Insurance

[Peter J]

I don't want to do a commercial here, and I am certainly not an insurance salesman, but I have seen some people mention premiums of several hundred pounds a year for insurance, and I am paying less than £100 per year with Churchill (1.3 Van, aged 54 with full no claims. They are particularly good for Maestro Vans because they rate them the same as the car.) You can get a free quote online just by filling your details in. Worth a try? http://www.churchill.com/

P.S. If you buy insurance through the likes of Nationwide and Haliifax they will just pass it on to Churchill and take a commission for doing so.

[Beaker]

Quite a few of us have our cars on classics policies nowadays with agreed valuation. The trouble with the commericial insurers is they don't value the vehicle to its true worth if we have an accident.

[Peter J]

Thanks for the reply Beaker, I have only the legal minimum insurance and didn't realise that.

Sorry also if I have started this thread in the wrong forum - Technical Help.

Churchill's search engine can be quite useful if you want to quickly find out how much it would cost you to insure a different vehicle though. Curiously, I discovered it costs more to insure the Maestro 2.0 Diesel Van, than the maestro 1.3 Petrol Van, even though the power outputs are about the same.

[E_T_V]

If you have a read on the insurance bit of the website it'll explain better.

http://www.maestro.org.uk/insurance/

The 1.3 is a lower insurance group than the diesel as although the power outputs are the same the diesel has a lot more torque and so is faster in the real world performance.

[Peter J]

Thanks for the link ETV :)
I don't understand how the increased torque would increase the performance though, because it has to be higher geared to compensate for the lower revs. The diesel delivers higher torque, but lower revs so the maximum power outputs are about the same, making the maximum performance about the same?
Perhaps they are just doing it on engine capacity and not bothering to take the power output into account, like they do with the road tax?
----------
Just as a matter of interest I used the Churchill search engine to get myself a quote for a Ford Transit Courier (perhaps the most common small van in Britain at the moment?) and found it would cost a lot more to insure than the Maestro Van with Churchill. And yet I have read posts on here where people have said they found the Maestro Van expensive to insure. The only reason I can think of for this is that Churchill are rating the Maestro Van the same as the car, whereas other companies are rating it as a commercial which attracts a higher premium?
I can see that a van may be more likely to be broken into, as mine was broken into a couple of times before I fitted the alarm. The alarm is triggered by micro switches I fitted on the door handle mechanisms inside the door, so if someone pulls a door handle it sets off the alarm, irrespective of whether they open the door or not as there is enough slack in the mechanism to allow the handle to be pulled enough to trigger the switch. I have disconnected all the other alarm sensors, so there are no false alarms. When I switch the alarm off it chirps 4 times instead of 2 if it has been set off, and this has happened on several occasions so I know someone has tried a door handle whilst I have been away and set it off - because that is the only way it can be set off, apart from actually opening a door or the bonnet. As far as i know no one has ever tried to break into any car I have had, so I can only guess thats one of the reasons vans may attract a higher premium with some companies?
I noticed a similar van to mine sell on e bay for £350 so will stick with third party. I have never made a claim since I started driving 38 years ago so the Insurance fat cats have still done alright out of me.

[E_T_V]

Power is essentially torque multiplied by engine rpm so although the gearing is different to compensate the total power remains the same, however the increased torque at low rpms means the diesel can perform better. That is also the reason that the diesel can tow significant loads whilst the 1.3 van does struggle a little.

[Peter J]

I can see that the 1.3 petrol would sound as though it was struggling because it would be revving higher to produce the same power output. So the diesel will give the illusion of being more powerful because it is producing the same power at lower revs.

[E_T_V]

It is more to do with the shape of the torque/power curves. The torque curve of the diesel is a lot flatter than that of the petrol. Its difficult to explain as it is a complicated subject.

However think of it this way as an example

a 1.3 will make max power at roughly max revs. At 50% of max revs the power will be less than 50% of max power.
A diesel will also make max power at roughly max revs. At 50% of max revs the diesel will make more than 50% of its max power as the power band is much wider. It is this difference that makes the diesel more drivable and more suitable for lugging large loads about.

[ChrisM]

a 1.3 will make max power at roughly max revs. At 50% of max revs the power will be less than 50% of max power.
A diesel will also make max power at roughly max revs. At 50% of max revs the diesel will make more than 50% of its max power as the power band is much wider. It is this difference that makes the diesel more drivable and more suitable for lugging large loads about.
That's a really good way of looking at it, Dan. Quite an interesting discussion, something I'd never thought about until today!

[Peter J]

I can see what you are saying as I drove lorries for many years, but at the end of the day if the power outputs are about the same, surely the maximum acceleration and speed will be about the same, (if not slightly faster for the petrol van as it is lighter) which is what I thought the insurance premium would be based on?

[E_T_V]

If an engine was able to run at max power all the time (e.g. a CVT gearbox) then yes what you say would be true, however as we all have manual boxes then you will spend times at non optimum rpm, this is where the extra torque counts.

I think it was Mr Shelby that once said, power sells cars, torque wins races.

[Peter J]

I have here the official Rover Vans brochure and handbook, and 'The Good Van Guide' magazine dated July 1990. They all quote 69bhp for the 1.3 petrol van, but only 60bhp for the 2.0 diesel van. So I fail to see how the diesel van can go faster with both 110kg more kerb weight and 9 fewer horses :giveup:
-------
'The Good Van Guide' magazine road test shows 34mpg for the petrol, and 51.9mpg for the diesel! But even at today's fuel prices you still have to do a lot of mileage to get the benefit of that when when you factor in the higher cost per litre of diesel, higher road tax, higher insurance, higher buying and repair costs, more noise and less power.

[E_T_V]

Like I said power isn't everything. Take my bike for instance, it is 70bhp but begger all torque. If you added 500kg of payload (somehow), then according you you the bike would still be faster than the diesel van. Well in theory it might be but it would be virtually undrivable in everyday use due to the lack of torque.
I've owned and driven both the 1.3 and the diesel vans (got a 1.3 at the moment), and the diesels are a far more capable vehicle. Towing or lugging large payloads with the 1.3 is far harder work than it is with the diesel.
This is why I'm junking the perfectly good 1.3 engine and fitting a turbodiesel to it.

This is also the reason that the 700 van almost always came with the diesel engine, as it is more capable at lugging heavy loads. The 500 vans were mostly the 1.3 engine.

The running costs depend on how you use your van. If you use it as an average car (12,000 miles a year) then the running costs are practically identical (fuel + tax + servicing). However most vans will be used for more miles than this, so the diesel starts pulling ahead on fuel costs alone. If you use biodiesel or even veggie oil as a supplementary fuel then the running costs decrease further.

Then there is the engine longevity to think about. How many A series reach 150 or 200k miles without any major engine work. This is standard for most perkins primas with 300k miles not being unheard of.

[Peter J]

Everyone seems to agree the turbo diesel is better, the reports I have read suggest it gives more power without sacrificing fuel economy. I can see this engine would have an even greater advantage over petrol across the channel, where diesel costs less than petrol.

[E_T_V]

Yes, but sadly turbo diesel maestro vans were never sold to the general public (only the police and MOD). I made one and I'm making a higher power one when the weather gets a bit nicer. My old TD van wasn't brilliant on fuel (40-45mpg typically), but then it was tuned for power not economy. The new one should have more power and I'm hoping still give 40-45mpg due to the more efficient engine.

[G51 NAV]

...However most vans will be used for more miles than this, so the diesel starts pulling ahead on fuel costs alone. I guess where you live diesel is cheaper than petrol, or are youu meaning the diesel takes the lead because of extra mpg?

[E_T_V]

Exactly the diesel does more miles per pound because of the extra mpg.
I did some rough calculations assuming petrol costed 105 per litre and diesel 120 and over 12k miles the running costs came out pretty much equal for petrol and diesel
Over 20k miles per year the diesel is a couple of hundred pounds a year cheaper to run.