Engine re-map, do you "HAVE" to tell insurance company?

The12thMan

i have recently had my car re-mapped and was wondering do you have to tell the insurance company?

how will they ever know?

and what if make the car safer to drive, will it go up of down if i do tell them?

anybody and experiences with this?

Moneymaker

Yes you do.

Do you have "have to"?

No, but withhold the information at your peril.

MuppetCheck

I think you do have to.

A standard question is are there any modifications since manufacture meaning that your insurance is based on an incorrect assumption.

biko

Most/all insurers have a full disclosure clause. This means you are obliged to inform them about anything that can be considered a modification.
Read your T&C

djimi

You dont "have" to tell them, but then again they dont "have" to pay out in the event of a claim if they discover an undeclared modification...

jca

The12thMan wrote: »

i have recently had my car re-mapped and was wondering do you have to tell the insurance company?

how will they ever know?

and what if make the car safer to drive, will it go up of down if i do tell them?

anybody and experiences with this?

Wrong site to ask a question like that.... You'll be trampled to death by the people riding their high horses.

djimi

jca wrote: »

Wrong site to ask a question like that.... You'll be trampled to death by the people riding their high horses.

The anti-high horse brigade are far worse on here sometimes...

If you dont disclose a modification then you leave yourself open to the insurer refusing you cover. Its quite simple; nothing high horse about it at all.

The12thMan

djimi wrote: »

The anti-high horse brigade are far worse on here sometimes...

If you dont disclose a modification then you leave yourself open to the insurer refusing you cover. Its quite simple; nothing high horse about it at all.

but there in lies the question, if i don't disclose it how will they ever know?

its a software upgrade, you cant see it.

biko

jca wrote: »

Wrong site to ask a question like that.... You'll be trampled to death by the people riding their high horses.

Please try to be more constructive and help the OP rather than taking a dig at other posters that haven't even posted yet.

Larbre34

The12thMan wrote: »

but there in lies the question, if i don't disclose it how will they ever know?

its a software upgrade, you cant see it.

You might have a car up for writing off due to a rear end shunt and bent chassis that has an untouched engine bay. If some assessor decides to diagnose the engine and sees the factory map has been altered and not disclosed, you are goosed. And these guys are paid to be that inquisitive.

jca

djimi wrote: »

The anti-high horse brigade are far worse on here sometimes...

If you dont disclose a modification then you leave yourself open to the insurer refusing you cover. Its quite simple; nothing high horse about it at all.

I think the op knows that.... To expand the discussion further, say his car is written off in an accident of his making. The car is hauled off to the scrappie, the assessor arrives does his inspection but without actually accessing the vehicle ecu how does he know it has been remapped?

guil

djimi wrote: »

You dont "have" to tell them, but then again they dont "have" to pay out in the event of a claim if they discover an undeclared modification...

Just to clarify, they have to pay 3rd party claims regardless of mods but they can refuse any claims the op were to make.

Henry Ford III

The12thMan wrote: »

but there in lies the question, if i don't disclose it how will they ever know?

its a software upgrade, you cant see it.

Insurance isn't or rather shouldn't be about what you can get away with. It's there to meet a claim should something bad happen.

Being economical with the truth therefore is a bad idea.

Chimaera

The12thMan wrote: »

but there in lies the question, if i don't disclose it how will they ever know?

its a software upgrade, you cant see it.

That's the million dollar question really. Remapping is becoming more common/mainstream and I wonder if it's only a matter of time before insurers start checking for remaps in the event of a claim.

Read the terms of your policy carefully on this.

I've had a remap on my car for 4 years now and it doesn't notably affect my premium, but it has made shopping around at renewal that bit more awkward. You might find that you have to ring a few times to get someone on the end of the phone who actually knows what you're talking about.

ironclaw

The12thMan wrote: »

and what if make the car safer to drive, will it go up of down if i do tell them?

Can you explain that?

No remap makes a car safer to drive.

jca

The12thMan wrote: »

but there in lies the question, if i don't disclose it how will they ever know?

its a software upgrade, you cant see it.

I wouldn't tell them but then again I wouldn't re-map in the first place. I think re-mapping brings more problems down the line in the shape of dmf/clutch woes.

The12thMan

ironclaw wrote: »

Can you explain that?

No remap makes a car safer to drive.

we because of the re-map my car has 50bhp more , so i spend LESS time on the wrong side of the road when overtaking..

that's safer, right?

BTW, i am 40 and drive a German saloon car so i am not a boy racer in a civic.

jca

The12thMan wrote: »

we because of the re-map my car has 50bhp more , so i spend LESS time on the wrong side of the road when overtaking..

that's safer, right?

BTW, i am 40 and drive a German saloon car so i am not a boy racer in a civic.

Mmmmm Strange logic that. Each to their own I suppose..

The12thMan

jca wrote: »

Mmmmm Strange logic that. Each to their own I suppose..

i would be interested how you see that as strange logic.

a faster accelerating and more responsive car is a safer car, no?

i did not do it to do 180kph, i did it so it would be quicker from 50-90kph, which it is.

hoodie6029

Hypothetical for you. What if I buy a car that I don't know has been remapped? I just give the Insurance the reg and pay the premium. If there's an accident and they discover the remap can they figure it was done before i bought the car?

Moneymaker

jca wrote: »

Wrong site to ask a question like that.... You'll be trampled to death by the people riding their high horses.

:rolleyes:

OP asked a question, he's been given his answer.

Thread is over other then people trying to get a rise out of some people it seems.

The12thMan

hoodie6029 wrote: »

Hypothetical for you. What if I buy a car that I don't know has been remapped? I just give the Insurance the reg and pay the premium. If there's an accident and they discover the remap can they figure it was done before i bought the car?

ahhh, yes. good one.

Henry Ford III

hoodie6029 wrote: »

Hypothetical for you. What if I buy a car that I don't know has been remapped? I just give the Insurance the reg and pay the premium. If there's an accident and they discover the remap can they figure it was done before i bought the car?

I think you'd probably be ok. The ecu would hold details of when the remap took place however I'd assume.

Henry Ford III

The12thMan wrote: »

i would be interested how you see that as strange logic.

a faster accelerating and more responsive car is a safer car, no?

i did not do it to do 180kph, i did it so it would be quicker from 50-90kph, which it is.

Higher performance means higher premiums in general though.

ironclaw

The12thMan wrote: »

we because of the re-map my car has 50bhp more , so i spend LESS time on the wrong side of the road when overtaking..

that's safer, right?

BTW, i am 40 and drive a German saloon car so i am not a boy racer in a civic.

Yes, but you would be travelling at a faster speed during and following the overtake. As to spend less time over the same distance, you have to be travelling faster. More momentum, more kinetic energy in the event of a crash. Higher chance of structural failure in a crash and higher chance of loss of control with less time to react.

You've actually increased your chance of a fatality in the event of an accident.

Also 50bhp on a remap alone, I really doubt that.

Chris_Heilong

hoodie6029 wrote: »

Hypothetical for you. What if I buy a car that I don't know has been remapped? I just give the Insurance the reg and pay the premium. If there's an accident and they discover the remap can they figure it was done before i bought the car?

I remember reading T&C from Quinn years ago when it came to modifications, it said something like you are expected to know what modifications are on your car and can not plead ignorance when it is discovered.

djimi

The12thMan wrote: »

we because of the re-map my car has 50bhp more , so i spend LESS time on the wrong side of the road when overtaking..

that's safer, right?

BTW, i am 40 and drive a German saloon car so i am not a boy racer in a civic.

Have you upgraded other parts of your car such as the brakes to take into account the increase in performance?

djimi

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I remember reading T&C from Quinn years ago when it came to modifications, it said something like you are expected to know what modifications are on your car and can not plead ignorance when it is discovered.

Indeed. Id say they used to hear it all the time back in the day "I have no idea what a straight through exhaust is"... :rolleyes: End of the day, its your car, your are supposed to know what you own and what you are insuring.

Has any one ever even heard a whisper about someone not being paid out due to an undeclared remap? Doubt it somehow, it would be extremely difficult to prove a car was remapped, if they even had the equipment or ability to check (which is very unlikely).

pippip

djimi wrote: »

Have you upgraded other parts of your car such as the brakes to take into account the increase in performance?

For 50bhp extra I'd say he's safe enough. He'd still be doing speeds that he could previously.

ironclaw

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

you are expected to know what modifications are on your car and can not plead ignorance when it is discovered.

In law, ignorance is not a defense.

djimi

Khalil Thundering Rubble wrote: »

Has any one ever even heard a whisper about someone not being paid out due to an undeclared remap? Doubt it somehow, it would be extremely difficult to prove a car was remapped, if they even had the equipment or ability to check (which is very unlikely).

I wouldnt have thought that it would be difficult at all, and if an assessor wanted to look then they will find the map. Chances are they wont, and perhaps of all the modifications that can be made its the one least likely to be discovered, but its still a performance mod and there is still a chance that it could lead to a claim being refused. Up to the OP really whether or not they want to chance it, but important that they understand the full potential consequences of the risk, no matter how small they may be.

jimgoose

Khalil Thundering Rubble wrote: »

Has any one ever even heard a whisper about someone not being paid out due to an undeclared remap? Doubt it somehow, it would be extremely difficult to prove a car was remapped, if they even had the equipment or ability to check (which is very unlikely).

The correct diagnostic equipment can pull the maps and compare them with stock in about ten seconds.

djimi

pippip wrote: »

For 50bhp extra I'd say he's safe enough. He'd still be doing speeds that he could previously.

Perhaps. Depends on the car really. For a car under 200bhp to begin with it represents a performance increase in excess of 25%. Maybe its not an issue, but to say that a car is safer because it has been modified to get from A to B faster than with a standard factory tuning, if the only thing that has been improved is the bhp, then Im not so sure that it can be confidently declared to be an improvement in safety.

Chris_Heilong

OP Safety mods such as bigger brakes and roll cages actual put your premium up.

Henry Ford III

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

OP Safety mods such as bigger brakes and roll cages actual put your premium up.

Rightly so imho. I'd categorise those as safety mods for racing.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Rightly so imho. I'd categorise those as safety mods for racing.

Roll cages yes. Improved brakes though? In what way would they represent an increased risk?

Stallingrad

Has anyone here called their insurance company beforehand to discuss re mapping and asked them if there is a cost implication, and if so what was it?

Anjobe

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Rightly so imho. I'd categorise those as safety mods for racing.

Indeed, accidents/injuries/deaths etc have not decreased over time with increasing safety features on cars, the implication being that the more safety features are fitted the more drivers drive in such a way as to have need of them!

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

Roll cages yes. Improved brakes though? In what way would they represent an increased risk?

It would suggest (to a prudent insurer) that the car would be driven in such a way (too quickly) that the standard brakes would be insufficient.

Now you could argue that the car would not be driven any quicker than normal, but you'd go nowhere with the insurer I reckon.

pippip

Anjobe wrote: »

Indeed, accidents/injuries/deaths etc have not decreased over time with increasing safety features on cars, the implication being that the more safety features are fitted the more drivers drive in such a way as to have need of them!

Fatalities have actually been decreasing from 2008 to 2013 (where they rose slightly, and again this year) and vehicles numbers have been increasing year on year. If you did compare the two it would actually show the opposite of what you claim.

But to be fair that is not a comparison I would make as road deaths have some many more factors apart from the vehicles safety features.

ironclaw

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It would suggest (to a prudent insurer) that the car would be driven in such a way (too quickly) that the standard brakes would be insufficient.

Now you could argue that the car would not be driven any quicker than normal, but you'd go nowhere with the insurer I reckon.

I'd also say its the fact you have tampered with the car in a way that takes it outside the normal and stock configuration. As such its risk is unknown, be that for the better or worse. Someone has calculated the chances of the failure in a stock car configuration, your modifications change that calculation and associated risk. As such, you are a liability.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It would suggest (to a prudent insurer) that the car would be driven in such a way (too quickly) that the standard brakes would be insufficient.

Now you could argue that the car would not be driven any quicker than normal, but you'd go nowhere with the insurer I reckon.

Would upgrading the tires suggest the same?

(Im not arguing with you as such, youre probably not wrong, I just think that its a riduculous notion that improving safety increases the risk)

gctest50

Khalil Thundering Rubble wrote: »

Has any one ever even heard a whisper about someone not being paid out due to an undeclared remap? Doubt it somehow, it would be extremely difficult to prove a car was remapped, if they even had the equipment or ability to check (which is very unlikely).

The proper diagnostic equipment will tell what speed you were doing just before impact

They won't be long getting the gear when they cop that one

jimgoose

Anjobe wrote: »

Indeed, accidents/injuries/deaths etc have not decreased over time with increasing safety features on cars, the implication being that the more safety features are fitted the more drivers drive in such a way as to have need of them!

According to Eurostat a couple of months back road deaths in the EU region have been falling steadily since 1965, and are currently at two-thirds of what they were then, expressed as fatalities-per-million-inhabitants. This would suggest to me that the various safety improvements are working. Looked at another way, i.e. as pure cardinal numbers, obviously that's going to explode alongside the increase in populations and numbers of cars being driven.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It would suggest (to a prudent insurer) that the car would be driven in such a way (too quickly) that the standard brakes would be insufficient they have yet another wonderful excuse for the old Ride-Me-Sideways routine!

FYP!

Gazzmonkey

Personally I wouldn't declare it, if caught I would simply say that the previous owner mentioned nothing about a remap. Most buyers don't have the means to check for something that is intangible.

As for them knowing if and when it was remapped... I'm not sure if there's a time stamp held in memory but modern ecu's do have a flash counter so beware!!!

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

Would upgrading the tires suggest the same?

(Im not arguing with you as such, youre probably not wrong, I just think that its a riduculous notion that improving safety increases the risk)

You might be improving safety in the real world but financially and probability wise, you are adding unknown. Who fitted the brakes? What standard are they? How often do they fail on that car? Are they suitable for that car? Are the balanced? Compared to stock, does the car stop in a shorter distance? They might be bigger but not deal with heat as effectively, so they could in theory be the exact same as stock.

That as opposed to a stock car from factory where all those variables can be calculated and known, and that's what insurers want. Pure math.

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't declare it, if caught I would simply say that the previous owner mentioned nothing about a remap. Most buyers don't have the means to check for something that is intangible.

As for them knowing if and when it was remapped... I'm not sure if there's a time stamp held in memory but modern ecu's do have a flash counter so beware!!!

Ignorance is not a defense in law. So they just won't pay out. And you can easily compare stock flashes with custom. Multiple, simple tools exist for doing this. From conversation with a very reputable mechanic friend of mine, ECU's can be checked but its not all that common. Anyway, its in their interest. Pay a mechanic €50 to read an ECU and avoid a €1000's pay out. Makes perfect economical sense.

The12thMan

its a mine field, FYI
my can cam standard with 220bhp and already had factory fitted, bigger brakes and lowered suspension.
so the extra 50ish Bhp would have made no difference to the safety of the car.

Anjobe

pippip wrote: »

Fatalities have actually been decreasing from 2008 to 2013 (where they rose slightly, and again this year) and vehicles numbers have been increasing year on year. If you did compare the two it would actually show the opposite of what you claim.

But to be fair that is not a comparison I would make as road deaths have some many more factors apart from the vehicles safety features.

jimgoose wrote: »

According to Eurostat a couple of months back road deaths in the EU region have been falling steadily since 1965, and are currently at two-thirds of what they were then, expressed as fatalities-per-million-inhabitants. This would suggest to me that the various safety improvements are working. Looked at another way, i.e. as pure cardinal numbers, obviously that's going to explode alongside the increase in populations and numbers of cars being driven.


FYP!

My comment was based on research conducted at the TRL in the UK which was presented in a BBC documentary a couple of years ago. The decrease in road deaths over time is attributed to things like improved roads and police enforcement (e.g. penalty point systems etc) rather than car safety features. The only car safety feature ever to have had a measurable effect was when the wearing of seat belts was made compulsory. The program ended with a memorable quote from one of the TRL researchers that to really improve road safety, instead of an air bag in the steering wheel that deploys in a collision, there should be a large spike that pops out to impale the driver through the heart.

kupus

I dont know if this could be construed as scientific fact but with more safety features certain drivers may take more risks.

td2008

I remember declaring lowering springs on my leon before - think it was an extra 100 quid