.
The same car here with my driving record with State Farm is slightly less that $700 yr.
For some reason, a two door Sunfire is more expensive to insure than a 4 door.
$2400 for liability on a Sunfire? Time to get out of Canada, unless you're a high risk driver.
The same car here with my driving record with State Farm is slightly less that $700 yr.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
How many drivers and how many cars? Do they have typical trip lengths factored into each policy? Here I have to rate the most expensive (ie, youngest) driver on the highest liability car if they're not otherwise insured and live in the same household. It's also cheaper if there's a mismatch in the number of cars and drivers. As long as they're mismatched, not all drivers can be on the road with all cars at one time. So, 3 drivers and 2 cars makes a 3rd car purchase much more expensive in terms of insurance.
Naturally, Canada probably has a different spin on their liability coverage.
Naturally, Canada probably has a different spin on their liability coverage.
Here, they assume all cars are on the road even if there's only one driver.
Liability only, on both cars. It's partly about paying for risk, partly about squeezing as much money out of people as you can, based on how much you think they are willing to pay.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Why would a year 2000 subaru legacy cost less to insure than a 2004 model? The design is exactly the same, and the safety systems are the same. The newer one, in fact, should be safer, since none of the parts are rusting and ready to fall apart, and the mileage is lower. Is it all just a question of insurance companies squeezing as much money as they can, since a person with a newer car is more likely to be able to pay more?
Older cars are more likely to be a total loss in an accident compared to a newer car.
So if both are damaged in the same fashion, the older car is more likely to be a total loss. Not because it's more expensive to repair, but because the repairs are a greater percentage of the cars value.
If you have a $2500 and a $25000 car (a more extreme example) and you do $2000 damage to each of them, the $2500 car will be totalled and the $25000 car will be repaired and for LESS money since they only pay $2000 for the repair and not $2500 for the total loss.
So that's while full coverage on an older car can cost MORE than the the same coverage on a newer model of the same car. Even if they are mechanically identical.
Why would a year 2000 subaru legacy cost less to insure than a 2004 model? The design is exactly the same, and the safety systems are the same. The newer one, in fact, should be safer, since none of the parts are rusting and ready to fall apart, and the mileage is lower. Is it all just a question of insurance companies squeezing as much money as they can, since a person with a newer car is more likely to be able to pay more?
Older cars are more likely to be a total loss in an accident compared to a newer car.
So if both are damaged in the same fashion, the older car is more likely to be a total loss. Not because it's more expensive to repair, but because the repairs are a greater percentage of the cars value.
If you have a $2500 and a $25000 car (a more extreme example) and you do $2000 damage to each of them, the $2500 car will be totalled and the $25000 car will be repaired and for LESS money since they only pay $2000 for the repair and not $2500 for the total loss.
So that's while full coverage on an older car can cost MORE than the the same coverage on a newer model of the same car. Even if they are mechanically identical.
Ontario still has gouge insurance though, and I hope that Alberta rates get held down.
We had the right idea with a maximum $5000 settlement for soft tissue injury in exchange for liability maximums, my insurance is below grid rate now (five years driving, no tickets, no accidents).
Saskatchewan has no-fault insurance and everything through SGI and they have similar soft tissue limits. Saskatchewan is on the right track but ICBC is not.
I would like to see that to hold a driver's license you have $200,000 liability based on the number of demerits, experience, convictions, etc. and you are insured driving any car with a valid plate.
My insurance is about $1500 a year for a 1999 Malibu V6. 21 year old male, $250 deductible on comprehensive, $1000 on collision. No tickets, no accidents. I was shopping around and on a brand new car I would be looking at about $2300 a year. Liability only with a $1000 deductible I would be under $800.
We had the right idea with a maximum $5000 settlement for soft tissue injury in exchange for liability maximums, my insurance is below grid rate now (five years driving, no tickets, no accidents).
Saskatchewan has no-fault insurance and everything through SGI and they have similar soft tissue limits. Saskatchewan is on the right track but ICBC is not.
I would like to see that to hold a driver's license you have $200,000 liability based on the number of demerits, experience, convictions, etc. and you are insured driving any car with a valid plate.
My insurance is about $1500 a year for a 1999 Malibu V6. 21 year old male, $250 deductible on comprehensive, $1000 on collision. No tickets, no accidents. I was shopping around and on a brand new car I would be looking at about $2300 a year. Liability only with a $1000 deductible I would be under $800.
yea, looking at premium is not entirely an apples to apples comparison, liabiltiy is or should be the same assumming the same driver is listed as primary on both of the vehicles. Collision and comprehensive will be much more for the newer model. But, liability should be the same for the same driver.
Chances are though, two cars, two different primary drivers are listed which changes the liability rates.
Chances are though, two cars, two different primary drivers are listed which changes the liability rates.
I'm glad there's no $5000 limit here. What if I get whiplash (soft tissue injury), and can't work for a year? Will $5000 keep my family fed?
It gets weirder: I can drive 15,000 km a year, and pay the same insurance as someone who drives 100,000 km a year.
It gets weirder: I can drive 15,000 km a year, and pay the same insurance as someone who drives 100,000 km a year.
JHZR2
Staff member
insurance companies and most lawyers are two of the most ridiculous entities that exist. neither provide good value on your dollar, yet the average person cannot afford to exist without them.
JMH
JMH
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Here, they assume all cars are on the road even if there's only one driver.
Well, here everything is insured too. It's just cheaper to insure your second or third car of there are less drivers to use them. Here YOU'RE the insured, in reality. I can drive a towmotor or anything with wheels and I'm insured ..even if the vehicle isn't even legally road worthy, registered, or titled. The "per vehicle" insurance, of which "me being insured" is integrated with, merely covers the vehicle itself (as in comprehensive, collison, etc.) and the liability of whomever may be driving it (a non-insured motorist ..or whomever - licensed or otherwise).
Here, they assume all cars are on the road even if there's only one driver.
Well, here everything is insured too. It's just cheaper to insure your second or third car of there are less drivers to use them. Here YOU'RE the insured, in reality. I can drive a towmotor or anything with wheels and I'm insured ..even if the vehicle isn't even legally road worthy, registered, or titled. The "per vehicle" insurance, of which "me being insured" is integrated with, merely covers the vehicle itself (as in comprehensive, collison, etc.) and the liability of whomever may be driving it (a non-insured motorist ..or whomever - licensed or otherwise).
There are a large percentage of "shill" registrations around here where someone gets an OUI and has their girlfriend register/insure two cars, then they borrow one.
SR22s are supposed to give some of the flack to the person who deserves it, by adding insurance to the license not just the vehicle. There must still be motivation to "shill" though as I've seen it selling used beaters to all manner of odd people.
My 2nd, 3rd cars are only discounted ~25% on the assumption that I am in fact lending them out, which I am not. If we are to cut our nation's gas consumption this needs to change, so drivers have the most perfect vehicle avialable, with low fixed annual costs.
There was a guy who wrote a book advocating $500 fines for accidents, due before you get your license back. Said fines would subsidize "high risk" insurance. I'd go for that.
SR22s are supposed to give some of the flack to the person who deserves it, by adding insurance to the license not just the vehicle. There must still be motivation to "shill" though as I've seen it selling used beaters to all manner of odd people.
My 2nd, 3rd cars are only discounted ~25% on the assumption that I am in fact lending them out, which I am not. If we are to cut our nation's gas consumption this needs to change, so drivers have the most perfect vehicle avialable, with low fixed annual costs.
There was a guy who wrote a book advocating $500 fines for accidents, due before you get your license back. Said fines would subsidize "high risk" insurance. I'd go for that.
Originally Posted By: MrCritical
These days I always get insurance quotes before buying a car.
For some reason, a two door Sunfire is more expensive to insure than a 4 door.
$2400 for liability on a Sunfire? Time to get out of Canada, unless you're a high risk driver.
The same car here with my driving record with State Farm is slightly less that $700 yr.
Worst part is, I'm a professional motor coach operator - bus driver, with the obvious license and airbrakes endorsement that goes with it. In the nine months I've driven I'll have put on more miles then some folks will in their entire lifetime.
Zero tickets or accidents to boot.
These days I always get insurance quotes before buying a car.
For some reason, a two door Sunfire is more expensive to insure than a 4 door.
$2400 for liability on a Sunfire? Time to get out of Canada, unless you're a high risk driver.
The same car here with my driving record with State Farm is slightly less that $700 yr.
Worst part is, I'm a professional motor coach operator - bus driver, with the obvious license and airbrakes endorsement that goes with it. In the nine months I've driven I'll have put on more miles then some folks will in their entire lifetime.
Zero tickets or accidents to boot.
Originally Posted By: MrCritical
For some reason, a two door Sunfire is more expensive to insure than a 4 door.
Same with the Cobalt. A four door is less expensive to insure than the 2-door. Has to do with the young drivers owning 2-doors I presume.
Joel
For some reason, a two door Sunfire is more expensive to insure than a 4 door.
Same with the Cobalt. A four door is less expensive to insure than the 2-door. Has to do with the young drivers owning 2-doors I presume.
Joel
- Status
Similar threads
