
Insurers For A More Modern Car?
#1
Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:14 AM
I have had my licence for just over a year now but getting silly high quotes!
im wondering if its because Puma is classed as a sports coupe etc or its larger 1.7 litre engine?
Any good insurers for the more modern motor?
#2
Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:55 AM

Edited by AVV IT, 29 June 2011 - 08:56 AM.
#3
Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:25 AM
I think the Ford Puma is insurance group 12, whilst that's not the highest rating in the world, it's still quite high when you consider that your sprite is only group 4!! I've always found "Swiftcover" pretty competitive when it comes to insuring modern cars, I know from experience that they are pretty good in the event of a claim too.
Is that all minis are 4? And the lower the number the better? So my 87 Mayfair is 4 too? Just curious

#4
Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:44 AM
#5
Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:56 AM
Is that all minis are 4? And the lower the number the better? So my 87 Mayfair is 4 too? Just curious
Insurance groups range from 1-20 (1 being the lowest risk and 20 being the highest) depending upon their particular, engine size, power and individual spec etc of each model. Most classic minis range from group 2 (most of the standard 998's including the Mayfair) through to group 6 (most of the 1275 Rover Coopers), there is the odd exception though, such as the ERA Mini (Group 13), the John Cooper LE (Group 7) and the Mini Cooper 1.3i Cabriolet (Group 9).
#6
Posted 29 June 2011 - 12:49 PM
Madness been on a bike for 12 yrs and have far better road sense and awarness than half the car drivers I see daily.
Puma is quite a sprty thing to so thats not helping.
Best in end was 600 from admiral car is only worth 1600 lol! is it worth it to keep mini nice all winter hehe!
#7
Posted 29 June 2011 - 01:50 PM
£600 is good, i would be lucky to get it for under a £1300 and that would only be 3rd party, I have been passed for 4.5 years and never had an accident and dont have any points, but i am 22 with 1 years ncb so they seem to just hike the price right up. when i had my 1.4 106 mine was over £800 and it was only worth £500Thanks tried swift online will not cover and phoned a few others, some will not insure at all due to me only having had a car licence for 1 yr just, some needed 5yr others 2.
Madness been on a bike for 12 yrs and have far better road sense and awarness than half the car drivers I see daily.
Puma is quite a sprty thing to so thats not helping.
Best in end was 600 from admiral car is only worth 1600 lol! is it worth it to keep mini nice all winter hehe!
#8
Posted 29 June 2011 - 03:45 PM
is it worth it to keep mini nice all winter hehe!
In short NO!!
£1,600 for the car + £600 for the insurance + road tax??? I'm not being funny, but that's probably already more than your mini is worth!! If you were trying to preserve a totally original mk1 or something then I could understand it, but it is only a 90's Sprite after all!!
So long as you fully waxoyl clean and protect it properly, then any mini should make it through the winter months as a daily drive without too many problems. At worst it might need a few new panels or a replacement rear subby that little bit sooner, but then as you would be saving thousands on running a second car, then that shouldn't really be a problem. Also putting a car into storage over the winter isn't without it's own problems either!
But if you really are determined to wrap your mini up in cotton wool over the winter months, then a more economical option might be to get yourself a cheap second mini as a winter run around. You could pick up a reasonable example in the autumn with six months MOT for less than the cost of the puma and if you insure your mini with footmanjames on a classic policy, then you can add a second classic mini to the policy for only £20!

That would not only cost you a lot less, but you would also get to own two mini's!!!

#9
Posted 29 June 2011 - 05:18 PM
Edited by drewsargent1980, 29 June 2011 - 05:18 PM.
#10
Posted 29 June 2011 - 05:29 PM
#11
Posted 29 June 2011 - 06:07 PM
try the comparison websites

#12
Posted 29 June 2011 - 06:30 PM
get someone else to buy the car in their name (but you pay for it), then you could drive it with 3rd party cover??
I think that there is usually a clause in all third party cover on other vehicles, that requires the other vehicle to also be insured on a separate policy. Basically to prevent you from doing exactly this.


#13
Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:07 PM
i know that much but hoped people would read between the lines without spelling it out.get someone else to buy the car in their name (but you pay for it), then you could drive it with 3rd party cover??
I think that there is usually a clause in all third party cover on other vehicles, that requires the other vehicle to also be insured on a separate policy. Basically to prevent you from doing exactly this.So this would only work if the car was also insured in the name of whoever you had got to allegedly buy it. At least that was how it worked when I looked into pulling a similar stunt a few years back.
i too am looking into this.

#14
Posted 30 June 2011 - 12:46 PM
ye but the person that insures the car has to be the person that uses the car the most aswell, i had a big arguement with an insurance company 2 years ago because they kept telling me the insurance needed to be in my name, but the car was registered in my dads name so that would need switching over, so i just kept arguing that it was my dad car and not mine, but they wouldn't have it so in the end i ended up having the car and insurance in my name, i did buy the car thoiugh just put it in dads name for insurancei know that much but hoped people would read between the lines without spelling it out.get someone else to buy the car in their name (but you pay for it), then you could drive it with 3rd party cover??
I think that there is usually a clause in all third party cover on other vehicles, that requires the other vehicle to also be insured on a separate policy. Basically to prevent you from doing exactly this.So this would only work if the car was also insured in the name of whoever you had got to allegedly buy it. At least that was how it worked when I looked into pulling a similar stunt a few years back.
i too am looking into this.
#15
Posted 30 June 2011 - 01:12 PM
i know that much but hoped people would read between the lines without spelling it out.
Sorry maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but you really have lost me on that one, so I'm afraid you'll just have to spell it out.

As far as I'm aware in order to make use of any third party cover on other vehicles, the other vehicle has to be insured on its own policy, otherwise your third party cover is not valid on that vehicle. So I can't see how reading anything "between the lines" changes that??

1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users