Originally Posted by a990dna
Well, there's the I don't give a shit factor with a lease, you really don't have a stake in the game other than some nominal up front fees... then after two years turn it back and walk.
After you drive a new vehicle off the lot you lose minimum $6K.. and that's on a vehicle that's trouble free. You can get out of it sooner, but you still need to incur the costs of ownership. Have you ever tried to unload a lemon? This is the issue at hand. If I had confidence in the brand, I would just lay down $20K and make payments for five years with no worries -- with the thought I'd own it for ten years.
The lease should have fixed costs over two years with a residual based on known factors, correct?
The dealer can't offer you less than what's stated on the contract if it turns out to be a lemon, correct?
Like I said, I've never leased before other than for business stuff.
The dealership isn't going to think it's a lemon unless you TELL them it's a lemon, nd you're dying to get out of it. You tell the dealership that you enjoyed the vehicle but are just looking for something else. If you act desperate, they're going to rip you a new one because they know they've got you.
When you lease it, after 3 years or however long, you turn it back in. You get nothing out of it, you just walk away. You can buy it out, but usually you will only end up spending more money to buy it out than if you had just bought it outright. So they're not going to "offer" you anything, they're just going to say "you can buy it for this or we can keep it".
I guess I don't see the value in it, you're fixed to a 3 year term or whatever you choose (FWIW, leasing for less than 3 years tends to be hugely expensive). If you negotiate a good purchase deal, you shouldn't be out a huge mount of money if you sell it, immediately, but that's not even an option for a leased vehicle.
It's commonly held that if you flip cars a lot, leases are better. But realistically, nowdays a lot of vehicles will net you a positive equity before a typical lease term is up. About a year ago, a friend and I had this same conversation over lunch (looking at Durango R/Ts), we calculated that after 2 years of ownership, trading the vehicle in, you're actually better off than if you lease it for 2 years and turn it in for no gain. The positive equity was enough that it offset the slightly higher payments.
The main reason to lease a car nowdays is to look like you can afford a vehicle you truly can't, or if you have a business you can write off lease payments in some cases.
You're looking at it as risk mitigation, when all it does is lock you in to the risk. If you get a lemon as a lease, you're stuck with it for 3 years or whatever the lease term is. If you purchase it and you get a lemon, you can trade it in at any time for whatever value it has. The question is if you'd rather have to put up with a lemon for 3 years, or if you'd like the ability to get rid of it without the suffering.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you're not going to lose as much money as you think trading out of a newer, very popular vehicle. If you get your Overland at invoice, it wouldn't surprise me if you were able to get out of it for 1-2k less than you paid after 6 months to a year. Many of these used vehicles are selling for near or over their invoice prices, so the right dealer will give you the right price.
And FWIW, Jeep's lease rates are terrible. You can just about lease a Lexus GX460 for the same price as a GC Overland. The payments on a brand new Overland worked out to about the same as the lease payments, except with no positive equity.