I would imagine Vanagon rates would be lower than Volvos regardless of crash
test results.  My guess is that while Volvos get wrecked at rates less than
the average, that average is still higher than the rate of Vanagon
accidents.  Repair costs average of Volvos must be astronomically higher
than Vanagon costs.  Crash results aside, insurers still set rates
essentially on actuarial data.  I was trying to explain to someone why,
although her daughter's new Beetle might crash really well in the tests, it
might not be statistically safer than a lot of the "crackerboxes" she
avoided buying for her daughter (she opted for the New Beetle over the Jetta
or Golf with the crash tests as a justification--even though New Beetle
accident rates are higher).  The driver will always matter more than the
vehicle.

Donald Baxter
'85GL
Atlanta, GA

----- Original Message -----
From: John Rodgers <inua@SCOTT.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Vanagon-vs-volvo

> The pictures in the site would sure be grist to take to you insurance rep
to try
> and get a better rate.
>
> Has anyone ever questioned their insurance carriers about rates on
vanagons and
> rates on Volvos, to to make the comparison?
>
> Results would be interesting.
>
> John Rodgers
> "88 GL Driver
>
> "Karl F. Bloss" wrote:
>
> > http://www.251.org/volvocrash.html
> >
> > > Could someone send me the address of the site that has the front end
> > > collision test with the poor Volvo against the Vanagon.
> >
> > Karl and Kristina Bloss, Trexlertown, PA
> > '87 Westfalia Weekender  "Beverley" - 191K miles
> > http://www.enter.net/~bloss/vw/
> > PA/NJ Vanagon owner's mailing list:
http://www.enter.net/~bloss/vw/pavanagon/