RE: PH Fleet: Mazda Eunos Roadster
Discussion
On the possibility of write-off thing - it's not really as big a problem as you might think, simple because you buy the car back in the settlement and fix it yourself.
Yeah it will have a Category, but you don't buy and run cars like this with resale in mind - none of the mods done have added anything to it's value anyway...
It's obviously best not to crash - but delving into 'agreed value' insurance is just wasting money IMO Far better just to evaluate any crash and deal with the insurers in a way which nets you repair cost and the car back in your hands...
p.s. obviously you muddy the waters if it's your daily driver and you want a hirecar etc. but that's just the penality for mixing your drinks, really.
Yeah it will have a Category, but you don't buy and run cars like this with resale in mind - none of the mods done have added anything to it's value anyway...
It's obviously best not to crash - but delving into 'agreed value' insurance is just wasting money IMO Far better just to evaluate any crash and deal with the insurers in a way which nets you repair cost and the car back in your hands...
p.s. obviously you muddy the waters if it's your daily driver and you want a hirecar etc. but that's just the penality for mixing your drinks, really.
johnpeat said:
On the possibility of write-off thing - it's not really as big a problem as you might think, simple because you buy the car back in the settlement and fix it yourself.
You can't always buy the car back, my Clio 182 was stolen a couple of months ago and I asked about this and was told its Admiral's policy not to let you buy back cars that were a total loss. They gave a dubious reason as to why, but either way its something worth remembering if you have a particular attachment to a car.SmartVenom said:
You can't always buy the car back, my Clio 182 was stolen a couple of months ago and I asked about this and was told its Admiral's policy not to let you buy back cars that were a total loss. They gave a dubious reason as to why, but either way its something worth remembering if you have a particular attachment to a car.
Insurers don't like giving cars back because they make a tidy sum on salvage - if they have to include the car in the 'deal' they effectively have to lay more of their cards on the table and they don't like doing that.I suspect they'd have caved if you'd pressed them hard enough tho (by refusing to settle for their offers and threatening them with the ombudsman) - but "Total Loss" implies a badly damaged vehicle and we're really talking about cars with minimal/easily repairable damage which are 'written off' due to inflated claims costs against deflated real-world car values...
Example: Replacing/Painting a rear bumper and 2 lights can 'cost', in claims terms, a LOT of money. Alternatively you can repair it and grab 2 pattern/scrappy lights for a fraction of that - and there are even 'write off' accidents where the car can be driven without any repairs at all (scratches/dents/paintwork etc.)
My eunos came with 14" Barum Bravuris 2's all round, they seemed to have a decent (and low) grip threshold when you wanted to go sideways and didn't seem to forgoe much in the way of stopping distance compared to the Toyo CF1's I replaced them with which have bags of grip (wet or dry) but sort of spoils the fun a little! Had never thought to swap the Barums round and just put Toyos on the front!! 
And just for arguments sake mines a '93 1.6 eunos CAT D!
And just for arguments sake mines a '93 1.6 eunos CAT D!
k on the back and love it!my 5 was written off a few months ago, by a lovely lady who didnt see me!
the independant inspector told me not to go through my insurance - carol nash (who would claim it back from 3rd party) as they are very tight on valuations, and they dont let you buy the car back that often.
the 3rd party insurance company was direct line, who just want things sorted asap! so the inspector said to go through her insurance as i'd get a better deal, and i did! they did spot the heavy corrosion on the sill, and blemishes on the paintwork, but they paid me out what i paid for the car which had a hard top fitted, and let me buy the car back or £50!!!!! they didnt really take into account the brand spanking new coilvers which cost me £600, but they were not damaged, so i was ok.
so in the event of an accident, you have 2 choices: go through your insurance, or the 3rd parties insurance (if its not your fault)
the independant inspector told me not to go through my insurance - carol nash (who would claim it back from 3rd party) as they are very tight on valuations, and they dont let you buy the car back that often.
the 3rd party insurance company was direct line, who just want things sorted asap! so the inspector said to go through her insurance as i'd get a better deal, and i did! they did spot the heavy corrosion on the sill, and blemishes on the paintwork, but they paid me out what i paid for the car which had a hard top fitted, and let me buy the car back or £50!!!!! they didnt really take into account the brand spanking new coilvers which cost me £600, but they were not damaged, so i was ok.
so in the event of an accident, you have 2 choices: go through your insurance, or the 3rd parties insurance (if its not your fault)
14s are the way forward for a '5. I put the 14" steelies back on with the OE 'stones, for a trip to the alps. Epic fun drifting out of every hairpin. Got to love the steering too, with skinny rubber.
A friend had a sport model with 16" wheels. Loads of grip is the quickest way to make it feel totally underpowered to me, all that grip and fancy suspension. Not for me
I wouldn't go as far as crap tyres though, Tigars and other Kwik fit tosh are a liability on anything that well balanced.
A friend had a sport model with 16" wheels. Loads of grip is the quickest way to make it feel totally underpowered to me, all that grip and fancy suspension. Not for me
I wouldn't go as far as crap tyres though, Tigars and other Kwik fit tosh are a liability on anything that well balanced.
monkey11477 said:
I've just replaced the tyres on the front of my micra 160sr with toyo t1-Rs and due to funds left the khumos as they are on the back. Couldn't afford to change them too just before xmas and they have loads of tread left on them. The car is fine in the dry but in the wet the toyos have so much more grip it's like i've got trolley wheels on the back. My wife doesn't like it and i've promised her I will swap them round. Just a shame I haven't had time yet ;-)
So you're happy for your wife to drive around in a car that is, in essence, dangerous? What odd behaviour...Re Flux - when I made a claim with them (albeit ten years ago) I couldn't fault their service.
I had a similar incident where moderate repair costs were enough to write my '5 off, but a friendly assessor and garage (Direct Line and Dandycars respectively) managed to keep it on the road. It's sad that so many classics will be taken off the road each year with minor damage, largely due to the deflated car market. Agreed value is essential to prevent these sorts of writeoffs, but even then it's risky.
Regarding insurers, I was with Flux for a long time and they were uniformly excellent - I had one claim drag on a bit, but that was due to the third party and AF chased them regularly. I have only recently moved to Footman James because their Classic insurance is cheaper and doesn't have a garage-only clause. This means £240 a year for a 25 year old living in London - unheard of normally. Agreed value, too.
Tyre-wise, I once spent far longer than was strictly wise with very old rear tyres (and very fresh fronts) just because they made for comedy tail-happy handling. Only changed them after an akward puncture on the corner of one of them wasn't repairable, probably a sign of just how thin they'd gotten (yes I am aware of the imminent blowout danger... this was not clever).
There is much to be said for choosing wheels and tyres for the best overall dynamic experience and preference, not just sheer train-rail grip. That said, if I was in Trent's situation with the Astra van, I don't suppose I'd feel quite the same...
EFA
Regarding insurers, I was with Flux for a long time and they were uniformly excellent - I had one claim drag on a bit, but that was due to the third party and AF chased them regularly. I have only recently moved to Footman James because their Classic insurance is cheaper and doesn't have a garage-only clause. This means £240 a year for a 25 year old living in London - unheard of normally. Agreed value, too.
Tyre-wise, I once spent far longer than was strictly wise with very old rear tyres (and very fresh fronts) just because they made for comedy tail-happy handling. Only changed them after an akward puncture on the corner of one of them wasn't repairable, probably a sign of just how thin they'd gotten (yes I am aware of the imminent blowout danger... this was not clever).
There is much to be said for choosing wheels and tyres for the best overall dynamic experience and preference, not just sheer train-rail grip. That said, if I was in Trent's situation with the Astra van, I don't suppose I'd feel quite the same...
EFA
Edited by SimonSaid on Wednesday 18th January 13:48
Regarding tyres, the experts in my neck of the wood are recommending Sumitomo HTR P01 A/S as a good all-round tyre that grips reasonably well in the wet but that you can break loose if you push it. Very controllable from what they say. Of course, these are in the factory 185/60/14 size, and not suited to those Dubs you're riding... Since my Dunlop D60 A2s are about 10 years old now, and flat spotted from a combination of sitting for a long time and a couple of recent hairy panic stops (missing that abs just a tad...), I'm look at going with the Sumis.
Or upgrading to 15" alloys.. A lot of the folks who know better than me seem to really think that the 14s are perfectly mated to the NA MX-5, and that going bigger just mucks things up.. Decisions, decisions....
-Reed
www.totallythatstupid.com
Or upgrading to 15" alloys.. A lot of the folks who know better than me seem to really think that the 14s are perfectly mated to the NA MX-5, and that going bigger just mucks things up.. Decisions, decisions....
-Reed
www.totallythatstupid.com
M@1975 said:
Pre 1996 car and an import, why would it fail on emissions, they are not tested for pre 96 cars... Your garage had you over there, bet they chrged to reinstall the cat!
Not correct, current rules are:Manufactured Pre August 1995 and not on VOSA/MOT database - non cat test.
Changing soon enough though.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff