Do older cars attract a higher insurance premium?

fricatus

All things being equal, do older cars attract a higher insurance premium?

A guy I work with has a 94 Corolla and was surprised that his insurance quote was higher than a colleague's who had a newer car. When he submitted the exact same details, just using a newer (05) car with the same engine size, his premium was lower.

Has anyone else had this experience? Any idea what the reasoning is? Is it because older cars do not benefit from the more modern safety features?

Kenny Logins

Yeah, at 10 years the premium goes up, in my experience.

T-Maxx

Lack of safety features like you said - although I think this should be revisited and maybe decided on merit and not just age.

Also because older cars are naturally reaching their end of serviceable lifespan and write-offs are more likely than repairs, coupled with the fact that older cars are often being reglected and abused.

I'm sure the risk profile of 'older car' drivers are also looked at.

Matt Simis

Older cars are cheaper and therefore the cost to replace is lower, IMO never noticed any difference in insurance quotes. If you move to a Classic policy (15years and older with First Ireland) you find quotes vastly lower, as in down to EUR90 for a 5.6litre 560SEC.

You can add on "primary driver" (+25% afaik) if you drive it as your main car and a max of 10,000 km mileage (incremental cost increase pending mileage upto 10k).


So including Classic policies, older Cars are on average vastly cheaper to insure, though some insurers are brutal for older stuff and should be avoided.

Kenny Logins

Matt Simis wrote: »

Older cars are cheaper and therefore the cost to replace is lower, IMO never noticed any difference in insurance quotes. If you move to a Classic policy (15years and older with First Ireland) you find quotes vastly lower, as in down to EUR90 for a 5.6litre 560SEC.

You can add on "primary driver" (+25% afaik) if you drive it as your main car and a max of 10,000 km mileage (incremental cost increase pending mileage upto 10k).


So including Classic policies, older Cars are on average vastly cheaper to insure, though some insurers are brutal for older stuff and should be avoided.

Interesting. I'm on a limited mileage multi-car policy with First Ireland but it looks like one car is going to be used a bit more than I anticipated, must ask about the above.

piston

I've had a few companies refuse to quote me at all on my Peugeot 205 as it's too old and high risk (what is the NCT for???).

CJhaughey

piston wrote: »

I've had a few companies refuse to quote me at all on my Peugeot 205 as it's too old and high risk (what is the NCT for???).

Its disgraceful, Insurance should be optional and affordable.
They really affect the quality of peoples lives by idiotic decisions.

oldyouth

Repairs can be costly if parts not readily available
Difficulty in establishing pre-accident value
Less likelihood that regular servicing is done
Wear & Tear failure may cause accident
Tyres not replaced as frequently as owner is considered to have less disposable income
Notion that insured less likely to be concerned if anything were to happen to the vehicle

A lot of the above are generalisations but they ARE some of the reasons insurers price themselves out of taking on older vehicles. Yes, I know NCT etc.......

awec

This post has been deleted.

dgt

That would explain one of the reasons why insurance for me is generally higher than someone of similar age in a much more expensive car. Newest car I've ever insured was about 8 years old at the time....

Then again, I pay naff all for the cars. Costs are kept down that way

I think I prefer the dearer insurance with cheap car

I went from an 01 to an 11 car - my insurance went up a bit. Not a lot though.

blindside88

I used to work in motor insurance and I quoted a guy one day on a 99 BMW he was thinking of buying, he came back the next day and had bought a 98 BMW (same model and spec), the quote had gone up about €100, I queried this with the underwriter and was told that it can be down to where parts are stored for example BMW parts for 99-12 cars can be gotten in dealers in Ireland but parts for 98 and under may need to come from Germany. Just one possible reason

CJhaughey

awec wrote: »

Oh ffs.

Yep
Scoff all you like, ever lived in a country with better health care than here and optional insurance?
Its possible but on the other side of the world.
Just because you are conditioned to think that this is the only way doesn't make it right.

piston

CJhaughey wrote: »

Its disgraceful, Insurance should be optional and affordable.
They really affect the quality of peoples lives by idiotic decisions.

I'm definitely not saying insurance should be optional, but I believe it should reflect the driver's record, not based too much on the type of car. In my case, I do have Comprehensive because it was actually cheaper than TPFT but would never bother to claim for damages to my own car which is virtually worthless so I don't see what the price of potentially hard to find body panels have to do with anything.

If I did cause an accident and need my insurance company to pay for the damage to the other car, it would make little difference whether I hit the other car with a 205 or new Jag, the level of damage would probably be similar. It might even be less damage as a 205 is a very lightweight car. So it's not going to cost them anything extra whether I go around crashing into things in a new car or an old car.

If someone else did crash into me, the insurance company would almost certainly declare my car a write-off and make me a pathetic offer, probably about €500 which not go very far in repairing a new Jag if I owned one.

awec

This post has been deleted.

el tel

One reason premiums can be higher is that older cars are generally easier to steal as they are less secure.

Mr Benevolent

CJhaughey wrote: »

Yep
Scoff all you like, ever lived in a country with better health care than here and optional insurance?
Its possible but on the other side of the world.
Just because you are conditioned to think that this is the only way doesn't make it right.

Is this that hippie freeman's rights stuff? Insurance is mandatory and should be.

Cookie_Monster

Confab wrote: »

Insurance is mandatory and should be.

there's no need for it to be. stick basic third party onto the cost of motor tax and let people have the option of getting more. It will put an end to the insane prices charged in Ireland current due to the compulsory requirements

CJhaughey

Confab wrote: »

Is this that hippie freeman's rights stuff? Insurance is mandatory and should be.

Yes, The way its structured here it has to be mandatory.
No, I am pretty far from being a hippie, but I have the benefit of having lived in a modern first world country that hasn't imploded under the burden of not having mandatory insurance.
Its far from just a Motor insurance issue, Insurance here stops lots of things from being done, regardless of whether they are safe or not.
Insurance is a massive industry here and thats why its protected and legislated for.
I can understand your viewpoint because thats the system, but Ireland could be a much better place to live if the Insurance industry didn't have a stranglehold on most aspects of life here.

johndaman66

For me personally my motor insurance is cheaper on an older car compared to a similar newer model...thats with my current insurance provider....may well be a different story with other insurance providers I'm sure.

I think a mistake that a lot of people make is that they assume all insurance companies work on the same basis, just because x insurance company operates such and such a procedure, they assume all other providers have the same policy. This is very much not the case in my experience...each company operates on a very different basis.

Having said all that there isin't a hell of a big difference in the cost difference to insure the older car versus the newer car, but the older model works out a wee bit cheaper all the same.

awec

This post has been deleted.

goz83

awec wrote: »

How much do you add on?

Do you just charge everyone the same rate? Should you pay the same insurance rate as a newly qualified 18 year old driver?

Or the same rate as the guy on 10 points as he's been caught speeding 5 times?

Very good point. But, they definitely need to change the system, because it's ridicuous that you can ring around and find price difference of thousands of Euros for the same cover, or not at all. If insurance is mandatory, then all the insurers should be forced to offer everyone a reasonable price for it. They shouldn't be allowed get away with, "oh we don't insure jap imports/coupes/sports cars/under 30's/hondas/vegetarians. It boils my blood!

I for one hate when it comes time to renew my motor insurance. I drive a jap import, coupe, sports car, worth very little on paper. I'm 29 with full NCB. My car is alarmed and has a tracking device and I look well after it. It's next to impossible to insure. It's 15 years old, but is my primary car at present, so I don't think classic insurance is an option on its own. I know I drive less than 5k per year though.

passremarkable

some companies stick on an age of vehicle loading, in other words a higher rate for vehicles of a certain age.its all stats

CJhaughey

awec wrote: »

How much do you add on?

Do you just charge everyone the same rate? Should you pay the same insurance rate as a newly qualified 18 year old driver?

Or the same rate as the guy on 10 points as he's been caught speeding 5 times?

Its a system with a flat rate, everyone pays the same.
Because everyone pays there is enough money in the pot to pay for 3rd party claims.
The big deal is not the actual car, its personal injuries.
That is dealt with by the State through a board which compensates people for their injuries.
Money comes from Employers as a levy.
So you can see the two biggest obstacles to getting this working here.

muggins77

i brought car in from uk the duty was through the roof . i had no choice but to pay or take it back to uk. then guy crashed in to me the insurance company wrote the car off ok no problem but they would only offer me 1000 as the car was 03. but i had my crazy vrt recipt which stated the car was worth over 4000 which by the way it was not maybe at push 3000 euro. anyway i was taking them to small claims court with the recipt i had from revenue six months earlier claiming the car was worth over 4000. lots of phone calls they caved gave me what i wanted. 2000. i said one more thing i get to keep the car she said yes no problem we don't want it. was not looking for 4000 as i new the book value was 2000

Mint Sauce

With some insurers, definitely. One company told me straight out, that because my car was 10 years old, there was a loading, over 12, they would not insure. This is despite its low millage and current NCT.

_Kaiser_

It's absolutely ridiculous.. first you get penalised for having an "old" car with the tax system, then you get hit with the lower resale value (cause everyone wants "cheap tax"), and if it's over 10 years old you have to stump up for an annual NCT and extra insurance costs.

My 2005 A6 is fully taxed, NCT'd, and insured, airbags and crumple zones etc everywhere, and runs perfectly despite having 330,000 km on the clock - but because of this nonsense I'll have to change next year when she hits 12 and go for something else "just cause".

But then those who make these decisions can well afford new cars so what do they care?

Alanstrainor

Old thread lads. Plenty of threads about the current state of insurance these days.