Protege5 vs. Matrix XRS vs. 2.5TS Impreza vs. PT Cruiser (hatch/wagon)

capitano · August 2003

I asked my insurance company for estimates of how much my insurance would be for the 3 vehicles I am looking at and I was surprised to learn that the p5 would cost me more than a mazda6i or the matrix XRS. The only thing the agent could see that would skew the cost was the crash test results. This was before the lackluster side impact scores for the 6 were known though.

Even with higher insurance costs, the p5 would still be more affordable than the other two.

boggse · August 2003

We've been over this many times on other boards. The P5 is considered a "premium" economy car, meaning replacement costs are above the average for all economy cars (including Kia Rio, etc.). The relatively high cost of insurance on the P5 has nothing to do with crash test scores (where it scored above average) or even medical and collision loss statistics (where it is just about average). It has everything to do with how much it will cost to buy a new one if yours gets stolen. Another good example of this phenomenon is the Jetta which has excellent crash test scores, but has high insurance rates. Agents just say crash test scores are the reason because they don't want to do the research to find out the real reason.

capitano · August 2003

Not buying that theory at all.

The replacement cost for the P5 has to be lower than for the 6 and the Matrix XRS. Both cars cost more and yet both cars will be cheaper for me to insure.

The NHTSA test for the Protege (P5 not tested)were:

5 stars front for driver and 4 for passenger.
4 stars side for rear seat and 3 stars for front seat.

The matrix got 5 stars front (both seats) and 4 stars side (again both).

Not too much of a difference. But insurance companies don't go by NHTSA. They use IIHS. Those results tell a different story.

IIHS didn't test the Matrix, but they did test the corolla and they are probably basing rates off of the corolla tests until the matrix is tested, if ever. IIHS gives the corolla "good" across all areas. IIHS didn't test the p5 either. But they do have an entry for the protege. It is rated overall "acceptable." It gets "acceptable" for structure/safety cage and restraints/dummy kinesmatics. It gets "good" for head/neck and chest. It gets "marginal" for leg/foot left and "poor" for leg/foot right.

To me that kind of disparity easily explains why the P5 will cost me more to insure than the other two cars.

IIHS has not tested the 6. If they are using the 626 to determine rates, then the pattern still fits for the rates I was quoted. The 626 doesn't score as well as the Corolla, but does do better than the protege.

Would I not buy the P5 based on crash test results? Probably not, but I think an informed buyer should consider all areas of a car's cost before making a decision.

big_guy · August 2003

If you want to make the crash test results of a particular model a major decision making point, the Forester would have to figure back into the equation somewhere. The Forester recieved 5 stars all around from the NHTSA tests and a Best Pick rating from the IIHS testing . . . tall wagon and all.

capitano · August 2003

That's not where I was going. I would rule out the Forester because it completely the wrong car...for me.

Crash tests can be a criterion, but should not be the decisive one IMO. Or should we all be driving Volvos?

Anyway, my point was not about the crash test result themselves, but that the insurance companies use those tests to gauge risk and how much they charge you for coverage. My company, USAA, would charge me more for the P5 then the mazda6 and more for the mazda6 than the matrix XRS. The difference between the 6 and the XRS was less than that between the P5 and the 6.

Some cars cost more to insure because they are stolen frequently, some cost more because they do poorly in crash tests and yet others cost more because they are more likely to injure someone in another vehicle.

boggse · August 2003

"Not buying that theory at all"

Sorry, but it is the reason. After doing extensive research with my insurance company (Erie) and my sister-in-law, who works for State Farm, as to why my Protege insurance went up $100 a year, it was determined that the symbol assigned to the vehicle had been changed from "economy" to "premium economy" in 2002.

The IIHS crash tests were performed on a 1999 model (which did not include the structural changes that my 2001 ES and all Protege5s have in the front end which should have improved the test result), so any changes in rates due to these results would have been reflected in 2000 or 2001 at the latest.

One other potential reason rates go up is an above average incidence of injury, collision, or theft loss. The averages for all small cars are 140, 113, and 120 respectively. The Mazda Protege scored 138, 113, and 108, so that was not a contributing factor.

The word from Erie (and confirmed by State Farm) after a week of phone calls and e-mails was that they did not raise rates due to crash tests, but replacement costs. Being a "premium economy" car, it costs more to replace in the event of theft or collision.

As for the 6, it is in a different category of vehicles: Mid-Size, so you can not make a direct comparison. I expect the same is true of the Matrix XRS. The insurance companies probably lump that in with SUVs, compared to which the Matrix costs less to replace than average.

The point is, I have done my homework on this topic, and when someone post that the insurance rates are high for the Protege[5] due to crash test scores according to their insurance agent, I can assure you that is not the case. Do you really think the agents have a clue? All they do is quote prices, and, when you ask "why so much?" they offer the explanation that there must be something lacking in safety -- in effect, blaming the car so they don't look bad by quoting a high number. They have nothing in their computerized quoting system that shows which cars are more costly to insure due to safety issues.

capitano · August 2003

Erie must have a different system.

USAA was telling me that one of the parts of the premium that was higher for the P5 was injury to the occupants. The premiums are broken down by categories. The part for medical payments was higher for the P5. I imagine different underwriters evaluate things a little differently.

The bottom line is that the P5 is more costly to insure than the 6 and the XRS. I'd be interested to know how it stacks up against the other cars thene is looking at, the PT cruiser and the 2.5TS.

bluong1 · August 2003

I think the insurance companies think that P5 owner are most likely a young macho male.

crkeehn · August 2003

Recently MSN published an article on the ten least expensive vehicles to insure, with help from Edmunds. The list was primarily minivans, with PT Cruiser leading the whole pack. The reason given, all the vehicles were primarily family vehicles and were most likely driven more gently and carefully as a result.

I could see the entry level sporty cars to be much more expensive to insure as they would be purchased by someone with sporty pretension and more limited resources as though they were just starting out in life. As Bluong1 so aptly said.. young macho males.

icvci · August 2003

Our 03 CR-V costs less to insure than our 03 P5.

Not too happy about that.

baggs32 · August 2003

Just a little side note about the insurance rates because we've gone over this in detail over on another thread.

There was a site that listed vehicles, by class, from least expensive to insure to most expensive. We were debating the Ford Escape vs. the Honda CR-V and surprisingly the Escape is cheaper. It was found that the difference is in fact due to average replacement/repair costs of the two. If you compare the IIHS crash test scores of the two you'll find that the CR-V did perform much better in their test (NHTSA's were about even).

The only IIHS test which the Escape performed better in was the 5 mph bumper bash. The CR-V is loads more expensive to repair after such a minor bump.

I guess that "little" bumper bash test carries more weight than we all thought.

baggs32 · August 2003

"Our 03 CR-V costs less to insure than our 03 P5."

Our 96 Civic costs more to insure than our 2002 Escape.

Not too happy about that either!

capitano · August 2003

Insurance cost should be only one of several criteria in the purchase decision.

Fuel economy should play a role. The P5 gets about the same mileage as the XRS according to the current EPA estimates. But the XRS takes premium fuel.

And for those that care, the P5 has ULEV status while the XRS only rates TLEV status (pollutes more than LEV).

bluong1 · August 2003

I just fill out the e-quotation forms from Progressive for both P5 and XRS under the exact same condition. The P5 comes up $26 cheaper for 6 months.

capitano · August 2003

because mine was on the order of $40 more per month for the P5 than the XRS. Which was exactly the opposite of what I would have expected.

toneetouch · August 2003

I was unaware that there were structural changes since the 1999 Protege was tested. That's good to hear, considering that the less than stellar crash-test results were the one compromise I felt I had made when I decided to buy my P5. Is there a source I can read to find what specifically was changed/improved? Thanks.

toneetouch · August 2003

1,500 miles clocked on my P5 so far, and I'm loving it more each day.

dinu01 · August 2003

On the 01 PRO ES

123.438 miles on the 91 Maxi GXE

Happy Motoring!
Dinu

boggse · August 2003

Check out this article:

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article- _id=3113

Specifically, I was thinking of this section:

"We praised the structure of that 2000 Protegé ES -- "as solid as the vault at Wells Fargo" -- but this 2001 update entails extensive suspension pickup-point reinforcements and heavier suspension subframing."

While there is no empirical evidence that the suspension changes improved crash test performance, I would expect some improvement.

bluong1 · August 2003

I'm not Boogse but please see Edmunds/Car Reviews/Road Test/First Drive/2001 Mazda Protege

Bruno

bluong1 · August 2003

While there is no empirical evidence that the suspension changes improved crash test performance, I would expect some improvement.

Ted, what make you think of that? I though the crash test performance depends only on how the chassis absorbs the energy from the impact. Both Protege 1999 and 2001 have the same triple-H structural body (excellently rigid) and door reinforcements, they must both perform equally well (or not) in term of the crash test.

There are some details like how the steering column, pedals, etc... retract during the crash, but I doubt that the new suspension reinforcements enter into the relevant components during the crash.

Bruno

PS: may be we should move this topic into appropriate discussion board.

toneetouch · August 2003

toneetouch · August 2003

From the Edmunds Protege First drive 2001:

"The Protege has retained what Mazda calls its "Triple-H" structure, featuring reinforcement in the roof, the B-pillars and lower points on the car. This strengthens the passenger compartment, protecting occupants from side impacts or rollovers."

Unless new crash tests are given, we can only guess if these reinforcements in the roof, the B-pillars, and lower points would be enough to improve the actual test scores.

bluong1 · August 2003

From my understanding, this sentence is just referred to the general description of the triple-H structural body type, which is already featured from the 1999 Protege Model. I don't believe there is any difference in the chassis/body between 1999 and 2001 model.

icvci · August 2003

There is a HUGE difference between the Element and the CR-V. It would seem there would be some difference between the P4 and P5.

Doesn't matter though folks. No one is going to waste their time testing a car that's already out of production.

toneetouch · August 2003

The way I read it (in the context of the improvements made from the '99), the sentence was explaining how the Triple-H structure was reinforced. I do see how I may have misread it.

If so... d'oh!

capitano · August 2003

How many shoppers look this closely at crash tests?

I know I didn't before my insurance shocker.

At one point I was looking at getting one of the new Altimas. I didn't know what its crash test results were until after someone posted in the Mazda6 board about the low side-impact scores of the 6.

boggse · August 2003

If the front subframing was stronger, it should take more energy to deform which would reduce the likelihood of footwell intrusion. Since that was the place the Protege scored worst, it seemed significant.

bluong1 · August 2003

But then I could as well say that the front is too rigid to absorb energy, resulting an intrusion in the footwell area. In this case thicker metal sheet will make it's even worse.

Alas, only a crashtest can tell us the true story.

capitano · August 2003

This thread seems to have died.

I made my decision, but things did not go as planned.

I bought the Matrix XRS. I didn't even test drive the other vehicles because my old car died on me and I had to buy something now.

I did go to dealer lots and looked at the 2.5TS and Protege5 and I would have test driven them if the dealers had been open. But I had this realization when I was looking at the cars on the lot. Nearly all new cars are desireable. They are so new and clean. I would probably be happy with anything I got. I would adapt to the quirks of any of the cars and go on my merry way. So in a time crunch I went for what I had already driven and had something I have wanted for several years: a six-speed manual tranny.

ateixeira · August 2003

Congrats!

)

-juice

icvci · August 2003

Why'd you go with the Matrix over the Vibe? Just curious. Around here the Vibe is a much better deal money-wise.

capitano · August 2003

Combination of things. Styling mostly. Neither car is available in my market. If the GT had been available here I might have been swayed. But since I had to travel to get either one, I let my preference for the Matrix styling be the deciding factor.

Also, from reading here and on some enthusiast forums, it appears that Toyota was doing a little better with fixing some problems in the early 2003s. One thing that comes to mind is the twilight sensor on the dash that was causing problems with DRLs and headlights.

There is also my bias against GM. We've owned a few GM products that have been dogs and I am leery of their products. While I understand that the Vibe and Matrix are practically identical where it counts, my bias tells me that the Vibe is a rebadged Toyota and not vice versa. Same as with the old Prizm and Corolla. This is apparently a fairly common bias as the Vibe is rated much lower in resale value.

icvci · August 2003

I think the Vibe's hit in resale can be attributed to the incentives being offered on it not consumer preference.

I considered the Vibe but, there wasn't a 5 speed available in my area. So that sealed it for the P5. I was sold on the utility of the Vibe, not it's driving characteristics. I liked the stereo in the Vibe/Matrix much better than that in the P5. Bottom line, I'm glad I ended up with the P5, it's a pretty fun car.

What color did you get?

capitano · August 2003

I got the cosmic blue. I would have been Ok with red, or indigo ink as well. If truly desperate I would have even accepted "ticket me" yellow.

I went and looked at P5s on the Sunday before I made my deal. It is an attractive car. I like the interior it has better than the vibe/trix one. If I had driven one, I might have bought one.

Before this acquisition I had deluded myself into thinking I was a supremely rational buyer. Read all the reviews. Research them to death and make a selection. I bought my first two new vehicles that way.

Since my process was so drawn out and yet compressed it was very odd.

I was determined to get a new car when we moved back to the states 2 years ago. Finances simply would not allow it. I wanted an RSX type S. A trip to my parent's house showed me that I couldn't justify a coupe when we could barely fit in our civic.

I started looking at the Altima. Then the Matrix came out. I went to test drive the matrix in both XR 5speed and XRS 6 speed models. No dice. All the dealer had was base and XR autos. I drove the Altima SE. I liked the power and the handling, but the interior was lacking.

I started looking at the P5 as a surrogate Matrix, because at least it was really available as a 5 speed locally. Then the 6 came out and I was very interested. If the 6 wagon was out now, I would have given it a very close look.

I had still planned on testing the P5 and the 6, but when my 12-year old car gave out on me, I needed to get something quick. For a while it looked like the XRS wasn't even going to be available in my region at all. So the P5 was looking like a shoe in for a bit.

Protege5 vs. Matrix XRS vs. 2.5TS Impreza vs. PT Cruiser (hatch/wagon)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles