Insurance for WRX's and STI's

[Wrinklechops]

I know you are always on the lookout to get in a new dig on WRXs since you got jipped, but they are very safe for a powerful car. Just because the car is totaled by a wreckless driver doesn't make it unsafe. The thing practically has a roll cage built in and takes considerable extra effort to extract someone from who is much more likely to be fine (hence the 5 star rating). How the heck do you get to that conclusion. It is costing the insurance company because the car is totaled, and maybe some bystanders were killed. Not because in a wreck you are more likely to get hurt (unsafe). Or do you think high performance is not safe in anyone's hands? Especially in stock form with built in understeer. Yeah, sure, I go with you on this one too and a corvette is a great car to give a 16 YO to drive in the winter just because 50 YOs do fine with it in the summer.

Wow Myco, are you sick again? Is this attitude I sense?

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.

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 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.

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.

[mycologist]

Wow Myco, are you sick again? Is this attitude I sense?

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.

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.

No, I don't have an attitude. Your point may have been misunderstood but it was fairly intuitive that you were trying to blame the car by pointing out it has AWD and calling it a "saftey review". No, I also didn't read the article. As you can see though, I didn't need to as I fairly well summarized it by pointing out that it deals with damage to cars and other bystanders which has absolutely nothing to do with how "safe" a car is for the occupants when it crashes in a given direction at a given speed. It is a very safe car and I put all the blame on the drivers and the insurance companies. Besides, who thinks AWD is a safety advantage in a performance driving situation? It is not. RWD is much more intuitive and provides better modulation at the sacrifice of some grip. AWD cars are less predictable and require non-intuitive techniques like accelerating when you think you should brake. It is "safer" if your concern is your wife not getting stuck.

[Wrinklechops]

No, I don't have an attitude. Your point may have been misunderstood but it was fairly intuitive that you were trying to blame the car by pointing out it has AWD and calling it a "saftey review". No, I also didn't read the article. As you can see though, I didn't need to as I fairly well summarized it by pointing out that it deals with damage to cars and other bystanders which has absolutely nothing to do with how "safe" a car is for the occupants when it crashes in a given direction at a given speed. It is a very safe car and I put all the blame on the drivers and the insurance companies. Besides, who thinks AWD is a safety advantage in a performance driving situation? It is not. RWD is much more intuitive and provides better modulation at the sacrifice of some grip. AWD cars are less predictable and require non-intuitive techniques like accelerating when you think you should brake. It is "safer" if your concern is your wife not getting stuck.

I think we have a big disconnect Jon I wasn't trying to say that the car itself was to blame, but rather the people who drive them. I thought you were saying that the car was to blame or something, so I said that if the car itself is to blame then that's not the drivers faults, it's Subaru's. Anyways, sorry about this miscommunication. I didn't know you had not read the article. I think we're on the same page now

[mycologist]

I think we have a big disconnect Jon I wasn't trying to say that the car itself was to blame, but rather the people who drive them. I thought you were saying that the car was to blame or something, so I said that if the car itself is to blame then that's not the drivers faults, it's Subaru's. Anyways, sorry about this miscommunication. I didn't know you had not read the article. I think we're on the same page now

I didn't see anything additional from the article after just reading it that I didn't know from the previous discussion in the two threads that were merged. I don't see anywhere that you implied or stated that it was the driver's fault initially or get how you figured I was blaming the car, but I'm glad you see it my way now

[Wrinklechops]

I didn't see anything additional from the article after just reading it that I didn't know from the previous discussion in the two threads that were merged. I don't see anywhere that you implied or stated that it was the driver's fault initially or get how you figured I was blaming the car, but I'm glad you see it my way now

I just thought you were saying that since I said a Corvette was cheaper to insure that naturally that would be so seeing as there are more WRXs on the road than Corvettes, so naturally the number of accidents for a WRX would probably be higher just based on the sheer number of them on the road vs a Corvette. I then said that although that is true, there is still something to be said for the high number of WRX-related accidents vs other cars with equal number of cars on the road. Then you said the higher rates were based on how likely the car was to crash, and I took that to mean that you were referring to the safety of the actual CAR. *sigh* miscommunication. Probably my fault. Sorry.

[mycologist]

I just thought you were saying that since I said a Corvette was cheaper to insure that naturally that would be so seeing as there are more WRXs on the road than Corvettes, so naturally the number of accidents for a WRX would probably be higher just based on the sheer number of them on the road vs a Corvette. I then said that although that is true, there is still something to be said for the high number of WRX-related accidents vs other cars with equal number of cars on the road. Then you said the higher rates were based on how likely the car was to crash, and I took that to mean that you were referring to the safety of the actual CAR. *sigh* miscommunication. Probably my fault. Sorry.

I do see now finally. I know the Corvette demographic was brought up before, but I read something since that indicated Corvettes are actually as likely to crash but do very little damage to other people they hit relatively (fitting under SUVs and such). If that is the case then I was wrong, but it puts both cars in a bad light if we allow things like how fast a car goes and who usually drives them to be included under "safety"

[RayfieldsWRX]

[is tempted to merge this thread with the "how fast have you gone" thread]

[Mikie13]

[is tempted to merge this thread with the "how fast have you gone" thread]

This is a big discussion going on over on my Z Forum as well because the 350z is up there on the list as well and the article of course, was posted.

Again, you can chalk it up to being able to afford a "luxury" sports car in the Z for as little as $10k...and the loss being relatively high due to many not knowing how to handle the power in a RWD coupe...

[Wrinklechops]

I do see now finally. I know the Corvette demographic was brought up before, but I read something since that indicated Corvettes are actually as likely to crash but do very little damage to other people they hit relatively (fitting under SUVs and such). If that is the case then I was wrong, but it puts both cars in a bad light if we allow things like how fast a car goes and who usually drives them to be included under "safety"

Very true.

[is tempted to merge this thread with the "how fast have you gone" thread]

[r1riderdds]

I sold my 2004 Infiniti G35 because I moved close to Flagstaff, AZ and wanted something with just as much power that was AWD for the snow, so I got the 2005 Subaru WRX Sti. OMG!!! My insurance went from $485 every six months on the Infiniti to $829 with the Subaru for the same coverage!

[Wrinklechops]

I sold my 2004 Infiniti G35 because I moved close to Flagstaff, AZ and wanted something with just as much power that was AWD for the snow, so I got the 2005 Subaru WRX Sti. OMG!!! My insurance went from $485 every six months on the Infiniti to $829 with the Subaru for the same coverage!

That's nuts! Why so much do you think?

[r1riderdds]

That's nuts! Why so much do you think?

most likely what everyone else said. stupid kids get them, try to be fast & furious, cause accidents and raise rates. if i knew that befoe hand, i would have kept looking. oh well, i still like it.

[Wrinklechops]

most likely what everyone else said. stupid kids get them, try to be fast & furious, cause accidents and raise rates. if i knew that befoe hand, i would have kept looking. oh well, i still like it.

Yea, you're right. It's still a great car and you won't regret it. How many miles were on it?

[Mikie13]

I sold my 2004 Infiniti G35 because I moved close to Flagstaff, AZ and wanted something with just as much power that was AWD for the snow, so I got the 2005 Subaru WRX Sti. OMG!!! My insurance went from $485 every six months on the Infiniti to $829 with the Subaru for the same coverage!

How old are you if you don't mind me asking? I'm not sure on rates out in your area overall...but under $2000 a year for insurance on an STI isn't that bad IMO.

most likely what everyone else said. stupid kids get them, try to be fast & furious, cause accidents and raise rates. if i knew that befoe hand, i would have kept looking. oh well, i still like it.

Very possibly of course...but insurance companies will see "300hp" and "Turbo" and just think, wow...these cars are built simply to go fast. Lets jack up the rates.

But compared to a G35 sedan, an STI is a major sports car compared to a family sedan. I went from an STI to a 350z 7 months ago...and my rates dropped about $50 a month, and they just dropped another $50 this coming month...the 350z is by all means a true sports car when compared to the STI. They can even be bought cheaper by anyone..and insurance is still lower. Very odd to me either way

[Wrinklechops]

How old are you if you don't mind me asking? I'm not sure on rates out in your area overall...but under $2000 a year for insurance on an STI isn't that bad IMO.

Very true. My WRX cost me $3360 (12 months) when I first bought it. $280 a month.

Very possibly of course...but insurance companies will see "300hp" and "Turbo" and just think, wow...these cars are built simply to go fast. Lets jack up the rates.

But compared to a G35 sedan, an STI is a major sports car compared to a family sedan. I went from an STI to a 350z 7 months ago...and my rates dropped about $50 a month, and they just dropped another $50 this coming month...the 350z is by all means a true sports car when compared to the STI. They can even be bought cheaper by anyone..and insurance is still lower. Very odd to me either way

Unfortunately, it's not only "very possible", it's absolutely the case. If you read the link I provided earlier in this thread, it shows what everyone here has already confirmed: it's not the car, it's the people who historically buy them, soup them up or drive like idiots and get in wrecks and get people hurt or cause lots of car damage.

Safety agency lists best, worst cars to insure- Yahoo! Autos Article Page

So yes, an insurance company does say "wow, 300hp turbo? let's jack his rates for sure", but they already have the data well ahead of time before making that decision. It's not something the rep makes on the phone when you call for a quote or something.