You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
I think in your example, they are correct.. the demographic of CLK500 chances are it will be an older driver.. vs 92 Exploder which will be some cousin Cletus or some family trying to get by and are always late to everywhere. So even the car worth more, the insurance risk will be lower.. Not to mention if the Exploder get into an accident there will be more than 2 person beside the driver claiming. The passenger payout is the main cost.
The fact is popular cars with large sample will always be more risky than smaller run cars, hence higher cost.
You want to save on insurance? put OBD logger in every one's car, automatically ticket any risky moves.. you will save on insurance.
Accidents down, but payout is up.. that's the problem.
I have also insured both identical cars as a mid 20's guy and no difference. A $40k car (new) vs a $20k truck (new), 12 years difference in age, huge difference in parts replacement cost yet the same $$ to insure both? Regardless of age or not, if the car costs more to replace parts or to purchase you should pay more to insure it.
I have also insured both identical cars as a mid 20's guy and no difference. A $40k car (new) vs a $20k truck (new), 12 years difference in age, huge difference in parts replacement cost yet the same $$ to insure both? Regardless of age or not, if the car costs more to replace parts or to purchase you should pay more to insure it.
It's the risk game. Vehicle A may a low production, high end vehicle with virtually zero records of theft or high payouts, whereas Vehicle B may be a mass production work truck, but has a large history of being stolen.
I think in your example, they are correct.. the demographic of CLK500 chances are it will be an older driver.. vs 92 Exploder which will be some cousin Cletus or some family trying to get by and are always late to everywhere. So even the car worth more, the insurance risk will be lower.. Not to mention if the Exploder get into an accident there will be more than 2 person beside the driver claiming. The passenger payout is the main cost.
The fact is popular cars with large sample will always be more risky than smaller run cars, hence higher cost.
You want to save on insurance? put OBD logger in every one's car, automatically ticket any risky moves.. you will save on insurance.
Accidents down, but payout is up.. that's the problem.
The Exploder is also more likely to be driven (higher mileage racked up each year) and it's more likely to be driven year round (through the winter) and through rougher conditions (the Coq in the winter) than the CLK500. Then the CLK is also going to have a higher safety rating than the Exploder which means in an accident the payout is likely to be lower due to fewer injuries.
It's not that the Exploder costs as much as a CLK, it's more like the CLK costs as little as an Exploder. If both vehicles had the same safety and were driven equally by everyone the CLK insurance would shoot up and the Exploders would stay the same.
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
^^ Exploder? . . . Am I missing something here, or are you talking about an Explorer? haha
In the 1990's the tires use to blow up and they would roll over (way more then statistically possible for it to be a freak accident) and they got the nickname the Exploder. A different cause but not that dissimilar to the Pinto's bursting into flames when being rear ended.
The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place... and I donīt care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently, if you let it. You, me or nobody, is gonna hit as hard as life. But ain't about how hard you hit... It's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward... how much you can take, and keep moving forward. Thatīs how winning is done. Now, if you know what you worth, go out and get what you worth. - Rocky Balboa
so today my dad got a letter from icbc saying that he was underpaying them 12$ but they waived it so their sorry for the inconvenience. is it possible for these computer error to happen?
yeah, i got one too. Guess they undercharged me by $7 but it's funny, because they put it as a negative...so does that mean I get a reduction of $7 on my next renewal?
Yeah, this ICBC crap has gotta stop. I loved AB insurance for that. So much cheaper to own multiple cars and have them all insured at the same time
In the 1990's the tires use to blow up and they would roll over (way more then statistically possible for it to be a freak accident) and they got the nickname the Exploder. A different cause but not that dissimilar to the Pinto's bursting into flames when being rear ended.
The problem was that they were changing the design of car tires when the Explorer was being designed and the factory tire pressure rating ended up being too low, so they have/had lots of blowouts and rollovers due to underinflated tires. I think the Blazer had the same issue.
__________________ 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC // 2007 Toyota Rav4 V6 // 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S ["sold"] \\ 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD [sold] \\ 2000 Jeep Cherokee [sold] \\ 1997 Honda Prelude [sold] \\ 1992 Jeep YJ [sold/crashed] \\ 1987 Mazda RX-7 [sold] \\ 1987 Toyota Celica GT-S [crushed]
Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
