A&Q about Lotus
Q:
So, I went to a Lotus dealership, and was quoted at roughly $900 per month, with $3000 out of pocket, and I forgot to get the length of the term. But, looking around at other vehicles in the market, this price seems a little ludacris for a $48,000 car. Plus, the milage limit was around 7,500 miles per year...no thanks at this rate! Thoughts, opinions, suggestions??
A:
would not a zero down loan be cheaper than that??? why not buy the car? someone needs to remind me when, if ever, a lease makes good sense except if you want to protect credit line potential for other uses
A:
iirc, leasing is a better option when the vehicle is being used largely for business purposes/claimed as expense.
A:
Well, of course it looks better to just buy the car, but with some vehicles, leasing seems to work decently well...basically the lower monthly payments that a lease usually nets is what makes leasing attractive to me. Of course, in the long run you usually pay more, but that's if you buy the car at the end of the lease. I guess I'm just going to wait longer until I can actually purchase the vehicle.
A:
If you did 100% financing through CapitalOne Auto Finance or something like that, your payment would be less than that.
A:
This has been discussed many times so here it goes again, leasing the Lotus does not make sense, period. It's easy to say "oh, its a $40K+ car so the payments should be X amount of dollars" but, the fact of the matter is, this is an exotic car, branded by Banks and insurance companies and when that happens, the residuals are set at a dollar base, not a residual base like we're used to. Basically, if you break down the Dollar base to percentage base, it comes out to be about a 30% residual That's just the nature of the beast Bottom line, finance or flat out purchase is the way to go.
I won't get into how I believe that leasing is a much better avenue than financing or paying cash on highline cars, I'll leave that for another thread
A:
originally posted by iwantanelise:
...but with some vehicles, leasing seems to work decently well...basically the lower monthly payments that a lease usually nets...
A lot of the time this happens because the lease is subsidized by the manufacturer. This is why Audis, Volvos, and Saabs lease better than BMWs.
Domestic manufacturers do this heavily, like a rebate. Sometimes, it's shocking. We get a Detroit sports channel, and they advertise programs (for people who have a connection to the industry) where $1000 down gets you the same car/lease as it does in CT for almost 50% less a month.
Look at resale, too. I've got a Mini (minimal options- $19k, for commuting) on their Owner's Choice program. I put $1250 down, and pay $165 a month for 24 months, as many miles as I want. Their lease was just a few dollars more a month, in large part because of the insane resale value of the car. I looked at a Scion xB, and it was $50/month more, even though it cost $15k.
A:
I looked into lease the Elise back in 2004 since I don't usually want long term commitments. Even back then, the prices weren't to good.
This is from an old thread:
I'm starting to get some lease quotes in from some lenders. Premier Financial is one and Putnam Leasing is the other. I haven't heard from Putnam yet but I'll post my finding on Premier Financial.
First off, THIS IS AN OPEN END LEASE, which means at the end of the lease, you will essentially have to purchase the vehicle (sort of defeats the purpose of leasing, though).
So, here are my quotes for a 36 and 48 month lease based on 7.8% tax. My credit score was not factored in:
36 MONTH LEASE
Purchase Price: $48,600.
Drive off: $2,886.73
Purchase price at end of lease: $24,000
Monthly payment: $947 plus 7.8% tax
48 MONTH LEASE
Purchase Price: $48,600.
Drive off: $2,625.86
Purchase price at end of lease: $20,000.
Monthly payment: $826.00
Personally, I do not plan on going this route because an opened end lease, atleast in my mind, is more of a purchase. Additionaly, even if this is the first round of "negotiating", I cannot see the price coming down to the range I'd expect for a lease (high $500 to $600s a month). And in contrast, I could get 4.25% financing from my credit union, which would be more competitive (high $600s to mid $700s a month).
HOWEVER, I'm just passing along this information to anyone who may find it useful. I imagine if you had a business and could use the lease as a tax write off, then maybe it may make sense.
Lastly, this is a link to their website:
The contact person I've been dealing with is Mitchell Katz and his e-mail i s mkatz@whynotlease.com and their contact information is:
Premier Financial Services
47 Sherman Hill Road
Woodbury, CT 06798
203-267-7700
203-267-7773 FAX
www.whynotlease.com (application)
And here's the link:
A:
if you own a house , take out a credit line(or refinance) and use that $ to buy the car outright. the interest you pay is tax deductable.
A:
Originally Posted by fishguyAZ
if you own a house , take out a credit line(or refinance) and use that $ to buy the car outright. the interest you pay is tax deductable.
Yes it is, and very good point. IMO, this is the best way to do it.
A:
Originally Posted by fishguyAZ
if you own a house , take out a credit line(or refinance) and use that $ to buy the car outright. the interest you pay is tax deductable.
That is always the best route.
Reality is the Lotus has a very low residual because it depreciates almost as quickly as it goes 0-60 mph. Leases are generally a huge waste of money. Ultimately they are WAY more expensive than purchasing outright. You are paying for the depreciation, the monetary risk the bank takes in purchasing the car and leasing it to you, as well as their possible exposure in taking the car back at the end of the lease.
A:
too bad I don't own a house!! I was expecting $750 per month at most, but not $900...thanks for the advice and I guess I'll just have to save up a bit more for it!
A:
Dont' take this wrong... mostly because my grammar (and vocabulary) skills stink, but still I find it intersting that the following word was used:
Ludacris, instead of Ludicrous.
Probably the only reason I thought the spelling looked funny is because I'm just too darn old and boring to have the Ludacris name spelling come to my mind first.
It's amazing to me how language changes over time. I mean, someone taken from 1980 wouldn't even know what email or the world wide web is. Who would have thought that instead of saying "Go look that up" we'd all be saying "Google that!". I suppose Ludacris will be in an appended dictionary some day...
Oh well, sorry to hi-jack the thread... just rambling along and saw it so I thought I'd say something
P.S. Did anyone else notice or am I just that much more out of it than the rest of the world?
A:
Originally Posted by Trueweb
Dont' take this wrong... mostly because my grammar (and vocabulary) skills stink, but still I find it intersting that the following word was used:
Ludacris, instead of Ludicrous.
Probably the only reason I thought the spelling looked funny is because I'm just too darn old and boring to have the Ludacris name spelling come to my mind first.
It's amazing to me how language changes over time. I mean, someone taken from 1980 wouldn't even know what email or the world wide web is. Who would have thought that instead of saying "Go look that up" we'd all be saying "Google that!". I suppose Ludacris will be in an appended dictionary some day...
Oh well, sorry to hi-jack the thread... just rambling along and saw it so I thought I'd say something
P.S. Did anyone else notice or am I just that much more out of it than the rest of the world?
My typing skills are less than stellar as well. BTW it is hijack....not hi-jack.
A:
BTW it is hijack....not hi-jack....Nice
A:
How dare you steal my thread!!! Haha, just kidding. I'll be honest, I was too lazy to open up "another" window to look up the word on dictionary.com, so I just tried to spell the word the way I thought it sounded. I'm usually pretty accurate, but I guess sometimes I'm not.
A:
Originally Posted by iwantanelise
too bad I don't own a house!! I was expecting $750 per month at most, but not $900...thanks for the advice and I guess I'll just have to save up a bit more for it!
Have you tried your credit union? Some of them still have interest rates at 4.7%. Spread over 72 or even 84 months, you could be in the high $600 a month range.
A:
Interesting you say that... phonetically it does sound that way, lood-a-kris instead of lood-i-krous. Now you have to wonder, is that how he got his name?
hee hee, the theft continues!
BTW, in regard to your lease question I found the following link
I ran the calculator with the following:
$48,000 MSRP
$48,000 Neg. Price
$0 Cost added (couldn't think of what they might add)
$3,000 down
$30,000 Residual value (3 year old Elise, probably low)
36 months
4.5% sales tax
The total with tax was around $570.
Sounds fishy to me... You might want to ask for the small print
A $45,000 loan for three years at current rates will run you about $1,400 a month, just food for thought.
Originally Posted by iwantanelise
How dare you steal my thread!!! Haha, just kidding. I'll be honest, I was too lazy to open up "another" window to look up the word on dictionary.com, so I just tried to spell the word the way I thought it sounded. I'm usually pretty accurate, but I guess sometimes I'm not.
A:
Originally Posted by Allan Gibbs
Have you tried your credit union? Some of them still have interest rates at 4.7%. Spread over 72 or even 84 months, you could be in the high $600 a month range.
This is especially true for "new car loans". They are much more flexible with the interest rates and length of the schedule. The credit Union in our area is running a special on new cars, 100% borrowed, up to 72 months at 4.99%.
A:
Originally Posted by Trueweb
Dont' take this wrong... mostly because my grammar (and vocabulary) skills stink, but still I find it (intersting) that the following word was
Hmmm, very INTERESTING.