Should/are these treated the same?

[300bhp/ton]

I've started a new thread as the previous one went off piste a little.

First off this is again borne out of curiosity.... and to an extent that it'd be nice to see something universal across the insurance industry so that petrol head motorists don't pay high additional premiums for things that maybe they shouldn't (pending what people think, although the only potential losers would be insurance payers).

Car 1	Car 2
Rover SD1 V8	Mustang S197 GT 2005
High CR 3.5 twin SU V8	4.6 EFI V8
Factory tune on the safe/rich side tuned for 95 octane fuel (or equiv in it's day)	Factory tune on the safe/rich side tuned for US 87 octane fuel (equiv to 91 RON if it existed in the UK
You fiddle with the timing, fuelling and optimise the A/F on the leaner side for max performance running on Shell vpower 99 RON fuel (using spanners, screw drivers and such)	You fiddle with the timing, fuelling and optimise the A/F on the leaner side for max performance running on Shell vpower 99 RON fuel (using an electronic tuner to manipulate the tune)
You gain HP by 'x' percent	You gain HP by 'x' percent
You changed no physical parts, only optimised the engine to run on legal fuel	You changed no physical parts, only optimised the engine to run on legal fuel

Questions


1. If you owned car 1, would you personally consider it now "modified"?
2. Regardless of if you do or don't, would you consider it a modification/alteration that should be informed to your insurance company?
3. When you inform your insurance company do you think it would be fair if they charged you a premium for this?
4. Whatever your answers to the above are, do you agree that car 2 should be treated in exactly the same way for doing exactly the same thing with the same result?
5. Do you think car 2 would actually in reality be treated the same in terms of insurance premium?



______________________________________

Remember/Please note

This is a question, I have no personal invested interest in either of these cars, they were just used as examples. I also have nothing to lose or gain by what you decide or think - it is just a question. I also have no vested interest in anything insurance relating to me with regard to this. I am perfectly content and legal insurance wise.

[ikarl]

300bhp/ton said:

Questions


1. If you owned car 1, would you personally consider it now "modified"?
2. Regardless of if you do or don't, would you consider it a modification/alteration that should be informed to your insurance company?
3. When you inform your insurance company do you think it would be fair if they charged you a premium for this?
4. Whatever your answers to the above are, do you agree that car 2 should be treated in exactly the same way for doing exactly the same thing with the same result?
5. Do you think car 2 would actually in reality be treated the same in terms of insurance premium?


.

yes
yes
yes
yes
yes

[Bear Phils]

Again?! Really?

[s3fella]

Is this a piece of your brain?

[stupidbutkeen]

Are you a EU funded Irish government referendum offical?

Did not get the answer you wanted the last time you asked this?

[HustleRussell]

Same st different day.
If you don't understand, 300, maybe you should stop overworking your brain trying to figure it out.

[DaveEssex]

Sadly, it is evident that you are so far out-of-your-depth on automotive engineering. Best to give up until you've studied the subject.
A friend's child of five asked "is the moon really made of cheese".
Would you really expect the child to understand astronomy?

[Some Gump]

On car 2, i would assume that is a remap aimed on getting better performance, so yes it would affect inaurance imo.

[Output Flange]

(shame about the rear wing...)

[Steameh]

300bhp/ton said:

I've started a new thread as the previous one went off piste a little.

This is a question, I have no personal invested interest in either of these cars, they were just used as examples. I also have nothing to lose or gain by what you decide or think - it is just a question. I also have no vested interest in anything insurance relating to me with regard to this. I am perfectly content and legal insurance wise.

Iirc, it didn't go off piste, the answer was given several times over by people more qualified that I.

Similarly, the question as been answered in the second post of this thread.

If you have no vested interest, why flog a dead horse?

[swanny71]

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Yes
5, No

[Monty Python]

I'd say it depends on what the outcome is. If it's a marginal increase in horsepower, then I'd say no, as you've not changed it from the manufacturer's original specification. If you gain 30+ horsepower then I'd say yes, as the engine is now outside the specifications when it was built. It's a bit of a grey area, as I suspect each insurance company will have it's own criteria for deciding whether such thinks are "modifications" or not.

In these cases the easiest thing to do is ask.

[Big Fat Fatty]

If either car then had an accident and the insurance company had to inspect it before paying out, would they be able to say, definitively, that it was modified even though no parts were physically changed?

I suspect it would be easier in the case of the EFi, electronically tuned engine rather than the carb'd Rover V8.

[Robb F]

So you're going to just keep asking the question until someone agrees with you then?

[007 VXR]

[JDFR]

I find it amazing that someone can't understand what the word modify means and that the motor insurance definition of a modification may differ from the pure English definition.

[LocoCoco]

300, What's the point of asking us these questions? Various insurance companies will look upon the things you've asked differently so nobody can give you the right answer, it's impossible.

Arguing over the definition of a word is pointless. We've gotta use other words to explain our position which opens the door for you to argue the definition of those other words.

[TA14]

Output Flange said:

below

Great 'photo!

[xRIEx]

As a lot of people do, you're looking at insurance from the wrong angle - "changing something causes a higher premium"; look at it in the way an actuary (the people who create the rating algorithms that calculate premiums) would: "what changes will make me pay out more money?" This is all based on a vast number of statistics that they try to condense into a manageable calculation.

(For everyone who can't spot an extreme analogy intended to explain a point, disclaimer: this next bit would not happen in real life.)

IF accident statistics showed that a car modified to have twice the power than normal, ultimately paid out half the amount in claims than the standard car, premiums for the modified versions would be lower.

[Futuramic]

I think I get it; example 1) carb model SD1 - I'd be a Rothmans smoking, sheepskin clad manager in a tinned food factory. I wouldn't give a toss whether thing thing was insured in the first place.

Example 2) Mustang - allegedly 'altering the tune with an electronic tuner'. If I was doing that I'd be Simon Cowell. So I wouldn't care. Or drive a Mustang.

Good enough?