Volvo goes from group 15 to group 35. In terms of % of the highest group, that's actually a small reduction.
On my car, the cost of parts is irrelevant as they will simply write it off if anything happens to it. £1500 cars don't get repaired by insurance companies.
|
|
|
.............. it has a top speed of over 100mph ...........
Are there any which don't nowadays?
|
Corsa 1.0l (3 cylinder) or a Kia Picanto doesn't do 100mph
but I am sure if anyone in either one of these ever got to 100mph they would be proud. ha ha
|
Thats why I didn't buy the 1.0 12v 3 pot, a gutless engine lacking in torque. I bought the 1.2 16v, hardly any difference in insurance and one paper only 10 more bhp but it makes a big difference. Its a lot smoother than the 3 pot too. Its basicaly the same engine with an extra cylinder.
Its great round the city extremely nippy, it could even cope with the hills of North Wales with four people in it with a lot of creative gear changes and lots of forward planning!
I don't think I could have got a faster car for the amount I pay for the car. It may seem crazy talking about fast and a 65bhp car, but some of the Corsas had 44bhp but still cost the same to insure.
|
Rattle, I cant agree more.
The 1.2l is a good one to go for.
The 1.4l only has 10bhp more than the 1.2l and is another 2 insurance groups higher.
I looked at a diesel Corsa before my current purchase and was put off by price, lack of power and turbo lag.
Hence Kia got my dosh.
Edited by diddy1234 on 05/01/2010 at 12:08
|
Rattle I cant agree more. The 1.2l is a good one to go for.
Odd - I test drove a 1.2 Corsa (current model) when looking to replace a 1.0 mk1 Yaris, and thought the Corsa felt very slow in comparison which I put down to its size/weight. Also seemed slower than my stepson's S reg 1.0 Corsa, albeit smoother. Perhaps it just needed running in
|
|
|
|
|
Still, it doesn't beat the old Ka's (52-58 registrations) 1.3 Duratec 8V with 69 horsepower, 108 something of torque. It is more powerful than the 16V engine fitted in older Renault Clios. Kas previous to late 2002 had a 1.3 pushrod Endura-E which was based on the Kent engine, really glad my Ka doesn't have that!
|
My dads has the Endura not a bad engine but because the chasis is so good it always feels like it should have more power. It has low seats, leather steering wheel, leather gear knob so it feels like it should have more. Plenty of torque though just no power, its higher to insure than my car.
I nearly bought the 1.4 16V Corsa CDX I found out the seller was a crook so the sale went through and I lost the £100 deposit. It would have been £100 a month to isnure compared to the £70 I was paying at the time for the 1.2 16v I did buy. Now my insurance is just over £50 a month and I am really glad I choose a cheap car to insure it makes a big difference.
It is porverty spec car with a basic engine so all the cheap running costs, £40 fitted a Contentental tyre etc yet has electric everything so feels a lot newer than it is.
The Ford Focus is another great insurance tip, for some reason they are extremly cheap to insure compared to anything else with the same engine size.
I looked into the 306 1.9 none turbo and even that cost a fortune to insure and would have been too slow.
|
|
|
The 1.2 16v Clio is 75bhp as I recall.
The 1.25 16v Fiesta is 82 bhp and much crisper than the GM motor.
The 1.3 push rod unit in the Ka was gutsy, really pulled well from low revs.
|
The 1.25 16v in the Fiesta was more expensive to insure though but this what I can't work out for me it was cheaper to insure than the 1.3!! On later models from 1999 ownards the 1.25 16v was detuned for emissions reasons and it became a lot gutless.
An awful car to insure is the MK7 Escort 1.6 Zetec. My dad had one, lovely engine even at 100k it sounded complety silent but it had woeful MPG and at 90mpg it was only a tiny bit faster than my 1.2 16v because of the extra weight of the escort. The worst bit is the group 7 insurance which for me at the time equated to £109 a month!!
I've driven two 1.2 75bhp Clios. On the Clio MK2 phase 2 (the phase 1 had 65bhp) which is lovely, lots of power and nice to drive, it has the same revvyness and nippyness as my Corsa but a bit better at higher speeds.
Then I drove in a 1.2 16v MK3, what a terrible idea, the body is far too heavy despite its plastic front wings to keep the weight down it felt rather gutless and no matter how cheap insurance was I would have prefered the 1.4 16v.
|
The insurance groupings don't seem have that much effect on insurance anyway.
I had a group 14 Jag X Type - paid around 300 quid a year fully comp
Changed to a group 7 Focus diesel, quoted 380 for the same! No claims and no changes etc but why the increase!
Managed to price around to get it back down to the 300 mark, but as the jag (older) is worth the same as the focus (newer) I can't fathom the logic. Unless the Jag is classed as an old mans car and therefore not crashed much.
|
|
Yes Snakey I would say that's it - Jag = old man's car, not much chance of it being crashed. Also, Jags are very safe if you do have a bump, and hard to break into/steal, so that will reduce the insurance as well I think. Compare this with the Focus - more chance of it being crashed/stolen, not as safe in a crash, so cost of repair could be higher than the Jag.
|
The jag is NCAP 4 * and the Focus is NCAP 5 * so I would guess the Focus is safer!
Also the Focus is probably as secure for theft as the Jag. But I agree the perceived image of Jag drivers must have a lot to do with it.
|
|
Hm interesting, I was just assuming the Jag's sheer size/weight would make it safer. Well, the Focus wasn't voted used family car of the decade for no reason! :-)
|
|
You cannot compare NCAP ratings from difference classes. The Jag is probably safer.
|
|
Anyone got a link so I can look up my cars?
|
|
The OP gave us the link :)
|
The OP gave us the link :)
So they do, I missed it thanks
|
|
The insurance groupings don't seem have that much effect on insurance anyway.
This is probably the most important point. While groupings have the mechanical car covered, the larger part of your policy is based on statistics and risk: you as a driver, your age, your driving history, has that model been subject to more thefts, where you live, where you work and what you do...blah blah blah, so in the case of Jcoventry ending up in group 11, its an academic point and in the absence of any claim I'm sure the next renewal quote could still be beaten and lowered.
|
|
|
|
|
The 1.3 push rod unit in the Ka was gutsy really pulled well from low revs.
I agree. It suited the car perfectly, and it always surprised me how this was one of the few small capacity "city cars" whose engine never felt out of its depth on faster roads. It had enough torque that it would sit happily in 5th up all but the steepest motorway inclines, and had lovely, instant pull from ridiculously low revs for a small engine. OK it sounded like it had no oil in it, and didn't like revving, but a near perfect engine for the application.
|
|
And thats why it lasted so long. As for smaller engines I cannot think of any which are so cheap to maintain. My engine is supposed to be cheap (chain and no HT leads) but the sensors go wrong, with the Ford engine the sensors rarely fail too. Its a pitty the rest of the cars were made out of rust.
|
|
The Endura-E wasn't bad - and they do last a long time. But the Duratec is so much more refined and loves to be revved high and you don't have the tappets problem of the Kent derived engine. I think compared with the Endura, the Duratec engines are running smoother even when old.
|
The main tapet problem with the Endura is people tightening them too much. The main issue with the Endura is the valve stem seals tend to fail early. My dads is on 85k now and still sounds pretty silent at the top end, just a little tappety but its actually less tappety than my corsa.
I don't why people like HJ hate them so much.
|
I don't why people like HJ hate them so much.
He doesn't like the previous model 1.3 Colt either (see CBCB entry), but as an owner I think it's a great gutsy engine in the way I imagine the 1.3 in the Ka is.
|
|
Looking on the ABI website, mine's in group 40. Still saved nearly £200 on the insurance though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
