Last post on Aug 26, 2003 at 2:43 PM
You are in the Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hatchbacks Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
Mazda Protege5, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Subaru Impreza, Hatchback, Wagon
#57 of 86 You don't have to believe me
Aug 05, 2003 (5:37 pm)
"Not buying that theory at all"
Sorry, but it is the reason. After doing extensive research with my insurance company (Erie) and my sister-in-law, who works for State Farm, as to why my Protege insurance went up $100 a year, it was determined that the symbol assigned to the vehicle had been changed from "economy" to "premium economy" in 2002.
The IIHS crash tests were performed on a 1999 model (which did not include the structural changes that my 2001 ES and all Protege5s have in the front end which should have improved the test result), so any changes in rates due to these results would have been reflected in 2000 or 2001 at the latest.
One other potential reason rates go up is an above average incidence of injury, collision, or theft loss. The averages for all small cars are 140, 113, and 120 respectively. The Mazda Protege scored 138, 113, and 108, so that was not a contributing factor.
The word from Erie (and confirmed by State Farm) after a week of phone calls and e-mails was that they did not raise rates due to crash tests, but replacement costs. Being a "premium economy" car, it costs more to replace in the event of theft or collision.
As for the 6, it is in a different category of vehicles: Mid-Size, so you can not make a direct comparison. I expect the same is true of the Matrix XRS. The insurance companies probably lump that in with SUVs, compared to which the Matrix costs less to replace than average.
The point is, I have done my homework on this topic, and when someone post that the insurance rates are high for the Protege due to crash test scores according to their insurance agent, I can assure you that is not the case. Do you really think the agents have a clue? All they do is quote prices, and, when you ask "why so much?" they offer the explanation that there must be something lacking in safety -- in effect, blaming the car so they don't look bad by quoting a high number. They have nothing in their computerized quoting system that shows which cars are more costly to insure due to safety issues.
Aug 05, 2003 (5:59 pm)
Erie must have a different system.
USAA was telling me that one of the parts of the premium that was higher for the P5 was injury to the occupants. The premiums are broken down by categories. The part for medical payments was higher for the P5. I imagine different underwriters evaluate things a little differently.
The bottom line is that the P5 is more costly to insure than the 6 and the XRS. I'd be interested to know how it stacks up against the other cars thene is looking at, the PT cruiser and the 2.5TS.
#59 of 86 just to confuse even more
Aug 06, 2003 (12:01 am)
I think the insurance companies think that P5 owner are most likely a young macho male.
#60 of 86 More on Insurance...
Aug 06, 2003 (3:04 am)
Recently MSN published an article on the ten least expensive vehicles to insure, with help from Edmunds. The list was primarily minivans, with PT Cruiser leading the whole pack. The reason given, all the vehicles were primarily family vehicles and were most likely driven more gently and carefully as a result.
I could see the entry level sporty cars to be much more expensive to insure as they would be purchased by someone with sporty pretension and more limited resources as though they were just starting out in life. As Bluong1 so aptly said.. young macho males.
Aug 06, 2003 (5:25 am)
Our 03 CR-V costs less to insure than our 03 P5.
Not too happy about that.
Aug 06, 2003 (5:28 am)
Just a little side note about the insurance rates because we've gone over this in detail over on another thread.
There was a site that listed vehicles, by class, from least expensive to insure to most expensive. We were debating the Ford Escape vs. the Honda CR-V and surprisingly the Escape is cheaper. It was found that the difference is in fact due to average replacement/repair costs of the two. If you compare the IIHS crash test scores of the two you'll find that the CR-V did perform much better in their test (NHTSA's were about even).
The only IIHS test which the Escape performed better in was the 5 mph bumper bash. The CR-V is loads more expensive to repair after such a minor bump.
I guess that "little" bumper bash test carries more weight than we all thought.
Aug 06, 2003 (5:30 am)
"Our 03 CR-V costs less to insure than our 03 P5."
Our 96 Civic costs more to insure than our 2002 Escape.
Not too happy about that either!
Aug 06, 2003 (9:15 am)
Insurance cost should be only one of several criteria in the purchase decision.
Fuel economy should play a role. The P5 gets about the same mileage as the XRS according to the current EPA estimates. But the XRS takes premium fuel.
And for those that care, the P5 has ULEV status while the XRS only rates TLEV status (pollutes more than LEV).
#65 of 86 Insurance P5 vs XRS
Aug 06, 2003 (9:45 am)
I just fill out the e-quotation forms from Progressive for both P5 and XRS under the exact same condition. The P5 comes up $26 cheaper for 6 months.
Aug 06, 2003 (9:54 am)
because mine was on the order of $40 more per month for the P5 than the XRS. Which was exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.