Having a disucssion with a friend the about this. Don't know who is right? He reckons performance modification (esp. chipping) is not really of interest to an insurance company, and that's why they don't charge a hefty premium for such modifications (true?). He also reckons that a crash investigation team would not really look for or report such modifications. He supports this by saying performance is not the primary interest for insurers or the law. High power vehicles may even be statistically less likely to be involved in accidents due to having better braking, being owned typically by more experienced drivers, so on. None of this seems intuitively correct to me. I would assume an insurance company to seek reasons to avoid paying out in the event of a claim, and non disclosure of modifications is breaking the terms and conditions of many an insurance contract. Wouldn't the presence of eg. a turbo pressure dial in the dashboard be *routinely* sought and reported by crash investigation teams? Is it true that performance cars are involved in proportionally fewer accidents? Seems to me that higher power cars do tend to fall into slightly higher insurance categories, not merely due to the intrinsic value of the car, or the likelyhood of it being stolen, but also because they are considered more of a risk. Consider this scenario - driver causes accidental death to a pedestrian. There are no witnesses, no evidence of reckless driving. Let's say the pedestrian jumped out but there's no evidence of this either. The car is chipped to provide a performance boost and the insurance company is unaware of this. Is it of any consequence?
-- S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t