Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

High End Luxury Cars

1414415417419420463

Comments

  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    I find that a provocative statement. I'd be interested in knowing how many people driving cars that sell for $40K+ buy them, as opposed to leasing.

    Nothing provocative in that. It is only a statement. To lease a car requires a higher level of credit than to purchase. That is a fact, and if anything, it could be interpreted to mean that like many consumers I don't qualify to lease, but I didn't mean that either. The statement comes with no "qualifications" or lack thereof attached.

    There are many reasons to lease or not lease. Your question of wanting to find out the percentage of vehicles that are acquired by lease is a good one, of course, and you should let us know when you google the answer.

    TagMan
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    I do both, whichever method makes financial sense. I brought my check book for the Highlander in 2004, $35k MSRP, $31k negotiated price, so a $34.5k personal check including tax. The whole proces took 1hr and I was on the way.

    Three years before that, I was faced with a Saab 9-5 Wagon that had $40k MSRP, $30.5k negotiated purchase price or $31k lease "price" with $18k residual and near-zero money factor. I knew full well that $18k residual was quite subsidized. I took the lease offer and put $30k into a zero-risk treasurydirect account yielding higher than the lease interest rate. At lease end, I negotiated another $2500 off the buyout price, and wrote a check for a little over $16k incuding tax. So in reality, I paid about $28.5k for a car that MSRP $40k by leasing then buy instead of outright purchase at $30.5k. That's not even counting the interest income from the $30k set aside in treasurydirect account.

    With the leases that are currently available on most European luxury brands, lease absolutely makes sense even if one wants to own the car afterwards. In any case, buy or lease, whichever is less expensive for any specific brand/model is what should be compared to the least expensive way of getting another car under comparison. That's apples to apples comparison. Take for example, my example of the Saab 9-5, the $28.5k market clearing price was what made the car a worthwhile deal; the $40k MSRP was completely irrelevent.
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    So how much do you want to bet? It's my contention that there will be lease subsidies on S class by this time next year, in other words for the remaining roughly 3/4 of the model cycle at that time. And that the real market clearing prices of S and LS will be much much closer than what the current MSRP's suggest. How much are you willing to bet on the opposite?

    While there is usually a disclaimer about past performance no indication of future, past performance is the only thing we have to go on . . . your claim that S550 is selling like hotcakes is past performance too. It just so happens that cyclical predictions are much more accurate than linearly projecting the immediate past.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    Yes, auto pricing works pretty much like the Stock Market. If a IPO comes out an initial price (MSRP) is assigned to that stock. After the first day this artificial price is usually of no importance and is never seen again.

    In all the years of buying cars, there was only one period in time in which the MSRP went through any multiple mid-year changes, and it was due to the dramatic shift of the currency exchange between the Yen and the dollar, causing the price of Japanese vehicles to repeatedly rise.

    Otherwise, UNLIKE the stock market, the vehicle MSRP is constant throught the model year, and changes are usually assigned at the beginning of the next model year typically to account for changes in equipment and normal inflationary factors.

    The MSRP is not an ever-changing reference. It is a constant and steady reference. Changes in market conditions reflect what vehicles can be ultimately acquired for, and EVERY purchase is different, as based upon time of month, time of year, inventory situations, in-stock or out-of-stock situations, geographic location, volume dealer vs. non-volume dealer, internet purchase vs. showroom purchase, fleet purchase vs. standard commission purchase, and additional variables, such as the type of financing that might be utilized. These are just a sampling of variables that affect the price as contrasted to the original MSRP. The original MSRP is ALWAYS the original point of reference, and is mandated by the Federal government to be displayed in such a manner that it unlawful to change, tamper, or remove the Monroney window sticker from the car, which shows the MSRP and other equipment listed on the vehicle, as well as the EPA mileage information and parts percentages with regards to parts origins. Only the ultimate consumer may remove or give permission to remove that information. Regarding the type of financing utilized, a dealer often makes money on the "back end" of the deal, and depending upon the structure of the deal, it can be more profitable for the dealer to finance the vehicle than to sell it for cash. It depends upon the situation, and they are all different. An interesting statistic would be to see the average "final sales" price of each and every car as the model year progresses, and to watch its fluctuations as well, and even its breakdowns into regions, etc.

    Any way you look at this, the MSRP represents the non-fluctuating manufacturer-assigned SUGGESTED price, and it is the ONLY point of reference from where all other pricing departs from. It does not change on a daily basis as does the stock market.

    TagMan
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    Most stock certificates have a "nominal value /face value" by the issuer that do not change in the life of the stock that may last decades and every house has an "assessed value" by the town that does not change within a year. However, neither dictates what the actual market clearing prices are.

    If you define MSRP as what the manufacturer SUGGESTS as it should be (which I agree), MB is an even more absurd company: the company actually suggests another set of numbers in the form of "suggested dealer contribution." What the heck is that if not a new MSRP that is lower than the originally quoted MSRP?
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,327
    Glad you agree with me. :)

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    MSRP doesn't play a role in a sale that is not at MSRP. MSRP only plays a role in a sale that is exactly at MSRP.
    So what does that say about MSRP? Let me paraphrase it this way: How about let's do as you say when we agree, and do as I say when we do not agree?? Interested in a deal like that?

    It's the real sale price that matters, not MSRP. Real sale price has to take into account all subsidies, from price discounts, to favorable finance terms, to lease subsidies . . . all of them.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    Glad you agree with me.

    Only if you are saying you agree with my post # 22192. ;)

    TagMan
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    If you define MSRP as what the manufacturer SUGGESTS as it should be (which I agree), MB is an even more absurd company: the company actually suggests another set of numbers in the form of "suggested dealer contribution." What the heck is that if not a new MSRP that is lower than the originally quoted MSRP?

    As I said, the MSRP is the non-fluctuating point of origin and reference. Changes to that are due to recognized market variations and marketing strategies.

    Based upon you own posts, there is nothing absurd about a manufacturer recognizing the difference between those concepts and addressing them both... unless you are saying that you don't see the difference between the two, or that Mercedes somehow should only address one and not the other, or somehow they must match each other, which you and houdini have already suggested is not possible due to market-type fluctuations.

    Check mate.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too. Sorry. I know you want to, but you can't.

    TagMan
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    I think you missed the point that MSRP is comparable to IPO price in the stock market not the daily price of the stock market. IPO price itself, like par value of a stock, has no meaning at all after the first minute of the stock being offered to the public. Yes, regulations require that records be kept about IPO price and par value if any (the latter printed on the stock), but they are irrelevent to the actual price of stocks after the first minute of trading. Comparing stocks based on their IPO price or par value would be quite absurd. Likewise comparing MSRP's for cars too because the actual market clearing price deviate so much from MSRP's, and differ so much from model to model, brand to brand.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,327
    Well certainly I agree that each car has a MSRP. We just seem to disagree of the IMPORTANCE of the MSRP.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    First of all, manufacturer can suggest whatever price they wish. It's an integral part of marketting strategy. Say for example, there is really nothing stopping me from suggesting a $15k Corolla wearing a "ToyBach" badge should carry an MSRP of $50k. And I can probably find buyers if I offer $35k discount off MSRP for real sale price back to $15k. So long as appropriate discounts (in all forms) are offered, MSRP can be anything without crimping sales.

    Secondly, when manufacturer publicly suggests a sale price, you'd think that is MSRP, right? Apparently, MB has a different set of definition for MSRP. It usess MSRP and "suggested dealer contribution" in the same ad! Obviously, the two would net different numbers. Isn't that a bit self-contradictory?

    Not sure what that "check mate" was about. Perhaps you don't know the rules or the substance of the game.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    We just seem to disagree of the IMPORTANCE of the MSRP.

    It's really more than that. We don't completely agree on some of the conclusions that are being drawn from various lease structures. I believe the interpretations of Mercedes lease strategies and structures are being represented here to mean negative thangs about Mercedes and or the S-Class.

    I don't completely agree with those interpretations, and I further do not agree that lease data is the most significant measurement of a vehicle's sales price... especially since only 23.2 % (as of 2/06) of buyers actually lease anyway.

    TagMan
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    Do you agree that the least expensive commonly avaialble method of acquiring a car reflect the actual price of the car? In other words, if a car MSRP $80k, but is usually sold for $60k. Is that an $80k car or a $60k car?

    If I take a $15k Corolla, slap a "ToyBach" badge on it, and MSRP it for $500k. Is it suddenly a $500k car? Is it therefore better than a $350k Maybach because it has a higher MSRP? Whatif I offer $485k rebate on it?

    MB and BMW have much higher lease ratio than the industry average. Most high volume carmakers do not even offer many lease deals. 23% of the industry overall is large enough to contain 100% of European brands (not that I'm suggesting it's 100%, but with great deals going, the ratio must be very high for the Euro's). When you go to Ford and GM websites, all their special deals are finance deals. When you go to MB website, all their special deals are leases.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    Do you agree that the least expensive commonly avaialble method of acquiring a car reflect the actual price of the car? In other words, if a car MSRP $80k, but is usually sold for $60k. Is that an $80k car or a $60k car?

    If a particular Porsche is MSRP at $110,000 and you could get it (that one in stock) for $98,000, and there was this "other" car with an MSRP of $99,0000 that you could get for $98,000...which is the better deal?

    TagMan
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,327
    I believe the interpretations of Mercedes lease strategies and structures are being represented here to mean negative things about Mercedes and or the S-Class

    Well, so what? If you are going to dish out negative things about the LS then you should be able to take a few negative things about the S pricing structure.

    The proof is in the marketplace. A 5 year old S class costs just about the same as a 5 year old LS. How come? What happened to that $30,000. price difference?

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    If you are going to dish out negative things about the LS then you should be able to take a few negative things about the S pricing structure.

    It is not wrong to consider negative things about Mercedes. I just don't think there is something as wrong with their pricing structure as you do.

    I do believe that some cars depreciate faster than others. but I do not attach the same meaning as you.

    Specifically, if the LS holds its value well, then OK, I am not saying there is a problem with that. Pat it on the back then. I am not denying it credit for that.

    TagMan
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    Of course they are both worth only $98k. The original MSRP is quite irrelevent. Do you think my Saab 9-5 MSRP $40k is better than the BMW 335i MSRP at $38.7k?? Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think so. Do you think 2006 R500 with MSRP of $55.5k is better than 2007 R500 MSRP at $50k? even if both are offered to you at $45k? Obviously not. Most people would pay more for the 2007. That's indicative of real sale prices rule, MSRP's be damned.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    ...my Saab 9-5...

    I figured you for a Saab... or a Volvo. ;)

    Of course they are both worth only $98k.

    Oh really? Dealer's cost on the vehicles are not even close. The "other" vehicle would be purchased at a premium, as compared to the Porsche, in this example, which would be purchased closer to dealer cost, and therefore its "ACV" or actual cash value. See, we do not agree. But we do on the '06 vs. '07. Reason?... the ACV!

    Now, I've got to go and drive somewhere in that bad deal of a Porsche. ;)

    TagMan
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    The 98k's are market clearing prices, right? If it's not market clearing, it's a different topic altogether. Delaer cost and for that matter manufacturer's cost do not matter. It's what car you are getting that matters when comparing different brands. If both cars can fetch $98k in a competitive market place, they are about head to head, shoulder to shoulder. Have you ever thought that the $110k MSRP car that get discounted to $98 may not have warranted the high MSRP to begin with? How do you know the dealer is not getting a huge mfr incentive because nobody wants the car?

    Besides, if you really want to argument your point, shouldn't you be paying $110k instead of $98k? It's MSRP'd at $110k, you know. If one MSRP $110k translates to $98k real market clearing price, and another $99k MSRP translates to the same $98k market clearing price, you just proved to us that MSRP does not dictate real price. Thank you.

    I figured you for a Saab... or a Volvo.

    Guilty as charged. Having run off the road in my 5 series a decade ago in snow, I have been wary about snow performance. Audi reliability just didn't cut it. I'm glad more AWD option are becoming available when my next three-year appointment with the dealers comes up in a few months.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    Dealer cost is irrelevent; nor is manufacturer cost.

    One more round with ya'... but I've got to go, OK?

    Actually, my wife purchased that first SLK, but sold it after just a month. Because the market was hot, she didn't lose a thing. BUT... shortly the market changed its mind, and those that paid UP for the car, lost out in the long run! So, the real dealer's cost and the real MSRP are important considerations afterall.

    Obviously we do not agree. The problem here is this: While I am not trying to make you agree with me, I think you are trying to "convince" me somehow that your point is "right" or something to that effect, or perhaps you are trying to change my mind.

    Let's just leave this where we do not agree. It will be easier.

    I believe that the MSRP is a legitimate point of reference. You do not. I believe that the dealer's cost is a legitimate point of reference. You do not. You seem to believe that the "selling" price is the only basis for comparison, and I while I understand the importance of "selling" price and "market value", I do not agree that it should be used in the way you are interpretting the Mercedes lease.

    THAT'S IT for now. Please respect the end of this particular exchange. Thank you.

    TagMan
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    Let's get this straight: you put forward the point that LS was able to outsell S only because it was substantially less expensive. Your proof for LS being substantially less expensive? MSRP.

    My point is MSRP does not necessarily correspond to real market clearing price.

    And your $110k example selling for $98k vs. another car that MSRP $99k selling for $98k is supposed to prove your point??

    Which of the two is better value subjectively to you is quite irrelevent. You just proved my point that difference in MSRP's may not translate into real life market clearing prices at all.

    Not sure how dealer cost even come into this picture. MB is providing lease subsidies, which obviously means lower dealer cost (in lease). dah. That's another argument for taking lease subsidy into consideration whether you personally lease or not. Once again. Thank you for making my point.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    Let's get this straight: you put forward the point that LS was able to outsell S only because it was substantially less expensive.

    Which post did I put forward that point? And I'll check back with ya' later when I return.
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    My bad. Merc was actually the one argued that point. You only argue that MSRP is what decides market clearing price, or is it that higher MSRP is always better? ;-)

    Neither is true, for obvious reasons.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    My bad. Merc was actually the one argued that point.

    OK, I forgive you. Just don't let it happen again. ;)

    BTW, be aware that I understand and acknowledge "market value" and "market forces". I don't want to be boxed into some disagreement with you that infers that I don't understand them. I just don't agree with you that they are always the best bet to adhere to. It would be too much like "market timing" which has been proved to never work in the long run. Buy low and sell high is the old saying. Nothing wrong with that. If that is what you mean then we agree.

    TagMan
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    I can't believe you went round and round about that. You can call it MSRP or whatever the heck you want, but when people don't lease and they pay cash of finance then this leasing mumbo jumbo is irrelevent. Period. All the time we have to hear about what if scenarios when all you have to do is look back through this thread and you'll see that some of the actual buyers here have stated that price does make a difference to them because they aren't leasing. Why in the world this is so hard to grasp is beyond me.

    This whole line of reasoning about leases equalling things out for cars that used be anywhere from 10-25K apart is just plain BS when the buyer in question isn't looking to lease.

    No one here has ever said that a leasing doesn't open up the luxury car buying experience to more people all the while making more expensive cars attainable. Problem is this tired rhetoric about the LS and its sales being "best in class" has never, ever taken into account that not everyone leases. Who the hell cares what the "MSRP" is beyond a car's natural hot selling period, it does indeed become irrelevant after that hot selling period is over, but the fact remains that those who purchase with cash or finance did have to contend with a huge price difference between the LS and S in their previous generations. There is no amount of fancy schmancy leasing doublespeak around this fact.

    The popular assumption is that anywhere from 50 to 80 percent of the cars in this class are leased. Who knows if that is true because no one has ever presented any proof one way or another, but what about the possible 20-50 percent that don't lease. They just say "oh this car costs 20K more than this one, no big deal"? To even suggest that is absurd. Some can do this and some can't, but until we get the full breakout then..........

    M
  • designmandesignman Member Posts: 2,129
    I can't believe you went round and round about that.

    Happens every so often. To alleviate the pain I fantasize about having a root canal. Actually I think Brightness made some good points, however I agree with the Tagmeister about MSRP as a reference point.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    I can't believe you went round and round about that. You can call it MSRP or whatever the heck you want, but when people don't lease and they pay cash of finance then this leasing mumbo jumbo is irrelevent. Period. All the time we have to hear about what if scenarios when all you have to do is look back through this thread and you'll see that some of the actual buyers here have stated that price does make a difference to them because they aren't leasing. Why in the world this is so hard to grasp is beyond me.

    Yeah... last time I do that... I had work I needed to do and never did it. :cry:

    TagMan
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    Lease incentive is fundamentally no different from finance incentive or cash discount or mail-in rebate. They are all incentives. All of them do matter. Don't tell me Tag would be interested in the $110k MSRP without the temptation of getting it for $98k. Heck, he would not even be interested in $109k, as his disdain for the $98k on the $99k MSRP shows. So we have established that the 10% cash discount matters.

    Now the next step. Say instead of the 10% or $12k cash discount, Porsche were to offer zero per cent financing for 5 years. Would that matter? How much is 0% for 5yrs worth in current cash terms? The current risk-free return is about 5%. For $100k principal in linear schedule over five years, that's about $2500 on average a year for 5 years, or $12.5k in total over 5 years. More or less the same as the $12k cash discount. In other words, the financing deal is just about as good as the discount. If Tag has to borrow at 6.5-7% from banks, the 0% financing from the mfr would be even better, by another 30-40%! or equivalent to $16k cash discount or so. So yes, financing deals do matter.

    Now the next step. Say Tag likes to keep his car for only 3yrs. The real life resale of the car is $55k. So Tag would be out $43k over three years if he pays cash (not counting opportunity cost of $98k over three years). Now if the mfr gives a 36-mo residual of $65k, what's a financially savvy guy like Tag gotta do? Still pay the $98k cash or pick up the nearly free put option? Do you think someone thinking about his money is going to go for $43k over three years or $33k over three years? For the exactly same car. To say that people don't care about this kind of saving is like saying $10k doesn't matter. How many people do you know are like that? That's why most Euro cars are leased nowadays.

    As to the topic on people prefer buying therefore do not acquire certain brands precisely because only lease deals are offered, well, that makes sense. It's like people who do not buy products with mail-in rebates because they don't want to deal with the hassle (yours truely included). However, just because there are people who do not want to deal with mail-in rebates does not mean products with mail-in rebates are automaticly sperior because they have a higher "price" at the check-out.

    On purchases as big as cars, the least expensive way of getting it has to be the measure used for evaluating cars' "price." While people may forget to send in a mail-in rebate of $25 or something, the amount involved in car purchses are just too big for advantageous purchasing method to be ignored. Insisting on using MSRP is like saying people don't care about $10k, $20k money left on the table. Insisting on people don't care about finance or lease deals is esentially saying the same thing.

    Ask yourself, if lease incentives don't matter, why do MB and BMW spend so much time and effort putting together the lease incentives? Why are they called "specials" and "deals"?? Why are the domestics offering "specials" and "deals" in the form of low-interest financing?
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    "And, of course, cars that are made well might also be marketed well, and cars that are made well might be marketed poorly. "

    I know this is about Lexus and Mercedes, but that last line was directly related to Audi. Their products are fantastic in every area- but they're marketed poorly. Their sales are gradually improving, but gradually just isn't fast enough. Thankfully, with the shuffle of heads at Wolfsburg, Johann de Nyschen or whatever (the VP of Audi America) is hiring a new ad company. I have noticed an increase in magazine advertisements and commercials, however. But they need more. The S6 ad that I keep noticing only pops up in the middle of magazines. Be like Jaguar and the beautiful new XKR- pay a little extra to get it right in the front, where people notice!

    Just my two cents.

    '06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    that last line was directly related to Audi.

    Yes, lots of chatter about Lexus and Mercedes, but I was actually thinking of Audi as I wrote that. We are in total agreement.

    TagMan
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    Esf,

    I dont get it? The marketing of Audis truly sucks here in N. America but the marketing of Audis in Europe and Asia are truly effective?

    I can almost hear those European accents across the ocean saying" those people at Audi certainly know what they are doing in terms of marketing their cars successfully". I remember during my visits to Europe and Asia seeing some very entertaining and interesting Audi ads on tv and billboards. Apparently Audi uses different ads in N. America than elsewhere because they feel we are different. But we may not be that different after all. Unfortunately I have never seen those Audi ads here. What a shame.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    Thanks, dewey.

    That museum will be enough reason for a trip to Germany! It sounds incredible. Actually, I have a very slim chance I might get to go there next Summer, and a visit to the Porsche factory would be memorable. I've never seen it.

    BTW, I remember we all read an Audi top brass interview where he said that Audi was going to work on their U.S. image. I remember reading remarks about increasing their exposure in films, as well as even the possibility of increasing prices where appropriate. What that all means to me is that there is at least an awareness of the problem by Audi. That's a start.

    TagMan
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    Here is that new Porsche museum. I deleted that prior post becasue I wanted to combine that museum link with a news story about Porsche but right now I am too tired to find it? Anyways maybe I will find it tomorrow?

    link title
  • reality2reality2 Member Posts: 303
    I am only copying a statement that has been made by others against other makes on this blog itself. As one of the very few Audi enthusiasts that posts here once in awhile (as this a hostile blog for Audi enthusiasts from my previous experience) my post was not meant to derail another brand, but to point out that ridiculing someone for their choice of HELM is not in the spirit of this blog. Numerous times I have been attacked by certain bloggers because I supported Audi. Considering the global status of Audi this is a bit much.

    As I have driven the Lexus, only out of curiousity, I respectfully disagree with the above analysis. To me Lexus is bland, the handling uninspired, the interior and handling not anywhere near Audi levels, and the brand passionless. However, I respect those that find the brand exciting for themselves and more power to you to enjoy and experience what you like. As a owner of A8L W12, I cannot fathom myself driving a Lexus (a bit snobbish on my part, but I do not aspire to it). I want my cars to be exciting when I drive them and with a history of substance. I can see myself in an S600 or a Quattroport or a Bentley. My new S6 gives me the driving thrills on a daily basis, and the many made up excuses to go to the grocery store when I do not need to.

    Gizmos are good for marketing, but they have to have purpose in the overall execution of a vehicle. Just to add it there for the sake of adding something doesn't really win me over. Plus, the Lexus along with the S600 are new, while the A8L and the 7-Series are do for remodel in '08. So I am sure they will add plenty of gizmos and more then, though they have plenty now.

    The A8 is one the best in the HELM considering all the allocades it has won globally, so to dismiss it is ignorant. Just like dismissing any other HELM.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    I think Audi needs more exposure too. Autospies has just posted something on Audi and how they sell in different regions, a few snippets:

    The Chicago consumers pushed Audi sales up 32% for the month of November, and showed increases across all model lines as well. The A3, A4 sedan, Avant, and Cabriolet, the A6 sedan, and the A8 model lines all posted sales increases of 58% or higher. The A4 sedan and Avant models each had increases of over 120% from the previous November.

    New York, Audi’s largest market, posted an increase of 21% for the month. The A4 sedan had the largest increase for this region as well with 582 sales, a 33% improvement.


    Full Article

    It seems that Audi does well in major markets like Chicago, L.A. and New York, but I've always maintained that Audi needs more dealers in all those "other" areas where MB/Lexus/BMW where they form the usual "dealers row".

    I know we've all been over this a 1,000,000,000,000 times, but I think Audis' biggest problem is their connection to VW. I've heard it too many times that Audis are just expensive VWs or vice versa. It doesn't help that VW adopts similar styling cues (grilles for example) or that VWs cost Audi money in a lot of cases. The two need total seperation in marketing and design so much so that it is clearly visible to even the most clueless of buyers.

    M
  • sysweisyswei Member Posts: 1,804
    You're entitled to your opinion, just as the 24-year old is entitled to his. Just FYI, I'm not as anti-Audi anti-German or pro-Lexus as it might sometimes appear. The LS is still probably the lead candidate for my next sedan, but also on the list will be the S, A8, 2008 7 (if AWD)...I am going to decide something once the LS460 is available AWD (or maybe sooner, if it looks like Lexus is going to be too slow in bringing it out).
  • hpowdershpowders Member Posts: 4,330
    Whenever I am getting close to assuming a new lease, I always negotiate the best price of the car I can get, which will be somewhere between dealer's cost and MSRP, as if I was buying the car. All other things being equal, it is the key to obtaining the lowest monthly payment.

    I always run my own numbers (combination of lowest selling price, highest residual %, lowest money factor available, which is the loan rate) and pit many dealers from my state against each other to get the best deal possible.
    This way I obtained a monthly payment of about $200-$300 less per month for the same car as some other folks are paying according to my spot checks of leasetrader.com over the past year.

    As far as BMW is concerned, add the 4 year free maintenance, plus the $500-$1000 rebate from BMWCCA I get back for each new leasing deal and the incredible residual percentages and money factors (loan rates) from BMWFS (like 72% and 3.4%, respectively) and I have found a method for driving some of the best cars out there with some frequency for dirt cheap
    ( borrowing at 2.4% in my case), without the hassle of having to try to dump them, trade them or repair them.

    No. I would never buy. Having too much fun leasing which should increase quite a bit once I implement the hpowders 24 month lease program. :blush:
  • hpowdershpowders Member Posts: 4,330
    Plus, no money down except the usual fees. :shades:
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    OK now I finally found the Porsche news item I was looking for. A Porsche Diesel. It's definitely a beaut! For more info link below:

    Porsche Diesel
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    The paragraph is from an article linked below:

    CNet reviews cars, too. And here, Auto Editor Wayne Cunningham gives the Lexus 460L the publication's only perfect 10 rating. Just one question for you, buddy: Do you hate driving?

    Lexus LS gets a Perfect 10
  • 2001gs4302001gs430 Member Posts: 767
    This way I obtained a monthly payment of about $200-$300 less per month for the same car as some other folks are paying according to my spot checks of leasetrader.com over the past year

    That a real good deal. Sounds like BMW really wanted your business...
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,327
    Heavy discounting....BMW's must be moving kinda slow..

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    No one wants to buy or lease BMWs unless they are priced equivalently to Corollas. Things are so slow at BMW that it can definitely be considered the biggest failure in automotive history. :P
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    Recently at the LA Show, I took a brief video of the demonstration at the Lexus booth. It's kind of amusing..at least, I thought it was.

    "We see a parking space. We want that space. It's a car, it's a space, it's a car...."

    Only the parallel parking challenged need apply. :P

    http://www.carspace.com/videos/play!id=.59cc4fbf

    Pardon my ignorance (and I'm not afraid to admit it), but do any of these other vehicles in this category offer such a snazzy (although, silly, imho) option? If not, why not? Will they eventually? What's the next HELC useless gizmo to be implemented? Maybe it's not useless to you? Why?
  • 2001gs4302001gs430 Member Posts: 767
    Easy now, you know he's just trolling. You should be jealous that HP could get such a great deal for a vehicle from your fav brand.
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    Thanks Karen for the video.

    Here is a hilarious self park video from AUtomobile Magazine that was previously posted here by another forum member:

    Lexus Self Park

    What scares me most is that most the gizmos in luxury cars become gizmos in future non-luxury cars. If self park becomes mainstream I will have to move out to the countryside where I can park my car far away from other self-park cars :sick:
  • dhamiltondhamilton Member Posts: 878
    We are supposed to be discussing cars, not the gizmos that may or may not be.
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    LOL! I hadn't seen that one. Very funny. You should embed that on your CarSpace page. :shades:

    I'm curious to know if these options are really selling points? Would someone choose the LS460 over the BMW-7, VW Phaeton, etc. for this reason?
  • Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    Hmmm...well..the gizmos are attached to the cars that may be a selling point to those that want them....sooo...just shoot me. :surprise: :)
Sign In or Register to comment.