Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure
 

Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure

It is funny this article just got published today because I actually just called the insurance company a few days ago because on our latest bill it lists our 2005 Ford Focus at around $100 more to insure than our 2010 Ford Escape. You wouldn't think a newer vehicle that is worth 3 times as much would be less to insure. I was told there are higher injury rates in compact car accidents plus more reckless young people own/drive them.

Re: Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure
 

Yep, it's counter intuitive until you look at it from the insurance carrier's perspective.

The real cost of risk in insurance isn't the cost of repairing the car - it's the likelihood of an accident happening in the first place, and the likely result of that accident. Hospital bills and law suits can make the bill for a totaled car look like child's play.

Re: Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure
 

Top 10 cheap cars to insure:
1. Chrysler Town & Country LX -- $1,092 average premium
2. Toyota Sienna 4 cylinder -- $1,101
3. Toyota Sienna LE -- $1,108
4. Honda Odyssey LX -- $1,115
5. Nissan Murano SL -- $1,128
6. Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sport -- $1,131
7. Honda Odyssey EX -- $1,138
8. Toyota Sienna 6 cylinder -- $1,143
9. Ford Escape XLS -- $1,150
10. Toyota Highlander -- $1,154

Re: Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure
 

Threxx nailed it.

Cheaper cars are bought by young buyers.

Young buyers have less driving experience and are far more prone to have accidents, which in turn raise the number of claims.

I remember posting some years ago the fact that a 2002 LS1 Camaro (which I had recently bought) was cheaper to insure than a same year Mustang GT (even though it had far less horsepower), and a Mitsubishi Eclipse was even more.

One side note.

While GM seeks to lure more young buyers with the next Camaro, one unwanted side effect (if they are successful) will be that insurence on them will no doubt go up once they get their hands on them in numbers.

Re: Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure
 

I remember when I was looking for a new car years back, the insurance on a new Camaro was more than it was for a Corvette! Guess the fact that a lot of Corvette owners are older and might not even drive the car a lot accounts for something.

Re: Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure
 

I wonder if 10 airbags standard in the Cruze and Sonic was done to keep rates insurance low on these cars compared to the competition and the predecessors to these cars. Next time I talk to the insurance company I will have to see how the Cruze compares to the Cobalt.

Re: Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure
 

Well it's a number of things with the corvette.

1) Corvettes don't tend to be daily driven. For the insurance the safest car is the one that is driven the least.
2) Average age of owner is like 40 some for C6 and probably a bit lower for C5, generally speaking they are less risky drivers.
3) Corvette owners generally have a wealthier background, car is safer as it's parked in a safer areas, likely garaged when at home.

Re: Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure
 

While crash technology has improved greatly, mass is still king. Smaller cars are at a disadvantage from a standpoint of mass and volume.

Re: Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure
 

Here is the full top 20 and bottom 20 list = Car insurance comparison | Insure.com

I wish for the bottom 20 they would not use high end luxury and sports cars. I'd love to see the list limited to limited to $40,000 and under vehicles.

Re: Cheaper cars are more expensive to insure
 

Looking beyond the price tag and country of origin, I see another factor at play, seemingly just as important: horsepower. No surprise there :)