Fastest cars with the cheapest insurance

Baby, you're much too fast -- but that doesn't mean you'll overpay for insurance. Check out these numbers.

By MSN Money Partner Sep 21, 2011 2:03PM

This post comes from Emmet Pierce at partner site Insure.com.

 

I guess we should have known by the way you parked your car sideways that you like to drive fast (as Prince famously said). So we performed a review of high-performance cars and the cost of auto insurance. Insure.com has found some insurance bargains among cars that deliver quick acceleration.

 

And you say, "What have I got to lose?" Not much -- you can drive a powerful auto without paying top dollar for your coverage.

 

A variety of factors are used to calculate insurance rates. Insurance companies base their premiums on the perceived risk of paying out injury and damage claims. They consider safety features that protect drivers, the likelihood of vehicle theft, and the cost of repairing and replacing parts.

 

Believe it or not, we started to worry, wondering if we had enough data -- but we've found some choices that deliver speed and a relatively lower insurance bill. (How does your vehicle compare on insurance rates?) Post continues after video.

You need a love that's going to last

The Chevrolet Corvette GS two-door convertible, for example, has a national average annual insurance premium of $1,802. When you factor in the car's 0-to-60 mph acceleration rate of 4 seconds, you have an average premium cost of $450.50 per second.

 

In comparison, the Mercedes SL65 AMG has a 0-to-60 acceleration rate of 4.5 seconds and an average annual premium of $3,544. That gives the slower-accelerating vehicle an average premium cost of $787.56 per second, nearly 75% more than the Corvette GS.  (Insure.com's average rates are based on what a 40-year-old male with a good driving record would pay.)

 

Among the 44 automobiles Insure.com reviewed that travel from 0 to 60 mph in 5 seconds or less, the best car insurance bargain -- as calculated by cost per second -- was the Chevrolet Camaro SS. While not the quickest car in the group, the Camaro SS still has a relatively fast acceleration rate of 5 seconds. But the Camaro SS has a cost-per-second insurance rate of $324, compared with $687.35 for the ZR1. That means you'll pay 112% more for car insurance to shave 1.6 seconds off your acceleration time with the ZR1. That's on the verge of being obscene!

 

You're moving much too fast

Our study found that the Ford Mustang GT two-door coupe and the Mercedes C63 AMG each have a 0-to-60 acceleration rate of 4.3 seconds. The Mustang GT has an average cost-per-second insurance premium of $401.40 compared with $633.02 for the C63. That means the Mercedes owner pays 58% more per second of acceleration time.

 

Whichever speedy car you choose, honey, you've got to slow down, because if you don't you're going to run your little car right in the ground.

 

Fast cars with cheap auto insurance

Here are the top 10 for the 2011 model year, followed by the average national premium, acceleration from 0 to 60 mph, and the insurance cost per second of acceleration time:

  • Chevrolet Camaro 22 -- $1,620, 5 seconds, $324 per second.
  • Dodge Challenger R/T -- $1,757, 5 seconds, $351.40 per second.
  • Ford Mustang GT convertible -- $1,696, 4.7 seconds, $360.85 per second.
  • Ford Mustang GT coupe -- $1,726, 4.3 seconds, $401.40 per second.
  • Chevrolet Corvette coupe -- $1,741, 4.2 seconds, $414.52 per second.
  • Audi S5 4.2 Quattro -- $1,995, 4.8 seconds, $415.63 per second.
  • Chevrolet Corvette convertible -- $1,782, 4.2 seconds, $424.29 per second.
  • BMW M3 -- $2,013, 4.7 seconds, $428.30 per second.
  • Lexus IS F -- $1,979, 4.6 seconds, $430.22 per second.
  • Chevrolet Corvette GS convertible -- $1,802, 4 seconds, $450.50 per second.

You can find the entire list of 20 cars and the rankings methodology here.

 

More on Insure.com and MSN Money:

VIDEO ON MSN MONEY

25Comments
Oct 11, 2011 7:01PM
avatar
Another case where numbers don't tell the whole story.  Of course the Corvette is cheaper to insure.  You're comparing a 70K car to one that costs over 200K.  Which is going to cost to more to fix if in an accident ?  Duh.  Same with the Camaro SS to Corvette comparison.  a 40K car compared to one that costs over 120K.  Double duh.  And on and on...
Nov 23, 2011 9:48PM
avatar
If you have to worry about the cost of insurance you can not afford the car.
Sep 22, 2011 8:13AM
avatar
Can someone tell me the point of this article? Insurance is dependent upon so many variables, i.e.. age, sex, location, value, and too many more to list. Complete waste of time to read this nonsense, sorry I took the time.
Sep 22, 2011 1:57AM
avatar
This article has terrible math. A slower car = less $$ per second, making this useless. If you had the option to pay $1,600 for insurance for either of two cars, would you rather have a car that can go 0-60mph in 5 seconds, or 4? This article would lead you to believe the 5 second car is better:

Camaro - $1,600, 5 seconds, $320 per second.
Corvette - $1,600, 4 seconds, $400 per second.

Are you kidding me?

Sep 21, 2011 7:02PM
avatar

Pontaic GTO 04-06, cheap as dirt. G8 or GXP, not to shabby either. I'm surprised the M3 isn't more. Why with all that aluminum sitting on the front end it's got to give insurance companies a heart attack. From the control arms, end links...heck, even the strut housing is, you guess it....aluminum. You really do get what you paid for.

 

I'd think the challenger would be cheaper than the Camaro SS. It seems to appeal to an older demographic (although in my opinion, the coolest looking of them all.) Then again, it comes in at a higher price point.

 

Out of them all I think the corvette coupe is a straight up steal. Not just sub 4's but a capable fully realized suspension at bargain basement prices.

 

The best way to get your speed fix at corolla prices is buy a moderate performance car used and mod the ever loving crap out of it.

Nov 25, 2011 8:43AM
avatar
This logic in this article is misguided.  There are also many other factors to consider and using 0-60 doesn't make sense.  If anything 1/4 mile times should have been used.  I think the author had to do some research to find out what number would make this article work.

For example, the Corvette costs $1,802 to insure (and we're assuming its the base model, no ZR1 or Z06.  This would be around the $50,000 range retail.

The Mercedes SL65 AMG Retail is $198,750 (2011) and an insurance cost of $3,544.  So, according to this article the faster Corvette is a better value because its cheaper than the slower Mercedes - wrong.  It only costs about twice as much to insure a car that costs 4X as much, so the better 'deal'  is the Mercedes.

Is Emmett a woman?  Must be for  two reasons, the logic and the use of the word "honey" , "speedy", and "little car".  What guy uses those words when talking about cars?   "Whichever speedy car you choose, honey, you've got to slow down, because if you don't you're going to run your little car right in the ground".   AMG SL65 or Mustang "speedy" and "lil car"..... seriously?  Try using those words at your next car meet and see what happens, "Honey, what a speedy lil car you have there honey".

Oct 11, 2011 10:20PM
avatar
and this artilce is sponsored by the insurance companies....just look at our ads!
Sep 22, 2011 8:37AM
avatar
Dirt ranger, the Camaro weighs considerably more than the Corvette with 4-10 less HP than the Corvette, depending on if you get the optional exhaust the Corvette offers. The SS Camaro is 426 HP @ 3900 lbs, while the Corvette is 430 (w/o exhaust) @ 3200 lbs. Are you really trying to say the Camaro has a better 0-60 than the 700 lbs less Vette? The times are correct.  Since you brought it up, the ZR-1 has a 0-60 in 3.4 sec. The Camaro is 4.8, not too bad for such a heavy car. but nowhere near the lighter Vette.
Sep 21, 2011 6:33PM
avatar

Worthless article.. Comparing cars that cost $60-250,000 with cars that cost $30-50k and saying that it is cheaper to insure the cheaper cars.. duh..

 

I know value of the car is not everything, and actually brand has a lot to do with it..

 

For example:

I owned a 2006 Ford Mustang GT that cost (used) $25k.  I added a supercharger to it, and with other performance modifications, it had over 550 hp and replacement value was over $38k.  Insurance was $75 per month for full coverage.

 

I just bought a 2001 Porsche Boxster S.  It has 250 hp and has a replacement value around $15k.  Slower, cheaper, and handles better, yet insurance is over $100 per month for full coverage.

 

So a car 1/3 the value, half as fast, that handles better and is less likely to lose control IF it is driven hard, costs 30% more to insure, simply because it has the brand name "Porsche". 

 

If you were going to write an article about insurance vs. different sport cars, that is what the focus should be.  And how about a little research outside of google, like into why a mild sports car like a Boxster S has an insurance "performance" rating of 24, when a BMW Z3 M has a rating of 17, and a new Mustang GT has a rating of 12, when they are all similar performance cars.. ?  It is PURELY a brand stereotype.  Some bean counter decided that if the car starts with a P, it is going to have a driver behind the wheel that will drive like he stole it, where if the brand starts with an F, the driver will drive it like it is a Honda.. Why?

Sep 22, 2011 12:28PM
avatar

yharlie, Are you from this planet? Of course the insurance company will pay if you have an accident while speeding, or if you run a red light or drive drunk, etc. Otherwise 90% of claims would never be paid. One of the ways used to determine liability in a claim is the issuance of a violation. If you get one your insurance company is likely to be the one paying. How can such ignorant people not be embarrassed to post idiotic comments! Why do you think that people with more violations pay higher insurance rates. Because they are more likely to be in an accident that the insurance company will have to pay for.

The math in this article is so flawed it's ridiculous. Are there any people left in the "news" business with common sense. Insurance companies use tons of information to determine rates and if you choose to purchase a car based on just $ to seconds in 0-60 tests you are likely to end up with a slow cheap car. The article proves that. The Camaro is the slowest cheapest car of the bunch.

Get real and right an article that is worth reading!

Feb 21, 2012 11:30AM
avatar
Cost according to acceleration?  Are you kidding?  If you use this logic in selecting a car, you might be a moron.
Nov 27, 2011 3:58AM
avatar
One of the major factors in insurance costs is the cost of replacement parts. despite having a fiberglass body,,the Corvette body panels are easier to replace relative to the Mercedes.
Sep 22, 2011 6:54PM
avatar
As pointed out by descalada, the author's math is upside-down --- the rational way to compare performace against insurance cost is to MULTIPLY the cost times the 0-60 time, or, equivalently, divide the cost by the acceleration (in mph/sec/sec). That way, the result is a meaure of cost per unit of acceleration (performance), and cars with high numbers are a worse deal than cars with low numbers. The way the author computes it, a typical slow and cheap to insure car comes out with a TINY number, and a typical fast and expensive to insure car has a HUGE number, which proves nothing and is totally useless if the object is to compare similar fast cars in a consistent manner to find which is cheapest relative to their performance.
Sep 22, 2011 7:20AM
avatar
This insurance dirt bag doesent know **** from shinola. The only thing Emmet Pierce knows is how to sell you a piece of **** insurance policy that you might as well throw out the window of your corvette as your wiping your **** on it
Apr 8, 2013 5:11PM
avatar
Fastest cars with the cheapest insurance- MSN Money : Try this site where you can comapre quotes from different companies:  usainsurancequotes.net
Apr 8, 2013 4:47PM
avatar
Fastest cars with the cheapest insurance- MSN Money : Try this site where you can comapre quotes from different companies:  usainsurancequotes.net
Sep 21, 2011 10:33PM
avatar
i dont know where this guy is getting his figures but i have no tickets and 1 accident with a good driver discount on a 2008 chevy cobalt lt. i pay 1626 annualy
Sep 21, 2011 11:00PM
avatar
dont let thus article fool u any insurance quote that u get online like this is liability only.been there and done that.they conveniently forgot to tell u that.
Nov 25, 2011 12:44PM
avatar

 

 

 

 

 

you forgot to  figure cost of cars. Very important . BMW and Buick drivers are so bad it is figured in rates.

Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?

DATA PROVIDERS

Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.

How much to insure that car?

Check out rates for more than 850 vehicles.

Step 1
Location
Step 2
Vehicle make
Vehicle model