Why in the heck would the insurance on my 2005 RL be cheaper (by $15) than my 2003 TL? The coverage is exactly the same down the line with State Farm... liability, collision, and comprehensive, multilines discounts, same mileage driven per year and drivers, etc. $351 every six months????

I'm not asking the agent; he may jack up the RL's rates, but it seems the collision rates would have to be way higher. Liability should be about the same and comprehensive a bit lower with the anti-theft features.

I don't know???????

 

I'll take it as good news. The reason is the drivers!!!! who drives TLs and who drives RLs, get were I'm going.

 

Maybe bcoz of 'OnStar' in the RL. I guess they typically give approx 20% discount if OnStar is present (well, I heard it - dont take my word for it) ;-) Enjoy your RL

 

Safety. Insurnace companies take into account crash test ratings and the number of airbags. Does your TL have side airbags? If not, this may be a big reason.

 

I have a 2002 TL-S and the 2005 RL with State Farm as well, and I noticed the same thing. However, I attributed it to my wife being the primary driver of the RL. Not sure it matters.

I don't have the statement in front of me, but you should have a line item breakdown -- I think the premiums related to safety are lower on the RL.

I have a Redondo Red RL and fortunately didn't notice any jacking up of the cost because of the color. However, I think the TL-S suffers a premium hike because it's more of a "sporty" car than the RL, even though the RL has more ponies.

Of course, it's all a guess. I just pay the bill.

 

Insurance is always cheaper for females. That's how it is here in NY.

 

I was similarly puzzled when I found out that my '05 RL is cheaper to insure than my '00 Chrysler 300M, too! Costs the same for a $45K car and a $12K car? It must have to do with all the saftey features in the RL.

 

I also own a 2000 TL with side airbags, and the RL is in fact cheaper to insure than the TL with comparable coverage.

I believe it's because the insurance carrier assumes that RL owners are more sophisticated than TL owners, or in my case, I'm more sophisticated when I'm driving my RL than when I'm driving my TL.

 

One is a sport/luxury sedan.
The other is a luxury sedan.
The sport is where the insurance charges are kickin in

 

I happened to find out that the RL costs me approximately $135 higher. I said higher and that is with Geico. I'm going to call them again and tell them that it has Onstar and what not. Hopefully it'll change that a bit.

 

You're lucky. I went from a 2004 TL to a 2006 RL and my insurance cost nearly doubled

 

Holy thread revival!

I think mine went down a few bucks compared to my 3G TL.

 

yep, that has to take the award for Most Delayed Response.

 

I generally agree with you that RL owners tend to be more sophisticated -- i.e. more mature but less spirited or aggressive -- than TL (particularly TL-S) drivers. Insurance rates are typically based on claims history, and I believe TL may have a worse history due to owner demographics.

 

Mine dropped a few hundred dollars from the TL.

I think the AWD, larger size and weight help as well. The RL has a 5 star crash rating and Honda's ACE structural engineering. I am sure the RL demographics also are a factor.

 

I too went from an 03 tl, but to an 07 RL, and my insurance is with state farm. My rates also went down. I think it has a lot to do with the insurance rating of the car.

 

Another possibility might be that the TL has a higher incident of theft than the RL. Maybe obscurity has it's advantages.

I still have my 95 Integra GSR with 47K original owner miles and I pay more for it than I do for either my Tahoe or pickup because it is rated as one of the most desirable cars for thieves.

 

Come on now, that was thread recycling not a delayed response! Are we not supposed to re-use existing threads before creating new ones?