350z Mild Crash - the beginning of a Z4 Review....

[njlee]

Dear All

 

Long time no post - long time no read in fact, sorry. Been busy.

 

Anyway, last Tuesday, I'd taken the Z up to Loughborough to give a talk there, had a great drive as my fav bits of the road there were carless, so got a good thrash. Anyway, I drove back home, and had to rush into work for a 5pm meeting (yeah I know it sucks being me). Anyway, 4.30pm, tired, in a rush, twilight thanks to no summer time. You can guess the rest.

 

So I am going along my route to work, an A road in Birmingham which includes a nasty left hander over a railway bridge with a small side road entering it from the right. Some mini driver was waiting to turn right, so as we all do, I went round him to the left only to find myself turning my head right to stare at the front end of an old Renault Clio who's driver had obviously just booted it to get in on a right turn from the side road, having been flashed by the mini I guess. Needless to say I stood on the gas, but could not escape and she whacked into my rear quarter.

 

Stopping down the street to assess the damage, she'd broken the front light and scraped an already-scraped front bumper (hmm, had she done this before?). She'd buggered the front side of the rear driver's side wheel arch on mine, with minor damage also to the back side panel (bumper in other words) and driver's side skirt also. Car perfectly drivable fortunately, but at least 3 panel replacements and possibly an alloy too. Pricey I suspect, but some of you will know more than me. So when she asked if I would consider not involving insurance, for her sake and mine I had to say no. I mean, she really didn't look like someone who could write a cheque out for this damage, as well as the £50 and a cup of tea it would cost to fix hers! I eventually managed to explain that this was not going to be cheap, and unfortunately it was blatantly her fault.

 

So, anyway, i got into work spoke to the insurers to let them know, and agreed to call them back the next day and sort it.

 

Basically, the upshot was, since it was a non-fault claim, they outsourced it to a claims company, who organized picking my car up, and dropping me a new one off. Instead of a courtesy micra, they rent me a 'comparable' car and reclaim the costs from the fault driver's company. Seems oddly excessive to me, but what do I know?

 

So, last Friday, a brand spanking new (60 plate) top of the line BMW z4 sdrive 3.5i M sport turns up on my door. Which I have been driving for the last few days.

 

Now, what I am going to do is write some comparative reviews of this car, for your perusal. Some of you will remember my RX8 and e46 330cd reviews on here, so hopefully you'll be interested in my thoughts on the z4.

 

I'm going to write one later this week, since I have a 100 mile round trip to do tomorrow, and that will be a good chance to get acquainted outside of the city commute. That will be a kind of 'first impressions after having a 350z' thing. Then, when I have to give the z4 back, I'll write a final review of it. I reckon it will be a few weeks but I have no news from the accident repairers yet.

 

So, for those who are interested, check back later this week for my thoughts on £50 Grand's worth of Munich's finest, and presumably their idea of what a 'sports car' should be.

[rtbiscuit]

sorry to hear about the crash, but look forward to hearing about the Z4m

[Chesterfield]

These "accident management" companies that charge back extortionate hire rates to the faulty drivers company really **** me off.

 

It's one of the reasons that insurance premiums are through the roof. The attitude of "why shouldn't I have like for like" is very blinkered too, as the premiums we pay will have to cover these extortionate costs brought against our chosen insurance company by others.

 

I'd like to see if they would still go down this palming off to an accident management and huge rental costs if both parties were covered by the same insurer.

 

Anyone who accepts one of these ridiculous like for like excessive rental charge courtesy cars immediatley forfeits their right to complain about high insurance costs IMHO.

 

/rant

[un1eash]

Look forward to the review, i had an E85 Z4 and the new E89 may be on my next car list.

[mbs]

These "accident management" companies that charge back extortionate hire rates to the faulty drivers company really **** me off.

 

It's one of the reasons that insurance premiums are through the roof. The attitude of "why shouldn't I have like for like" is very blinkered too, as the premiums we pay will have to cover these extortionate costs brought against our chosen insurance company by others.

 

I'd like to see if they would still go down this palming off to an accident management and huge rental costs if both parties were covered by the same insurer.

 

Anyone who accepts one of these ridiculous like for like excessive rental charge courtesy cars immediatley forfeits their right to complain about high insurance costs IMHO.

 

/rant

 

+1 how right you are

[njlee]

Hi Chesterfield - oh and mbs

 

Actually, I agree with you. I thought at the time it seemed somewhat excessive, and I have said as much to others (including above). I would have been happy enough with the courtesy Micra, but I got the feeling that this wasn't really an option for me. In fact I made the woman at the insurer explain this to me very carefully as it all seemed a little ridiculous.

 

Even so, your point is taken. However, anyone who knows my history with insurance won't begrudge me a little bonus for once.

 

In brief:

 

First decent (I say this advisedly) car I bought - £5K R reg Rover 200 in 2000. Gf crashed it into the side of someone at an intersection 2 months after purchase. Write off, fault claim on my insurance. Ironically, pretty much exactly a mirror image of what happened to me last tuesday.

 

Second car, K reg escort, free from GFs mother. GF parks on side of street in Hull where she was working at the time, uninsured driver has major accident, writes it off and about 3 other cars. Another claim on my insurance.

 

I then get dumped (!!)

 

Next car, K reg Rover 214 from a friend for £200. Single, so happily drove it by myself till petrol tank leaks. Trade in for £50

 

Then, first 'real' car. T reg Puma. Insurance costs £200 per month for the 3 months till end of policy year. Yes you read that right

 

Move to First Alternative, pay £70 per month for next few years, end up at £50 when I trade it in for...

 

55 plate BMW330cd. Insurance around £55 per month but I am used to that so it doesn't seem excessive. However, I am by now bloody 35, with off street parking in a decent suburb of birmingham. Everyone else I know laughing at my insurance bills.

 

As some of you know, 7 months later this car is stolen. Another claim.

 

Which brings me here, to the wonderful world of 350Z land, where I pay £60 per month, with 4 years no claims discount (they took a year off for the BMW theft).

 

And then someone prangs that as well.

 

So you know, I take your point mate, but just this once, I am going to forget about everyone else. I think I deserve it. Plus, I reckon I've bloody well paid for it.

 

Even so, I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who thought this was a weird system.

 

Cheers :-)

[sasha@lazytrips]

I got an brand new Audi TTS for 2 weeks when mine went in. You won't change anything by not accepting the car & everyone else will still take advantage of a 'car of comparable quality and type' line of argument. Therefore suck it up and enjoy the the silver lining that is the courtesy car.

[Ebized]

Be careful about your replacement car and who is expected to pay for at the end of the day

 

See this thread - sounds all too similar:

 

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=42113

[mc]

my parents were put on to an accident management company (or whatever they're called) after a crash that was obviously not their fault. They got a comparable car on the basis that the other party's insurance would pay for it as they weren't at fault.

However at some point the other driver decided to lie about what happened and so the only way the insurance companies would settle was on a knock for knock basis... so suddenly you're left with a big bill for hiring a car for a few weeks, and your premium takes a big hit next time.

 

I wouldn't deal with one of these companies as a matter of principle...

[Vik54]

I certanly wouldn't be accepting any courtesy car on the expense of other driver until fault had been ascertained. Ultimately until claim is about to be closed and excesses are refunded to the 'not at fault' party then 'fault' has not been clarified and you could end up with the cost of that courtesy car.

Certainly from your description this could easily end up a 50/50 fault claim if the other party challenges it and then you're into really dubious territory.

and.....I completely agree with Chris - these like for like replacement policies are one of the reasons insurance is through the roof

[njlee]

Hi all

 

Thanks for all the advice, and I won't say that all of that hasn't crossed my mind. I was wary of it for those reasons.

 

We'll see what happens. Personally, I don't understand why the insurance companies are in on this - they must all have agreed to such a system. It just seems needless expense in the long run, and I don't understand how the law makes the at-fault driver liable for a like-for-like replacement vehicle.

 

But that's why I am not a lawyer.

 

N

[Sarnie]

These "accident management" companies that charge back extortionate hire rates to the faulty drivers company really **** me off.

 

It's one of the reasons that insurance premiums are through the roof. The attitude of "why shouldn't I have like for like" is very blinkered too, as the premiums we pay will have to cover these extortionate costs brought against our chosen insurance company by others.

 

I'd like to see if they would still go down this palming off to an accident management and huge rental costs if both parties were covered by the same insurer.

 

Anyone who accepts one of these ridiculous like for like excessive rental charge courtesy cars immediatley forfeits their right to complain about high insurance costs IMHO.

 

/rant

 

If someone drove into your 430, and it was going to be offroad for two months, would you accept a Corsa et all as a courtesy car? Bearing in mind the time it took you to earn the money to pay for the car and now considering that your car is now 'accident damaged'.......

 

I think the least you should expect is to not have to drive around in a inferior car for the period of time your car is away from your possession....

[rtbiscuit]

when my MR2 roadster had repairs it was in a garage for 3 months due to "parts delay" (more likely lazy office) had a 1 litre fiesta through the summer i was most p$$ed off it was horrible, and i drove that crap heap like it was on the paris to dakar rally for the whole time in resentment for being given such a horrid putrid crap box; in the middle of the hottest weather when i should have had the roof down on my convertible.

[Chesterfield]

If someone drove into your 430, and it was going to be offroad for two months, would you accept a Corsa et all as a courtesy car? Bearing in mind the time it took you to earn the money to pay for the car and now considering that your car is now 'accident damaged'.......

 

I think the least you should expect is to not have to drive around in a inferior car for the period of time your car is away from your possession....

 

considering that to insure my cars I'm paying in excess of £3k a year plus whatever the tracker costs are, I'm not going to contribute to these daft insurance costs by stitching another insurance company up for maybe £1,000 a day hire costs. Does my 430 cost me £1,000 a day to own? Does it chuff. So why should I expect another company to pay that? It's a joke which contributes highly to the ridiculous rises in insurance.

 

My only stipulation I have which is written in my insurance docs is that should the 430 be damaged, the repairs can only be carried by a bodyshop authorised by maranello, and and repairs are signed off by a Ferrari mechanic that will state that the car is no worse for it's accident than an untouched vehicle. To me the cost I pay on insurance to have this particular cover is enough for me.

 

What goes around comes around. Let's say some sod stitches up my insurance company for £60k worth of hire charges, I can just guess what's going to happen to my premium even if I don't claim.

 

So in short, no I wouldn't expect a like for like courtesy car. In fact I wouldn't want one at all, it's not as if I haven't got another to run about in.

[stanski]

Thank goodness for that I thought this was going to be a I wrote the Zed off and got myself a Z4 !!

 

I am sure they are really fab cars but for me personally......

 

Hope your Zed is back soon anyway

[Sarnie]

If someone drove into your 430, and it was going to be offroad for two months, would you accept a Corsa et all as a courtesy car? Bearing in mind the time it took you to earn the money to pay for the car and now considering that your car is now 'accident damaged'.......

 

I think the least you should expect is to not have to drive around in a inferior car for the period of time your car is away from your possession....

 

considering that to insure my cars I'm paying in excess of £3k a year plus whatever the tracker costs are, I'm not going to contribute to these daft insurance costs by stitching another insurance company up for maybe £1,000 a day hire costs. Does my 430 cost me £1,000 a day to own? Does it chuff. So why should I expect another company to pay that? It's a joke which contributes highly to the ridiculous rises in insurance.

 

My only stipulation I have which is written in my insurance docs is that should the 430 be damaged, the repairs can only be carried by a bodyshop authorised by maranello, and and repairs are signed off by a Ferrari mechanic that will state that the car is no worse for it's accident than an untouched vehicle. To me the cost I pay on insurance to have this particular cover is enough for me.

 

What goes around comes around. Let's say some sod stitches up my insurance company for £60k worth of hire charges, I can just guess what's going to happen to my premium even if I don't claim.

 

So in short, no I wouldn't expect a like for like courtesy car. In fact I wouldn't want one at all, it's not as if I haven't got another to run about in.

 

It could be signed off by Enzo Ferrari himself but a damaged car is a damaged car, no matter to what standard it been repaired, the value of the car will be significantly impaired. When considering two cars, at the same price, no one would buy the previously damaged one.

 

You didn't pay whatever you paid, to be without your car did you?

[Chesterfield]

No, I paid what I did to ensure the highest standard of repair possible. If the car is not damaged to the extent that it requires writing off into a cat d or c, then there is no reason to declare slight cosmetic damage and repair either. putting me in another 430 or even 458 for a couple of months is not going to change what's happened to my car or "reimburse me" for any financial loss for having an accident damaged car. All it's going to do is stiff even more innocent drivers with hikes in their premiums because I wanted a like for like.

 

PS, Did you declare the damage to yours when you sold it ?

 

Besides, the discussion is about the acceptance of a hire car charged back to the other drivers insurance company at exhorbitant rates. Earlier you stated that your hire bill was in the region of £40k. Do you think it's right that the other insurance company foot the bill for such a joke cost? that's a £40k rise in premiums for that companys customers regardless of whether they had any accidents or not.

 

Given the rate at which premiums are rising I don't think it will be too long before practices such as this are stamped out tbh. It's just adding hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds to driver premiums for no reason. The charges are also a joke. Compare the running costs and depreciation of a car, plus the corporation tax, insurances etc and factor in the vat you can reclaim if buying a car to use in this manner and these hire car companies are taking the pish with the rates they are charging insurance companies.

[Sarnie]

No, I paid what I did to ensure the highest standard of repair possible. If the car is not damaged to the extent that it requires writing off into a cat d or c, then there is no reason to declare slight cosmetic damage and repair either. putting me in another 430 or even 458 for a couple of months is not going to change what's happened to my car or "reimburse me" for any financial loss for having an accident damaged car. All it's going to do is stiff even more innocent drivers with hikes in their premiums because I wanted a like for like.

 

PS, Did you declare the damage to yours when you sold it ?

 

Besides, the discussion is about the acceptance of a hire car charged back to the other drivers insurance company at exhorbitant rates. Earlier you stated that your hire bill was in the region of £40k. Do you think it's right that the other insurance company foot the bill for such a joke cost? that's a £40k rise in premiums for that companys customers regardless of whether they had any accidents or not.

 

Given the rate at which premiums are rising I don't think it will be too long before practices such as this are stamped out tbh. It's just adding hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds to driver premiums for no reason. The charges are also a joke. Compare the running costs and depreciation of a car, plus the corporation tax, insurances etc and factor in the vat you can reclaim if buying a car to use in this manner and these hire car companies are taking the pish with the rates they are charging insurance companies.

 

Yes of course I declared the incident to the buyer as he had it inspected and also the Lambo dealer referred me to the bodyshop etc. I refered the buyer to the dealer to verify it's history, so it would have been stupid of me to not mention anything that the inspector or dealer might report back to the buyer.

 

I am not saying that the fee's the hire companies are not extortionate. I agree that they are. I am saying that I would expect a like-for-like replacement. Me declining a like for like replacement is not going to rid the world of the 'accident management' industry is it? If someone drives into me, its only right that they or their insurance company ensure that I am at no loss whatsoever. Its not my fault that the costs of a like-for-like car is so expensive is it?

[Chesterfield]

So as everyone else does it, then you may as well do it yourself eh? Sod the fact it's just lumped £40k onto other peoples premiums so you can keep up appearances.

 

I'm sticking to my principals. It may not change the industry, but at least I'll know I'm not contributing to the problem.

 

Do you think if the person that ran into you had been insured by the same underwriter that you would have been provided with that same £40k hire car for two months? I highly doubt it. And I also highly doubt you would have got anywhere in asking them to provide one too.

 

These companies will be giving kick backs to the insurers from the money they make on the hire costs passed to the other party.

 

If an insurer isn't willing to pay the same hire car costs if both parties are insured by them, then they should be barred from passing on such costs when the at fault driver is not underwritten by them.

 

The wording on most policies is that you will not be "inconvenienced" excessively. The only thing that would suffer from being without your supercar for a couple of months is your ego IMHO, I'm not going to stitch up another insurer for ridiculous costs just so I can swan round in another supercar for a couple of months. What's the point?

[Sarnie]

So as everyone else does it, then you may as well do it yourself eh? Sod the fact it's just lumped £40k onto other peoples premiums so you can keep up appearances.

 

I'm sticking to my principals. It may not change the industry, but at least I'll know I'm not contributing to the problem.

 

Do you think if the person that ran into you had been insured by the same underwriter that you would have been provided with that same £40k hire car for two months? I highly doubt it. And I also highly doubt you would have got anywhere in asking them to provide one too.

 

These companies will be giving kick backs to the insurers from the money they make on the hire costs passed to the other party.

 

If an insurer isn't willing to pay the same hire car costs if both parties are insured by them, then they should be barred from passing on such costs when the at fault driver is not underwritten by them.

 

The wording on most policies is that you will not be "inconvenienced" excessively. The only thing that would suffer from being without your supercar for a couple of months is your ego IMHO, I'm not going to stitch up another insurer for ridiculous costs just so I can swan round in another supercar for a couple of months. What's the point?

 

The point is that I paid to 'swan around in my supercar', not a Corsa, therefore why should I be without said supercar due to someone elses inability to drive, no matter what the cost is to them?

[sasha@lazytrips]

The point is: why should you have to drive a shed for a couple months because somebody else has damaged your property? I am really against these arguments, much like the "why should you get a new bumper? You could just bend the old one back into shape and fill the hole". The point is that your experience from the point of the accident onwards should be as close as possible to not having had the incident in the first place. That's a major part of why you pay your insurance.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

1. I come over to your house and set it on fire, would it be ok for me to place you and your family in a studio apartment for a few months at the top of a tower block in a bad part of town while I rebuild the house exactly as it was (I'll make sure that I replace like for like - ie. fit used carpets & buy second-hand furniture & TV although this is irrelevant for the argument's sake).

 

2. I take your wedding ring off your finger & badly damage it by bending it into a figure of 8. I then say that it's possible to fix, but will take 2 months. In the meantime, please wear this rubber band that I got for you. Same difference.

 

I know these are somewhat extreme, but the point is the same. If you have a particular way of life, expectations, plans and possessions together with the associated feelings, symbolism et al, why should you have to give these up because somebody has damaged your property? I appreciate that it will never be possible to completely annihilate all trace of the inconvenience, but in a civilised society, it should at least be minimised.

 

By your argument, somebody who steals a few million pounds from a bank vault should get the same punishment as someone who has pickpocketed a fiver because the act of stealing took place and the damage should be immaterial. At the same time, while the money is being recovered from your offshore account, the bank will be compensated with a fiver to keep them going while they wait.

[Chesterfield]

Example 1. People are put into hotels while houses are repaired or rebuilt. They are not rented houses down the street fully furnished at rates charged back to the insurer above what would normally be charged.

 

Example 2. You would not be given any replacement ring while yours is being repaired, in fact if it can't be repaired, it would be the same as a write off, you would just be paid the market value for it and it'd up to you to buy a replacement. I have some very expensive original paintings in my house, if they were destroyed, what would they do, borrow some more from a gallery and commission the artist to paint replacements? Or just pay me what they are worth, and I get to choose what to buy as replacements.

 

Your third point of two value crimes receiving the same punishment does not fit the case either, as the person/s footing the bill are not the other banks customers.

 

You think it's acceptable that just two months hire charges (£40k) for keeping up appearances ammount to almost half the value of the car that's being substituted (£80k)?

 

As I've said, if you think the above is fine then that's your opinion and you are entitled to it, but in my view you can't then moan about rising insurance costs while advocating the above as acceptable practice.

 

If it is acceptable, then show me one example of where both parties involved have been underwritten by the same insurer and they have agreed to such ludicrous hire car costs. If it's your daily drive and you need an exact same spec car to satisfy work or home commitments then fine, but if it's just to satisfy your ego and image then it's unwarranted imho.

 

Perhaps we can split this discussion off from the Z4 review thread (can another mod do it as I'm on iPhone). ?

[was8v]

I agree with chesterfield.

 

Perhaps motoring policies should have another level above fully comp - "like for like".

 

As standard you should get a standard hire car (e.g. Golf) to get you about.

 

If you feel your street cred is that important (or perhaps you require 7 seats), then yourself pay extra for "like for like" insurance which would cover the difference between the hire charge for the golf (paid by the at fault party) and the hire charge for a like for like car.

 

Why should the average motorist pay a ridiculous amount for your vanity?

 

I don't pay my insurance so you can swan around looking cool. You should pay for that. If I damage your property accidentally, fair enough I pay for it to be fixed (with reasonable measures to reduce inconvenience)- possible time without it is an inherent risk when you turn onto the public road.

 

 

Its either that or regulate the hire car industry so they can't charge 40k for 2 months rental of an 80k car. However, regulation like this wouldn't be viable at all in our economy.....

[was8v]

1. I come over to your house and set it on fire, would it be ok for me to place you and your family in a studio apartment for a few months at the top of a tower block in a bad part of town while I rebuild the house exactly as it was (I'll make sure that I replace like for like - ie. fit used carpets & buy second-hand furniture & TV although this is irrelevant for the argument's sake).

 

2. I take your wedding ring off your finger & badly damage it by bending it into a figure of 8. I then say that it's possible to fix, but will take 2 months. In the meantime, please wear this rubber band that I got for you. Same difference.

 

...........

 

By your argument, somebody who steals a few million pounds from a bank vault should get the same punishment as someone who has pickpocketed a fiver because the act of stealing took place and the damage should be immaterial. At the same time, while the money is being recovered from your offshore account, the bank will be compensated with a fiver to keep them going while they wait.

 

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The motoring incidents talked about are ACCIDENTS!!! Not malicious intent as you suggest.

 

We are only human, these things happen.

[Vik54]

The point is: why should you have to drive a shed for a couple months because somebody else has damaged your property? I am really against these arguments, much like the "why should you get a new bumper? You could just bend the old one back into shape and fill the hole". The point is that your experience from the point of the accident onwards should be as close as possible to not having had the incident in the first place. That's a major part of why you pay your insurance.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

1. I come over to your house and set it on fire, would it be ok for me to place you and your family in a studio apartment for a few months at the top of a tower block in a bad part of town while I rebuild the house exactly as it was (I'll make sure that I replace like for like - ie. fit used carpets & buy second-hand furniture & TV although this is irrelevant for the argument's sake).

 

2. I take your wedding ring off your finger & badly damage it by bending it into a figure of 8. I then say that it's possible to fix, but will take 2 months. In the meantime, please wear this rubber band that I got for you. Same difference.

 

I know these are somewhat extreme, but the point is the same. If you have a particular way of life, expectations, plans and possessions together with the associated feelings, symbolism et al, why should you have to give these up because somebody has damaged your property? I appreciate that it will never be possible to completely annihilate all trace of the inconvenience, but in a civilised society, it should at least be minimised.

 

By your argument, somebody who steals a few million pounds from a bank vault should get the same punishment as someone who has pickpocketed a fiver because the act of stealing took place and the damage should be immaterial. At the same time, while the money is being recovered from your offshore account, the bank will be compensated with a fiver to keep them going while they wait.

 

LOGIC F-A-I-L