Are you going to stick with this “total lease cost of a shorter lease is cheaper than the total lease cost of a longer lease” nonsense?
The whole point in discussing the Atlas here was to show that the “it doesn’t lease well” argument doesn’t even hold true if you get a good deal and compare it against the competition.
The only vehicle I can come up with that actually challenges this on a lease value perspective is an xc90, but even that is a stretch if you’re comparing vehicles with a usable 3rd row.
Please explain your reasoning. Past the “taxes” you are yet to explain anything coherent. At the end of the day you are out this money no? Normalize it to 39 months so they are the same if it makes you feel better, that will just raise his monthly payment, which the only reason he went with 48 months is to lower monthly. At the end of the day Hyundai financial wants X dollars over the course of the lease, no? The two of you are throwing out features and numbers that support your side, but when challenged it’s non-sense? Brilliant.
You’re not challenging anything. You’re saying “a 39 month lease has a total lease cost lower than a 48 month lease”. Would it make sense to bring in a 24 month lease on an x5 and say “wow, look, it’s thousands cheaper than a hyundai!” Of course not.
So let’s put this argument to rest and normalize both to 36 months since I can’t find rv/mf data for 39 months for hyundai that looks accurate (the numbers the lh calculator generates for 36 and 48 months doesn’t match edmunds, so I don’t have reason to think the 39 would).
If we normalize for 36 months, Robinhood’s Atlas has a total lease cost of $22736 at 7.5% sales tax. Caps’ palisade has a total lease cost of $22459 at 7.5% sales tax. Let’s call it a push.
.00173 MF and 48% residual is what I can find for Palisade for 48 month. He’s still captive after 36 months, so he has to keep paying. If we are going to start taking assumptions that he’ll be able to sell it, swap it, or whatever, that’s a completely different conversation and requires a crystal ball, but the way it stands, he is signing up to pay 48 months for a grand total of $29k. Now the counter argument is that after 36 or 39 months of any other car, you have to get something else, but again, that’s crystal ball territory and we don’t know what would be happening in the market at that particular point. Technically the proper way to use that VW example would be to extend the VW lease as in add 9 payments to it, so it does wind up a push, but that’s not what’s being contracted, so a pointless argument as well.
Now I looked deeper into features of Palisade
This is basically fake. It’s a mechanical system not an air system, so not exactly what people assume when they think auto leveling. You can read more about this pseudo leveling system elsewhere
All common features
gimmicky at best
And the rest I’ll wait for caps to respond how much does he actually need any of what he listed from Hyundai marketing
That’s not how it works, I’m taking a specific example of what Caps did, and extended his lease to stay under monthly payment. You can’t just adjust whatever you want however you want. We are not comparing 36/12, we are comparing what he did. Basically don’t change leasing programs to muddy up the waters further.
And frankly, why are we stuck on VW example? You brought up some hypothetical example that I had to dig up actual numbers for, and now you don’t like it?
There are posts for Q7 PP that have higher MSRPs and still lease better than the Caps Palisade. Do you want to start arguing those too?
In all seriousness, are you now trying to prove that it leases well? I get that you must have the last word at all costs, but what exactly are you trying to prove right now?
Your response to 48 month lease numbers is to say that a 39 month lease is cheaper because it’s a shorter term and complain that the numbers aren’t normalized, so I normalized the numbers to the same lease terms and used 36 months since that is what is readily available for both vehicles. Now you’re complaining that the numbers have been normalized to the same terms.
I’m using the Atlas as an example because you said it was a competitor that offered a better value and there was a readily available broker listing to reference prices off of rather than me just making up numbers that seemed reasonable. The whole point is that changing brands and looking at the direct competitors does not offer a noticeably cheaper price point.
The Q7 is a totally valid lease comparison point. One would need to make sure you’re actually looking at comparable equipment (people love to compare base model x5s to the palisade when leasing as they cost about the same, despite there being a significant difference in actual spec), but it’s definitely something reasonable to compare to.
Yes really. The atlas does wind up being a push if you just add 9 months of payment to it’s 39 (and then not applying the 20% discount they give for extensions, which then makes it a bit better). But your way of “normalizing” is just wrong. You’ve modified the programs making 2 hypothetical examples, instead of normalizing a hypothetical to an actual.
Well at least you are willing to admit that. Are you now going to argue that Q7 Premium Plus with Executive package (which right now due to costco leases really well) is somehow worse than Palisade? Frankly even screw the Executive package, what about Q7 is worse than Palisade? To me
I honestly don’t know how someone can cross-shop an X5 to Palisade as they are very different vehicles, and even if you shove a 3rd row into a 5 that’s just so you can say you have it. So they are not really the same category. Unless we are talking about people who will never use the 3rd row and are just looking for size, but even then, so not the same car.
Really? a low positioned tiny screen that turns on with the blinker is in the same category as the seatbelts? What will eventually become standard is cameras instead of mirrors, but the display will be windshield level in front of the driver, so you literally don’t have to take your eyes off the road, I’ve seen a customer aftermarket thing done like that, and it’s awesome. What Hyundai did is a gimmick so they can differentiate themselves in the market, and apparently it works.
I took the exact deals and applied the 36/12 lease programs so we were looking at equatable costs. It’s not like I just started randomly throwing made up numbers. You wouldn’t look at two different vehicles where one lease was structured with 10k miles per year and another was with 15k miles per year and compare costs by adding the mileage overage to the former. You’d adjust the residual value based on the lease programs to make the programs consistent.
That would be correct if you didn’t have one deal on the table already. Since the Caps deal is established, you need to normalize the hypothetical (VW in this case) to it. You have a dealer link for 39 months, and VW does allow extensions, so it’s not that hard to add another 9 months right? Is this not clear somehow?
HOWEVER, and this is a big one, there is still a matter of being captive to a contract. with caps deal, you are locked to 48 months, with a VW (and we are using this as an example only) you have options at 39. Is this part somehow confusing?
