MF versus financing APR

I am wondering why some cars have zero percent APR offers (even for 60+ months) on a purchase, but still a MF that equates to something like three percent interest. I guess those OEMs (or their captive finance companies) want to encourage purchasing versus leasing? Does MF ever get to zero, on any car?

Nope! And don’t get any idea

Yes, you can see multiple cars with mf of basically zero, but always analyze a deal as a whole. In addition, a 0% finance offer should not be the end will be all. You might save more by looking at third party financing (credit union, PenFed, etc) with it’s additional rebates and higher apr.

:chocolate_bar:

MF is never actually 0, but there are always some with a mf close enough to 0 to be considered 0.

Manufacturers incentivize vehicles in different ways. Sometimes it’s a cash incentive, sometimes it’s an inflated rv, sometimes it’s a subvenented mf, sometimes it’s some combination of the above.

my guess is how financial liability on the unit is transferred to the end purchaser vs temporary leasee.

At the end of leasee the bank, and by extension the mfg is responsible for the vehicle, regardless if the vehicle is worthmore or less then its residual (cough cough BMW of the 2010s).

At the end of the loan, mfg does not care, since its the customers responsibility.

Compare cash incentives (third party finance) vs. the 0% finance. Often the cash incentives and interest are still better than the 0% offer. This was the especially the case with the $9,000 in cash incentives on the Lexus LS last year.

Rent charge per month is different than what you would pay in “equivalent APR” finance charge per month. Don’t get hung up on it. It’s easiest to just consider it as a separate lease input, like RV or lease incentives.

Always compare the cost of leasing versus the cost of finance on a whole level, including respective rent charge / finance charge.

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.