I only keep comprehensive on my classics because the value’s there, but for an old beater? Not worth it.
- I get where you’re coming from, but I’ve seen a couple “old beaters” get wrecked by random stuff—hail, deer, whatever—and the owners were out a car and scrambling for rides.
- Sometimes comprehensive is just cheap peace of mind, especially if you live somewhere with wild weather.
- Not saying it’s always worth it, but I’d rather pay a little extra than be stuck if something weird happens.
- Guess it depends how much you rely on your ride and what you can afford to risk.
Honestly, this is exactly the kind of thing that’s got me second-guessing just going with liability. My car’s not worth much on paper, but if it gets wiped out by a freak hailstorm or something, I’m basically stranded. I’d rather pay a bit more and not have to roll the dice every time the weather looks sketchy. Maybe it’s overkill for an old ride, but peace of mind counts for something... especially when your backup plan is “hope the bus shows up.”
I get where you’re coming from. It’s easy to look at the numbers and think, “Why bother with more than liability on an older car?” but the risk is real, especially with unpredictable weather these days. I’ve got a 15-year-old sedan that’s not worth much to anyone but me, and I still keep comprehensive on it. Had a tree branch come down during a storm last year—would’ve been out of luck if I’d dropped the extra coverage.
The peace of mind is worth a lot, even if the payout wouldn’t be huge. Plus, sometimes the difference in premium isn’t as much as you’d expect. If you rely on your car for work or just getting around, it’s not just about the car’s value—it’s about what losing it would do to your routine. That said, if you’ve got a solid backup plan or don’t drive much, maybe liability makes sense. But for most of us, that “hope the bus shows up” scenario isn’t exactly ideal...
That story about the hail totaled car has me rethinking things. I’m actually shopping for insurance for the first time and honestly, I keep getting stuck on this exact question—how much coverage is “enough”? My car isn’t worth a ton, but it’s my only way to get to work. If it got wrecked in a freak storm or something, I’d be pretty much stranded. But then again, the premiums add up. Is there a way to figure out when comprehensive just isn’t worth it anymore? Or do most people just keep it for peace of mind? I keep second-guessing myself...
Honestly, I get where you’re coming from—insurance feels like a gamble sometimes. For me, I kept comprehensive on my old Civic until the premium was about 10% of what the car was worth per year. After that, it just didn’t make sense. But if losing your car would really mess up your life, sometimes peace of mind is worth a little extra cash, even if the math isn’t perfect. It’s such a personal call.
