I happened to find this on another website, hadn't seen it here before. Plug in a make/model and it can be very interesting. Could the evo be rated any worse? Anyways, I know rates vary like snowflakes and fingerprints, but the trend is all too clear. *sigh*


http://moneycentral.msn.com/insure/a...ake=MITSUBISHI

 

nice find ...

LANCER4D E 0% E
LANCER EVOLUTION4D E 0% E

this is just unfair.

 

No, it doesn't get worse. It's a bad thing when it's a higher liability than a Hummer H1 and is in a greater damage bracket than a Porsche 911.

No silverlining in that cloud, eh?

 

+1 Great find!

 

Yeah I miss the insurance when the Evo 1st came out I had a year's worth of full coverage for $480 but now they have caught one in the last year or so and it's a little over $1600
If only people would stop wrecking them

 

Yeah, it seems unfair. But, when you look at the factors that make up the ratings, it does make some sense. Poor crash test ratings ( medical $ ), repairs after accidents ( $ ), thefts ( $ ), tickets ( hmm. ) put a lot against the car. Not to mention the age bracket that most evo drivers fall in to : younger male. It's a recipe for high rates. Now, add in more used evo's reaching the market as cheaper cars for performance minded buyers, and the cycle just keeps itself headed in the wrong direction.

 

for a second i was concerned because I didn't want to get the EVO and see my rates skyrocket but when i checked out my current car, the Celica, it had the same exact rating as the evo

so im not too worried anymore. i already pay alot.

 

sti is almost the same except for 10% safety bonus.

 

jesus my Oz lancer has the same risk as my EVO 9?????

 

Just before i bought my IX a few weeks ago i had my insurance broker check up on the rating and to my suprise, it was right on par with my previous car, a 2001.5 Audi A4 1.8t quattro.

The audi is much slower, but its very safe. It did cost a fortune to repair when it was in an accident though.

 

haha.... the Ford GT has a rating of C.