If the truck is in good shape, I'd keep the full coverage. I kept full coverage on my 99 Sierra until I sold it when I bought my 2014. The cost is minimal per year for the return you'd get if something were to happen. That's my opinion, though.

 

I agree, unless the difference in price is great I would stay with full, as you never know what could happen.

 

I've had full coverage on everything since high school, including the '94 Century Estate Wagon I had up till a couple years ago. Unrestored and nowhere near being mint, I have full coverage on my '74 LeSabre when it's in commission.

One thing is that I cannot stand seeing vehicles that are less than like 8 years old with old body damage.

When I commission my '05 Durango to pull my boat out of the marina and store it at the end of this season I might just put on "comprehensive" since I now have to pay for a full month's worth when I bring a vehicle out of "storage"

 

I always have minimum coverage... I figure price difference I can just save in bank instead

 

If you have the money in the bank to replace the vehicle, or it wouldn't be a hardship to finance a replacement, then you don't need collision or comprehensive coverage. Personally, I wouldn't recommend it though.