Decatting 355 - insurance implications
Discussion
Craig,
Why do you tell them so?
Even in case of an accident nobody will check if you got cats or not!
Much more of a problem here in Germany is that taxes TRIPLE if you deinstall them. Since they always check emmissions when giving you the technical permission again they will notice and higher your car tax. Nevertheless there are technical permission companies who are not so strict if you no what I mean....
Con saluti cordialissimi,
Jens Haller
Why do you tell them so?
Even in case of an accident nobody will check if you got cats or not!
Much more of a problem here in Germany is that taxes TRIPLE if you deinstall them. Since they always check emmissions when giving you the technical permission again they will notice and higher your car tax. Nevertheless there are technical permission companies who are not so strict if you no what I mean....
Con saluti cordialissimi,
Jens Haller
Craig,
To be honest they are just trying to extract more cash out of you.
There is no way that having cat replacement pipes (a) increase the risk of having your car stolen (b) have anything to do with altering accident probability, unlike say newer more expensive alloy wheels with regards to (a) or altering the aerodynamics with regards to (b).
Since when have emissions had anything to do with insurance?
All theyve done is taken the car to be "modified" now and that means they have justified that they can charge more.
You should have kept hush hush about it!!
Ajay.
To be honest they are just trying to extract more cash out of you.
There is no way that having cat replacement pipes (a) increase the risk of having your car stolen (b) have anything to do with altering accident probability, unlike say newer more expensive alloy wheels with regards to (a) or altering the aerodynamics with regards to (b).
Since when have emissions had anything to do with insurance?
All theyve done is taken the car to be "modified" now and that means they have justified that they can charge more.
You should have kept hush hush about it!!
Ajay.
Dear all
You are all SMASHING PEOPLE. PH'ers are the best of the best, so I on't want to preach BUT
As a lawyer of 10 years now, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be CAREFUL.
If you Decat your car, it will fail an MOT, therefore in the eyes of the law it is unroadworthy, therefore you will be UNINSURED. If the insurance company find out they will REFUSE TO PAY OUT.
This means that if you are found liable and can't pay, you will LOSE YOUR HOUSE.
Sorry to rant but I can just see one of us getting it up the ar5e here, and a fmaily suffering just for some extra noise and a few bhp.
It's not worth it.
PLEASE THINK.
I think most people know that if your car was fitted with catalysts from new then it is a legal requirement to have them.
Cat replacement pipes are for competition use.
Saying this I know plenty of cars that have passed MOT's with cat replacement pipes. Why? because as I'm sure everyone knows cats don't do the job they are supposed to do. They are inefficient and useless and it is actually your pre cat that is keeping the emissions low and by the time exhaust gases reach the cats emissions are usually within the legal requirement.
>> Edited by ajaym on Wednesday 19th March 15:08
Cat replacement pipes are for competition use.
Saying this I know plenty of cars that have passed MOT's with cat replacement pipes. Why? because as I'm sure everyone knows cats don't do the job they are supposed to do. They are inefficient and useless and it is actually your pre cat that is keeping the emissions low and by the time exhaust gases reach the cats emissions are usually within the legal requirement.
>> Edited by ajaym on Wednesday 19th March 15:08
According to the Vehicle Inspectorate Agency a Department of Transport member, if your car is fitted with cats from new then it has to go for a cat test, if it passes this cat specific MOT test it is legal. So decatting the car does not necessarily mean the car is illegal. it is only illegal/not roadworthy if it fails the MOT.
Also, as most 355 owners know the cats are completely bypassed above 4000 rpm as standard and this does not make the car illegal!
Insurance companies are alway looking for a chance to try it on so they don't have to pay out, but if you have the right documentation and your car has passed its MOT and is declared roadworthy and legal their case is weakened significantly.
>> Edited by ajaym on Wednesday 19th March 15:31
Also, as most 355 owners know the cats are completely bypassed above 4000 rpm as standard and this does not make the car illegal!
Insurance companies are alway looking for a chance to try it on so they don't have to pay out, but if you have the right documentation and your car has passed its MOT and is declared roadworthy and legal their case is weakened significantly.
>> Edited by ajaym on Wednesday 19th March 15:31
I don´t quite understand the logic: Why should it be illegal that a car has no cats? All classic cars would be illegal then as well. There is no such regulation here in Germany I think. You get your MOT (=TÜV in Germany)without cats even when deinstalling them at a car which originally has one. Only thing is the tax problem which really hurts you (As I said: Triple tax to normal cat car!).
This is really a stupid regulation in UK which has no reasonable cause IMO
Con saluti cordialissimi,
Jens Haller
This is really a stupid regulation in UK which has no reasonable cause IMO
Con saluti cordialissimi,
Jens Haller
zoomer said:
My point is that not having cats means a car does not comply with the legal requirements to be roadworthy (numptyism I know but true) therefore it would give the insurance industry an EXCUSE to try it on.
If what you are saying is true how come in this case they are requesting an additional £360 for the insurance - surely they should just refuse ! If they were to take the £360 and then refused to pay in the event of a claim needing to be made I don't see that they would have a leg to stand on.
Just sounds like the any old excuse to up premiums to me.
Frostie
>> Edited by frostie on Wednesday 19th March 18:15
JH280774 said: I don´t quite understand the logic: Why should it be illegal that a car has no cats? All classic cars would be illegal then as well.
Umm.. No, because the cat-converter became a european type-approval requirement in 1992 for petrol cars. Any cars from before 1992 don't have to use cats. Those after do.
So classic cars can keep running using carbs and no cats.
There is no such regulation here in Germany I think. You get your MOT (=TÜV in Germany)without cats even when deinstalling them at a car which originally has one.
I seriously doubt that.. The 'cats after 1992' is a europe-wide requirement.
Most countries with an MOT type check also often have a clause in their vehicle laws which states that a car has to comply with the legal limits *between* MOT tests too.The tests are only a verification/checkpoint.
That's why usually the 'fail' limits at MOT time are higher than those set by law.
For instance tyre tread depth is here in Holland defined at 1.6mm minimum allowed, but during an MOT they will fail a car that's below 2.1mm because in the time it takes until the next MOT there's a good chance that it will go below the legal limit and the car would be illegal for road use (ignoring the fact that it's bl**dy lethal to drive on such tyres anyway..)
If you are stopped for a vehicle inspection by the police (will be including emission checks soon!! Have already seen that in Switserland) then they will look at the legal limits.
Depending on the country you are in they may be able to label a car that fails as 'illegal for road use' and stop you from driving it any further until it is fixed. (call tow-truck, bring to garage, etc.)
Only thing is the tax problem which really hurts you (As I said: Triple tax to normal cat car!).
That's true, although the insurers follow a very simple reasoning: Illegal car == more risk == more expensive insurance.
Bye, Arno.
Arno,
Well I am driving a 1990 348 so in no case there should be a problem with me. Emmision testing on the road: Another crap nobody needs since you already have the emmission testing every two years. Why then road testing ???????????
Something only Sweden or Switzerland affords, I hope. Germay is too poor anyway to give police these devices. They don´t even have enough police cars over here...
Anyway thanks for the clarification. Didn´t know the after 92 regulation. Will check this out...
After all it´s still the odd insurance rip off because it has no logical reason to raise fees.
Con saluti cordialissimi,
Jens Haller
Well I am driving a 1990 348 so in no case there should be a problem with me. Emmision testing on the road: Another crap nobody needs since you already have the emmission testing every two years. Why then road testing ???????????
Something only Sweden or Switzerland affords, I hope. Germay is too poor anyway to give police these devices. They don´t even have enough police cars over here...
Anyway thanks for the clarification. Didn´t know the after 92 regulation. Will check this out...
After all it´s still the odd insurance rip off because it has no logical reason to raise fees.
Con saluti cordialissimi,
Jens Haller
Guys,
I have had a very bad experience with a Insurance company called Privilege. A year and a halfago I turned thirty and bought my first Ferrari a 1994 F348 GTS. I told the insurance one week before buying it in full ( a deposit) to ensure the car. The day I went to pick up the car from the dealer, I rang my insurance company and told them I have bought the car and pleaese confirm that I am fully insured before leaving the dealer. The customer service insurance rep says yes and I am processing it. I said please confirm by fax to the dealer. She could not because the fax machine was not working. I asked her again and she said everything will go through ok.
One hour later after picking up the F348 GTS I had a crash on the M11 in a controw flow at 30 mph. I had written off four cars and including the front end of mine. I went to stop and hit the accelerator with brake having a size 14 shoe plus not being used to the car. I pleaded guilty to the police at the acident scene of the accident. It was clear that it was my fault. No point in lieing. I rang my insurance and told them what happened. They told me I was not insured techinical because the rep had not finished processes the insurance docs for my car. So I had a written off Ferrari, four other cars etc...
After many phone calls to customer services the manager at the insurance company told me that I had never called about insuring the car.
In the end I had to take the insurance company to court and won. My telephone conversation to insurance company was recorded. This was used a evidence. Basically the insurance company did not want to pay.
They thought they could pull a fast one, since the accident happened so quickly after insuring the car. The accident cost £150000 due to cars being written off and police tracffic recovery costs and injuries - whip lash claims. If I had lost the case it would have bankrupted me due to civil claims by the injured parties. Parties are still claiming due physological damage. When I get insured now I always ask for confirmation by fax before I take the car onto the road. A word of month is not enough.....
I have had a very bad experience with a Insurance company called Privilege. A year and a halfago I turned thirty and bought my first Ferrari a 1994 F348 GTS. I told the insurance one week before buying it in full ( a deposit) to ensure the car. The day I went to pick up the car from the dealer, I rang my insurance company and told them I have bought the car and pleaese confirm that I am fully insured before leaving the dealer. The customer service insurance rep says yes and I am processing it. I said please confirm by fax to the dealer. She could not because the fax machine was not working. I asked her again and she said everything will go through ok.
One hour later after picking up the F348 GTS I had a crash on the M11 in a controw flow at 30 mph. I had written off four cars and including the front end of mine. I went to stop and hit the accelerator with brake having a size 14 shoe plus not being used to the car. I pleaded guilty to the police at the acident scene of the accident. It was clear that it was my fault. No point in lieing. I rang my insurance and told them what happened. They told me I was not insured techinical because the rep had not finished processes the insurance docs for my car. So I had a written off Ferrari, four other cars etc...
After many phone calls to customer services the manager at the insurance company told me that I had never called about insuring the car.
In the end I had to take the insurance company to court and won. My telephone conversation to insurance company was recorded. This was used a evidence. Basically the insurance company did not want to pay.
They thought they could pull a fast one, since the accident happened so quickly after insuring the car. The accident cost £150000 due to cars being written off and police tracffic recovery costs and injuries - whip lash claims. If I had lost the case it would have bankrupted me due to civil claims by the injured parties. Parties are still claiming due physological damage. When I get insured now I always ask for confirmation by fax before I take the car onto the road. A word of month is not enough.....
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff