There is definitely a demographic that just wants to turn their cars in when they’re done and walk away.
No haggling regarding a trade-in or minimizing negative equity… in the off chance the equity was positive they would neither know nor care
All of these apply to finance as well. Difference being finance has lower interest. And, yes, “pull ahead” applies because you own it and, since value is so incredibly high, according to you, pull ahead is a useless benefit anyway. I’m not claiming either is better than the other. I’m merely pointing out issues in your argument for one option.
1 Like
Rear main seal, ims bearing…c’mon. let’s not pretend like Porsche doesn’t have persistent major issues with engine reliability.
Can someone explain me why residual is so low assuming Porsche depreciates slowly and there is positive equity on the car after 12 months?
I thought lease hacking objective is the opposite - to pay less than its monthly depreciation, so you never have positive equity, because otherwise it simply means you have paid too much for the lease.
If Porsche has so much value, why isn’t Residual 67% or whatever? that would mean neutral/negative equity and constitute a good lease.
To me saying that you have positive equity after 12 months sounds like we are robbing your, Mr. Customer. But please absolutely do pull ahead so we can rob you again 
What am I missing?
Because VW Credit likes to make money and preserve brand value. Thank god they didn’t follow the same path as BMW and Mercedes.
2 Likes
fair enough. but that makes them terrible for a lease by design.
Because most people here aren’t typical customers. The majority of shoppers merely compare monthlies. So if leasing that Porsche costs them less per month than buying, nothing else matters.
Sorry, but all this applies to financing. This forum is about hacking leases and if many old timers are telling you that buying makes more sense than leasing here it means something…
The best financial decision in almost every case with Porsche is purchasing the car due high MF and low RV.
But what if the car gets in to a minor accident while you are financing it? Would be more easier to pull ahead while leasing and not to deal with the hassle of depreciated value.
1 Like
Definitely something to take into consideration for the more accident prone. And I’d be sure to weigh the cost difference vs trade difference (meaning all that extra rent charge money vs a minor accident value hit, which is probably pretty steep on a Porsche).
in South Florida, 80% off the time, its the other parties fault due to negligence, being on their devices etc…
2 Likes
did you factor in tax on the entire purchase price versus tax only on the lease amount? 10% tax on 80k is hefty
Depending on how the state treats tax reduction from trade-ins, the tax difference between buying and trading in versus leasing may wash out. In fact, if the true trade in RV is higher than Porsche’s assumed value, then the lease will incur more total taxes than buying and getting the tax reduction on trade in.
Oh, yeah, FL. good point. LOL.
In CA tax on payment and not paid in full upfront, If you really only want it a couple years no reason to pay $5000 worth of extra tax.
Does the resale value on a Porsche take a major hit after even a minor fender bender? If so does living in an area where that would be a high probability event alter the lease vs buy calculus?
My math shows almost $13k in rent charge with the OP’s marked up MF. But kudos to you for helping people who can’t afford a Porsche because they p*ss money away like that afford a Porsche 
The more expensive the vehicle, the bigger the hit to value
Some Ed bolian stuff right here.
A Cayenne buy allows for a 6000lb GVWR 179 deduction