Honda, expensive leases. Audi, subsidized?

As I am looking for a new car in the family, I just noticed how Hondas are extremely expensive to lease. It seems like I should be purchasing them instead of leasing them. On cars like Audi, it appears the best deals are on leases. I assume its because the German cars are subsidized by the leasing company where Honda doesn’t need to do that to move the vehicles. Is my theory correct?

Also based on my basic assumption, I came up with the following payments (I am in NorCal 8.75% tax, 36/12K, $1000 drive off)

ILX $323
Q3 $321
Civic EX-L $308
Accord EX-L $307
Accord Hybrid $387
Accord Hybrid EX-L $439
Volt $198 (after $1500 CARB rebate)
RAV4 Hybrid XLE $402

Does it look right?

A lot more information would be needed to assess if its right. Are you asking on whats the best deal? Also, 2016 jeep grand cherokee can lease well right now depending on what rebates you qualify for.

Mercedes lease better than Audi, you can get 13% off and their rates are basically 0% with a few MSD’s.

Historically, Honda, Subaru and Audi have probably been three of the mainstream OEMs least likely to subsidize leases. They were content to sell their production via sales, and did not want to take any risks on the back end (if/when residual > market value).

BMW and M-B have historically been more aggressive with leasing, esp as they began to increasingly compete for the (IMO meaningless) title of largest luxury car maker.

Of course, there have been some time periods and some models which do not fit this generalization.

1 Like