[Never_Enough]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

You're (perhaps purposely) discounting the fact that a lease company and the person leasing their vehicle has legally-binding contract that has to be addressed at the end of the term. This is simply something that anyone entering into a lease has to rectify at the end of the agreement.

This is not similar at all to a person selling their car on the open market. A vehicle owner with a matured loan has no contract with anyone. Period.

Even when you're selling your car, you have no legal contract with anyone until you decide to enter into one... and that only occurs by choice, after you agree on a deal. This is not a subtle distinction... This is a huge difference.

Nah, just making a simple point. It's not complicated. Anyway, different strokes for different folks

[jmg]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

The point I'm making is a very simple one. It's better to not be bound by a contract at all. However limited the exposure, you're less exposed when you're not contractually obligated at all. This isn't disputable.

Any and all repairs that are required by the dealer upon lease returns are not outside reasonable levels that I would think anyone who has any respect at all for their belongings would do to an owned vehicle. Even minor curb rashes and dings are acceptable. So unless a car owner is willing to drive around with a dented hood or a rusty rip in the door panel or a bent rim, the responsibilities for a leaser to keep the car in good condition should not be significantly different than an owner.

Additionally, repairs and maintenance to keep the car in good condition is reflected in the residual value. A damaged or poor condition owned car will have a lower resale and thus lower residual value. Either way, the total cost of ownership of both leasing and buying will be negatively effected by damage and excess wear and tear.

[Alfisti]

With an expensive brake job done on the X3, my anticipated 3 year CPO ownership cost including deductions for business purposes and depreciation is looking like about $610 month.

I could get my wife into a brand new Alfa or Q5 lease for $605 month all in again accounting for write offs.

Now to be fair the next big line item on the X3 may not be for a couple of years (when the water pump dies) so over time that $610 will drop to $550 or so.

Still, the more i break the numbers down the more I see leasing in her future.

[GeorgeA]

That is a horrible lease. You can get a C2S for that payment easily if not a GTS.

Also, why spend 95k on a boxster? Thats a bit too much no?

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by FC4

From my experience, people who are strongly anti-lease are usually poor.

Or just not wasteful?

[FC4]

Originally Posted by Germanauto

Or just not wasteful?

LOL. Since half of my cars are leased, does that make me only half wasteful? If I could have saved any meaningful amount of money buying instead of leasing an M4, Range, F-Type, Model S or S65, trust me...I would have.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by FC4

LOL. Since half of my cars are leased, does that make me only half wasteful? If I could have saved any meaningful amount of money buying instead of leasing an M4, Range, F-Type, Model S or S65, trust me...I would have.

No one in the history of history has saved money by buying an S65.

Outside of a W12 Phaeton or a Maybach, I can't think of a car with worse residuals. If it were possible to short cars, I'd invest heavily in S65's.

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by FC4

LOL. Since half of my cars are leased, does that make me only half wasteful? If I could have saved any meaningful amount of money buying instead of leasing an M4, Range, F-Type, Model S or S65, trust me...I would have.

If you are comparing to financing a new car, sure.

But it is universally agreed upon that financing a lightly used example is the best way to go.

[FC4]

Originally Posted by Germanauto

If you are comparing to financing a new car, sure.

But it is universally agreed upon that financing a lightly used example is the best way to go.

I don't buy used cars.

[Flacht3]

Originally Posted by Germanauto

If you are comparing to financing a new car, sure.

But it is universally agreed upon that financing a lightly used example is the best way to go.

I'm having deja vu. Isn't this what was debated during the first 7 pages of the thread before everyone moved on?

At least you recognize the difference between a new car purchase and used car. That's progress.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by FC4

I don't buy used cars.

Maybe, but you only drive used cars. So why take the depreciation hit? It is impossible to own a new car, because the second you sign the deal and drive it off the lot, it is now used.

A bit ago, I needed a cheap run around car. 2008 VW Rabbit (Golf). MSRP on the car was around $18,500 and the cheapest you could find a new one after any and all discounts was about $15,500 because it was the end of the model year and the 2009's had already arrived at the dealer lots.

I bought one for $12,000 with 855 miles on it that had been titled for 54 days. I would hardly consider that to be any more used than a new car. Heck, I've seen many new untitled cars with more miles on them than that.

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by Chris_DM

I'm having deja vu. Isn't this what was debated during the first 7 pages of the thread before everyone moved on?

At least you recognize the difference between a new car purchase and used car. That's progress.

I didn't read the first 7 pages of this thread nor do I intend to.

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by FC4

I don't buy used cars.

Whatever suits your priorities I guess. Not saying this is you, but generally once people are older and have money to blow they adopt that mentality. Either that or being very picky with interior/exterior colors...which I end to be.

Then there's other people like my pops who could go buy a loaded S550 outright but will never flush money down the toilet like then when they could get a lease trade in for under $60K.

[alex2364]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

Maybe, but you only drive used cars. So why take the depreciation hit? It is impossible to own a new car, because the second you sign the deal and drive it off the lot, it is now used.

A bit ago, I needed a cheap run around car. 2008 VW Rabbit (Golf). MSRP on the car was around $18,500 and the cheapest you could find a new one after any and all discounts was about $15,500 because it was the end of the model year and the 2009's had already arrived at the dealer lots.

I bought one for $12,000 with 855 miles on it that had been titled for 54 days. I would hardly consider that to be any more used than a new car. Heck, I've seen many new untitled cars with more miles on them than that.

Why stop there? You can also save even more money by buying a 10 year old Civic for $3000. Some people want a new car and you don't seem to understand that.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by alex2364

Why stop there? You can also save even more money by buying a 10 year old Civic for $3000. Some people want a new car and you don't seem to understand that.

Slippery slope argument usually dictates you have no other viable way to back up a wrong opinion, but sure thing bro!

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Owning. A. New. Car.

[Flacht3]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

Maybe, but you only drive used cars. So why take the depreciation hit? It is impossible to own a new car, because the second you sign the deal and drive it off the lot, it is now used.

I don't disagree with your logic. For my lower end cars I almost always buy used/CPO because I'm simply not that picky and they're serving a more utilitarian purpose. But for anything higher end I prefer new so I can have every single option to my liking and know the full history. Sure it's "used" the second I drive it off the lot but the history, break-in, options etc. are all within my control. At a certain point you need to ask what that's worth to you financially. Your logic is all about saving money, which is fine, but saving money isn't always the end-all-be-all with these high-end purchases. If I really wanted to save money, I wouldn't be buying BMW, Porsche etc.

Let me sum up all the arguments thus far:

Buying used vs. new is the financially sound choice = Agree, but there's more to it than the finances
Buying used vs. leasing is more financially sound = Case by case. But beyond the finances I do believe leasing has it's own merits over owning in some cases.
Everyone should be buying used = Disagree


Anyways...OP, hope you end up finding a better deal and get into a p-car soon!

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by Chris_DM

I don't disagree with your logic. For my lower end cars I almost always buy used/CPO because I'm simply not that picky and they're serving a more utilitarian purpose. But for anything higher end I prefer new so I can have every single option to my liking and know the full history. Sure it's "used" the second I drive it off the lot but the history, break-in, options etc. are all within my control. At a certain point you need to ask what that's worth to you financially. Your logic is all about saving money, which is fine, but saving money isn't always the end-all-be-all with these high-end purchases. If I really wanted to save money, I wouldn't be buying BMW, Porsche etc.

Let me sum up all the arguments thus far:

Buying used vs. new is the financially sound choice = agree
Buying used vs. leasing is more financially sound = case by case
Everyone should be buying used = disagree


Anyways...OP, hope you end up finding a better deal and get into a p-car soon!

I agree that not everyone should buy used, but it is the most fiscally sound purchase decision.

If someone wants to buy or lease a new car, that is fine, so long as they don't go around trying to convince everyone it was the smartest way to purchase a care financially.

That is my beef.

If people have money to blow and want to blow it on a new car, fine, but those who say that leasing or buying a new car over a very slightly used one is a better bet financially are fooling no one but themselves.

.

[alex2364]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

Slippery slope argument usually dictates you have no other viable way to back up a wrong opinion, but sure thing bro!

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Owning. A. New. Car.

I never said anything about owning a new car. I said people want a new car. You just can't understand that concept.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by alex2364

I never said anything about owning a new car. I said people want a new car. You just can't understand that concept.

1) Want and Buy new car = fine with me
2) Want and Buy new car under pretense it is a better deal financially = not fine with me.

I tried to put it in simple terms. Hope that helps.

[NCThreePedals]

Originally Posted by Germanauto

Or just not wasteful?

Makes sense, buy a M550i new for 75k, have it for three years now it's worth 30k yet you still owe $50k on the car so you're $20k upside down

You lease the same car and you have a lower monthly payment plus owing zero at the end

If you buy, you have to own the car for 5+ years for it to make sense

People that switch cars often should never buy

I feel the misconception with leasing is that you have nothing to show for it at the end, which I'd rather have than have a car I'm upside down on heavily to show for in the end lol

I bought my M4 but for 46k and it had a sticker of 80k, I let the initial sucker take the hit then I purchased.

Now for my wife she leases and it works out in her favor every time

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by NCThreePedals

People that switch cars often should never buy

Bingo.

[Cavpilot2k]

PLus Porsche rapes you on services during your lease.
Unlike BMW, which covers all services, Porsche still makes you pay for every oil change and every scheduled service. My friend's 30k(?) mile service on his wife's cayenne cost close to $4000.