Makes me appreciate my old AMC Concord-you could reach the oil drain plus and oil filter from the top of the engine! An oil change was a snap-you just slid the oil catch basin under the car, and opened the drain plug with a 9/16" wrench. I could do it in 5 minutes, tops. And I could rebuild the carburator for all of $12 in parts (it was a about a 2 hour job). THAT was a well designed car!
I’d rather have a Fiat 500 than a Smart ForTwo. Better mileage too.
“24 month lease at $99/month plus tax.
$3,499 due at signing, and up to 10,000 miles per year (20c/mile after that).”
I would have a problem with the 10,000 miles per year and $3,499 up front. Why in the world would I pay you that sort of money to rent a car?
Because you fell for the pitch - mainly that absurdly low monthly payment. You sometimes see luxury cars - Mercedes E and S, BMW 5 and 7 series, top-end Jags, even Maserati and other exotics - offered for monthly payments about equal to a standard loan on a $30k car.
Leases were first a quick way to move cars into ordinary consumer hands when prices and loan terms went through the roof in the 1970s - many people who could not qualify for a loan could drive away in an overpriced lease instead. As long as businesses can write off the “rental” amount, it’s a good deal for them, which is why business vehicles are quite often leased. But for individuals, leases completely suck. Then dealers latched on to the enormous profit potentials, and here we are.
First of all, your initial payment represents whopping profit to the dealer, often higher than it would be on an equivalent sale. The dealer is contented the minute you drive off the lot. You, on the other hand, have every responsibility of ownership and every downside of renting for the next 3-5 years and 10-12k per year miles. You are bound to maintain the vehicle in good condition and drive a very limited number of miles, or pay whopping depreciation and mileage penalties at the end. You also may be bound to maintaining higher/more costly insurance for the duration, to protect the lease owner’s interests.
The dealer wins again at the end - if you trade in or walk away from the lease, he gets a clean, good-condition, low-mileage, late-model used car to sell, and the profit on that second sale can be enormous. And you have absolutely nothing, not even a paid-for car.
Never lease a private vehicle. Ever. Not unless paying more (overall) to get a strictly and stringently limited return is some kind of bargain to you. Buy a car within your price range instead - modest credit and a 25-50% down payment (the money you had to plonk down on the lease) will get you quite a ways. Especially when looking at good lease-return vehicles…
Another point is, quality these days is light-years beyond what it was few decades ago. Any car from a major manufacturer should last at least 10 years without any major issues. 15-20 years is not an uncommon lifespan for a recent-model car. If you bought the car, you get to enjoy it without having to make payments for years.
Except **all over the world. **But not in the US, where we think the Corvette is the epitome of engeneering. :rolleyes: Good thing plastic don’t rust…
I knew a guy with a Citroen DS. He was showing me how easy it was to work on; opened the hood, reached way down beside the engine, click, click, and came back up with the brake pads.
The Vette is a specialty vehicle, and assuming it will fart around like a Celebrity is probably mistake number one. But I’d say that a ~$60k vehicle that can run mid-pack or better with anything the exotic makers can throw in the fray (even at ten to twenty times the price), and a ~$100k version that can outrun most of them, and still get 19 MPG and be serviced by the shop in town, is an epitome of something.
You’re saying that like it’s a good thing. 
Most cars have one or another feature like that. I know too much about French cars to give one trick much weight against their peculiarities…
should be $2376 plus tax. At least thats what the ad implies at 99 times 24.
So theres $1123 in sales taxes and hidden fees? Taxes should be about 8% of 2376 or $190
Either you’re being facetious or you have absolutely no idea how Fiat build quality is perceived in the rest of the world.
I was just checking the local papers-all of the FIAT dealers around Boston have similar deals (low monthly rate leases). So I guess these cars are becoming hard to sell.
There is also another concern for potential FIAT buyers-will the marque stay in the USA? IF they don’t, then owning an “orphan” car isn’t very much fun. I remember when DAEWOO had their (abortive) attempt to sell their cars here-one poor guy tried to trade in his top-of-the-line “Leganza”-he was offered something like $2000 for it.
FIAT owns Chrysler, so I doubt they’re going away soon. I wonder how anyone who owns a Suzuki feels, tho. Even if if there’s still a service center around, getting parts for it is likely to be expensive and time-consuming. I would be heistant to buy a Mitsubishi for this reason. They’re currently trying to stage a comeback in the US, but if the attempt fizzles, then they might well say “fuck it” and pull out of the US market.
Let’s keep this thread on track with the legitimacy of the lease offering please. Arguing brand preference has little to do with lead offerings. No one questions the quality or volume per dollar of Honda, but they also offer ridiculous sounding lease offers from time to time. It’s just marketing.
You’ve pretty much summarized and concluded the discussion. Leases, like everything else that originates with marketing, are bad for the buyer. Some leases are slightly “less bad” when they’re for cars that the maker can’t move any other way, but when that’s the case, buyers have tremendous leverage as well.
Never forget that dealerships have to pay for every car sitting on their lot - it’s called flooring, and it adds up. Moving a car off the lot and off their flooring at a $100 profit is to their advantage if they can’t get any higher return. You want a Fiat 500? Take that $3500 and go bargain yourself one hell of a purchase price.
But don’t EVER lease a vehicle unless you are in a position to write off the entire cost against real income and tax costs.
I would certainly never do it, but if you’re someone who for whatever reason simply must have a new car every few years leasing usually isn’t a terrible deal. Leasing looks really bad on paper when you consider the retail value of your the car at the end of the lease period, but leasing looks a lot better when you consider the trade-in value. Selling a car that’s only a few years old to a private party and getting close to full retail is much, much easier said than done, so for the most part people who are leasing aren’t winding up much worse off than if they financed a new car and then traded it in a few years down the road.
For example, with this Fiat, say $3500 due with $99/month for 24 months means you’re paying about $5.9k all told on a $15.5k car. You could probably sell a 2-year old 500 to a private party for $9600 who just so happens to have that much cash on hand or is willing to jump through the extra hoops of financing a private party transaction, but you probably won’t be able to trade it in for that much.
Yeah, neither leasing nor keeping a car for such a short amount of time are ideal financial behaviors, but it’s not like car leases are the total scam of the century they’re often made out to be.
Only because there are so many candidates ahead of them. 
They’re a scam because they are a poor to disastrous choice for some very large number of vehicle buyers who get pushed into them. They never should have left the fleet sales office; the tiny number of nonbusiness buyers for whom a lease represents a good choice can go find them there.
Except that like I showed, leasing isn’t any worse than simply buying a car and only keeping it a few years. The “poor financial decision” is deciding you need a fancy new car to drive around every few years, not leasing instead of buying and trading in.
Yeah, I think buying or leasing a new car every 2-4 years is pretty dumb, but it’s perfectly possible to imagine that people are making a rational decision that the value of always having a nearly-new car is worth the considerable expense instead of simply saying they’re getting scammed. I for one am going to sit back and enjoy the robust used car market those people create without passing judgement.
I think your example and work-through are a little selective. For one thing, this is a “take my car, please!” lease, which is not representative of most. It’s a desperation move to get the car into circulation and thus drive perception and other sales. Most leases don’t come anywhere near this value level - and, in the end, you have to question the “value” of the vehicle involved.
You’ve also deprecated the hidden costs of leasing such as having to maintain higher insurance coverage, potential cost increases for wear, tear and mileage, and hassles that come from someone else actually owning the car - for instance, you have to get a release in most states to get vanity plates for a leased car.
There is a small group for whom a lease is a better option. I’ll maintain, on a much wider spread of data than this one case, that leases are not a good option for buyers outside that group and should generally be avoided.
Okay, so let’s take something more conventional. Googling, here’s a 3 year, 12k/year lease on a Nissan Sentra for $169/mo, $2000 due at signing: 2025 Nissan Sentra | Lease Deals, Offers & Incentives
So that’s $169*36+$2000 = around $8k. The MSRP on that particular model is about 18k and the trade in (per KBB) on a 2010 one with 36k on it is around 10k. Once again, it costs almost exactly the same to lease it for three years as to buy it and trade it in after three years.
And that’s a car that holds its value pretty well. Let’s try something like a Mercedes C-class: Special Offers | Mercedes-Benz USA
So $350 x 27 months + 4k due at signing = $13.5k on a car with an MSRP of around $35k. Trade in on a 2011 with 22.5k miles = about $21k. Once again, the lease cost is basically identical to what you lose trading it in.
Those are just two I picked randomly, but it’s no coincidence-- taking the MSRP minus what they think the wholesale price of the car will be when you turn it in is basically how they determine lease terms.
Firstly, with insurance your bank/finance company is going to insist on the exact same thing, so unless you’re paying with cash and willing to risk not carrying insurance, that’s a wash.
Wear and tear and mileage would also be a concern if you’re trading in, albeit maybe not as much as the punitive fees they charge you on a lease return. But plenty of people are able to live within their mileage allowance.
As for hassle, sure you can point to some random situations like getting a vanity plate, but more generally lack of hassle is the biggest advantage to a lease. Instead of having to shop around and negotiate for the new car price, trade in value and financing cost every 2-4 years, it’s all in one tidy package. You just sign on the dotted line, make your payments, and when it’s up you turn it in and get a new one. Again, I’m not advocating this sort of car ownership style, but if you must have a new car every few years a lease is a perfectly viable option. Leases exist because there are people for whom they’re a good value, not because the car companies are masters of deception.
Well, your numbers look right, but they are actually bogus. See you use KBB, a guide that is designed for car dealers and insurance co to screw over the consumer.
So yeah, if you were stupid enough to have bought that car for list, then stupid enough to sell back to the dealer at the bogus KBB “trade-in” value, then yes, the deals look OK.
But you can easily buy the same car for $1000 less (taking the Nissan) .
Then Edmunds “Private Party” price on the same car is $2000 more than the feeble “KBB make a dealer an extra couple thou” price.
So, rather than going for $18k to 10K in 3 years, or a $8000 difference, we really go from 17 to 12k only a $5000 difference. The lease deal doesn’t look so good now, does it?
Leases are for companies and shmucks.
All of which applies, as you pointed out earlier, only to the new-car-every-2or3-years buyer, who has questionable financial judgment anyway. It’s still all to the benefit of the car makers/dealers no matter how you mix around the terms. That both poor choices cost buyers the same isn’t really an argument for the value of leases in general.