On Wed, 7 Jun 95 12:36:06 CDT THOMAS CARRINGTON said:
>Curious about the difference, I started to read the fine print. It seems that
>the Vanagon receives a "Vehicle Injury Rating Discount" of $7.81! This may not
>seem like much, until you realize that the coverage without the discount is
>$20.08 for 6-months. Seems that the Vanagon gets a whopping 30% (approx)
>discount!!!!  Thats right, my insurance company (USAA) rates my Vanagon safer
>than any of my other "normal" cars! WOW! Who would'a thunk it?
>Any similar experiences out there?

yup. course, it is the same company. ;)
in some little booklet they put out a few years ago, they had found that the
vanagons did really well in side and front-angle crashes (which, incidentally,
Mercedes claims are the most common) because it sat up so high.

the down-side is the cost of comprehensive and collision. :( because there
are no fenders that can be unbolted, etc, it's very costly to fix a bus or
a vanagon. so we all have to use Our Superior Driving Skills and Vastly
Excellent Visibility to valid the Scourge of Ignorant Careless Aimers of
Rusted Scum (SICARS)!!

sidenote: when i couldn't find the vanagon pickup i wanted, i let myself be
conned into buying a mercedes. interestingly enough, the insurance for the
mercedes was slightly cheaper than the vanagon ... about $20 each six-months.
comparing line-items, it was the airbag that did it. the medical coverage for
the MB was about 1/3 of that for the vanagon, but the collision/comprehensive
for the MB was MUCH higher! and brought the total cost almost back even!!

so even though we drive expensive-to-fix autos, they ain't the most costly!!
:)
joel