In praise of the FT86 rear seats, your vote?

[StraightOuttaCanadaEh]

I routinely fit 3 people back there, so I'd say they're good. I thought about taking them out but I like the noise reduction and it will only result in a measly 25 lb weight reduction anyway. Not worth the trade off

[HKz]

Originally Posted by DandoX

I dunno, I still cling to the idea that because I have semi useless seats behind me my rates are slightly lower. I may be wrong, but who cares, it really is a useless debate since so many other factors are much more prominent.

I'm pretty sure Subaru put the seats there so they can fit a child in a car seat or easily stow a backpack/briefcase. Either way twin life is better having the rear seats vs just being a 2 seat car.

slightly lower than what? an 86 without backseats? it isn't like we have a car with 2 variants that we can truly compare rates like the 300ZX being offered as a 2 seater and 2+2

[DandoX]

Originally Posted by HKz

slightly lower than what? an 86 without backseats? it isn't like we have a car with 2 variants that we can truly compare rates like the 300ZX being offered as a 2 seater and 2+2

Yeah slightly lower than if the twins came with just 2 seats. But like I said in my previous comment, it really doesn't matter at all since even if it did effect the rates in a minor capacity it is out shined by more prominent factors like history, age, area, sex, etc. So there is no way to know other than asking an expert.

That being said, having an extra 2 seats gets me lower rates 100% ;P

[HKz]

Originally Posted by DandoX

Yeah slightly lower than if the twins came with just 2 seats. But like I said in my previous comment, it really doesn't matter at all since even if it did effect the rates in a minor capacity it is out shined by more prominent factors like history, age, area, sex, etc. So there is no way to know other than asking an expert.

That being said, having an extra 2 seats gets me lower rates 100% ;P

I'm just perplexed at how you could even compare unless your agent has imaginary rates for a hypothetical 86 without backseats. Never ever been asked about backseats for insurance..

[DandoX]

Originally Posted by HKz

I'm just perplexed at how you could even compare unless your agent has imaginary rates for a hypothetical 86 without backseats. Never ever been asked about backseats for insurance..

lol dude Im just joking around, because this is so pointless. That's why I said, we can't know for sure without asking an actuary and even if we asked and found out who cares, not like it matters to anyone who owns a twin. It would only matter to someone shopping for a car and considering a twin and comparing insurance rates, and even then I doubt that factor would even register on any scale of deciding to get a twin or not.

[HKz]

o.O so this whole thread was a joke to you? noted

[p1l0t]

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[DandoX]

No this semi off topic is pointless. I already farted out my opinion that of course I praise the rear seats who wouldn't. Easy to remove if you don't like them. Those back seats are better than having nothing back there, no question.
The topic of if having rear seats reduces insurances rates is very pointless because it doesn't matter either way is what I'm saying.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by rennlistuser3

I don't get you ......

your first post talks about how journalists will be the death of 2+2 cars.

the reason why it's a 2+2 is because car makers are very smart, they know who exactly they want to sell this car to and who will pay for it (which are often two different groups of people, i.e. parents vs children, stay at home parent vs primary/sole income generator), so 2+2 is there purely for insurance + cost of ownership reasons.

otherwise, cost to own a pure 2 seater coupe would be too high. total cost of ownership is the most important thing here, most people just see MSRP and forget there's secondary costs of owning a car such as insurance, maintenance, and whether you can do more than one thing with a single car vs owning 2 or more cars to accomplish the same thing.

The S13/S14, Honda Prelude, and a host of other "entry level sports cars" were all 2+2 for a reason, and it wasn't so you can cram short adults into the back seat.

Journalists won't be the death of cars, it will be regular buyers who 1) do not read enthusiast magazines, and 2) are not as invested in a car as people like you and me.

[Lynxis]

The reason the belief exists that 2 seaters cost more to insure comes from the fact that there are a handful of cars that came in 2 seater AND 2+2 and the same person asks to be quoted between the 2 models and the 2 seater pretty much always has increased insurance rates.

Of course, there are other factors at play besides just 2 extra seats. Primarily, the 2 seaters are typically specialized trim levels which cost more and the people interested in 2+2 vs 2 seater are different and I suspect the ones interested in just the 2 seater come from a higher risk group.

As for my opinion of the back seats, meh. I've had one person in the rear seats exactly once in my 5 years of ownership but it is nice to just be able to throw stuff back there.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mav1178

your first post talks about how journalists will be the death of 2+2 cars.

the reason why it's a 2+2 is because car makers are very smart, they know who exactly they want to sell this car to and who will pay for it (which are often two different groups of people, i.e. parents vs children, stay at home parent vs primary/sole income generator), so 2+2 is there purely for insurance + cost of ownership reasons.

otherwise, cost to own a pure 2 seater coupe would be too high. total cost of ownership is the most important thing here, most people just see MSRP and forget there's secondary costs of owning a car such as insurance, maintenance, and whether you can do more than one thing with a single car vs owning 2 or more cars to accomplish the same thing.

The S13/S14, Honda Prelude, and a host of other "entry level sports cars" were all 2+2 for a reason, and it wasn't so you can cram short adults into the back seat.

Journalists won't be the death of cars, it will be regular buyers who 1) do not read enthusiast magazines, and 2) are not as invested in a car as people like you and me.

If and only if the seat played any part at all in insurance the difference in insurance rates would be so low that it would be meaningless as far as cost of ownership goes.


"Oh it costs me $20 a year more? No way am I buying that car!"
I repeat my repeatedly repeated statement. THINKING THAT THE SEATS REDUCE INSURANCE RATES IS DUMB.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Lynxis

The reason the belief exists that 2 seaters cost more to insure comes from the fact that there are a handful of cars that came in 2 seater AND 2+2 and the same person asks to be quoted between the 2 models and the 2 seater pretty much always has increased insurance rates.

Of course, there are other factors at play besides just 2 extra seats. Primarily, the 2 seaters are typically specialized trim levels which cost more and the people interested in 2+2 vs 2 seater are different and I suspect the ones interested in just the 2 seater come from a higher risk group.

As for my opinion of the back seats, meh. I've had one person in the rear seats exactly once in my 5 years of ownership but it is nice to just be able to throw stuff back there.

This ^ This is all it comes down to. No trying to fool the insurance companies. No 4 seats means you are a more responsible driver. No profiling the "normal" buyer of a car. It all comes down to cost of the vehicle. It is so simple I don't understand why it is such a prevalent myth.

[Lynxis]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

This ^ This is all it comes down to. No trying to fool the insurance companies. No 4 seats means you are a more responsible driver. No profiling the "normal" buyer of a car. It all comes down to cost of the vehicle. It is so simple I don't understand why it is such a prevalent myth.

I guess I should expand on the bit where I mention the people who buy just the 2 seaters are a higher risk group because it IS a factor in the rates but not in the way I think you are reading what I wrote.

Basically insurance rates are calculated by perceived risk vs expected costs and it's all based on statistics. If they see that the 2 seaters end up in a statistically higher incidence rate than the 2+2, then that drives up the expected cost to insure that version of the car and rates will increase for anyone who wants one. Now, why would the 2 seater tend to end up in more accidents? Typically because the people who buy them are higher risk to begin with.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Lynxis

I guess I should expand on the bit where I mention the people who buy just the 2 seaters are a higher risk group because it IS a factor in the rates but not in the way I think you are reading what I wrote.

Basically insurance rates are affected by perceived risk vs expected costs and it's all based on statistics. If they see that the 2 seaters end up in a statistically higher incidence rate than the 2+2, then that drives up the expected cost to insure that version of the car and rates will increase for anyone who wants one.

Now, why would the 2 seater tend to end up in more accidents? Typically because the people who buy them are higher risk to begin with, which is what I meant when I said that people interested in it are from a higher risk group.

I agree with all that you wrote. It is the other posts that ignore the rates are based on hard stats and just assume that because it is coupe then everybody that buys one are automatically considered a higher risk.


The driver risk groups are totally separate from the car model risk groups. That is why I pay $400 a year while an 18 year old dude next door with 2 accidents and 12 tickets pays $6,000.