A5 2.0T remapping advice
Discussion
If that was true, then you'd know that whether or not the modifications were carried out with you or not is irrelevant and it's up to you as the policy holder to disclose any and all modifications.
Everything on my car down to my stickers is declared and I really have no time for people who don't disclose modifications, especially pleading ignorance. Insurance companies aren't stupid.
Everything on my car down to my stickers is declared and I really have no time for people who don't disclose modifications, especially pleading ignorance. Insurance companies aren't stupid.
xjay1337 said:
If that was true, then you'd know that whether or not the modifications were carried out with you or not is irrelevant and it's up to you as the policy holder to disclose any and all modifications.
Everything on my car down to my stickers is declared and I really have no time for people who don't disclose modifications, especially pleading ignorance. Insurance companies aren't stupid.
Good for you. I'm sure you drive at exactly 30mph in given zones, iron a crease down the centre of your jeans and consider yourself a dare-devil for adding salt to your dinner.Everything on my car down to my stickers is declared and I really have no time for people who don't disclose modifications, especially pleading ignorance. Insurance companies aren't stupid.
We don't all have such a black and white view of things however.
Undisclosed mods that haven't caused me any issues when making a claim:
Audi S3:
- Stage 1 remap
Porsche Cayman S:
- Light smoke tints (I even had these forward of the B pillar
, funny the copper that drove it when I got pulled for speeding didn't notice and start quoting me the letter of the law)- Stainless Steel wheel bolts
- 15mm Spacers
- Front rad grills
Various BMWs:
- LED indicators
- Alloy changes
To clarify I'm not saying these things couldn't possibly cause you an issue with an insurer but on the basis of balance of probabilities it's not something I lose sleep over as hasn't prevented me from making claims in the past. In the case of the Cayman I was even able to make a number of warranty claims despite the internet telling you that changing so much as light bulb will invalidate your warranty.
If you want to live you life like the author of a health and safety pamphlet then be my guest but my point is simply that things tend to be a bit different back in the real world.
Edit: disclosing stickers! PMSL!
xjay1337 said:
If that was true, then you'd know that whether or not the modifications were carried out with you or not is irrelevant and it's up to you as the policy holder to disclose any and all modifications.
Actually, no it isn't.Thanks to the Consumer Insurance Act, the onus is now on the insurance companies to demonstrate that individual has failed to exercise reasonable care in providing information about their vehicle. Misrepresentation is now qualified and has to be demonstrate to either be "deliberate and reckless" or "careless" in order to be deemed to have misinterpreted. The onus would then again be on the insurer to demonstrate that the individual had acted either deliberately or carelessly in concealing or failing to provide. Essentially, the insurer would have to prove that a "reasonable customer" would not have acted in the same way.
If someone was sold a vehicle that was not advertised as remapped, with no documentation indicating it was remapped, and there was no evidence of any further modifications made by either the customer or any previous customer, then I imagine that their answer to the question "does the vehicle have any modifications" would most likely be "no".
ManOpener said:
Actually, no it isn't.
Thanks to the Consumer Insurance Act, the onus is now on the insurance companies to demonstrate that individual has failed to exercise reasonable care in providing information about their vehicle. Misrepresentation is now qualified and has to be demonstrate to either be "deliberate and reckless" or "careless" in order to be deemed to have misinterpreted. The onus would then again be on the insurer to demonstrate that the individual had acted either deliberately or carelessly in concealing or failing to provide. Essentially, the insurer would have to prove that a "reasonable customer" would not have acted in the same way.
If someone was sold a vehicle that was not advertised as remapped, with no documentation indicating it was remapped, and there was no evidence of any further modifications made by either the customer or any previous customer, then I imagine that their answer to the question "does the vehicle have any modifications" would most likely be "no".
Fair enough, if that is now the case. Thanks to the Consumer Insurance Act, the onus is now on the insurance companies to demonstrate that individual has failed to exercise reasonable care in providing information about their vehicle. Misrepresentation is now qualified and has to be demonstrate to either be "deliberate and reckless" or "careless" in order to be deemed to have misinterpreted. The onus would then again be on the insurer to demonstrate that the individual had acted either deliberately or carelessly in concealing or failing to provide. Essentially, the insurer would have to prove that a "reasonable customer" would not have acted in the same way.
If someone was sold a vehicle that was not advertised as remapped, with no documentation indicating it was remapped, and there was no evidence of any further modifications made by either the customer or any previous customer, then I imagine that their answer to the question "does the vehicle have any modifications" would most likely be "no".
DoubleSix : Laugh all you want but I pay £650 for insurance on my car which considering my age, modifications and the benefits I get, is very good. A sticker is a non-standard modification so needs declaring. I have personally been involved in insurance claims with non-disclosed, non visual modifications and learnt my lesson. I also run a forum which is sponsored by insurance companies so I know what they are like. I have also seen insurance investigators looking through owners sites and build threads... so is not worth the risk IMO.
It was previously a very grey legal area AFAIK, where different insurance companies had different terms and conditions and where the expectation was for the party seeking insurance to tell the insurance company any relevant details rather than the IC ask for them. Of course, what counts as a "relevant detail" is subject to interpretation, debate and/or the whims of the insurer so the law was changed to basically make it the insurer's responsibility to ask the questions and demonstrate their customers haven't acted in good faith (such as by answering them as truthfully as they can) when information is provided incorrectly.
It's perfectly believable for a claims department to look through forums and identify evidence of undeclared modification. It's much more cost-effective than paying out in many cases. But I imagine that it would be legally very difficult for an insurance company, even on obtaining this information, to argue that the new owner of a vehicle with mods catalogued on a forum was informed of those modifications without further evidence. Not sure there's been a test case on what would be deemed "reasonable" efforts to answer such a question on modification truthfully yet.
It's perfectly believable for a claims department to look through forums and identify evidence of undeclared modification. It's much more cost-effective than paying out in many cases. But I imagine that it would be legally very difficult for an insurance company, even on obtaining this information, to argue that the new owner of a vehicle with mods catalogued on a forum was informed of those modifications without further evidence. Not sure there's been a test case on what would be deemed "reasonable" efforts to answer such a question on modification truthfully yet.
Edited by ManOpener on Wednesday 6th August 15:10
The only time I've driven an A5 2.0T was a week having a pool car, I handed the keys back told them there was something wrong with it, they told me the whole fleet was the same. The torque steer was absolutely terrible, why would you want to increase the power or the torque on one to make it even worse?
cjb1 said:
The only time I've driven an A5 2.0T was a week having a pool car, I handed the keys back told them there was something wrong with it, they told me the whole fleet was the same. The torque steer was absolutely terrible, why would you want to increase the power or the torque on one to make it even worse?
Yes, in 1st and 2nd it spins everywhere and pulls you all over the show but I want more when in 4th and above. Just to be able to put my foot down when cruising in these gears without having to drop a gear to pull away from the boy racer in his ST behind me would be even MORE satisfying that it is now lolBut I did say about the torque steer and wheel spinning when I first got it as 3 off my friends have super cars and they laughed and said "use your right foot better" so I do and problem solved
Had I more knowledge when purchasing the car I would have got the Quattro. The traction control in 1st and 2nd is pants.
There is onus on buyers to be honest.
If you buy a car you rarely look at only one, on a whim. You research it. So you know what wheels, specification etc they have. you see them about all the time so know how high they sit, etc.
You'll be hard pressed to find a car, a decent car that is, which is not well advertised, eg if it's lowered or remapped this is normally a big selling point. There are exceptions, of course. But I am talking generally.
So if you go and find that the car has been lowered or is on non factory fit wheels or feels "really fast" then you should apply some common sense - ignorance is not really an excuse.
If you buy a car you rarely look at only one, on a whim. You research it. So you know what wheels, specification etc they have. you see them about all the time so know how high they sit, etc.
You'll be hard pressed to find a car, a decent car that is, which is not well advertised, eg if it's lowered or remapped this is normally a big selling point. There are exceptions, of course. But I am talking generally.
So if you go and find that the car has been lowered or is on non factory fit wheels or feels "really fast" then you should apply some common sense - ignorance is not really an excuse.
Jamin00 said:
cjb1 said:
The only time I've driven an A5 2.0T was a week having a pool car, I handed the keys back told them there was something wrong with it, they told me the whole fleet was the same. The torque steer was absolutely terrible, why would you want to increase the power or the torque on one to make it even worse?
Yes, in 1st and 2nd it spins everywhere and pulls you all over the show but I want more when in 4th and above. Just to be able to put my foot down when cruising in these gears without having to drop a gear to pull away from the boy racer in his ST behind me would be even MORE satisfying that it is now lolBut I did say about the torque steer and wheel spinning when I first got it as 3 off my friends have super cars and they laughed and said "use your right foot better" so I do and problem solved
Had I more knowledge when purchasing the car I would have got the Quattro. The traction control in 1st and 2nd is pants.
xjay1337 said:
Fair enough, if that is now the case.
DoubleSix : Laugh all you want but I pay £650 for insurance on my car which considering my age, modifications and the benefits I get, is very good. A sticker is a non-standard modification so needs declaring. I have personally been involved in insurance claims with non-disclosed, non visual modifications and learnt my lesson. I also run a forum which is sponsored by insurance companies so I know what they are like. I have also seen insurance investigators looking through owners sites and build threads... so is not worth the risk IMO.
Laughing?? I'm not laughing!DoubleSix : Laugh all you want but I pay £650 for insurance on my car which considering my age, modifications and the benefits I get, is very good. A sticker is a non-standard modification so needs declaring. I have personally been involved in insurance claims with non-disclosed, non visual modifications and learnt my lesson. I also run a forum which is sponsored by insurance companies so I know what they are like. I have also seen insurance investigators looking through owners sites and build threads... so is not worth the risk IMO.
I'm f
king wetting myself!! 
Seriously though, welcome to PH where everyday is a school day. You come across as young and earnest so I shan't judge you too harshly
DoubleSix said:
Jamin00 said:
cjb1 said:
The only time I've driven an A5 2.0T was a week having a pool car, I handed the keys back told them there was something wrong with it, they told me the whole fleet was the same. The torque steer was absolutely terrible, why would you want to increase the power or the torque on one to make it even worse?
Yes, in 1st and 2nd it spins everywhere and pulls you all over the show but I want more when in 4th and above. Just to be able to put my foot down when cruising in these gears without having to drop a gear to pull away from the boy racer in his ST behind me would be even MORE satisfying that it is now lolBut I did say about the torque steer and wheel spinning when I first got it as 3 off my friends have super cars and they laughed and said "use your right foot better" so I do and problem solved
Had I more knowledge when purchasing the car I would have got the Quattro. The traction control in 1st and 2nd is pants.
I've heard good things about QS Tuning in Haywards Heath: http://www.qstuning.com/parts/5/112
But 270bhp with a 2WD A5 would indeed be challenging...
But 270bhp with a 2WD A5 would indeed be challenging...
Gassing Station | Audi, Seat, Skoda & VW | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff