Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

im not trying to rip them off but i got the car for a good price coz i know the person and the cars worth 12000, just car WILL insure if for 12000 but thier telling me no we have to insure it for what you bought it for. i was like but if god forbid i hav an accident, and you pay me 7500 i cant get another one, coz thier worth so much more.

tell em to piss off... say you bought it for $12K

theres no way they'll find out as long as you ask the seller to tell them the same thing. I remember a long time ago i bought a skyline off an unnamed import company and we arranged a 'small discrepancy' with the invoices... ;)

The insurance company has the right if you sign the policy to check up with the registry, The registry will have details of how much stamp duty you have paid ant that will tell them how much the purchase price is.

NEVER lie to your insurance company because it will come back to bite you on the ass if you ever have to make a claim ;)

Cheers!

Next ime its worth telling the RTA an inflated bullshit price, and pay the extra stamp duty. So if something does happen to your car, you get back $12k instead of $7.5k

Id pay the extra $200 at the stamp duty stage to get back $5k if i write off the car

You should be able to insure it for Agreed Value, or Market Value. Your premium will reflect upon this value.What you paid for it shouldn't mean jack f**king shit if you're paying to insure it for an agreed value. Try another insurance company if they want to dick you around. Shannons, Famous Car Insurance, etc - all better than JCI.

the reason i am asking is my uncle bough a VS commodore for 3000 dollars and got agreed value of 7000 dollars, this was back i think 2001, so wtf does purchase price have to do with anything, if i want to REPLACE the car i cant now because the car is worth MORE than 7500....

well, simple.

you bought the car for that much. the car will be insured for that much. why insure it for more than u insured? it can come under duty of disclousre / fraud.

most companies will ask for photos.

dont be a tool. dont risk it - worst case senario - claim wont be paid.

what the hell are you guys talking about??

AGREED VALUE is what you and the insurance company have agreed the price to be, now most commonly this is what you have decided, and they adjust their premiums accordingly

MARKET VALUE is the current market value for that particular vehicle, compared to any other similar vehicle of the same age and similar average condition. That is determined pretty much on their own determination, or standard rules and tables for that make and model.

purchase price has nothing to do with it! they may ask, just to see that what you paid for the car may not have suspicious undertones, and probably in the end to determine the "average" market value for the next skyline they insure over time (along with the other variables in their complex calculations)

Whatever you do , don't lie to them, not just on purchase price either, don't lie full stop. If you read the fine print on any insurance policy it says if you are not truthful with them your policy maybe regareded as non existant .

Some insurance companies will insure for more than you paid for a car but will want to inspect it, i know NRMA will .

Tell your insurer you bought it from a friend and because you did him/her a favour you got it way bellow market value but you want to insure it for more .

Agreed value policies are much better than market value and usualy more expensive .

will just cars not allow you to send them pics of your car or have it inspected so they can see its worth $12K?

End of the day, if you have to insure it for purchase price of $7500 and you write it off, atleast your financial interest in the vehicle is covered.

Insurance isnt there for you to benefit from. Do you think its right that you pay $7500 for a car, then write it off and get paid out $12K?

Insurance isnt there for you to benefit from. Do you think its right that you pay $7500 for a car, then write it off and get paid out $12K?

Insurance is there to repair or replace a vehicle. It shouldn't mean jack shit if I got a good deal on that specific vehicle, all that matters is how much I need to replace it considering deals like that don't come up every day.

If I win a Chrysler 300C SRT8 (which is the prize for the Wheels subscription), which means I technically paid $0 for it, does that mean I can only insure it for $0? After all, is it "right that I pay nothing for a car, then write it off and get paid out $72,000"?

If you car is worth $12K, im sure you will find some way of insuring it for $12K. If not, grit your teeth and bear it, atleast its not being insured for less than what you paid therfore you LOSING out if its written off.

Winning a car is hardly a good compassion dude..... You and I both know you wont insure it for $0.

If you got a good deal on a car, you find someone who will agree to insure it for its true worth, simple. BUT if you cant find anyone to do so, then atleast your purchase price is better than nothing right?

Insurance is there to return you to previous conditions before a claim, not to put you in a better position, unless the insurer agrees on a higher value.

why do people wanna dog insurance companies? I dunno. I guess if your not happy with what just cars is offering, look around for cover that suits you.

Edited by _8OO5TED_
If you got a good deal on a car, you find someone who will agree to insure it for its true worth, simple. BUT if you cant find anyone to do so, then atleast your purchase price is better than nothing right?

"Better than nothing" means compromise. Right and wrong can't be compromised on - either its right to do something, or its not. The former is a "real world" view of things and far more practical, I'll agree, but unfortunately if you're talking about something as absolute as "the right thing" its not the same.

You should take care when talking about "right" and "wrong", rather than what's "practical" and "unreasonable".

Insurance is there to return you to previous conditions before a claim, not to put you in a better position, unless the insurer agrees on a higher value.

The situation right before a claim is that you had a car with a certain mileage and a certain amount of wear and tear. He's not insuring $7500 in cash, he's insuring a vehicle that would cost $x to replace around the time of the claim, regardless of how much he paid for it. "Returning him to the same situation", on principle, means getting him a near-identical car regardless of the cost, not giving him money.

So if all of a sudden the market price of a car like his jumped to $15,000 should the insurance company pay out $15,000 even though the make and model's market value was only $12,000 when he bought it and he only handed over $7500 to get his specific car? From what you've said, this sounds like the "right" thing to do.

Or, from another perspective, why can I only insure the car I paid $60,000 for in 2003 for $50,000 with my mods now? If he can't insure his $7500 car for $12,000 because that's not what he paid for it, why can't I keep insuring my car for what I originally paid for it?

Perhaps is your idea of "right" depends on whether the insurance company gets shafted, or the customer.

Winning a car is hardly a good compassion dude..... You and I both know you wont insure it for $0

Winning a car is a perfect comparison, because its extreme examples that more clearly prove a principle when people are failing to understand. Fact of the matter is, you originally implied that its only "right" to insure a vehicle for what you paid for it. What happens when you pay nothing?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I'd suggest the answer to the first question is at least a qualified "yes". I'll come back to that. Pineapples just don't do a lot to solidify the mounting of the subframe. They do a little bit, and that little bit was clearly helpful to me in the past, but the main thing they are intended to be used for is to tip the orientation of the subframe to try to either dial in more or less anti-squat. You can install them one way to try to increase launch traction, or the other way to try to increase lateral grip (at the notional expense of longitudinal traction). Or, as I did, you install them neutral, which only really offers a little bit of "snugging" up of the subframe. When I did pineapples, that was the only option. No-one had a machined alloy collar like the GKTech ones. There were some other options, but nothing like the slip in collars. And it is clear from looking at them that they occupy almost all the free space inside the rubber bush, so they will do a lot to stop them moving internally. So I thought, "that's the game for me!". Obviously the next/adjacent step is poly bushes, but what's the point in doing that with all the work and hassle required to change them over, when jamming (and I mean literally jamming) some alloy into the rubber bushes probably gives an equivalent, or possibly even superior result? So, to go back to your 1st question, I would suggest, for the investment of <<$100 and a morning spent lying under the car swearing and getting some sore fingers, it is certainly something you should try. Who knows? Maybe your situation is so severe that it doesn't solve it. But it might help a lot. If your problem is as severe as you say it is, the next thing to look at is what the rest of the bushes in the rear end a made from. Things like the Hardrace arms with hardened rubber bushes might be a good thing (for the purposes of having adjustability AND stiffer bushes). Otherwise, just poly bushes throughout could be a help. Or following in my fever dream footsteps and putting a lot of sphericals into the rear? Eliminate undersired movement to avoid the build up of resonances that cause the tramp. Also, if you have adjustable uppers in the rear, and you haven't put effort into adjusting the traction arms to minimise bump steer, there might be some advantage in that. If you don't want to go to the effort of doing it yourself (like I am pretty much forced to in Adelaide, owing to a lack of race alignment specialists) then surely there's a place in Melbs that is able to do it. It will cost $$, But that's life.
    • As someone who has pineapples, and horrible axle tramp... should I change these to collars? Is that what you're saying here? Why did you choose these instead of getting pineapples where you said you had good experiences of? I'd love to even attempt to get rid of axle tramp, I either get complete bogginess or absolute insane wheelspin, anything even remotely in between results in filling-removal axle tramp, to the point where launching the car is just not something I do.
    • Lucky for that, because putting ethanol in fuel only lowers the bulk cost of fuel if it's in 91 Add it to 98, 85% of it even and it quintuples in price. Strange physics. f**k you United, Gouging c***ts.
    • Not noticeably. Arguably, the catless turbo is going to work harder in a different direction, as it will spool up faster, go to higher speeds more easily. Only if it was tuned in the original condition. If it was a stock tune, using the AFM before and after the cat/dump change, then no, no retune needed. If the car is running on a MAP sensor, then it might well benefit from a retune. It might even run a little dangerously without a retune, but it could quite easily be fine.
    • We had this blend that uses 98RON + 10% Ethanol which brought it to 100RON. It's no longer available anymore unfortunately.
×
×
  • Create New...