I'm not looking for anything negative to do with WRXs, and in fact I was more surprised than anything when I saw that report. I'm sure you read the article? I really thought the WRX wouldn't even come close to the top 5 or 10 worst vehicles to insure.
I guess that means what, there are a lot of bad WRX drivers out there basically? Most of the ones I know are good drivers with clean records though.And it just so happens that among 2005-2007 models, the Subaru Impreza WRX had the highest loss rate among all types of coverage."
That means insurers paid out more to repair WRXs than any other model of car. Insurers paid out more claims to repair cars hit by WRXs than those hit by anything else. WRX owners even claimed more non-crash-related damage than owners of any other car.
Your own perfect driving record won't necessarily help you avoid those charges. The Journal explains, "Even if you have a spotless record of safe, accident-free driving in a Subaru WRX, you are also paying for the damage racked up by the other WRX drivers who aren't as careful as you are with this high-performance, turbo-charged machine."
That may ultimately be the problem with the WRX - it's not the car, it's the people who drive it. After all, Edmunds Straightline notes, the WRX offers a lot of horsepower for a low price. "Build a performance car and price it low enough for younger drivers to afford, and then, the insurance companies step into to ruin the fun," they comment.
I watched a documentary recently on old American muscle cars and they mentioned how back in the day the auto insurance companies didn't take long to catch on to the muscle car craze and start charging $1500 per year to insure them. And that was back when car insurance wasn't the law. $1500 back in the 60s/70s was probably an insane amount by today's comparison.