Then you got reamed on your insurance for a 10 year old BMW -- full coverage on a similarly aged BMW for me is less than $50/mo. So no, that isn't "literally fake news" just because not everyone has the same insurance as you. My point being, just because you don't experience something doesn't make it fake news when other people do.

Comparing absolute insurance numbers without context of age, professional discounts, geography, etc. is pointless.

I paid $500/month as a 20 year old on a $5000 used Intrepid because I was in a high risk category in a major city. My uncle who lived on a farm in another state paid $500/year for both him + his wife on newer cars.

Point is, if he thinks it's fairly or underpriced for his particular situation, it probably is.

So you've just compared exactly what I'm trying to point out to... what I'm trying to point out? My entire point is that with zero context we have no idea whether the article is completely true or false and dismissing something as fake news because it doesn't jive with his experience is wrong.

He wasn't necessarily shafted, insuring a 10 year old car is expensive especially if it's a model that is often involved in insurance claims. This is generally true but it will depend on so many factors that it destroys his argument.

It's like saying that he literally has a fake profile because I know a guy redindian and he doesn't have a BMW. Or that the Tesla M3 must be a fake car because I don't own one.

How so? I said $650 for 6 months for both cars. You pay $50/m x 6 = $300 every 6m. I do the same ($42/m) for my X3.

I just looked up my actual bill for the split (it is even lower). I pay $257 for X3 ($42/m) & $357 for Tesla ($60/m). For context I am in Seattle market, 40s, clean record. When I said fake news, I meant the article seem to play on the FUD for Tesla/EV vehicles. Check the M3 forums, no one seem to pay $2500/6m unless in corner cases.

  "BREAKING $50K Tesla Model3 insurance similar to other $50K car insurances"

doesn't make an exciting article - does it?

To be honest comparing the insurance between old and new cars isn't that relevant either [0] (random example). The vast majority of people don't understand how insurance works and what are the criteria. Old cars are expensive to insure because they tend to be more expensive for the insurance company.

Do you really think that fixing a car where the parts are very rare and expensive, in authorized garages that are rare and expensive, while taking a very long time because there's no network for servicing will be as cheap as fixing any regular equivalent car that does have that servicing network?

Any car that's expensive to fix will have more expensive premiums. And expensive to fix usually means: it's often involved in accidents, parts are expensive, garages that fix it are expensive, takes a long time to fix. Tesla checks the last 3 out of the 4 main boxes in most regions in the world.

[0] http://www.thejournal.ie/car-insurance-10-year-old-vehicles-...

ok, then I'm getting reamed on my wife's 10 year old Subaru because, with 3000mi/yr, it's only a few bucks less than our brand new "expensive to repair" Model 3 with 15k miles/year.

Yes, data is not the plural of anecdote, and I want to agree with the source that Tesla repairs are more expensive (repairing anything aluminum is expensive; see: Audi A8), but I am just not seeing these high costs reflected in ANYONE's bills.

The point, which also seems lost on another comment, is that with zero context you can't really make a full observation on the circumstances that lead to the insurance cost. Just because he doesn't pay a lot for insurance doesn't mean it's fake news that someone else does, I can think of many reasons why insurance for one person would be rock bottom and sky high for another on the the exact same car.

It all depends. If you live in Brooklyn, it might be 3x more.

Then you were being ripped off on the BMW.

The cost of insurance is more related to how often certain cars get into accidents or get stolen and then adjusted for he driving record of the person driving the car. It has almost nothing to do with repair costs of the car itself.

Source: a Mustang GT costs more money to insure for me than a Mercedes C63 AMG. Repair costs on the AMG are borderline criminal and yet according to the actuaries it’s a lower risk.

Which sort of suggests something I was thinking earlier... that the autopilot features of Teslas are significantly reducing the number of accidents.

Or, much more likely, that the average person who buys a Mustang GT drives ina much more accident-prone (and a much more expensive accident-prone) manner than the type of person who buys a Tesla.

A very large (and the most variable) part of the actuarial cost of car insurance is third party liability, not the liability the insurer takes on for repairs to your own car or fire/theft.

The difference between insuring a 19-year old man and a 55-year old woman on the same car is huge.

Anecdote is not the plural of data. Unless if you can prove that the averages quoted above are false, touting your bill is literally meaningless.

But data is the plural of anecdote.

Lol, I did screw that one up didn’t I?