Current owners/lessees of a 2007 or newer non-GM (i.e., non-Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, HUMMER, Pontiac or Saturn) passenger car or truck qualify for this conquest offer. Customer must have owned/leased their qualifying vehicle for a minimum of 30 days prior to the sale of the new vehicle. Cannot be combined with loyalty offers.Trade-in Not Required. Proof of non-GM lease/ownership required. Residency restriction apply. See dealer for details.
That just doesn’t make sense, unless you say something like .8% +/- .2% to account for differences in tax rates, etc. At that point, when your spread is half your target, what is there actually to glean?
Not to be combative… but it means that the current “Camaro crime of opportunity” so to speak just isn’t in the cards for that particular buyer at the current time. There have been many times I have seen deals posted here that I would love to have jumped on, but I simply couldn’t because I didn’t qualify for certain things. So, it was better for me just to move on and find something else. There is always something else
I always look at these things from the following perspective------
If I have to get out of this lease for whatever reason one year down the line, with the deal I’m about to sign can I?
Sure, but that’s largely based on local market conditions. Let’s say we have a texas buyer, who gets saddled with a higher payment because of tax. So will all the local comps, so they may have no more difficulty at, say, .9% transferring the lease in the local market as someone in socal may at .75%. Does that mean that their lease, of equal quality to the socal lease, other than local tax limitations, is too high to pursue?
I am probably not the right one to ask about that, but my answer to that would be yes. If I was in Texas I would not pursue cars unless they had tax credits. But as I have mentioned a number of times before, I am in admitted bottom feeder, LOL😜
Well shit, if we are throwing in tax credits, now the socal deal at .8% is way better than the texas deal at .8%. Why not push for a comparable discount? Why leave money on the table because of a made up number in a different state?
Thats all i got, tried to drop it to $300 but the lowest he went from 320 to 315, i even said lets meet in the middle at 310 n he said best he can do is 315 with 500 DAS. Its a 6 speed. Didn’t ask for any MF because i was aiming for just straight monthly payments at 300.
You are at an effective payment of about 319 on the car and in my mind you are in range of what would be considered a reasonable deal. Like my signing, not an LT1 unicorn, but mid pack and IMO acceptable for a car that is equipped the way you want (especially if it is fairly local and the transaction would therefore be logistically simpler).
In the interest of providing a data point, here are the specifics on my lease. MSRP was 39,475. On paper this appears to be a massive discount, but as discussed so many times, with the variance in dealer fees, etc. the discount percentage on its own doesn’t mean much.
And, in the usual opaque dealer approach, one would never know looking at this contract that it was actually a true sign and drive with literally zero out of pocket. So, there are only 38 payments at 339 which drops the effective to 331. Again, a mid pack signing for this car right now.
Got you. Thank you i will pull the trigger, it might not be under 300 but i think 315 with just 500 DAS. You will never be able to get this low on a challenger scat pack wich is kind of the comparable American Muscle vehicle.