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

1131132134136137463

Comments

  • designmandesignman Member Posts: 2,129
    I really like what I see in that link. Kind of like the SC430. You can see the pedestrian safety regs in action and they worked around it masterfully. Can’t wait to see it from all angles and I hope it’s for real but it looks photochopped. Lots of posts I’d like to respond to but I’m swamped with work. Will get back when things ease up. Oac, you’re funny as always… love it ;-)
  • hpowdershpowders Member Posts: 4,330
    idrive for dessert? Must be a bunch of masochists. ;)
  • oacoac Member Posts: 1,594
    Excellent post and very well said, Len.

     

    Say, would Lexus really challenge MB with 500-600HP engined cars ??? Would these be the new AMG-like tuner division Lexus' Denny Clements promised in his recent speech ?

     

    2006 cannot come any sooner now. At least we are already in 2005, which means just about another year of waiting for this darn LS.... Grrrrrrrr !!!!!
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    It's going to be interesting to see how that tuning division develops. It's really a halo effect as even AMG only sells 15,000 cars worldwide annually. But I think the 600HP hybrid car - which they announced and re-iterated as a 2007 super LS at just over $100k will be sold as a bigger LS engine with a stretched wheelbase. I'm sure it will have tuning options but if I'm Lexus I focus the tuning on the GS, IS, SC and the $150K sports car that is due. Remember supposedly we also get a LWB option on the lower HP engined LS cars starting with this next model roll-out.
  • princeabubuprinceabubu Member Posts: 45
    Nice post. You make good points that I can't even begin to dispute, you have obviously done your homework on this subject.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    Thanks. Good luck with the car you end up going with. If you get a good S pix put it up for us. Sometimes I think MB should just leave the car as is because the current car is still a great looker. The last tweak with the bolder grill made up for its only design shortcoming IMO.
  • oacoac Member Posts: 1,594
    If BMW's 7-series continues to suffer the case of electronic/reliability/i-drive and design (at least the rear fascia) hicups, resulting in tepid sales.

     

    If MB's S-class suffers from the case of electronic/reliability and (maybe) design hicups.

     

    Can one then extrapolate that as long as Lexus' new LS does not fall flat on its face design-wise (we know reliability and luxury will be there), Lexus' next go at the luxury market in the all-important NA market may put a huge hurt into MB and BMW. Can the Germans afford to look Lexus in the eye and call its bluff as in circa 1989 ???

     

    As Len eloquently puts it, Toyota/Lexus is loaded with billions of $$$. FY2004 was a stellar year for TMC/Lexus in the US, with sales exceeding 2M cars/trucks for the first time ever. And Lexus retaining (again) the crown of the #1 luxury name-plate in the US. What could derail Lexus ? What's in MB and BMW's pipeline that will counter Lexus' push for more market share? If the new S is as shown by those spy pics, then MB is not gonna put up much fight; can BMW do something with the 7 ? Audi and Jag are pretty much non-competitive in this space, anyway. What is to stop Lexus from further putting a huge hurt in its competitors ???

     

    Like I said, just thinking out loud here....

     
  • designmandesignman Member Posts: 2,129
    The image in the link that ljflx provided is a serious Photoshop job. What’s more, I believe the artist used the 5-series as the foundation. There are a lot of BMW motifs, not only from the 5 but the 2006 3-series as well. Sorry to have to tell you this but that will NOT be anything like the next LS.

     

    The Photoshop artists undoubtedly provide the best designs. Why? Because the images go from their heads to their hands without being ruined by the "logic" of committees.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    You could be right. Remember my comment - alter the grill and it's what the 7 should have been. Nevertheless it has a lot of LFS in the front so we shall see. Hopefully someone will get the real mccoy soon.

     

    OAC - Door is wide open for Lexus for sure. But BMW does make a great car and will hold-up well unless Bangle gets even whackier. The 7 was never their benchmark car whereas with Lexus the LS is its staple premium car. MB is the company that has to straighten itself out. High priced unreliable cars will never hold in the face of an onslaught from Lexus and the public coming to its senses. You know every person I talk to that has or had an MB says the cars have gone downhill. You don't get that from a BMW driver. Their gripe (kdshapiro excluded) is the awful new styles and the i-drive.

     

    kd - all kdding aside - your post re WPIX was incomplete.
  • pablo_lpablo_l Member Posts: 491
    It's a complex strategic landscape, and it'll be a key business story as it evolves going forward. Toyota Corp does have the financial resources to challenge the incumbents in the very high end market, it's steadily won market share already, however it is a treacherous market (as Jaguar can seemingly attest to) that does not always favor the predictable "by the MBA 101 book" approach - and the latter is something Toyota sticks to. Their focussed approach is an asset right now, but it will hurt them as some things shift. For example, a market that tips over into the leasing end of the business might not reward quality process and utter commitment to reliability as much as the current, murkier own-vs-lease landscape does. Far more fashionability concerns might kick in in such a landscape, and that is an area where European management has a strength. If the high-end car market increasingly melts with the fashion industry, the European manufacturers might gain an advantage if they're smart about it. If I was Lexus, I;d be knocking on Gucci-Versace-Dolce-LouisVuitton-etc for some early strategic advantage right now, because to me it is blatantly easy to foresee that is the card Euro players will go for. And it might prove quite effective given the potential shift in market forces.

    The element of sheer "fashionabilty" seems to be becoming more powerful in the luxury car market. That's not a force to be trifled with if you're a product manager...

    Lexus has been steadily kicking Euro-luxury-butt, and yet to continue at their current pace as they go world-wide they'll need some flexibility.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    Pablo - excellent post. They indeed know it thus the move away from one or two engine options (the LS has only had one engine each model year) and the move to the bolder sportier designs in the LFS vintage. Don't underestimate what the hybrid is going to do to this market either. Plus the new engine developments and technology shifts will favor the well capitalized. I'll also bet many people already lease Lexus. Most Lexus people I know lease simply because they want a new car every three years. Most use to lease MB's in the 90's.
  • designmandesignman Member Posts: 2,129
    I think hybrid could turn out to be the biggest innovation in the auto industry since the auto itself.
  • oacoac Member Posts: 1,594
    For example, a market that tips over into the leasing end of the business might not reward quality process and utter commitment to reliability as much as the current, murkier own-vs-lease landscape does

     

    Personally, I don't see how Audi/Lexus/BMW/MB will design/engineer mainstream luxury cars for such a narrow interest - lease-based - as a business model for their products. For niche cars like the AMG/M/S cars, maybe. These days, far too many people can AFFORD luxury cars than in the past in our parents era. And with the economy, real estate appreciation and baby boomer generation we have today, earning power will continue to go up, as wealth continues to build in many households here in America. Hence, buying and owning a luxury car will only increase not decrease, imo. A good friend of mine, by no means a rich fellow, decided to take a little $$ off the top of his house (equity), and paid in CASH $47K for an MB M350 for himself, $35K in CASH for his wife's G35. This guy could have leased the truck and the G, but he wants pride of ownership. I will suspect there are many people that feel this way with owning luxury cars.
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    A good friend of mine, by no means a rich fellow, decided to take a little $$ off the top of his house (equity), and paid in CASH $47K for an MB M350 for himself, $35K in CASH for his wife's G35. This guy could have leased the truck and the G, but he wants pride of ownership.

     

    Not sure what you are saying. How does one take a little $$ off the top of his house (equity)?? Did he divide his land and sell a parcel? or did he condominiumized his house and sold some of the condoes? Or did you mean he went into hock and took a second mortgage on his house to pay for cars?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "Or did you mean he went into hock and took a second mortgage on his house to pay for cars?"

     

    That is what my friend does. Two houses both fully paid for, no bills. When he wants a car, he goes into hock and takes out an equity line. When you bought your house for $100K and it's worth $700K/$800K and you earn a couple/few hundred thousand a year, what's $70K in an equity line?
  • pablo_lpablo_l Member Posts: 491
    Just because you have $70k does not mean that going forward it makes sense to buy your own car. Pride of ownership? As someone who's owned every car he's ever had, I am here to attest to the fact that can turn into hassle of ownership very quickly. *I* for one will probably lease my next car, because I am convinced to the core that the car business model has tipped and manufacturers do not build their higher end cars to provide their owners with 10 years of hassle free, low cost maintenance ownership. If on top of buying a car cash you wind up paying >3k of yearly service cost, the ownership model makes little financial sense, and "pride of ownership" becomes something people grow out of when they look at the numbers and realize the car they own will not only be old, but on top if it extremely expensive to maintain. My wife and I bought our cars cash because we could, because we like to own, and because I am one that hates to load up the monthly bill cycle. The latter consideration however is thrown out of the window when repair costs for a car exceed a certain amount per year, as has been the case with our Mercedes. In a leasing model, I would not need to be worried about that, since the warranty will always cover expensive stuff, and the predictability of the expense represents an advantage. It means we can consider any car we just like without worrying much about long term reliability, and in theory could easily consider Mercedes. But we won't because we've received bad advice, no goodwill and experienced a very questionable business practise unworthy of their brand, just like my final bad Jaguar experience made me turn my back on them several years ago. As far as my future choices go, both Jaguar and Mercedes have made me a very wary consumer, and they only have themselves to blame for the loss of potential business that may represent to them.

     

    But as to owning vs leasing - I have spent about $250k since '96 buying new cars, and at the end of the day the "pride of ownership" doesn't tilt the balance. I'll lease in the future. It's hassle-free, predictable and ultimately likely to always be the more enjoyable experience, in my opinion (and experience).
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    It's pretty sad, for someone who makes "a couple/few hundred thousand a year," there isn't $70k cash somewhere. With all the low interest incentives going around with cars, it's hard to imagine an equity line can beat a car loan or lease incentive nowadays in terms of interest rate. Unless you are selling the house, or parts of it as in land sub-division/condominiumization, there is simply no money to take out of the house. Equity line and other banker-speak are just their way of tacking a tax on every dollar you earn/spend. If you borrow $70k at 5% over 5 years, you have just signed yourself yourself for an additional 12%+ income tax on $70k of your income. Borrowing is borrowing, your friend no longer owns the house free and clear the moment he exercise the line of credit; even if he is not in any danger of losing the house, he still pays the interest. The money is not free.
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    It's all dependent on if car makers continue to subsidize their lease residue through their lending arm. At the residue value of MB in the past few years, I would never buy an MB even if money equivalent to the car cost is burning a hole in my pocket. Lease it, then re-negotiate lease buy-out at the end. Of course, you have to watch out for mileage.

     

    If the carmakers stop subsidizing lease residues, leasing may well become a very expensive insurance policy.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "It's pretty sad, for someone who makes "a couple/few hundred thousand a year," there isn't $70k cash somewhere."

     

    I never said that and you're making assumptions. You don't know the total picture as to why one would pick one way over the other of financing a vehicle. Maybe he has a few million dollars tied up in trusts for the kids that he has no intention of looting for a car?
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    And maybe one would choose that option because the interest on a mortgage is deductible...
  • kgarykgary Member Posts: 180
    If you can't afford to pay cash for a car, you can't afford the car. If someone needs to take an equity loan, they should buy a cheaper car.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    Why is that the case? There may be a better need for cash. The issue isn't taking on a loan - it's whether you have the capital assets to payoff that loan or the income to meet the stream of payments. If you took that attitude up a notch no one would ever buy a house or any major capital item and then our whole economy would be in shambles. As well sometimes you want money kept free for bigger and riskier investment activities.
  • stevesteinstevestein Member Posts: 263
    I walked all around my car, and looked very carefully. I failed to see the scarlet "L" anywhere. No one has ever said "Nice car..Oh , it's only leased".
  • kgarykgary Member Posts: 180
    While I am still in my thirties, maybe I am old school. I don't pay interest to a bank. I use the "interest" money to invest.

     

    I do not have a mortgage on my house. I do not have notes on my cars. I do not lease things. I have no credit card debt. I have no personal loans.

     

    My oldest child is only 8, but I have fully funded each of my children's college funds so that if they started college today there is already 4 years of college, and then some, paid for each one. I have funded my 401K so that if I stopped contributing today, it would provide me with a six figure income, in 2005 dollars, for 40 years of retirement. I have been able to do this because I refuse to fall into the trap of paying debt service.

     

    Simply put, I buy what I can afford. When I ordered a car last month, I ordered a 2005 A6 4.2, I did not order a Ferrari. When I bought my house on Long Island's north shore, I did not buy a house on the water.

     

    Why would someone want to be a slave to their possessions? Why would someone want to have to continue to work and generate a cash flow to keep their stuff? Why would someone want to have to sell some of their capital (other stuff) to pay for new stuff.

     

    As I said, if you can't buy something for cash, don't buy it. Buy what you can afford.
  • garyh1garyh1 Member Posts: 394
    This is upsetting to me. To me, buying a luxury car and holding it for a long time was my favorite strategy. It made me feel like I was using my capital wisely, while still enjoying a fine driving experience. It was an especially good strategy for me since I am a low mileage user (and even more so in recent years since I injured my back).

     

    Real life example: in 1987, I bought a 1 yr old 735 BMW for $31K cash (big first year depreciation on 7s in those days!). I kept it until 1998 when I traded it in for about $5,000 off on a new MB E320 (again paying cash). So my cost for driving a great car was about $180/month (yes, I know, plus the time value of money)!

     

    Admittedly, the numbers are different these days, but the point is the same. That's why I just bought an '05 LS for cash instead of another MB this time-- I plan on holding it for long time. But if Pablo is right and nobody is going to bother building cars that hold up long term anymore, I will end up paying $700+/month like all the lessees. And I don't really care about getting a new car every 3 or 4 years if I can be driving a fine older one (with low mileage in my case).

     

    Please Lexus, don't try and follow the path of "planned obsolescence". Toyota didn't get where it is by selling short-term fashion plates cheaper than the Germans. There is still a market for people who want quality. Otherwise, Pablo is right and I would lease an S over an LS(I still love the look and feel of the former), and just dump it every 3 years (and hope I get one that doesn't have to be in the shop too often even in those first 3 years!).
  • kgarykgary Member Posts: 180
    I agree with you. Owning a quality vehicle, and holding on to it, makes the most sense. Lets just hope that companies keep making quality vehicles.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Let's just be careful that we don't we get into "moralizing" about the methods folks choose to use to acquire their vehicles. We all have our different reasons for using whatever vehicle (ha!) seems to be most expedient, but judging those decisions is not what we are about.

     

    We need to discuss the cars and not rip people for making financial decisions with which we do not agree.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    Nothing wrong with that philosophy - It's just not for me. I am fortunate as I can write the check for any of these cars - nevertheless I'll continue leasing - partly because I use a car for my business and partly because I do like a new set of wheels every 3 years. Thus I lease my personal vehicle as well.
  • oacoac Member Posts: 1,594
    For trying to bring this back to some sanity. Now let's get back to talking about luxury cars....
  • jvcnjvcn Member Posts: 50
    It's hard for me to believe that leasing beats buying except in odd circumstances with very subsidized leases for people who want new cars every 3 years, and with cars that are a lot of trouble after just a few years. Maybe some Jags and MBs are like that. But I doubt that the Acura/Lexus/Infinitis and possibly even the Cadillacs require >$3000 a year in maintenance and repairs even after 5 or 6 years. I know for sure that many of the used 7 or 8 yr old LS400s with 90K miles discussed in Lexus forums cost maybe upfront $2000 in repairs (say if bought cheap 3rd hand) followed by no more than another $1500-$2000 in total maintenance and repairs for 5 years after that.

     

    If you have hard numbers on this, I'd appreciate learning a source because I'm quite interested in this issue.

     

    But if you're just guessing that people will be so fickle that long term reliability has little value, then who knows... You may turn out to be right.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    This is not the place ...

     

    The positives and negatives about leasing are being discussed on our Smart Shopper board - I hope that those of you who are interested in pursuing this subject will look up appropriate discussions there and continue.

     

    But here we are talking about vehicles, not the ins and outs of various financing methods.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    I'll just answer the leasing question and then drop it per Pat's request. But say you can lease a $62K LS for $825 per month (36 months) (some have said they got $50-75 better than this) then buy it at lease end for $35K and it costs you $500 in bank fees. This is a pretty typical deal. Out of pocket costs are $65,200. If you assume a 3.5% interest factor (interest you could have gotten on a 3 year CD) than your lease payments would have earned about $1600 had that money stayed in your pocket - so add that in and your out of pocket is $66,800. If you could have bought the car outright for say $59K (Edmunds TMV is $60K) than after 3 years you're real out of pocket is $65,400 (using that same 3.5% lost interest factor; 66,500 if I use Edmunds TMV). Is it worth $1400 (and only $400 if Edmunds TMV is right) to decide 3 years from now that you want the car?? That's the premium factor. If you can do better than 3.5% on your money in 3 years it may well swing the bias toward leasing on a pure cash basis and you have the added benefit of buying or passing on the car after you got to know it and its reliability. Tax deductions in leasing - if they apply - blow it out of the water in leasings favor. I kept this rather simple without PV's and I left out sales tax. But leasing isn't really all that much more than buying at all and you have the option of looking at your finances to decide if you want to buy what you leased or re-up on a new lease at the end.
  • brightness04brightness04 Member Posts: 3,148
    Money tied up in kids trust funds is not free un-encumbered cash (ie. facing severe tax consequences if looting is attempted); money tied up in the house is not free un-encumbered cash (there is no money in the house except for those under the mattress or something, or those parts that one can sell without losing a roof over the head). Once again, it is pretty sad for someone who makes "a couple/few hundred thousand a year," there isn't $70k free un-encumbered cash around somewhere.

     

    Mortgage tax deduction doesn't really wash very far either. There are severe limits on the tax deductibility of 2nd mortgages for non-home improvement purposes (ie. take-outs), especially for someone who makes "couple/few hundred thousand dollars a year." The usual cap is $100k, and further restrictions kick in as early for gross income as under $70k for single/separate filing, and $140k for couples. KD's friends making "couple/few hundred thousand" per year must have less than $100k eligible for mortgage deduction due to their higher income.

     

    Even with mortgage tax deduction, 5.5% is turned into 3.7% effective, still higher than most car manufacturer's loans and lease money factors.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    brightness - you're beating a dead horse. Suffice it to say, people have their reasons for doing things a certain way. BTW - go and read the original post carefully.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    You know, I reeeally don't like to get like this, but this is NOT the place and I've said so as clearly as I know how.

     

    I'm going to have to start removing these kinds of messages if people persist in posting them. The "I'll just say this and then drop it" does not work because there is never an ending point; someone always has something else to "just say and then I'll drop it".

     

    I again invite those interested to continue this in an appropriate discussion on our Smart Shopper board - you can explore this topic fully there.

     

    Now ... who here is going to be attending the Detroit Auto Show? What are you looking forward to checking out?
  • kgarykgary Member Posts: 180
    I can't make the Detroit Auto show, I will try to make the NY show. I hope to see some great cars.
  • pablo_lpablo_l Member Posts: 491
    Since the whole concept of buying a luxury car is irrational and emotional, I think criticizing anyone's approach to buying some car is not very rational either - it's all merely a function of how important something is to someone. And "perceived value" -and not COGS- is the very essence of luxury brands and ultimately of market economy. Whether we want it or not, irrational behavior rules a large portion of our being consumers.

     

    I read somewhere that by now over 2 thirds of all cars from entry luxury upwards are leased, and that this is expected to grow even further. To assume that car manufacturers are not going to engineer their cars with this market shift in mind is a dangerous assumption. Again - I am someone who's always owned, but I think the time has come for me to change. My outlook on ownership has not really changed, but the products in my opinion have: more electronics mean more programmed in obsolescence and probably less graceful aging. And with maintenance costs for older cars shooting up... the concept of paying nearly as much for maintaining an old car as I would for leasing an new car is somewhat silly. Older cars seemed engineered for long term ownership. I see little evidence that is still the case.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    Pablo - overall the concept is logical but it breaks down because residual value costs will be effected very negatively if future potential buyers are afraid of purchasing "off lease" cars. To a certain extent we can already see this is progress. MB residuals have fallen like a brick since 2001 from 67% on a 3 year 36K lease then to near 50-52% now. Someone is underwriting that lease depreciation, either other insurance protection plans for the mfr. of some kind, or the leases are subsidized and the losses put off into the future. Lexus, on the other hand has held around 60-62% and a pre-owned Lexus LS will cost you a lot higher percent of original MSRP than a pre-owned S-class after the 3 years are up. High reliability standards will always show up best in the secondary used or pre-owned market. When you think about it that is where MB's whole reputation was built. No one was afraid to buy a pre-owned MB in the 70's, 80's and for awhile in the 90's - if you could even find one particularly in those earlier decades. Today that is not the case at all. It is now Lexus, and even Acura, that has taken over that rock solid feeling buyers of pre-owned cars want to have. If the secondary market doesn't support high residuals then the initial market will not support the high depreciation brought on by the excessive new price. So in the end - regardless of who you are building the cars for - initial buyer or the secondary and tertiary buyers - you better build it well.
  • jvcnjvcn Member Posts: 50
    I'm curious: Is there any evidence that the cars are less reliable in the longer term? My impression is that the LS series of Lexus is more reliable than ever with fewer complaints both at the 90 day and at the 5 year mark. Are you saying that's not right?

     

    Or do you mean: Cars today are better in the first 3-5 years, but once the electronics go out, you're dead. Whereas many of the best cars from the 70s and 80s had more niggling problems early, but once ironed out, the cars can be kept going forever at reasonable cost? Is this the argument?

     

    Just curious. And do we have info about this?
  • wabendswabends Member Posts: 102
    We are in the market for a 2003 745Li. We currently have these two offers and I will appreciate any comments that members of this forum have before making our final decision.

      

    Car 1: 2003 754Li; 23k miles. Navigation. Luxury pkg. Shades. Comfort front seats & heated rear seats. Heated steering wheel. Computer. Xenon lights w/ washers. Premium sound pkg. 19” Alloys. Non-BMW dealership, no CPO. Asking price is $57,995.

      

    Car 2: 2003 745Li; 34K miles. Luxury seating package; premium sound pkg; convenience pkg. parktronic. BMW CPO. Asking price is $56700.

      

    Which of these two will be a better deal?
  • pablo_lpablo_l Member Posts: 491
    But then again, people who buy fresh-off-a-lease cars typically get extended warranty perks, which distorts that picture. Because that makes the MB -and I just use them because you mention them in your example- a downright attractive 3 year old choice (not for me, though, too late for damage control): between the lower price tag and the Starmark stuff they wrap into their 2-3 year old cars... Think about it, in my particular example if I has leased and then bought the car off the lease, I would have saved myself over $4.5k in maintenance costs already which MB is willing to subsidize for cars they sell through the leasing channel and then flip... and this seems a common business practise. All reliability does in that case is add to the vendors' margins (since they're footing the bill for service costs in such a scenario), the benefit to the consumer is merely less inconvenience. And I'll put up with some inconvenience, and will increasingly do so with a smile when it saves me increasing amounts of money. With my particular ownership, I have inconvience, plus high maintenance costs, and all for the privilege of pride of ownership for a 5 year old car... it just doesn't compute for me when I add up the numbers alone, let alone the gutfeel element. So yes, *if* I were to go for pride of ownership, I'd pick the Lex over the MB every time now, because reputation for reliability does count heavily when you buy a car (didn't in '99/'00, which was short sighted by me). But I'd probably lease it first and then buy it off the lease, which as I understand is also what you consider doing. The MB experience is probably one I'll never go for again - which is sad given the fact that I come from a Merc-loving family (which I never quite went for myself, my wife's is the first MB I've ever bought). But contrast my experience with old-school Mercedes: my mother has had hers for about 11 years now (and she bought it as it was 6 to 8 years old), and it looks good and drives safely and reliably - and I doubt she spends more than $200 in yearly maintenance. it's one of those indestructible diesels... those were the days when such cars were built to last their owners forever.

     

    Mind you, this is not nostalgia speaking: today's cars are far better and safer drives than almost any car that's over 10 years old. My everyday driving car is something I probably would not keep for 15 years...

     

    I guess my point simply is that going forward I think I'll lease cars, a major shift in my personal approach to car ownership, and I do that simply because I think the concept of ownership is slowly but surely being obsoleted. Ownership makes little sense if I *have* to buy a new car every 5 years. I need the option to keep the car longer without it becoming a total financial liability, which any modern car has potential to do given its complexity.
  • designmandesignman Member Posts: 2,129
    In my opinion buying vs leasing is a trivial nickel/dime decision. Deciding on the car that suits you best is where it’s at.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 235,188
    I agree somewhat..

     

    Buying vs. leasing is more of a "financing" decision in my book..

     

    Sometimes it is more than nickel/dime... Sometimes the manufacturer lays on lease incentives only.. Then, even if you are a cash customer, you can't ignore the advantages..

     

    Getting the right car IS the most important thing.

     

    regards,

    kyfdx

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • oacoac Member Posts: 1,594
    I find that a Carerra GT "suits me best", but guess what I cannot afford one at this time - leasing or buying. So, I am influenced by the "nickel/dime" decision. Maybe some day I'll be like you, designman, where I never have to think of the cost, just "what suits me best".

     

    :)
  • designmandesignman Member Posts: 2,129
    A-h-h Oac, tell me you are kidding. You missed my point. You can buy or lease a Corolla or a Quattroporte, so buying vs leasing has little to do with cost. Surely expensive cars “suit” most of us. I’m talking about finding the right car within a given budget. It really doesn’t matter which method is chosen because you are going to pay for the car either way. Any difference is what I call “nickel/dime”.

     

    By the way, I choose to buy for the following reasons:

    1 – Feel handcuffed by the duration of the lease

    2 – Ditto with mileage

    3 – Buying costs less (kyfdx, I expect a response from you here ;-)

     

    One great thing about leasing though, I love the idea of walking away from the car with the option to buy. Now if we REALLY wanted to save money the way to go is buy used and keep the car longterm.

     

    BTW, if I wanted to buy what “suited” me by your interpretation I’d have a 911 Turbo, E39 M5, Boxster and an S55 AMG for the little woman, unless of course she chose the LS which I have a feeling is what she will want the next time around unless BMW comes to its senses. You have no idea how she loves the 530 but hates the new designs—just like me.

     

    One more thing. I can honestly say that this “pride of ownership” thing is something that never crossed my mind. I recognize the fact that some of the smartest investors are always in “hock”… using other people’s money to make money. This can be risky business though if you don’t know what you are doing. Remember in the early 90s when the Donald had a negative worth of what, some $500 mil? My father was a cash buyer and always told me never to buy stocks on margin so I guess I inherited some (not all) of his attitude. That missive by kgary kind of reminded me of him although I disagree with some of that.

     

    Oac, you don't want the Carrera GT, you'd be hitting bottom all over the place. You'd need a fork lift to get it into every gas station ;-)
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    They have plummeted here in NJ. I paid 178.9 for 93 octane today.

     

    Designman - I've never bought stocks on margin. That is the one line I'll never cross. Leasing and auto financing are small potatoes and loans for property that never seems to stop rising in price are very safe bets always. If I didn't take a mortgage to buy my home I'd have missed a large jump in net worth as a result. You've got to find the right mix where you're not a slave to cash and not a slave to debt.
  • designmandesignman Member Posts: 2,129
    I think you hit the nail on the head earlier when you alluded to handling debt by being in a positive cash flow/equity situation. Some people keep going up in debt without being able to cover it and without even realizing it—trouble.

     

    IMO margin buying isn't much different from rolling dice with house credit.

     

    NJ gas prices must have gone down in two days. I think it was 1.97 on Friday.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    I have some real bad BMW news for you - see link. I also want to be the first to pre-welcome you to the LS board.

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/automobiles/10BANG.html?oref=lo- - gin

     

    Looks like Bangle's move upstairs was a real promotion and not a way to get him off of a "hands on" approach.

     

    And here's anothe story of interest

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/automobiles/autospecial/10CARS.- - html

     

    Don't know if the sketch will come across but there is one of a BMW sports car that looks great as their entry into the "Ultimate L.A." Machine competition.
  • ljflxljflx Member Posts: 4,690
    Their problems run very deep. This company isn't turning around anytime soon and Lexus is getting aggressive and going worldwide. Next few years will be interesting. After reading this story I think MB's status king days are numbered. It's hard to want an expensive product from a company with many problems facing it and you pay premium dollar over alternative better made expensive products for their problem. This is only enhanced when you start seeing the word "faded" associated with its name. The issue isn't how to fix the problem but will the internal operating dynamics and politics of the company, and the laws and heritage of the land it resides in, allow it to be fixed. What's also interesting is that Mercedes offensive onslauhght with more variant cars and engines and trying to be all things to all people (save the SUV market) was OK short-term (and made it a darling of the car mags) but has exacerbated its real business problems.

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/automobiles/autospecial/10merce- - - - - - - des.html
Sign In or Register to comment.