Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

fintail

The way I look at it, in terms of cars anyway - these are the good old days. Enjoy it while we can.

Besides, due to a local overcrowded speculative market, I can't afford to buy a detached house within a reasonable distance to work, so I find something else to enjoy, and I look at my residence as the appliance object rather than the car.

nyccarguy said:

Good way to look at it @fintail. Cars are for enjoyment & pleasure. Not to be measured in financial gain or loss.

houdini1

Mr_Shiftright said:

to say nothing of paying at least $1500 more interest versus a 60 month note. On a $30,000 car, you would have forked over around $3800 in interest in those 96 months.

With the talk of negative interest rates, at the end of 96 months, I wonder how much the dealer would pay you to just keep the car?

stever

fintail said:

Besides, due to a local overcrowded speculative market, I can't afford to buy a detached house within a reasonable distance to work, so I find something else to enjoy, and I look at my residence as the appliance object rather than the car.

Funny, I cheap out on cars because I don't care much about them, just pay cash and drive them into the asphalt.
Rather save my money so I can live (almost) anywhere I want and afford a house when I move there. My wife liked retiring at 55 too.

fintail said:

But the modification of arbitrary rules, rules made to be a make work project or profit center, or rules with a tenuous connection to reality, is something everyone should support.

Sounds like a plan, we should create an agency to review every stale law and reg on the books and remove, rewrite or consolidate them. Bet you could get by with just 38,000 new federal employees to get the task started.

fintail

I'd also like to have a nice public sector pension

Let's start with asinine traffic laws, which are the context here, after all. Or we can just put our head back in the sand and claim "anarchy" when anyone challenges the (expensive and sometimes pointless) status quo. We need more law and order! Looking at how long it took to repeal 55, I don't have a ton of hope.

Then we can chase down the disguised FIRE industry subsidy known as the mortgage deduction

stever said:

Funny, I cheap out on cars because I don't care much about them, just pay cash and drive them into the asphalt.
Rather save my money so I can live (almost) anywhere I want and afford a house when I move there. My wife liked retiring at 55 too.

fintail said:

But the modification of arbitrary rules, rules made to be a make work project or profit center, or rules with a tenuous connection to reality, is something everyone should support.

Sounds like a plan, we should create an agency to review every stale law and reg on the books and remove, rewrite or consolidate them. Bet you could get by with just 38,000 new federal employees to get the task started.

Mr_Shiftright

While reading about Austria here it just occurred to me that in the Sound of Music, the Trapp family is attempting to get to Switzerland by "crossing the Alps".

You can't get there that way. Have I been lied to all these years?

ab348

driver100 said:

I am glad you clarified the speed limits on the Autobahn, I wondered why cars weren't going 180 m.p.h. I don't have to worry about permits, we were on a bus. This will be last bus tour ever, too much time on the bus seeing things we don't want to see. Mrs Driver plans better trips doing it herself. We like hop on hop off buses, and walking through cities to see how people live. To took us to the oldest restaurant in Europe yesterday, it is in Salsberg, 1200 years old!

That place has never been the same since the chef left in 1620.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Someone said how about enacting speed limits based on what the road was designed for; be careful what you wish for. Many engineers would agree our Interstates were designed to easily handle 100 MPH traffic. Now when traffic gets too heavy 100 MPH is obviously unrealistic, but that doesn't change the fact the road can support 100 MPH when not too many people are on it.

Actually the interstates, with few exceptions, were designed for 80MPH.

You mean 80 MPH for big rigs/semi-trucks. 100 MPH being the exception for basically most modern passenger automobiles. Of course, most people would like to see differential speed limits abolished. My fear is that they will pick the lower limit rather than the higher one as you seem to be doing.

No I do not, the original specifications were to facilitate an 80 MPH speed for traffic. Most cars in the 50's couldn't maintain speeds of 100MPH. A mid 50's T-Bird with a 312 CID V8 had a top speed of just under 115 MPH, an early 50's Vet was just over 100 MPH. And you would be hard pressed to get an early 50's semi to 80 MPH.

That's why nobody says everyone has to drive the speed limit. That is the societal minimum speed on the roadway only because we set our speed limits so low. By law the minimum speed limit is MUCH lower than the maximum speed limit.

The average pace of traffic need not go the speed limit or more. I wouldn't mind seeing average speeds well below the speed limit, as @driver100 just described his experience demonstrated in Europe. And if 50's cars could go 80 MPH safely on the Interstate, you've proved my point that modern cars can definitely go 100 on those same Interstates if left unimpeded by bad drivers which may be as high as 95% of the drivers out there. Something tells me the percentage of bad drivers is much lower, or my insurance would be a lot higher. I think you have more like 10% of the bad drivers making 95% of the drivers out there look bad.

Anyone have statistics on what percentage of drivers cause over 90% of the accidents? I bet it is a very low percentage.

Mr_Shiftright

In demographics, being a) male and b) a teenager would double-up your chances for causing an accident. And if you are a male teenager in Montana, the odds are even worse against you. (Montana has 2X the fatality rate per mile of other states, says one source).

Naturally, drunks and stoners are also in the equation.

andres3

Hmmm.. when I did the math it seemed there was an additional $2K in fees and costs leasing vs. buying. Comparing buying it outright vs. buying it at the end of the lease; buying wins easy.

I think this comes from the fact leasing tends to have money factor rates translating to interest rates ranging from 200-400% higher than you can get with great credit doing straight financing. The direct comparison to a 36 month lease would be a 36 month loan which runs about 1.49% with little effort shopping around with great credit rating. And then there's the fees that don't apply to purchases.

However, Kia was offering at least $1,000 more to lease rather than buy; closing the delta. I tend to buy cars that are highly reliable, so keeping them long term isn't an issue as far as maintenance and repair costs. What is a big issue is diminished value in case of an accident. Now that is a benefit that made me jump.

Of course, a Kia probably isn't high on the diminished value loss list. Luxury/Sports cars are at the top of that list. Better build quality that can't (or at least won't) be matched by American body shops.

So far so good on the Kia at 700 miles. Averaged 31.2 MPG on the last tank according to the computer.

I have noticed a few very minor fit & finish issues (gap at top of dash to audio center console box), lack of full paint coverage behind the gas tank lid around the gas tank cap, and a scratch looking thing on the inside edge of the hood that you can see while driving (might be hard to remove adhesive of some type; need to hit it with some cleaner as a finger nail didn't work).

Rides quiet, smooth, gets good mileage, and can get out of its own way getting onto the freeway. Also does pretty well in the twisties even though it feels high and sways a lot with weight transfer turn left and right and right and left. Impressive handling despite the body leaning, high sidewall tires, and "green" Michelin low rolling resistance tires. The chassis is good!

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well with no speed limits you could end up with fewer accidents but more deaths. It goes without saying that people are more likely to die in a 100 mph collision than in a 55 mph collision. I think actual Autobahn statistics would back this up.

I don't think your average American driver has the competence to drive much beyond 85 mph, nor are many "beaters" on the road safe to drive at those speeds. In Germany, they don't allow the piles of crap on the road that we do.

there have been multiple studies that support that increase speeds increase your likelihood of being in a fatal accident. Some suggest that it increases by as much as 5% per 1 MPH increase.

Man, if that 5% per 1 MPH holds any credibility, we all ought to vote immediately on reducing speed limits to Beijing's 7.5 MPH average travel speed. Their fatality rates must be non-existent then since their average travel speed is so slow. I imagine on average that would lower speed limits by nearly 60 MPH on our highways. That should be a solid 300% decrease in fatalities based on your figures and numbers. Why aren't we voting to do this today?

First off all these studies show little change in fatalities until speeds of about 37 or 40 MPH (depending on if the study was done in kPH or MPH). Secondly there is the risk/benefit equation to consider.

Now mind you I am not stating that we should all drive real slow, just that increasing speed increases risk and those like you that promote the myth that it doesn't are [non-permissible content removed]. I will drive fast but when I do I understand that I am greatly increasing my risks associated with it and will take appropriate precautions when doing so.

Increasing speed increases certain risks while lowering other risks (especially when taken with the "group" effect of other traffic). The risks of having everyone drive too slow (fatigue, boredom, distraction, rage, speed differentials, and more) clearly outweigh the risks of raising our speed limits to proven levels to benefit safety and traffic flow over revenue generation.

IIHS was dumb enough to publish demographics on who supports their Un-Constitutional Speed Camera policy for enforcement. Old ladies over 65 were the strongest supporters. Interesting that those who drive the least want to ruin it for everyone else.. We need an electoral college voting system for traffic enforcement that gives greater voting weight to those that drive the most miles. That would lead to some fundamental changes that doesn't take decades to implement due to resistance from the party "poopers" that aren't negatively affected by their unjustified regulations and controls. Sort of like taxing the rich if you are not rich. Tax the poor if you are rich.

PF_Flyer

Now, in other news...

Ford shifting all U.S. small-car production to Mexico

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

In demographics, being a) male and b) a teenager would double-up your chances for causing an accident. And if you are a male teenager in Montana, the odds are even worse against you. (Montana has 2X the fatality rate per mile of other states, says one source).

Naturally, drunks and stoners are also in the equation.

Inexperience with driving is certainly a hazard that is statistically proven to be an even stronger correlation than age. For example, a 21 year old that gets their driver's license for the first time is just about as likely to cause an accident before they turn 25 as the 16 year old is before they turn 20. Then of course at a certain point old age is shown to diminish driving skills.

qbrozen

andres3 said:

Hmmm.. when I did the math it seemed there was an additional $2K in fees and costs leasing vs. buying. Comparing buying it outright vs. buying it at the end of the lease; buying wins easy.

However, Kia was offering at least $1,000 more to lease rather than buy; closing the delta.

And that's the kind of thing that keeps it from being a blanket statement. A lease CAN be a better long-term play than financing if the starts align properly. I've shared this story before, but going many years back, I talked my BIL into leasing a mazda3 rather than buying because the total to lease and then buy it out, even including financing the buyout for 2 years, worked out a few hundred bucks cheaper thanks to the heavily subsidized lease at the time.

andres3

oldfarmer50 said:

andres3 said:

the IIHS is hilariously biased; they actually publish this drivel:

What are radar detectors?
Radar detectors are radio receivers tuned to the frequency range used by police radar guns. Radar detectors are bought and sold for the sole purpose of helping speeders avoid speeding tickets.

As a radar detector owner I can categorically state they are 100% wrong. The detector is an informational device giving a driver greater information about his surroundings (that could and do impact the driving around them), thereby increasing my own personal safety levels.

For example, I will often hear radar (that can't be seen) with the detector, which alerts me to the fact that cars may bunch up and brake in front of me for no other reason than there is a cop ahead. I'm given an early warning system. It is simply another tool and gauge to better inform the driver about their surroundings; a definite safety device.

Some drivers choose to be informed, educated, and welcome devices that give them additional information. Others like the IIHS, prefer drivers remain ignorant, and just stick their heads in the sand, and pay for the speeding ticket.

LOL and do you also sell bridges in Brooklyn on the side?

I don't advocate everyone go out and buy a radar detector, and I own no personal stock in Escort or Valentine.

However, as a driver interested in maximum safety I really can't see how less information communicated to the driver about their surroundings is better than more information. I'll take the greater information.

That said I've owned my Audi for many months and have yet to install the detector (partly because they don't put a "front" mounted power port so I have to run the wire back to the arm rest center console). The other reason is the CHP has been at least seemingly partially retrained by some tweets and pretty much all of southern CA drivers voting that 80 is the new 65 with their right foot. As long as you "go with the flow" you are unlikely to be ticketed. It also seems on the roads I'm driving every day they concentrate their enforcement on the "Fast Trak" lanes that I don't use.

henryn

qbrozen said:

andres3 said:

Hmmm.. when I did the math it seemed there was an additional $2K in fees and costs leasing vs. buying. Comparing buying it outright vs. buying it at the end of the lease; buying wins easy.

However, Kia was offering at least $1,000 more to lease rather than buy; closing the delta.

And that's the kind of thing that keeps it from being a blanket statement. A lease CAN be a better long-term play than financing if the starts align properly. I've shared this story before, but going many years back, I talked my BIL into leasing a mazda3 rather than buying because the total to lease and then buy it out, even including financing the buyout for 2 years, worked out a few hundred bucks cheaper thanks to the heavily subsidized lease at the time.

Right now, VW is offering $2,500 on a lease incentive for a 2016 Passat. I haven't run the numbers, but it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't come out ahead leasing and then buying at the end of the lease.

andres3

qbrozen said:

andres3 said:

Hmmm.. when I did the math it seemed there was an additional $2K in fees and costs leasing vs. buying. Comparing buying it outright vs. buying it at the end of the lease; buying wins easy.

However, Kia was offering at least $1,000 more to lease rather than buy; closing the delta.

And that's the kind of thing that keeps it from being a blanket statement. A lease CAN be a better long-term play than financing if the starts align properly. I've shared this story before, but going many years back, I talked my BIL into leasing a mazda3 rather than buying because the total to lease and then buy it out, even including financing the buyout for 2 years, worked out a few hundred bucks cheaper thanks to the heavily subsidized lease at the time.

That's why when a salesman asks me if I want to buy or lease I always respond with a question about any special incentives to lease vs. buy. All things being equal I think I prefer buying, but we'll see. Experimenting and dabbling in the lease game now.

bwia

This Buick Dealer is practically giving away this 2016 Lacrosse. $10k+ off is not too shabby, perhaps they are expecting strong sales on the 2017 models that have an attractive starting price.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Another thing the NHTSA is guilty of doing in order to blame speeding regardless of cause:

Most speeding-related fatalities occur in crashes on non-interstate highways. Of those who die in run-off-the-road crashes, consistently more were speeding on curves than not speeding. The greatest proportion of speeding-related fatal crashes occur between midnight and 3 a.m.

To me running off the road on a curve is a driver error and/or mechanical car failure unrelated to speeding (more like driving too fast for conditions). For example, you have either exceeded the car and/or the driver's capabilities for that turn, and that is a driver error unrelated to speeding. That same car with a professional driver could potentially navigate that turn safely at the same exact speed, and vice versa, that same turn could be navigated in my TTS at that speed with almost any driver, while a bus fully loaded during a thunderstorm downpour on bald tires might not regardless of the driver.

Running off a road on a curve is related to speed. The laws of physics come into play here, any curve will have a speed where drivers error and/or mechanical defects are completely forgiven and speeds where no car/driver combination can make it around the curve. Find a nice curve on a rural road, go through it at a nice comfortable speed, then go over it several times each time going 5 MPH faster, you will eventually run off the road. Face it, the faster you go the harder it is to make the curve.

True, but if the speed limit is 35 MPH and the guy flies off the curve at 75MPH, and he would have made it easy at 60 MPH, what good is the speed limit? Does it really matter if someone is going 36-60 MPH then, all those would be "speeding", but they didn't cause an accident. Since he went 70-75 MPH, now all of a sudden the speed limit is meaningful? If someone runs off the curve at 40 MPH, they were speeding, and it will be blamed, but all of us here know that if they were going 40 MPH on that 35 MPH road (and most driver's could easily navigate it at up to 60 MPH), speeding was not the causal factor in that accident; yet it will get blamed anyway by the NHTSA.

stickguy

37k still seems steep. What will trade in be next year when the 18s are out, maybe 20k?

Mr_Shiftright

That $139/mo lease is actually more like $250 or better when you add everything up.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

the IIHS is hilariously biased; they actually publish this drivel:

What are radar detectors?
Radar detectors are radio receivers tuned to the frequency range used by police radar guns. Radar detectors are bought and sold for the sole purpose of helping speeders avoid speeding tickets.

As a radar detector owner I can categorically state they are 100% wrong. The detector is an informational device giving a driver greater information about his surroundings (that could and do impact the driving around them), thereby increasing my own personal safety levels.

For example, I will often hear radar (that can't be seen) with the detector, which alerts me to the fact that cars may bunch up and brake in front of me for no other reason than there is a cop ahead. I'm given an early warning system. It is simply another tool and gauge to better inform the driver about their surroundings; a definite safety device.

Some drivers choose to be informed, educated, and welcome devices that give them additional information. Others like the IIHS, prefer drivers remain ignorant, and just stick their heads in the sand, and pay for the speeding ticket.

BULL

For those that believe the "speed kills" myth, I can see them saying the same thing. Going fast in those minds will get you killed a lot faster than anything else going on in the world; statistics or the Autobahn be damned.

For those that have studied the issue, we know that the only thing speed kills is your pocketbook!

https://youtu.be/2BKdbxX1pDw

andres3

fintail said:

The context was to say that a little extra speed can result in significant time spent doing something else. About 2/3rds of my mileage is made up of road trips, so more often than you might think. I am out west, where people and places can be some distance.

A few years ago I drove from Jacksonville to Atlanta, and deliberately planned a route that didn't touch an interstate, literally not one mile. I wanted peace, not traffic. It was interesting, but definitely used more time. It was cruising to me, rather than intently driving. Fill up the tank, set the nav, watch the scenery roll by.

snakeweasel said:

How often do you drive for 6 hours at a time? Most people drive an average of less than 50 miles a day, which would translate into a 5 minute savings.

That being said every year we have a family reunion in the Dells. It's just under 200 miles from me, all but 5 miles Interstate highways and takes under 3 hours. doing 75 will save you maybe 20-22 minutes over 65. Now one year I decided to take it slow, no interstate highways all back roads. All my starts were very mellow and I stayed within a few miles of the speed limit. Just relaxed and enjoyed a slow ride. It took me an extra hour but taking it easy and not rushing myself made the trip more relaxing and I arrived more relaxed tham I did when I was rushing there.

There is a zen in driving that you must experience.

Zen for me would be if they closed I5 to traffic (except to me), and I could just do 155 MPH all the way up to Sacramento from San Diego. I think I'd beat the airplane there if you count TSA security line and baggage wait times.

Would seem like a typical drive to north part of LA probably since the time might be similar. Although, at that speed I'd have to probably fill up on gas at least twice. The S4 would be better for that duty.

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

While reading about Austria here it just occurred to me that in the Sound of Music, the Trapp family is attempting to get to Switzerland by "crossing the Alps".

You can't get there that way. Have I been lied to all these years?

Yes, you were lied to. It would have been impossible for them to do that. The thinking is the railway station is down the street and they took the train....another Hollywood taking a license to change things to suit their needs.

driver100

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

I am glad you clarified the speed limits on the Autobahn, I wondered why cars weren't going 180 m.p.h. I don't have to worry about permits, we were on a bus. This will be last bus tour ever, too much time on the bus seeing things we don't want to see. Mrs Driver plans better trips doing it herself. We like hop on hop off buses, and walking through cities to see how people live. To took us to the oldest restaurant in Europe yesterday, it is in Salsberg, 1200 years old!

That place has never been the same since the chef left in 1620.

That was hilarious....good line, sounds like a Yogism.

jmonroe

Mr_Shiftright said:

That $139/mo lease is actually more like $250 or better when you add everything up.

Stop reading the fine print. That's not fair. :@

jmonroe

thebean

andres3 said:

Another thing the NHTSA is guilty of doing in order to blame speeding regardless of cause: Most speeding-related fatalities occur in crashes on non-interstate highways. Of those who die in run-off-the-road crashes, consistently more were speeding on curves than not speeding. The greatest proportion of speeding-related fatal crashes occur between midnight and 3 a.m. To me running off the road on a curve is a driver error and/or mechanical car failure unrelated to speeding (more like driving too fast for conditions). For example, you have either exceeded the car and/or the driver's capabilities for that turn, and that is a driver error unrelated to speeding. That same car with a professional driver could potentially navigate that turn safely at the same exact speed, and vice versa, that same turn could be navigated in my TTS at that speed with almost any driver, while a bus fully loaded during a thunderstorm downpour on bald tires might not regardless of the driver.

Running off a road on a curve is related to speed. The laws of physics come into play here, any curve will have a speed where drivers error and/or mechanical defects are completely forgiven and speeds where no car/driver combination can make it around the curve. Find a nice curve on a rural road, go through it at a nice comfortable speed, then go over it several times each time going 5 MPH faster, you will eventually run off the road. Face it, the faster you go the harder it is to make the curve.

True, but if the speed limit is 35 MPH and the guy flies off the curve at 75MPH, and he would have made it easy at 60 MPH, what good is the speed limit? Does it really matter if someone is going 36-60 MPH then, all those would be "speeding", but they didn't cause an accident. Since he went 70-75 MPH, now all of a sudden the speed limit is meaningful? If someone runs off the curve at 40 MPH, they were speeding, and it will be blamed, but all of us here know that if they were going 40 MPH on that 35 MPH road (and most driver's could easily navigate it at up to 60 MPH), speeding was not the causal factor in that accident; yet it will get blamed anyway by the NHTSA.

(Pushing imaginary Ignore button) (Pushing imaginary Ignore button)

berri

No kidding. There should be some guidelines in ads for car leases. It is like airline fares. When you take those fine print down payments and amortize them into the months, it can go up significantly. And that is before taxers and any other dealer fees.

fintail

You need to spend some time in Germany, especially late fall/early winter before conditions get too cold, but construction is over. The entire Autobahn isn't wide open, but much of it is - and it's endless fun taking a vehicle to the upper limits, even if for limited times. I'd also trust those roads to be designed for 200 km/h speeds much more so than American interstates.

andres3 said:

Zen for me would be if they closed I5 to traffic (except to me), and I could just do 155 MPH all the way up to Sacramento from San Diego. I think I'd beat the airplane there if you count TSA security line and baggage wait times.

Would seem like a typical drive to north part of LA probably since the time might be similar. Although, at that speed I'd have to probably fill up on gas at least twice. The S4 would be better for that duty.

fintail

A lot of that stuff is negotiable, especially on a 47K LaCrosse, I am sure. Leases can be negotiated just like regular financing, no matter the published deal.

Mr_Shiftright said:

That $139/mo lease is actually more like $250 or better when you add everything up.

imidazol97

.

driver100

fintail said:

Here's what I thought was a pretty shot in Innsbruck, last November.

It was about 60F during the day, quite a warm spell, too. Reading of your trip makes me want to go back!

I ended up driving south from Innsbruck, probably along cdnpinhead's route. I stayed off the highway (also helps one avoid construction this time of year), and the scenery was like this:


I love the countryside here...lots of those chalet type houses. I haven't seen any slum areas. I like seeing all of these European cars.......not one vinyl roof. Did see a 58 Corvette and 55 Chev, both restored.

andres3

thebean said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Another thing the NHTSA is guilty of doing in order to blame speeding regardless of cause:

Most speeding-related fatalities occur in crashes on non-interstate highways. Of those who die in run-off-the-road crashes, consistently more were speeding on curves than not speeding. The greatest proportion of speeding-related fatal crashes occur between midnight and 3 a.m.

To me running off the road on a curve is a driver error and/or mechanical car failure unrelated to speeding (more like driving too fast for conditions). For example, you have either exceeded the car and/or the driver's capabilities for that turn, and that is a driver error unrelated to speeding. That same car with a professional driver could potentially navigate that turn safely at the same exact speed, and vice versa, that same turn could be navigated in my TTS at that speed with almost any driver, while a bus fully loaded during a thunderstorm downpour on bald tires might not regardless of the driver.

Running off a road on a curve is related to speed. The laws of physics come into play here, any curve will have a speed where drivers error and/or mechanical defects are completely forgiven and speeds where no car/driver combination can make it around the curve. Find a nice curve on a rural road, go through it at a nice comfortable speed, then go over it several times each time going 5 MPH faster, you will eventually run off the road. Face it, the faster you go the harder it is to make the curve.

True, but if the speed limit is 35 MPH and the guy flies off the curve at 75MPH, and he would have made it easy at 60 MPH, what good is the speed limit? Does it really matter if someone is going 36-60 MPH then, all those would be "speeding", but they didn't cause an accident. Since he went 70-75 MPH, now all of a sudden the speed limit is meaningful? If someone runs off the curve at 40 MPH, they were speeding, and it will be blamed, but all of us here know that if they were going 40 MPH on that 35 MPH road (and most driver's could easily navigate it at up to 60 MPH), speeding was not the causal factor in that accident; yet it will get blamed anyway by the NHTSA.

(Pushing imaginary Ignore button) (Pushing imaginary Ignore button)

As I said, some prefer to stick their head in the sand.

andres3

berri said:

No kidding. There should be some guidelines in ads for car leases. It is like airline fares. When you take those fine print down payments and amortize them into the months, it can go up significantly. And that is before taxers and any other dealer fees.

NO kidding! SERIOUSLY need some regulation to break down leases into solely this number on advertisements:

Total Payment after 36 months (or XX months) and 36,000 miles (or XX miles).

The rest will work itself out naturally. The dealer can decide how much they want up front, and how much they want at the tail end, but that shouldn't change the number above.

Payment buyers can do the simple math dividing by 36 or whatever. Why does it have to be so convoluted?

I guess I'm a bottom line buyer, and outnumbered by payment buyers.

Michaell

fintail said:

A lot of that stuff is negotiable, especially on a 47K LaCrosse, I am sure. Leases can be negotiated just like regular financing, no matter the published deal.

Mr_Shiftright said:

That $139/mo lease is actually more like $250 or better when you add everything up.

Exactly - we get lots of posts from folks asking about the national or regional offers, and mistaking that for an actual offer.

We tell folks you can generally get a better deal than what's advertised, if you have decent negotiating skills. And, we disclose the "true" payment based on the cap reduction amount.

stickguy

the fine print does include total payments made (monthly + DP). But one thing for sure on leases, it is really difficult to follow a lease worksheet. always seem to be some level of black magic going on. Thankfully, it is real easy to payment shop a lease! at least the way I do it (every deal is the same. I write a check at inception for $1,000, and make 35 more payments and get 36,000 miles).

only actual variable that matters, is the monthly payment.

andres3

stickguy said:

the fine print does include total payments made (monthly + DP). But one thing for sure on leases, it is really difficult to follow a lease worksheet. always seem to be some level of black magic going on. Thankfully, it is real easy to payment shop a lease! at least the way I do it (every deal is the same. I write a check at inception for $1,000, and make 35 more payments and get 36,000 miles).

only actual variable that matters, is the monthly payment.

and..... the disposition "don't leave us!" penalty fee. Kia's is $400.

and.... the over mileage fee. Kia's is 33.4% higher than Honda's at .20/mile.

Would be interesting to see how much the miles cost if you pre-pay. Will they let you get 13K/year if 15K is too much and 12K too little?

snakeweasel

oldfarmer50 said:

Posted on this puzzler before. 2015 mustang GT premium "demo". Sticker $42k. Web site said only $900 off on a 2 year old car with ??? miles.

Now has a big sign on the windshield that says $35,999.

$6k off on a two year old car? Seems pretty lean to me. I'd say $10-15k depending on miles. What's your thoughts?

http://www.lathamfordmotors.com/wholesale-new/Ford/2015-Ford-Mustang-744ebc910a0a00654f919aa347bf6110.htm?searchDepth=11:15

I would want to know the mileage of the car, Then I would look at offering what the used car value is.

A 2015 car with X number of miles is still a 2015 car with X number of miles regardless of it being a demo or a used car.

snakeweasel

stickguy said:

Snake, leasing these days, is not always a bad deal. there are some extra fees, but usually there is a lot of lease cash (at least on the leases you want!), and the interest rate is usually so low as to be almost irrelevant.

True though that often the residual is higher than what you might be able to buy a different car for (but at least you know the one you had), but not always. Some people dodged a bullet leasing a big SUV right before gas prices went through the roof!

cars are so expensive, that most people are financing a lot of it, and often for 5 years now. so if you lease, buy it out after 3, and pay out the residual in 2 years, you pretty much came out the same.

My understanding is that a lease you pay for the estimated depreciation that occurs during the time of the lease. This would mean that after 3 years the residual would be more than what you would have owed on it after 3 years of a 5 year loan. That means that those last 2 years your payment would have to skyrocket to pay it off in two tears after a 3 year lease.

Many years (decades?) ago I was looking at a dealer ad in the paper that had all the figures of a lease in the fine print. I ran the figures for the lease then taking out a loan after the lease to keep the vehicle. IIRC I calculated that to keep the payment the same you would have to take out a 6 or 7 year loan after the 3 year lease. That's what turns me off leasing then buying a car (note that's leasing then buying, not leasing then turning it in). Now things may have changed and I would like to run the numbers again.

Michaell

andres3 said:

stickguy said:

the fine print does include total payments made (monthly + DP). But one thing for sure on leases, it is really difficult to follow a lease worksheet. always seem to be some level of black magic going on. Thankfully, it is real easy to payment shop a lease! at least the way I do it (every deal is the same. I write a check at inception for $1,000, and make 35 more payments and get 36,000 miles).

only actual variable that matters, is the monthly payment.

and..... the disposition "don't leave us!" penalty fee. Kia's is $400.

and.... the over mileage fee. Kia's is 33.4% higher than Honda's at .20/mile.

Would be interesting to see how much the miles cost if you pre-pay. Will they let you get 13K/year if 15K is too much and 12K too little?

Most brands only allow extra miles to be bought if you start at 15K.

Ford, OTOH, does have published residuals for 13.5K miles per year ... and, up to 19.5K miles per year, without any pre-payment cost.

Mr_Shiftright

Is this about right for what's negotiable and non-negotiable in a car lease?

Negotiable:

MSRP
Front money
MF
miles per year
Lease term
Security Deposit ??
Doc Fee
Silly Dealer Add-ons from F&I

Non-Negotiable:

Residual value
Acquisition Fee
Taxes
Mileage overage
Disposition Fee ??


What am I missing?

explorerx4

@Mr_Shiftright,
Here is CT there are annual property taxes. On one of my leases(only did a couple of them), I got hammered on the taxes that were included in the lease payment.
Probably my fault.

snakeweasel

fintail said:

The context was to say that a little extra speed can result in significant time spent doing something else. About 2/3rds of my mileage is made up of road trips, so more often than you might think. I am out west, where people and places can be some distance.

A few years ago I drove from Jacksonville to Atlanta, and deliberately planned a route that didn't touch an interstate, literally not one mile. I wanted peace, not traffic. It was interesting, but definitely used more time. It was cruising to me, rather than intently driving. Fill up the tank, set the nav, watch the scenery roll by.

My point is that the vast majority of drivers the vast majority of time won't see a significant amount of time saved. Especially in high density urban driving where most of the time it just gets you to the next stop light 5 seconds faster.

Now going slow and enjoying the drive is to me a lot better than rushing it.

cdnpinhead

Mr_Shiftright said:

Have I been lied to all these years?

Uh, yes, yes you have. Either way, it's beautiful country. Try to get there if you can.

snakeweasel

berri said:

What makes me leery of a lease is that things like oem tires probably won't make it 36 months, getting gouged for minor parking lot dings, dents and scratches at turn in, disposal fees, etc. That stuff can add up in a hurry. I'm thinking buying and holding a new car these days for 5 or 6 years may be the sweet spot. Most will still drive and look decent, as well as not being totally technically obsolete. Also depreciation is spread out better than owning it for only a few years.

Cars these days can go a lot further than that 5 or 6 years. My car is now 9 model years old and still looks pretty good and it has a lot more miles left in her. And while cars have made technological advances they are really not what I really desire, especially at the price points I am comfortable with.

stickguy

Snake, the difference is that the first 3 years of the lease are at a way lower monthly payment.

it all comes out in the end relatively even, assuming you keep the car the same number of years. what really adds up on the lease is when you only keep it the 3 years, and compare it to a buy and hold for 6.

Mr_Shiftright

cdnpinhead said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Have I been lied to all these years?

Uh, yes, yes you have. Either way, it's beautiful country. Try to get there if you can.

Been there. I was actually there the day of the Moon Landing!

cdnpinhead

Mr_Shiftright said:

Been there. I was actually there the day of the Moon Landing!

Wow -- excellent! I was sat in an apartment in Tempe, AZ, when it happened. Remember when the U.S. did exciting things like that? Yeah, me too, but just barely.

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

I like these T shirts in Austria, they say WE DON'T HAVE KANGAROOS IN AUSTRIA!

Gee Austria needs better zoos.

cdnpinhead

driver100 said:

I don't have to worry about permits, we were on a bus. This will be last bus tour ever, too much time on the bus seeing things we don't want to see.

Not trying to execute a micro aggression here, but I'd rather be whipped with a wet rope than get on a tour bus. The only thing worse would be a cruise ship where 2000+ people pile off every time the vessel arrives in port and try to enjoy the "local color." I drove to Alaska a number of years ago and was in Skagway for a day or so. The cruise ship people clogged up the town in the mornings to an amazing extent, so I drove my car a few miles away to the Chilcoot (sp?) trailhead and environs and had a great time with not another soul in sight. I'm very much an "independent traveler" kind of person, but. . .

to each their own.

Mr_Shiftright

SEZ WHO? (Yeah, it really is in Austria).