WRX is cheaper to insure than BRZ/FRS

[~el~jefe~]

anyone under 25 with an WRX is going to get slammed for insurance rates. ONce you are out of the idiot-death range of life expectancy and your prefrontal cortex is fully integrated with the rest of your cerebrum, they then look at what costs more to repair it seems

it is based upon insurance claims and risk. At a certain point, at my above 40 years of age point, the insurance seems to just go to what is more costly to repair in an accident. The death-lemming variable of youth is not as important.

Death Lemming! yeeeaah! death lemming!! GOnna DIIIIIIEEEE!! **80's guitar solo***

[cueball89]

When I was new car shopping last March the quote I got for a brz was ~$1100 and a wrx with the exact same coverage was ~$1600. Syracuse NY area, go figure.

[Mr.ac]

You bought the wrong car.

[~el~jefe~]

Whatever that means

[Jhangles]

I had the opposite happen. I went from an '08 2.5L Mazda 6 to my 2014 BRZ Limited, and my full coverage insurance went down $22 for a 6 month policy. I was surprised to say the least. I'm also 35 with no accidents/tickets so that's probably a big part of it.

[Deep Six]

I was insuring a 2013 FRS and a 2012 Corvette 427 convertible at the same time with State Farm. The Vette was $82/mth vs the FRS at $89/mth.

[~el~jefe~]

Originally Posted by Jhangles

I had the opposite happen. I went from an '08 2.5L Mazda 6 to my 2014 BRZ Limited, and my full coverage insurance went down $22 for a 6 month policy. I was surprised to say the least. I'm also 35 with no accidents/tickets so that's probably a big part of it.

The mazda has a really bad deathrate compared to cars in its class. Crash tests i don't believe in as much anymore. I know Tcoat hates when I mention deathrates, but at the extremes it has to mean something. I cant imagine mazda 3 owners being a risky pool, driver wise, must be the car. Civic is a death box x5. But a lot of idiots in ghettos drive those at high speeds, so that could be the civics reason

[PSi]

because it's AWD

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by ~el~jefe~

anyone under 25 with an WRX is going to get slammed for insurance rates. ONce you are out of the idiot-death range of life expectancy and your prefrontal cortex is fully integrated with the rest of your cerebrum, they then look at what costs more to repair it seems

I went from a '12 WRX to a '13 FRS at the age of 22. Insurance between the two were within $5 of each other per month.

I'm glad I'm 25 now, because my STI is actually now the cheapest car I've ever owned to insure. I pay $85 a month

[synchromesh]

Originally Posted by ~el~jefe~

anyone under 25 with an WRX is going to get slammed for insurance rates. ONce you are out of the idiot-death range of life expectancy and your prefrontal cortex is fully integrated with the rest of your cerebrum, they then look at what costs more to repair it seems

it is based upon insurance claims and risk. At a certain point, at my above 40 years of age point, the insurance seems to just go to what is more costly to repair in an accident. The death-lemming variable of youth is not as important.

Death Lemming! yeeeaah! death lemming!! GOnna DIIIIIIEEEE!! **80's guitar solo***

That is why I'm not completely on side with the legalization of some street drugs. It is commonly accepted the brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25.


I am glad you brought up the fact the Legacy has a zero on one important fact. If true, it would be a major consideration on a family car purchase.


Could be going too far, but if I were making decisions for an insurance company, I would take the fatality stat to be an important one for determining rates. Now, I can't judge because the accounting might be just an anomaly or it could be simply be all in the name. It is what it is.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by synchromesh

That is why I'm not completely on side with the legalization of some street drugs. It is commonly accepted the brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25.


I am glad you brought up the fact the Legacy has a zero on one important fact. If true, it would be a major consideration on a family car purchase.


Could be going too far, but if I were making decisions for an insurance company, I would take the fatality stat to be an important one for determining rates. Now, I can't judge because the accounting might be just an anomaly or it could be simply be all in the name. It is what it is.

NO! The Legacy is not the safest production car ever because it has a zero death rate. Death rate is not an indication of the safety of the car and can certainly not be used to compare one car to another. It is taking one number out of total context and applying it as a standard and that does not work. There is no control to this number that can be used to compare it to other cars. You would have to know the exact root cause of each accident and then break the deaths out into those causes to be able to make any comparison based on deaths. The variables are infinite and non comparable as a whole. There just is no science behind saying that X car is safer because there are less deaths no matter how obvious it seems on the surface. The reason that some cars are higher and some lower can be attributed more to the demographic of the drivers than the actual safety of the car. That is why insurance rates vary more by age, location and driving history than by what kind of car it is. Hell the value of the car plays more of a part in setting insurance rates than how many deaths there were.

[WolfpackS2k]

When I switched from a 2013 BRZ Limited to my 2006 Cayman S my insurance cost was basically the same, maybe $25/year more.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

When I switched from a 2013 BRZ Limited to my 2006 Cayman S my insurance cost was basically the same, maybe $25/year more.

You also dropped 7 years in age of the car.

[synchromesh]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

NO! The Legacy is not the safest production car ever because it has a zero death rate. Death rate is not an indication of the safety of the car and can certainly not be used to compare one car to another. It is taking one number out of total context and applying it as a standard and that does not work. There is no control to this number that can be used to compare it to other cars. You would have to know the exact root cause of each accident and then break the deaths out into those causes to be able to make any comparison based on deaths. The variables are infinite and non comparable as a whole. There just is no science behind saying that X car is safer because there are less deaths no matter how obvious it seems on the surface. The reason that some cars are higher and some lower can be attributed more to the demographic of the drivers than the actual safety of the car. That is why insurance rates vary more by age, location and driving history than by what kind of car it is. Hell the value of the car plays more of a part in setting insurance rates than how many deaths there were.

I respect your view on it.


However, just to put it out there again; some people go to church every Sunday expecting a promise rather than a covenant.


Personally, you might want to look at it solipsistically. Safe driving comes from within.