[jeff9nissan]

Hey guys, my insurance agency told me that its dumb to have full coverage on a car 7 years or older. What do you guys think on this? I'm looking into buying a 97 mitsu eclipse GST or a 97 prelude.

 

[Token Moron]

full coverage is pretty dumb on an older car..whats the point? with the extra money ur gonna spend on insurance, u coulda just bought another car! unless of course that older car is VERY well modded and the aftermarket accessories are covered by the insurance company.

 

[MagicPie]

I would agree with Chops unless you plan too or the car is already modded aleast 5K bucks or more in upgrades then i would get full coverage else not and only Geico (misspelled -the one with the gecko) to my knowledge will cover modded cars at a decent price

 

[I'm Slow]

my insurance company says with full coverage i total it and it isnt my fault i get 8K or something like that..at least thats what they told my dad

 

[bahearn]

Full-coverage makes sense only if someone else's money paid for the car, like a bank. They will require full-coverage to protect their collateral. Once it's paid for and the title is in your hands, the resale value isn't usually enough to warrant the expense. Now, if you paid off BMW 750, you would probably want to maintain full coverage. For your Mitsu, what's the point?