Possible roadblock in future for modifying cars
Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6
It won't happen in the U.S. Because SEMA would lobby Congress and or states for laws against suchs voids....like they did with the OEMs and new vehicle warranties.
The aftermarket is a multi billion dollar industry...they wouldn't just take it lying down.
It won't happen in the U.S. Because SEMA would lobby Congress and or states for laws against suchs voids....like they did with the OEMs and new vehicle warranties.
The aftermarket is a multi billion dollar industry...they wouldn't just take it lying down.
Originally posted by 87camracer
thats straight up BS. if that ever happened i would pull both of my cars from the company
thats straight up BS. if that ever happened i would pull both of my cars from the company
Insurance is really f*cked up here nowadays. Everyone I know has had their premiums increased by at least 75% over the last year and they're still going up. We recently elected a new Premiere in Ontario who promised to force rate reductions, but oddly enough, my rates have increased 20% since he took office. Now he says the companies can have one more rate increase before he'll force them to cut rates by 10%. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out their next increase will be padded by at least an extra 10%
. Oh, and the insurance companies just reported a collective $2.5 billion or so in profit for 2003.I can definitely see this hurting the auto manufacturers. I'd like to buy a second vehicle from GM this summer, but not if I have to pay $150 a month on insurance. Sorry GM, lost sale! And the stupid thing is I'm insured by MIC, GM's own insurance arm. So it's GM's own subsidiary that's preventing the sale of new GM vehicles.
Originally heard from Chris Rock
I think insurance should change its name to 'in case $hit' because all these years that you drive your car around and don't get in accidents, you are required to have insurance. The problem is that you just keep paying 'in case $hit' happens.
I think insurance should change its name to 'in case $hit' because all these years that you drive your car around and don't get in accidents, you are required to have insurance. The problem is that you just keep paying 'in case $hit' happens.
Insurance really pisses me off, especailly recently when my insurance company 'sold off' all of their customers to a new insurance company. The strange thing here is that my rates mysteriously jumped $2000/year
I have a spotless driving record and no claims, good student, anti-theft, driving school, plus many more 'deductions' but they still want better than $3500 per year for driving a $9,000 car at most. That is just plain rediculous, needless to say I will be getting insurance through a different carrier.
Another thing that pisses me off is that there's a line on my premium for "uninsured drivers". Since when did that become my responsibility to cover? I guess if the insurance companies are factoring this into their rates, it must be okay for me to go without insurance and I'll still be covered, right?
Originally posted by AronZ28
This is the way insurance companies make money.
By FU#@!NG people over, plain and simple.
This is the way insurance companies make money.
By FU#@!NG people over, plain and simple.
They charge only a few percent more than the expected loss per month on the car based on the risk of the driver and the type of car driven. It's actually an extremely fair system. If your rates are high, it's because you're probably a HIGH RISK driver driving a HIGH RISK car. Chew on that a little?
I know my friend's premium was raised once they found out he had a supercharger.
Personally I think it's very reasonable to charge a premium based on mods.
I mean, a 30 year old hot-head with his twin turbo C5 with a 150 shot of nitrous and raced tuned suspension vs a stock C5 driven by a 65 year old man as a play car when he doesn't feel like driving his Cadillac.
Which one do you think would be more likely to wreck?
And more importantly, which one do you think would be more likely to wreck at a very wreckless speed causing a 10 million dollar lawsuit and/or the loss of life and/or severe damage to property other than the car?
You see... if you just have a minor accident that costs the company 5 grand.. that's not that big of a deal. But when you cost the company a 10 million dollar lawsuit and they have to pay to repair 5 cars and somebody's house because you were doing 150 MPH down the highway... that ends up costing them the same as 2000-3000 'minor' 5 thousand dollar fender bender claims.
Insurance companies have to do everything they can to keep rates fair. The poor people who used to buy Honda Civics because they were ecomical on gas, insurance, and repairs, had to sell their cars and go elsewhere because all of a sudden Civics were considered a 'high risk/sports vehicle'. But if you really think about it... you don't see the 40 year old woman next door weaving in and out of traffic at 100 MPH chasing after a cavalier.... you see the modded civics doing this though.
When I see a car with loud exhaust, wheels, etc... it may be a stereotype, but it usually is an acurate stereotype, when I think "I bet this guy drives more aggresively than your average driver". And insurance companies are thinking along the same lines.
Heck... if you think mods are a stupid reason to raise rates... do you guys realize that your credit score is more important than just about anything else except your driving record when it comes to insurance rates? How crazy is that??
Anyhow... I agree it's a bit excessive if they want to deny your coverage altogether or jack your rates through the rough because you have a couple of minor mods. But once you start using power adders and such... I think it's completely fair.
Personally I think it's very reasonable to charge a premium based on mods.
I mean, a 30 year old hot-head with his twin turbo C5 with a 150 shot of nitrous and raced tuned suspension vs a stock C5 driven by a 65 year old man as a play car when he doesn't feel like driving his Cadillac.
Which one do you think would be more likely to wreck?

And more importantly, which one do you think would be more likely to wreck at a very wreckless speed causing a 10 million dollar lawsuit and/or the loss of life and/or severe damage to property other than the car?
You see... if you just have a minor accident that costs the company 5 grand.. that's not that big of a deal. But when you cost the company a 10 million dollar lawsuit and they have to pay to repair 5 cars and somebody's house because you were doing 150 MPH down the highway... that ends up costing them the same as 2000-3000 'minor' 5 thousand dollar fender bender claims.
Insurance companies have to do everything they can to keep rates fair. The poor people who used to buy Honda Civics because they were ecomical on gas, insurance, and repairs, had to sell their cars and go elsewhere because all of a sudden Civics were considered a 'high risk/sports vehicle'. But if you really think about it... you don't see the 40 year old woman next door weaving in and out of traffic at 100 MPH chasing after a cavalier.... you see the modded civics doing this though.
When I see a car with loud exhaust, wheels, etc... it may be a stereotype, but it usually is an acurate stereotype, when I think "I bet this guy drives more aggresively than your average driver". And insurance companies are thinking along the same lines.
Heck... if you think mods are a stupid reason to raise rates... do you guys realize that your credit score is more important than just about anything else except your driving record when it comes to insurance rates? How crazy is that??
Anyhow... I agree it's a bit excessive if they want to deny your coverage altogether or jack your rates through the rough because you have a couple of minor mods. But once you start using power adders and such... I think it's completely fair.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hurin
Suspension, Chassis, and Brakes
4
Dec 13, 2014 07:38 PM
owen66
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
0
Nov 30, 2014 04:21 PM



