Sorta got confused when I called up progressive this morning. Wanted to compare how much more a month it would cost to get a mustang over my crown vic.
Crown Vic - $44 a month
same year mustage v8 - $46 a month
same year marauder - $46 a month
1998 Camaro LS1 - $31 a month
I also roll with Flo and I'm at I think $73 a month for my 98 ls1 Camaro, although I'm carrying full coverage with huge liability limits. Adding a Jeep Wrangler with full coverage and carrying liability only on the Camaro would be $76 a month (most recent quote I did.)
Progressive seems to have some randomized element to their quoting process, though, as I swear I have done identical quotes several weeks apart and gotten different prices. Pretty sure this happened when I re-upped the bike this spring. I got a quote around March for about $300/yr, then couldn't retrieve it a few weeks later when I went to buy and was quoted $270. I then had trouble buying the policy on their website so I called them and the guy I spoke to was able to knock it down to $212 for the year. Fine by me!
Furious_E wrote: I also roll with Flo and I'm at I think $73 a month for my 98 ls1 Camaro, although I'm carrying full coverage with huge liability limits. Adding a Jeep Wrangler with full coverage and carrying liability only on the Camaro would be $76 a month (most recent quote I did.) Progressive seems to have some randomized element to their quoting process, though, as I swear I have done identical quotes several weeks apart and gotten different prices. Pretty sure this happened when I re-upped the bike this spring. I got a quote around March for about $300/yr, then couldn't retrieve it a few weeks later when I went to buy and was quoted $270. I then had trouble buying the policy on their website so I called them and the guy I spoke to was able to knock it down to $212 for the year. Fine by me!
Do you daily drive the '98 LS1? How do you like it?
I wish my insurance was that cheap.
Seems high to me! But I'm not driving a V8 either.
In reply to Coldsnap:
Yes I do, it's currently my only vehicle (4 wheeled, at least), although that is soon to change. I actually find it quite pleasant as a dd, despite its many flaws. The driving position that most seem to hate actually works very well for me, the gearing allows 2000 rpm at 80 mph so highway cruising is easy and relaxed, I get 21-22 mpg in not-so-conservative mixed driving, and the oodles of torque make it easy to lug around town. As I am sure you are aware, the interior sucks big time, the fit and finish sucks (I've found runs in the factory paint job while waxing the car), and the ride is pretty harsh with Koni shocks and Strano springs. But all is forgiven the second you crack the throttle open in 2nd and the rear end jumps sideways 
I am currently looking for a Wrangler to split dd duties with the Camaro to 1) keep the milage down, 2) keep it off salted roads, and 3) it's an excuse to have another toy. I plan to still drive the Camaro quite a bit, but at the same time I am looking forward to something I don't have to constantly dodge potholes in.
More motivation to get away from a major city is all those prices are telling me.
< $100 per month, for full coverage '14 Sonic, liability + comp '97 F150 4x4, and liability + comp '91 CRX (state farm)
<$100 month for full coverage on 2011 Elantra and 2010 Sedona with Hanover insurance.
Both my wife and I are listed on the policy and the same company also has our homeowners policy, so that helps drop the cost.
JtspellS wrote: More motivation to get away from a major city is all those prices are telling me.
My insurance is the opposite. The closer to the big city, the lower mine goes by half.
It's not an apples to apples comparison unless everyone lives in the same geographic area. Not to mention liability coverage differences, deductibles, number of miles driven, etc.
FWIW, I pay just under $1,200 a year for three newish cars (one of which is a Mustang), low deductibles, and high liability coverage limits. Number of miles a year driven is ~30k total. I also live about an hour north of DC.
$120/month for liability only on three cars ('02 Volvo, '84 RX-7, '86 Quantum insured at 400mi/year) with a clean driving record and no insurance claims since, oh, 1996. It would be $100/month if it were only one car, doesn't matter which one.
As a single, non-home owning childless male, you're welcome for your insurance subsidy 
I'm at just over $1,000 every six months insuring 4 cars for two drivers.
time for a horror story~
so, in massachusetts, there are various state government mandates on insurance companies, which is why insurance is generally very expensive and most insurance companies dont even bother with massachusetts at all.
one of these mandates is that insurance risk be calculated based on years licensed, NOT just age.
i'm 25 and was licensed when i was 24, since my college had great public transport and at the time i had zero interest in cars......so insurance effectively sees me as a 17 year old.
i drive an 08 328xi wagon, and it costs $270 a month for comp and collision coverage, $1000 deductible....it was $320 before my 25th birthday, and that is AFTER a 20% work discount.
if i were to buy a brand new cadillac ats, it would cost me $480 a month with full collision coverage but minimum everything else.
so yeah, don't complain about expensive insurance
$40 a month, full coverage on a Mazda5. Just outside Richmond VA here.
joekitch wrote: one of these mandates is that insurance risk be calculated based on years licensed, NOT just age.
You know, as much as it sucks for you, I'm actually okay with that. It means everyone goes through the "years of berk you" and benefits drivers who got their licenses early, and thus have been driving longer.
I have a friend who didn't get a license until 26 and I know another who waited until the age of 58! Both of them should rightly be considered insurance risks because both of them are newer drivers.
I was around $1500 a year for 4 cars for my wife and I. One had full coverage the rest were max liability and medical (no fire theft and collision).
My agent told me that once I got more than 2 cars it was something like $50 / car per year to add cars with out F, T & C as we can only drive one at a time and at that point they are really insuring the driver and not the car.
I wish mine was this cheap.. NJ has some of the most expensive insurance in the nation. I spend around 200 a month for 2 cars.. and I can only drive one at a time
kylini wrote:joekitch wrote: one of these mandates is that insurance risk be calculated based on years licensed, NOT just age.You know, as much as it sucks for you, I'm actually okay with that. It means everyone goes through the "years of berk you" and benefits drivers who got their licenses early, and thus have been driving longer. I have a friend who didn't get a license until 26 and I know another who waited until the age of 58! Both of them should rightly be considered insurance risks because both of them are newer drivers.
I tend to agree. You don't learn to drive by getting older you learn to drive by driving. What it does mean is that you should have got your license as soon as you could and then just not owned a car. The same system that is penalizing you now for not getting your license would then be giving a discount to someone that has virtually no experience.
I help a friend at his drivers school and I am on my way to getting my drivers instructors license and you can tell kids that have experience and those that don't. The worst are those that want us to sponsor there license test but they have not taken the drivers ed course because they are older and are not required to. They don't take instruction well and tend to be the worst drivers because they think they are good drivers. At least most young kids know they suck and take instruction. Some better than others but for the most part all do very well.
Back to your original problem kylini. You really should see if taking a drivers ed course and possibly s skid school. If you passed those courses and submitted the certificates to the insurance co I bet you could get a discount that would easily make up the difference of the cost of the courses. If you have an agent I would speak with them about it.
kylini wrote:joekitch wrote: one of these mandates is that insurance risk be calculated based on years licensed, NOT just age.You know, as much as it sucks for you, I'm actually okay with that. It means everyone goes through the "years of berk you" and benefits drivers who got their licenses early, and thus have been driving longer. I have a friend who didn't get a license until 26 and I know another who waited until the age of 58! Both of them should rightly be considered insurance risks because both of them are newer drivers.
most of the risk for people under 25 is the fact they're under 25 and at a really high risk of drunk driving, really high risk of distracted driving (friends in the car) and generally treat their cars poorly. past 25 all of that drops off dramatically
$121/mo for full coverage on the zx3 fukus & '04 zx10r......and a $16k payout policy on the Raptor.
PLPD is like $20 per vehicle for me, $15 if it has 2 airbags. LoL
In reply to joekitch:
Not entirely true, those are factors indeed, BUT, those same drivers also lack the driving experience(which is much more of a risk)
yamaha wrote: In reply to joekitch: Not entirely true, those are factors indeed, BUT, those same drivers also lack the driving experience(which is much more of a risk)
well, here's the thing. that particular standard (driving experience over age) tends to be required of insurance companies rather than them seeking it out. and these are INSURANCE companies, they literally lose money if their statistics are wrong
if the traditional model of age > experience is incorrect, why do no companies use it unless required? surely if they were wrong they'd be losing money hand over fist.
although one possible explanation is that older licensed drivers are such a rare thing that the amount of money they lose by an older driver paying less premium than he really should, is a drop in the bucket for most large insurance firms, and thus they can ignore it.
In reply to joekitch:
It used to be rare, but it will become a more serious issue when millenials parents start dying off and are no longer are a taxi service.
In addition, I would rather be on the same road as a 21yo who has been driving since they are 15 rather than with a 25yo that's been driving for a year.....1 is far more screwed in situations than the other.
You may think you know more than them, but you really don't. Experience trumps all in 99% of cases.
joekitch wrote:kylini wrote:most of the risk for people under 25 is the fact they're under 25 and at a really high risk of drunk driving, really high risk of distracted driving (friends in the car) and generally treat their cars poorly. past 25 all of that drops off dramaticallyjoekitch wrote: one of these mandates is that insurance risk be calculated based on years licensed, NOT just age.You know, as much as it sucks for you, I'm actually okay with that. It means everyone goes through the "years of berk you" and benefits drivers who got their licenses early, and thus have been driving longer. I have a friend who didn't get a license until 26 and I know another who waited until the age of 58! Both of them should rightly be considered insurance risks because both of them are newer drivers.
This is all true, I was completely fearless in a car at age 16 and was lucky to have survived without serious incident. At age 25 I'm still pretty stupid, but at least in the car I can manage to keep myself pretty much in check. Most of the time, anyways.
However you can't negate the effects of experience either, particularly when it comes to controlling a vehicle at the limit in an unexpected situation. Car pulls out at an intersection with no time to stop, hydroplaning at 70 on the interstate flanked by trucks on either side, black ice on a bridge during the morning commute... You don't have the opportunity to think things through, you can only react to your sensory input, and that's all muscle memory built through repetition. Years of repetition. Maybe those early years spent hooning down back roads were worth something after all.
I started riding motorcycles about 2 years ago and in a lot of ways it has been like learning to drive all over again. In a car, I know I have the repetitions built up to trust myself to react properly to a potential threat. I'm still very much honing my craft when it comes to riding and every once in a while I'll catch myself getting away with something I probably wouldn't have if the conditions were less than ideal.
You'll need to log in to post.
