I would have thought the difference would be a lot more. Driving a 3 litre must be considerably more of a risk for an insurance company than a 1.1, I would have thought.

I asked a mate of mine who works for an insurance company to explain it.
Take your average 1.1L car - pug 106? Driven by spotty 19 year old with zero years experience, a belief in his immortality, and regularly carries two or three equally spotty, inexperienced and immortal friends.
Compare to your average 3.0L car - BMW? Audi? Omega. Driven by 40 year old sales executive with 20 years driving experience, and a wife and 2.4 kids to survive for.
Which is most likely to be involved in an accident?
I would estimate your average 1.1 car is 100x more likely to have a claim than a 3.0
Should be cheaper
