Crash - Insurance Unaware Of Engine Swap - Consequences
Discussion
Nanook said:
Jim1556 said:
hairyben said:
Theres an order of magnitude of difference there though. Your's is within a range, his was mundane to fairly high performance.
A 318 has around 117-148hp depending on year - a 330 has 228hp - a fair increase, but not exactly high performance, especially with modern hot hatches touching 300hp...Figures from wikipedia:
The 330e outruns an EVO X to 40mph.
Duncan Lang said:
I'm at page 5 of this thread and this argument is annoying me so I'll try and settle it. You're both wrong. The formula you want to use is the impulse-momentum change but to make it easier use Newtons second law to account for the acceleration difference between the two engines (3l will accelerate the vehicle quicker). This gives you the force you have to oppose (with the brakes) in a realistic situation.
30mph-0 will be about the same with either engine (more variable based on condition of the brake system that weight) but when braking for a corner at the end of a 500m straight, the car with the bigger engine will most likely arrive at a higher velocity (why bother swapping the engine) meaning the brakes will have to work harder to stop the greater momentum (or in the real world, take longer to slow the car).
However, I suspect that the moron in question here suffered from a lack of driving ability that even better brakes couldn't have saved him from.
Apologies if this has been covered in subsequent replies.
Heart attack mate but thanks for your reply, I'd like to see you try and control a car in that situation - lets hope it doesn't happen to you.30mph-0 will be about the same with either engine (more variable based on condition of the brake system that weight) but when braking for a corner at the end of a 500m straight, the car with the bigger engine will most likely arrive at a higher velocity (why bother swapping the engine) meaning the brakes will have to work harder to stop the greater momentum (or in the real world, take longer to slow the car).
However, I suspect that the moron in question here suffered from a lack of driving ability that even better brakes couldn't have saved him from.
Apologies if this has been covered in subsequent replies.
Duncan Lang said:
I'm at page 5 of this thread and this argument is annoying me so I'll try and settle it. You're both wrong. The formula you want to use is the impulse-momentum change but to make it easier use Newtons second law to account for the acceleration difference between the two engines (3l will accelerate the vehicle quicker). This gives you the force you have to oppose (with the brakes) in a realistic situation.
30mph-0 will be about the same with either engine (more variable based on condition of the brake system that weight) but when braking for a corner at the end of a 500m straight, the car with the bigger engine will most likely arrive at a higher velocity (why bother swapping the engine) meaning the brakes will have to work harder to stop the greater momentum (or in the real world, take longer to slow the car).
However, I suspect that the moron in question here suffered from a lack of driving ability that even better brakes couldn't have saved him from.
Apologies if this has been covered in subsequent replies.
Heart attack mate but thanks for your reply, I'd like to see you try and control a car in that situation - lets hope it doesn't happen to you.30mph-0 will be about the same with either engine (more variable based on condition of the brake system that weight) but when braking for a corner at the end of a 500m straight, the car with the bigger engine will most likely arrive at a higher velocity (why bother swapping the engine) meaning the brakes will have to work harder to stop the greater momentum (or in the real world, take longer to slow the car).
However, I suspect that the moron in question here suffered from a lack of driving ability that even better brakes couldn't have saved him from.
Apologies if this has been covered in subsequent replies.
k I wasn't expecting that. Sorry for your loss, I expect any claim/non-claim seems quite insignificant given that outcome.Sea Demon said:
Thanks - apparently there's some kind of investigation going on as the flat bed driver that he hit was on the phone at the time but that's all a bit irrelevant now.
Ahhh - Im sad to hear about your mate. Was hoping for a more positive outcome after reading this last year.Would an insurance company make a claim on the estate. I can imagine the press coverage costing more than they would ever hope to recover.
Also, isn’t there something about neglegence not being provable in mediaeval issues like this (assuming no prior medical history). I wasn’t his fault he had a heart attack etc.
Also, isn’t there something about neglegence not being provable in mediaeval issues like this (assuming no prior medical history). I wasn’t his fault he had a heart attack etc.
Starfighter said:
Would an insurance company make a claim on the estate. I can imagine the press coverage costing more than they would ever hope to recover.
Also, isn’t there something about neglegence not being provable in mediaeval issues like this (assuming no prior medical history). I wasn’t his fault he had a heart attack etc.
It's not unheard of, some of these insurance companies are evil vultures. They can legally claim on the estate if they wish too, but hopefully in this case they wont.Also, isn’t there something about neglegence not being provable in mediaeval issues like this (assuming no prior medical history). I wasn’t his fault he had a heart attack etc.
OP, really sorry to hear about your mate.
They can obviously cancel the policy due to failure to disclose, and thus avoid paying for damage to the modified car.
They're still on the hook for any third-party claims, but I guess they could potentially sue the driver's estate. Obviously depends on the size of the third-party's claim, but I'd be pretty surprised if they went down that route given the circumstances.
IJB1959 said:
They can legally claim on the estate if they wish too, but hopefully in this case they wont.
Not sure what you mean by "legally claim"?They can obviously cancel the policy due to failure to disclose, and thus avoid paying for damage to the modified car.
They're still on the hook for any third-party claims, but I guess they could potentially sue the driver's estate. Obviously depends on the size of the third-party's claim, but I'd be pretty surprised if they went down that route given the circumstances.
silentbrown said:
OP, really sorry to hear about your mate.
They can obviously cancel the policy due to failure to disclose, and thus avoid paying for damage to the modified car.
They're still on the hook for any third-party claims, but I guess they could potentially sue the driver's estate. Obviously depends on the size of the third-party's claim, but I'd be pretty surprised if they went down that route given the circumstances.
Legally claim against the estate executor for any excess or uninsured losses. This happened locally to me a while back with an elderly driver who had no MOT and killed himself and two third parties in a accident. The estate claim was in the 10's of thousands as I remember.IJB1959 said:
They can legally claim on the estate if they wish too, but hopefully in this case they wont.
Not sure what you mean by "legally claim"?They can obviously cancel the policy due to failure to disclose, and thus avoid paying for damage to the modified car.
They're still on the hook for any third-party claims, but I guess they could potentially sue the driver's estate. Obviously depends on the size of the third-party's claim, but I'd be pretty surprised if they went down that route given the circumstances.
IJB1959 said:
Legally claim against the estate executor for any excess or uninsured losses. This happened locally to me a while back with an elderly driver who had no MOT and killed himself and two third parties in a accident. The estate claim was in the 10's of thousands as I remember.
Someone bought a car from us once, later that year his son crashed it, killing himself and life-changing injuries for his passenger. Few months later an insurance assessor called us, fishing as to who had paid for it - think it was on a trade policy, and there were questions as to use, ownership etc; I guess if the son had paid for the car the insurance co wouldn't have paid out for the mate's injuries. Big numbers for the payout make these investigations worthwhile
IJB1959 said:
Legally claim against the estate executor for any excess or uninsured losses. This happened locally to me a while back with an elderly driver who had no MOT and killed himself and two third parties in a accident. The estate claim was in the 10's of thousands as I remember.
So how do you get to hear of such a thing?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff