Quote:
Originally Posted by MSS
Ian - I am genuinely intrigued. If the mods did not give your car higher performance, make it more pretty or attractive, what exactly were the mods?
Well, I don't think the CDT with 131 BHP is a dog. I can believe and would expect that a 160 remap would improve the car's driveability, but I don't see how it can be safer unless the driver is one who takes risks and needs the enhanced performance to recover from his/her mistakes.
The suspension, brakes, chasis of the car were designed to match the engine's performance. Unless an insurer tests every modified car as part of the quoting process, how can they possibly know whether the modified car is safer or less safe?
Most reputable insurers do not like modifications, which I think is perfectly understandable from a risk management perspective. Insurance is about nothing other than risk assessment and cover.
|
Interesting points. I agree that we should all drive within the drivers and cars limits and to that end don't feel that the mods make a car safer. For instance, my 1st car was 0-60mph in 29 seconds and was fitted with cross ply tyres, drum brakes and no power steering. My next car was 0-60mph in 13.1 seconds, front discs and eventually radial tyres but was certainly no safer because I then drove up to those limits. When I had my S Type 2.7d I certainly didn't expect the same performance from the bendibuses I drove at work. As you can imagine, emerging from a junction with a slow 18m vehicle required a slightly different skill set to a sub 8.5 second 0-60mph Jag.
In other words, performance doesn't = safety, it's how that performance is used.