Close to a deal-new 2002 36 mo lease

[NSX-GUY]

Jesus. Just check out leasetrader.com. Some of these guys are really screwed.

e.g. '01 Porsche TT, 1400-1500/mth, 39 mths.

You can find them NOW for 36 months, 0 down for $1,000/mth. Damn. Must be the inflated price they originally got the car for and the much higher interest rate at the time.

They'll NEVER get out of those lease without paying it down to the person assuming the lease.

 

[Tony Montoya]

Originally posted by NSX-GUY:
Jesus. Just check out leasetrader.com. Some of these guys are really screwed.

e.g. '01 Porsche TT, 1400-1500/mth, 39 mths.

You can find them NOW for 36 months, 0 down for $1,000/mth. Damn. Must be the inflated price they originally got the car for and the much higher interest rate at the time.

They'll NEVER get out of those lease without paying it down to the person assuming the lease.

They should accidentally start the car on fire.

I asked what would happen to the capital cost reduction if the car was a total loss and I was assured any monies left over after paying off the car would be mine.
I didn't believe a word of it.

 

[Hrant]

Originally posted by RPM217:
The cap cost of the lease was 74k. The list of the car (which the residual is based on) is 89375. A 3 year lease with 7,500 miles per has a residual of 61%. The mileage over the 22,500 is at .15 cents per mile. I paid a 6,500 cap cost reduction, 1st month's payment, and taxes upfront. That's how the $9,778 was my total upfront cost. The $630 monthly payment is for the remaining 35 months. I think it's a great deal. The Pohanka deal at a cap cost of 70k has the potential for being even better

I hate to belabor this issue but now I am even more intigued and confused given your cap cost of $74K .......

Your lease terms are almost identical to mine and yet your "total" monthly payment (after you add base monthly and sales/use tax payment)is $100 less but your interest rate is more than twice as high .... what am I missing .... something just doesn't compute between the two scenarios ..... how can both be correct?

 

[Bilulan]

Originally posted by Hrant:

I hate to belabor this issue but now I am even more intigued and confused given your cap cost of $74K .......

Your lease terms are almost identical to mine and yet your "total" monthly payment (after you add base monthly and sales/use tax payment)is $100 less but your interest rate is more than twice as high .... what am I missing .... something just doesn't compute between the two scenarios ..... how can both be correct?

I'm not sure if this factors into a lease deal, but I believe there was luxury tax in 98 that no longer exists today. This may make up for a little bit. just a suggestion to a possible factor...

 

[RPM217]

Originally posted by Hrant:

I hate to belabor this issue but now I am even more intigued and confused given your cap cost of $74K .......

Your lease terms are almost identical to mine and yet your "total" monthly payment (after you add base monthly and sales/use tax payment)is $100 less but your interest rate is more than twice as high .... what am I missing .... something just doesn't compute between the two scenarios ..... how can both be correct?

I wish that I could explain the difference to you, but I can tell you that my tax rate here is 6.75% and that I have the signed lease agreement, and that's what my payments are. Maybe they're telling you with your cap cost reduction the cap cost of the car is 70.5k. Something doesnt' add up. Have you tried one of the lease calculators to see if you can duplicate the numbers being given to you. If you were to add up the total amount of my payments, and what I've put in, the monthly payment would work out to $880 per month. When I picked up the car, the finance manager at the dealership told me that was the lowest payment by over $400 that they had done in the last few years. If you back out the $7,500 back from Acura that alone is worth $208 per month before taxes. If you want to call me on a land line, I can be reached at 914-701-7529 from 8am-4pm EST Monday thru Friday. Best of Luck with whatever you do, the car is great, although it wasn't so good on the ice this morning-

 

[PFORPAUL]

Acura lease automatically has "gap insurance"
include,which covers the difference between
market value and the lease liability at time
of loss. Assuming that you always owe more than the car is worth--when you put money
down up front-at time of loss the gap will
be narrowed and if you put an awful lot down
you may get some back,but it is highly unlikely.

Trying to logically figure out the actual cost of the car when you lease is probably next to impossible-that is why dealers like
leasing.Remember--FIGURES DONT'T LIE-BUT
LIARS CAN FIGURE.

Point in a New York lease--you get in an accident and the LEASING COMPANY has a shared
UNLIMITED liabilty,because they actually own
the vehicle. I assume ANY OWNER who lends his
car to someone who drives it in NY could
suffer the same consequence.

 

[mikescg]

Originally posted by PFORPAUL:
Point in a New York lease--you get in an accident and the LEASING COMPANY has a shared
UNLIMITED liabilty,because they actually own
the vehicle. I assume ANY OWNER who lends his
car to someone who drives it in NY could
suffer the same consequence.

just to continue on an interesting point that you made, in NY its called Vicarious Liability Law and that is why in the next 3 years it is believed that major banks will refuse to lease in the state of NY, as an example, Chase just voted to cease all leasing in the state of NY due to the fact that they were judged to be liable when a leasing customer killed someone and it cost Chase $28 million in court. So long leases.

 

[NSX-GUY]

Now I admit it's been quite some time since I've leased a car but I believe the foolowing to be true.

Almost all leases nowadays have "gap" insurance included automatically. This covers the difference between what's owed on the car (to the finance company or bank) and what the insurance company will pay on a total loss. (e.g. car costs 70,000, totalled after 6 months, ins. co. pays off 62,000, finance company is still owed, say, 67,000, GAP pays the difference, or $5,000)

However, if you paid a cap cost reduction of, say $6,000, finance company finances $64K. In above example, insurance co. still pays 62,000, balance of loan after 6 months is, say 61,000, YOU GET BACK only $1,000 (of your original $6K cap cost red). and the GAP insurance doesn't even kick in. YOU, effectively have let the "GAP" insurer off the hook. YOU have suffered the GAP loss out of your cap cost reduction. NOT a good deal.

I don't believe there is ANY problem discerning the actual Cap Cost of the car. It's part of the leasing agreement. Simply ASK the salesman/dealership 3 things. The Cap Cost, the residual and the money factor. These, I believe MUST be divulged to you and MUST be part of the lease agreement.

As for NY insurance I don't quite understand the problem. Hasn't the OWNER of the car ALWAYS been liable ? After all, it is the CAR OWNER that is insured, not the driver. It has always been thus, no ?

Even old leases. The leasing company OWNS the car, not the leasee (even though it's the lessee that MUST get the insurance AND pay for it)

What's different now ? Is it the "unlimited" liability ? I don't believe liability like that is EVER limited, is it ?