Cost of Insuring a 1G Acura TL
 

I just find this interesting and wondered what reasons your insurance agents gave you for this. We just added our 1997 Acura 2.5 TL to our auto insurance policy. Currently, the other two cars on it are a 2000 Honda Odyssey and a 2004 Acura RSX. Following is what the insurance cost in the Chicagoland area for driver ages of 51 and 53, no accidents with perfect driving records and a multi car/+home policy:

2004 Acura RSX - Age of driver 51 - we have FULL coverage = $1,095.36/year or $91.28/mo

2000 Odyssey - Age of driver 53 - we have LIABILITY only = $464.28/year or $38.69/mo ----> but FULL coverage would be about $950 and about $80/mo

1997 Acura TL - Age of driver 53 - we have LIABILITY only = $959.88/year or $79.99/mo ----> but FULL coverage would be $1,608/yr and $134/mo


So, a 21 year old 1G Acura (that isn't in the "sports car" class like the RSX is) costs $500-$600 more a year to FULLY insure than a sport class RSX that is 7 years newer but still 15 years old. Our Odyssey would cost near the same as the RSX to insure fully, and it's 18 years old, and most certainly not in the sports class.

We don't understand why the 1997 TL -with liability only- is almost as much to insure as the -fully insured- RSX, and twice as much to insure as the loaded Honda Odyssey EX that is three years newer than it is?

Why does it cost so much to insure a 1G Acura TL?

Our Honda insurance goes down every year the older it gets, as has all the other cars we've owned. We don't need the full coverage on the 2000 or the 1997 given the cars aren't worth much anymore, but still - the liability only is rather expensive for the 1997 TL.

Our insurance agent's reply: "Wellllll, I don't know! Probably has something to do with the make" - "well, sir, our RSX is the same make...and it's the sports line so you would think more risk would be in that calculation..." - "hm, that is interesting. I guess what I would have asked is why isn't the RSX more expensive to insure..."

Ya, that didn't help to understand at all. Anyone here have more intelligent insights?

because it's old...parts might be hard to come by....making it a very risky car for the insurance company

edit*
researching a little bit more, seems like it was only a 2 - 3 year run with the first gen TL. not a lot of them sold, further dwindling the stock pile of parts

Maybe get anotger ins. quote?

He said liability only so parts don't matter.
I pay much less for same coverage in AZ with Geico.

Same story for me. Cost more to carry liability on my 1998 3.2 than full coverage on a brand new RAV4. The insurance guy told me that their company looks at the model, not necessarily the year when calculating the rates. So thank the enthusiast/tuner crowd with later generations for your rates I guess?

1996 - my son was born in 98 (only thing I can think of as an excuse :tomato: