There is more to life with TurboRenault.co.uk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • This section contains the archived boards. They should be read only. If you want a thread resurrecting please message admin and we can move into the live section

Insuring a Cat C and the laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

I know alot of Vee's have been written off and I have just bought a Cat C and my insurance is due for renewal. Whilst I knew before hand insurance would be tricky I cleared it with my current company who didn't seem too phased as I have receipts for a new shell and parts bought from Renault. The problem is I wanted to put the missus on the insurance but they came back too expensive so I tried Admiral.

Admiral want an engineers report to say the car is put back together properly and it is not modified. Whilst I understand their reasoning I still think it's a rediculous thing to ask for as indepth should they need to take this? Do they want an engineer to whip the head off and check the cam profiles?

Also, from my previous research i determined not alot had to be done to return a Cat c to the road, i.e. only a VIN check not technical inspection for the safety side of things as I thought this was a loop-hole in the law and a stupid one at that. After what Admiral asked for I know feel rather confused on the whole subject again. Anyone know for sure or been throug this crap?

While i'm here, anyone else insure a Cat C car at 24 with their missus on teh insurance?

nic.
 
My CAT C Celica only needed an MOT for my insurer but I seem to remember CAT D cars need an engineers report - and rightly so IMHO.

CAT C is typically less serious damage.

You have to be careful on the insurance valuation and what you may expect to get back if the car is written off with CAT C and D cars.

Martin
 
Argh, this is exactly it, I thought CAT D worse but it seems it's not and CAT C is.

My car is a red ph1 that was on pistonheads.
 
That car was one of the 1st I went to see (assuming its the one from Wales), and I almost bought it, very nice car that I really liked and left a deposit on, problem was he had it advertised as a CatD at the time, I Hpi'd it before handing over the rest of the cash and discovered it was a C not a D, which of course affects the value, so I had my deposit back and walked away.
 
Yes my mistake ... Mine was a cat D then which just needed an MOT ...

A. A vehicle which should be totally crushed, including all its spare parts.

B. A vehicle from which spare parts may be salvaged, but the bodyshell should be crushed and the car should never return to the road.

C. An extensively damaged vehicle which the insurer has decided not to repair, but which could potentially be repaired to a high standard.

D. A damaged vehicle that the insurer has decided not to repair, but which could be repaired and returned to the road.

F. A vehicle damaged by fire, which the insurer has decided not to repair.

I will do a Wiki entry for reference and as punishment for making a mistake ;-)

Martin
 
Rich_UK":3n6bbavn said:
That car was one of the 1st I went to see (assuming its the one from Wales), and I almost bought it, very nice car that I really liked and left a deposit on, problem was he had it advertised as a CatD at the time, I Hpi'd it before handing over the rest of the cash and discovered it was a C not a D, which of course affects the value, so I had my deposit back and walked away.

Yeah he mentioned you when I went to see the car.

The thing is I have a friend who advied me against buying a V6 as he used to work for a company that rebuilt and sprayed them due to poor workmanship by Renault originally, so I wanted a rebuilt one and non silver. Whether or not mine is a better build or not I don't know, and tbh don't really care, as I'm smitten with the car anyway. It's just it seems the insurance thing is going to be more of a pain than I thought.

My current insurer just came back with £800 for just myself so it seems I may just have to not add the misses on the policy afterall. Probably a blessing anyway :D
 
OreoV6":37q6whdm said:
The thing is I have a friend who advied me against buying a V6 as he used to work for a company that rebuilt and sprayed them due to poor workmanship by Renault originally, so I wanted a rebuilt one and non silver. Whether or not mine is a better build or not I don't know, and tbh don't really care, as I'm smitten with the car anyway. It's just it seems the insurance thing is going to be more of a pain than I thought.

I was given some information about build qualities by someone who I believe knows something about these things - though it is just as I recall it being given to me so take it on face value ...

The Mk1 were built in Sweden by TWR in a Volvo factory, the teams were small and well organised etc. Some quality issues were encountered which made Renault not so happy - not sure of the details and degree of this. The Mk1 may not be reagrded as being a 'true' Alpine model due to it not being built in dieppe.

The Mk2 was hand-built (I suppose the Mk1 must have been though) in dieppe which I understand gives it 'Alpine' credentials to purists. The quality control and build quality could be more closely monitored and so the Mk2 is regarded to be finished better.

Now all that is probably irrelevant, if it is factually correct, to most of us. Each individual car is unique in its own right and has a heritage and pedigree which we all appreciate and admire. Renault made a bold move designing the Vee and getting it into production for us all to enjoy the Mk1 was the 'original' and the Mk2 can probably be regarded as the 'evolution' ;-)

I love mine but not in a Bayliss sexual way [smilie=hide.gif]

Martin
 
your making me to sound like a wierd person here marty!! and i beg to differ, u deffo love your Vee teh sexual bayliss way
 
Back
Top