just leased a car for tge first time,did i get a good deal?

[grkM3]

I ended up getting a 2012 Honda accord se 4 door auto for 250 a month with zero down and went with a 3 year and 12k per year lease.

They wanted around 1100 in doc fees and reg etc and said 220 with fees and after going back and forth I told them if they can do it for 250 and nothing down I'd do the lease.

I left and he called me back and said we need to run the credit and we can see.

Well after the check I got it for 250

Just waiting for them to trade a car with another dealer because they didn't have my color combo.

The guy also included gap insurance and 1500 in dents and damages and no drop off fee when the lease is done.

He said he had to drop the price 4k to make this happen and the only reason I got it is because they have like 100 new 2013 coming in and the owner has like 15 dealerships and wants to clear out old models.

 

[stag3]

30 x 36 mos = $1080, so you still paid $1080 in "doc fees" or am i missing something here?

 

[grkM3]

30 x 36 mos = $1080, so you still paid $1080 in "doc fees" or am i missing something here?

Whops forgot to say the first quote was for the base model with cloth seats and manual transmission. I got the se with leather and premium wheels etc.

 

[WilliamM2]

$9000 for 3 years use of a car? No, not a good deal.

 

[vi edit]

$9000 for 3 years use of a car? No, not a good deal.

Do the math.

~Assuming a negotiated price of $22,000 OTD.

If he financed for 60 months through Honda @ 0.9% his payments would be $375/month. After 36 months he'll have a principal balance of around $13,080.

With this deal he'll have paid in $9000. If you were to save up the $125 a month of the lease difference that's $4500. Add that in and he actually paid the thing down a little more with the lease than he did financing.

If he turns in the keys when he's done in 36 months he's not out anything and he's got $4500 in his pocket to put a decent down payment on something else.

Zero down, low monthly payment leases *are not* a terrible deal if you take care of your cars and don't have issues with the milage allowances.

 

[Pulsar]

Do the math.

~Assuming a negotiated price of $22,000 OTD.

If he financed for 60 months through Honda @ 0.9% his payments would be $375/month. After 36 months he'll have a principal balance of around $13,080.

With this deal he'll have paid in $9000. If you were to save up the $125 a month of the lease difference that's $4500. Add that in and he actually paid the thing down a little more with the lease than he did financing.

If he turns in the keys when he's done in 36 months he's not out anything and he's got $4500 in his pocket to put a decent down payment on something else.

Zero down, low monthly payment leases *are not* a terrible deal if you take care of your cars and don't have issues with the milage allowances.

<rant>
#1 If you're financing a car for more than 3 years, you probably shouldn't be financing it.

#2 The period of time where you make money on purchasing a car is later in the cars life, once it's paid off.

So over the course of 10 years (the normal length of time a car up here in the rust belt). A person leasing an Accord (let's assume the current deals stay the same) will pay $30,000k.

A person buying that accord now, at $22,684k ($684 interest on 22k at 2% over 3) out the door, will have to put $7,300 in maintenance into the car to match it.

Now, cars generally last a little longer than ten years: I had my last Taurus for 12. That puts a leaser another $6k in the hole. $13,300 dollars.

On top of THAT, I sold that Taurus for $1,200.

The numbers are simple. If you're trying to save money, don't lease. Espcially if you can do your own simple maintenance like oil changes.

12 years of leasing: $36,000
12 years of ownership: $22,684 + maintenance

If you're going to put $13,000 in maintenance into a car, something's wrong with you. Let's say you put $6k into your car over your 10 years of ownership. Is driving a new car every couple years really worth $7,000 to you?
</rant>

 

[phucheneh]

Do the math.

~Assuming a negotiated price of $22,000 OTD.

If he financed for 60 months through Honda @ 0.9% his payments would be $375/month. After 36 months he'll have a principal balance of around $13,080.

With this deal he'll have paid in $9000. If you were to save up the $125 a month of the lease difference that's $4500. Add that in and he actually paid the thing down a little more with the lease than he did financing.

If he turns in the keys when he's done in 36 months he's not out anything and he's got $4500 in his pocket to put a decent down payment on something else.

Zero down, low monthly payment leases *are not* a terrible deal if you take care of your cars and don't have issues with the milage allowances.

The important figure is what does a three year old Accord with 36k go for? More than 13k?

Either way I'd say this is not a bad deal. I've seen people lease 40k+ cars for three years and pay like half the value on them. 'Lease a BMW, only 600 a month with 5k due at lease signing!'

...shit, why don't I just get all my electronics from Rent-a-Center and live day-to-day on 'payday advances.'

 

[jagec]

A person buying that accord now, at $22,684k ($684 interest on 22k at 2% over 3) out the door...

If you buy the sedan, sure, but the couple looked quite a bit more expensive when I checked Honda's website just now:

 

[sze5003]

I could never lease a car with the driving I do back and forth to work and more. I financed mine for 60 months at 4%. I've only had it a year and 6 months and put a crapload of miles on it just going back and forth to work.

 

[grkM3]

Guys I have the option to extend the lease up to a year and the buy out at 3 years is 12k.3 year old honda accords are selling for 17-21k used and he even told me to buy the car after and flip it for 16k and get right back into another lease.

It made sense at the time when he explain end it and said these cars hold there value.

Just wanted to see what you guys think

 

[phucheneh]

It seems like the sales guy reeled you in good...

...but I'm struggling to find much fault in what seems like silly logic.

22k / 72 months = ~305 a month, assuming no interest. And usually, 0 or 0.9% or similar offers are only offers on 60 month of less loans.

250 a month for 36, with a buyout of 12-13k not much different. You basically get a lower payment up front, with the downside being that you won't get a new-car interest rate on a loan to pay off the buyout price.

 

[grkM3]

My payment is with taxes included and I don't know what bank will give a 72 month loan at 0.9 or whatever. the low interest rates at this dealer were 3 year terms and tier 1 credit being over 740

Do you honestly think a bank is going to basically give you free money for 6 years?

 

[Doppel]

Yes not a bad deal. Ignore the lease haters and let them enjoy their old cars and spending Saturday afternoon fixing the brakes and suffer a greater chance of injury in a crash. 250/month for a new car that is certainly not an econobox is chump change. Not to mention each new car these days is gaining in mpg so fast that some small bit of operating costs is less.

For a Honda that is actually a great price. You can do better with brands like Nissan but I haven't seen a better price than that on an accord.

 

[vi edit]

That's a very reasonable buyout and really makes this a pretty sweet deal really. You basically are renting it interest free for 3 years to see what you think of it. When you are done you have an option of buying it outright for a very good price.

Only drawbacks are you'll pay more in financing in three years on a used car of the residual (assuming you needed to finance it) than you would financing up front right now. Plus depending on your state be sure to see how sales tax works. Some states are very favorable for leasing, some are not. IL is a terrible state to lease in. Iowa and Nebraska are not. Be sure to see what happens tax wise if you buy it at the end.

 

[Viper GTS]

Yes not a bad deal. Ignore the lease haters and let them enjoy their old cars and spending Saturday afternoon fixing the brakes and suffer a greater chance of injury in a crash. 250/month for a new car that is certainly not an econobox is chump change.

This. The newness of a car has value. You pay to consume it one way or another, and leasing is really not any worse than buying if you go into it with that understanding.

And let's be realistic here - The median income of an AT poster is probably quite a bit higher than the general population. What is probably a bad decision at $50k a year is a lot less bad at $100k+ a year.

Viper GTS

 

[Phanuel]

Yes not a bad deal. Ignore the lease haters and let them enjoy their old cars and spending Saturday afternoon fixing the brakes and suffer a greater chance of injury in a crash. 250/month for a new car that is certainly not an econobox is chump change. Not to mention each new car these days is gaining in mpg so fast that some small bit of operating costs is less.

Go read how much we spend on smartphone plans/month. $150+ just for data and voice transmission. $250 for a car? Doesn't sound terrible at all.

 

[Zivic]

<rant>
#1 If you're financing a car for more than 3 years, you probably shouldn't be financing it.

#2 The period of time where you make money on purchasing a car is later in the cars life, once it's paid off.

So over the course of 10 years (the normal length of time a car up here in the rust belt). A person leasing an Accord (let's assume the current deals stay the same) will pay $30,000k.

A person buying that accord now, at $22,684k ($684 interest on 22k at 2% over 3) out the door, will have to put $7,300 in maintenance into the car to match it.

Now, cars generally last a little longer than ten years: I had my last Taurus for 12. That puts a leaser another $6k in the hole. $13,300 dollars.

On top of THAT, I sold that Taurus for $1,200.

The numbers are simple. If you're trying to save money, don't lease. Espcially if you can do your own simple maintenance like oil changes.

12 years of leasing: $36,000
12 years of ownership: $22,684 + maintenance

If you're going to put $13,000 in maintenance into a car, something's wrong with you. Let's say you put $6k into your car over your 10 years of ownership. Is driving a new car every couple years really worth $7,000 to you?
</rant>

I think it's a fair deal. You have to remember, he isn't driving a POS taurus for 12 yrs... that 'has' to be worth a fair amount. to be more objective and using your numbers -> 7000/120 months = 58.33 per month. I would say driving a new car is worth ~ $60/month

 

[grkM3]

I think it's a fair deal. You have to remember, he isn't driving a POS taurus for 12 yrs... that 'has' to be worth a fair amount. to be more objective and using your numbers -> 7000/120 months = 58.33 per month. I would say driving a new car is worth ~ $60/month

IM trying to figure out what the basic maintenance would cost over 12 years of owning an accord.

Lets figure every 2 years or 24k miles the car would need 4 new tires,lets say 190 a pop mounted and ballanced.Thats 4500 bucks just in tires over the span of 12 years.

The accord would need a new timing belt every 50k so lets say in 12 years the car has 150k miles,thats 3 timing belts and plugs/water pump at around 1500 a whack.So add another 3500 there.

The car would need new suspention/bushings every 5 years or so,add about 2k there with labor and youre looking at 4k there.

I just dont see how its better to keep an older car/money pit over paying for a new leased car every 3 years and trying to flip your car before the lease is up.

 

[phucheneh]

My payment is with taxes included and I don't know what bank will give a 72 month loan at 0.9 or whatever. the low interest rates at this dealer were 3 year terms and tier 1 credit being over 740

Do you honestly think a bank is going to basically give you free money for 6 years?

I think you misinterpreted my post. I was saying it sounds like the salesman told you all kinds of stuff to make a lease sound like the sweetest thing in the world, which, normally, includes lots of BS. But if your numbers are true, then I'm not not shitting on your deal at all.

Yes, many makes have promotions where they will offer you 0-1% loans (through their own financing company), but as I said, they are usually only valid on 60 month (5 year) loans, tops.

My car was bought at 0% for 60 months. The downside is they wouldn't sell the car below sticker. They were the only decent Mazda outfit in town and wouldn't budge, so I took it, because it was still cheaper than going elsewhere for a loan and trying to get the car at around invoice. There may be some behind the scenes stuff, like the financier getting a cut of the profit; or the dealer may have just used the promotion as an opportunity to 'stick it to me' a bit. I really don't know, but, like you, I simply liked the deal so I took it.

My other comment was in regards to paying off the buyout price. You'll at least be paying a few points of interest on that. Probably more like 5-10% if you have to go to an outside source; I don't know if the leasing company will set you up with financing or not, as I have no experience with them.

However, this:

Yes not a bad deal. Ignore the lease haters and let them enjoy their old cars and spending Saturday afternoon fixing the brakes and suffer a greater chance of injury in a crash. 250/month for a new car that is certainly not an econobox is chump change. Not to mention each new car these days is gaining in mpg so fast that some small bit of operating costs is less.

Is a pretty stupid argument for trying to hide some peoples' car buying/leasing habits which are based purely on a keeping-up-with-the-Jones' mentality.

LOL BRAKE JOBS? WHEN MY CAR NEEDS BRAKES I SELL IT, YOU POOR PERSON.

 

[grkM3]

Another huge factor in this deal was the taxes included in my price,If I were to buy it out I would have to pay around 14-1500 in taxes up front or roll it into the loan.The way they did the lease is I pay 6.5% on the monthly charge but I think if I end up buying the car after I get screwed and have to pay tax on the actual value of the car and that would be around 17k so another 6.5% if I decided to buy it.

 

[alkalinetaupehat]

IM trying to figure out what the basic maintenance would cost over 12 years of owning an accord.

Lets figure every 2 years or 24k miles the car would need 4 new tires,lets say 190 a pop mounted and ballanced.Thats 4500 bucks just in tires over the span of 12 years.

The accord would need a new timing belt every 50k so lets say in 12 years the car has 150k miles,thats 3 timing belts and plugs/water pump at around 1500 a whack.So add another 3500 there.

The car would need new suspention/bushings every 5 years or so,add about 2k there with labor and youre looking at 4k there.

I just dont see how its better to keep an older car/money pit over paying for a new leased car every 3 years and trying to flip your car before the lease is up.

Bad assumptions lead to inaccurate numbers. Also you need to state the mileage acquired on the car over that time. 10k miles/year is reasonable. I drive less, though it certainly could be more.

The tires which one would buy for a standard car last much longer than 24k miles, more like 40k-60k. We'll go with 40k. Also you would see all four installed for about $500, let's say $600.

Timing belts are actually a 100k service, though $1500 isn't unheard of in more expensive cities. I think $1k is a better price.

Suspension is considered to be about 125k miles, we'll say you replace it before selling the car. $2000 for a mechanic to replace it all.

You should probably mention brakes too. It depends on driving style, conditions, et cetera, but 60k per set of brakes isn't bad. $600 to go all around.

10,000 miles/year @ 12 years = 120,000 miles

120,000 miles / 40,000 miles/set of tires = 3 sets of tires at $600/set = $1800

120,000 miles / 100,000 miles/timing belt = 1 timing belt job at $1000

+1 suspension job at $2000

120,000 miles / 60,000 miles/brake set = 2 brake jobs at $600/job = $1200

--->Total cost over 12 years: $6000<---

This is ignoring fuel/oil changes/air filters/misc. things like window regulators or chipped windshields. A basic calculation indeed.

The irony is that I forgot how it specifically played into the argument, the bad math just upset me lol.

LOL BRAKE JOBS? WHEN MY CAR NEEDS BRAKES I SELL IT, YOU POOR PERSON.

This also made me laugh a lot for some reason. xD

 

[grkM3]

Bad assumptions lead to inaccurate numbers. Also you need to state the mileage acquired on the car over that time. 10k miles/year is reasonable. I drive less, though it certainly could be more.

The tires which one would buy for a standard car last much longer than 24k miles, more like 40k-60k. We'll go with 40k. Also you would see all four installed for about $500, let's say $600.

Timing belts are actually a 100k service, though $1500 isn't unheard of in more expensive cities. I think $1k is a better price.

Suspension is considered to be about 125k miles, we'll say you replace it before selling the car. $2000 for a mechanic to replace it all.

You should probably mention brakes too. It depends on driving style, conditions, et cetera, but 60k per set of brakes isn't bad. $600 to go all around.

10,000 miles/year @ 12 years = 120,000 miles

120,000 miles / 40,000 miles/set of tires = 3 sets of tires at $600/set = $1800

120,000 miles / 100,000 miles/timing belt = 1 timing belt job at $1000

+1 suspension job at $2000

120,000 miles / 60,000 miles/brake set = 2 brake jobs at $600/job = $1200

--->Total cost over 12 years: $6000<---

This is ignoring fuel/oil changes/air filters/misc. things like window regulators or chipped windshields. A basic calculation indeed.

The irony is that I forgot how it specifically played into the argument, the bad math just upset me lol.



This also made me laugh a lot for some reason. xD

If you really want to get technical the oem tires on tire rack are 210 each plus 46 shipping and have a wear rating of 300,so that means they will last 7200 miles x3 going by tireracks guide.Most car shops around my area charge a flat 20/tire to mount and ballance a 17in wheel so that puts just the tires alone(assuming I use oem tires)966 bucks.

they are rated all seasons and are rated for 21,000 miles and that is why I said every 24k miles on the change.That would net a tire a 900 utqg rating

lets just say a new oem set every 35k miles so about 4 sets in 140k miles still puts it at 4 grand just in tires alone,heck even 3 sets is still up there in cost.

I dont know a single person that has gone 180,000 miles on 3 sets of tires and I think that might actually be a world record somewhere if you did.

Timing belt going by the book is recomended to do BEFORE 70k miles and most def would break a belt by 100k if not replaced before then,I dont know a single person and I have many friends and family members that have gone anywhere near 100k on the stock oem belts.

so lets say 2 timing belts and plugs/water pump in 12 years at 1250(we will split the difference here)so that give me 2500 there,add 150 for a new battery every 3-4 years since my area gets down to -10 in the cold winters also and the more I think about it its not worth keeping a car longer than 5-6 years from new,it just turns into a money pit like my last 3 cars.

With the roads in my area the suspention wont even last 40k miles before the thing clunks and thuds on every little bump in the road.

If I could keep this same price on the next 3 leases I would probably go with it since I would go threw 4 new cars with zero miles and it would end up costing me around 36k in a 12 year span and if I found a buyer right before lease end I could flip the car and make 2-3k since hondas hold there values.Just look up a 3 year old accord with leather and 4dr auto to see how much they sell for today.There around 16-20k depending on options and miles and the buy out is around 12-13 after my lease ends

 

[phucheneh]

I've never seen a Honda break a timing belt (or skip teeth, or any other failure) before 100k. Believe me, there are a LOT of Honda's out there and people who do proper maintenence are the exception, not the rule. I'm not telling you to put it off- just that there are a lot of ten year old Hondas out there still running stock belts.

Also of note: treadwear ratings mean nothing. They are in comparison to the other tires of that manufacturer, and are not a generalized standard. And even then, they're not exactly super-accurate ratings.

I have seen true 70-80k tires. Yokohama comes to mind, they make (or made) a line that wore like freakin' steel but still rode/handled pretty well. Avid TRZ, I want to say. Usually, though, tires that tough start dryrotting before the tread is gone. Great for someone who does like 30k+ a year, though.

Suspension is another thing I think you're a bit off on. Again, people do not maintain their cars. If they needed suspension components before 100k, we'd see a heck of a lot more traffic accidents related to suspension failure. On Hondas, it's rare to even need a tie rod end or something before 100k or more. Most will never see new control arm bushings in their lifetime.

Luxury cars tend to be worse about thinks like that (control arm bushings) because they are designed to be soft and compliant. Civics and Accords are usually on a pretty damn sturdy chassis, which results in both pretty good handling/road feel and parts that don't regularly wear out.

 

[thedarkwolf]

phucheneh is certainly correct about the suspension bits. My vibe has 196k miles on it and is still on the stock struts and as far as I know original everything else lol. Everything feels tight and it is just a beater so nothing will get replaced unless it needs to be. My 160k mile 95 miata has new struts, spring, and sway bar end links only because I autox it and one new wheel bearing due to wear but everything else is original as far as I know. Your whole suspension isn't going to fail at 100k miles.

 

[phucheneh]

phucheneh is certainly correct about the suspension bits. My vibe has 196k miles on it and is still on the stock struts and as far as I know original everything else lol. Everything feels tight and it is just a beater so nothing will get replaced unless it needs to be. My 160k mile 95 miata has new struts, spring, and sway bar end links only because I autox it and one new wheel bearing due to wear but everything else is original as far as I know. Your whole suspension isn't going to fail at 100k miles.

I drive a lot of cars where I say '...you know, this would really corner a lot less shitty if it had new shocks/struts.' But you're talking 100k+ vehicles, and they're not exactly dangerous...most people will never push the car hard enough for worn dampers to really matter. In fact, the only thing I can think of where I've seen a lot of 'bounciness' complaints were older Nissan SUV's with four links in the back, and they needed control arm bushings much more than shocks.

A family member has an ten year old Vibe with a little over 100k. It's had...an O2 sensor. And tires/front brakes. That's it. Toyota made a good little car.