Your understanding was consistent w/ my understanding. And, for the exact same car (which necessarily means the MSRP will be the same) in the same geographic region, then I would agree that TCO is really all that matters.
But I am not a pro hackr and have actually never leased a car… 
TCO tells you if it’s a better deal, but certainly doesn’t tell you if it’s the best deal you can get
How do you define best deal? what Pre-incentive discount?
I would consider the best deal on a specific car for a specific person to be the one with the best pre-incentive discount with other factors normalized.
That may not be the best least value at that price point, but that gives you the most amount of information and puts you in the strongest position for comparing pricing.
If you only know the output to the lease equation, you don’t know that you’re looking at apples to apples and you are leaving opportunities to leverage that information for negotiating a deeper discount (see previous discussion about dealers that advertise deep discounts but with higher lease costs because of add ons)
Exactly! So your price discovery process has no magic fairy dust, and is similar to mine. You’re just checking that the dealer didn’t mess up the numbers on incentives, MF, RV, etc. Whenever I’ve gotten a quote, its broken down the discount, MF and RV. In my last case, the numbers didn’t make sense, but the possible error was in my favor, so I didn’t bring it up.
I think generally speaking, the approaches are a wash, they really culminate on pre-incentive discount comparisons.
Regarding the definition of a best deal, I think it should be clarified when this is for a specific model, not the best decision someone could make. I consider a best deal to incorporate the general best deals available in the car class and adjacent classes, and then having the buyer make the decision. People should at least consider what might be possible.
To your second post, I get the point. I just think the reverse auction can accomplish the same end. Whenever talking price, I always validate that its true out the door pricing with no surprise charges for dealer add ons.
At best, it tells you the 2nd lowest dealer’s floor.
And how do you find lowest price on pre-incentive discount?
Well, if you really want to work it, you start at a number no one will do and then increase it until you stop getting kicked out.
As a data point, on my palisade, the lowest dealer offer was ~$1800 higher than the deal they accepted that I broke down for them.
Ok, I get it. I’d say thats a harder strategy to implement well. Lots more phone calls I suppose, maybe pissing off dealers who may not give you as good of a deal. Maybe I’m wrong on that.
I just find it interesting that having the literal best deal on a car and in a car class on the site cannot be considered a good deal if it didn’t follow the approach. Can’t we come to some agreement on what an empirical good deal is. Leasehackr score doesn’t work. Otherwise, its my opinion vs. your opinion.
And how much is your palisade payment?
$475/mo + tax, $0 das after post sale rebates, on a 36/12 for ~$42k msrp
So I’m sure you knew this, but for the average consumer:
Is this a good deal in the context of a slightly cheaper Mazda Cx-9, Subaru Ascent or Honda Pilot? Or might you want an XC90 at the same price or just slightly higher?
The Palisade is fantastic for the price, so the answer could easily be yes. I just don’t think people generally can make this kind of price comparison without combing the forum. I think most people compare cars based on MSRP, then strive to get the best deal on that particular car they pick out.
Yes, it is, as those are vastly inferior vehicles. (I say that having previously had a cx-9 and currently also having a passport which is just a 2 row pilot).
The XC90 definitely is a better value lease, but it offers less space and isn’t nearly as comfortable for me.
There are a couple different things going on here… There’s the debate about getting the best value lease, which I would argue is the best car for the price, and the best deal lease, which to me is the best price for the car. Ultimately, we’d all love the car that we want to be both the best value and be had for the best deal.
Best value is highly subjective. A cx-9 to many may be a better value than a palisade. Personally, I couldn’t wait to get rid of the flaming pile of crap. So while it may offer a better lease deal as a percent of MSRP, all I see is an inflated msrp because it sure as hell isn’t worth the $40k they’re asking for it.
As far as best deal, I agree that we want to evaluate those empirically. There’s an easy way to do that… Compare pre-incentive discounts normalized for buy rate. That’s easy to calculate, is repeatable, normalizes for different incentive structures or tax rates, is separate from lease terms, etc. That is the great comparator. Anything else conflates the numbers. Now, if we wanted to take a more analytical approach to what we declared a “great deal” on a specific car, and we magically had a lot more data, we’d base that off of standard deviations of normalized pre-incentive discount. Without that data, the best we can do is compare against other deals posted here and hope that the numbers have been properly broken down.
Now all of that is fairly irrelevant to the topic at hand which is basically saying “if I know the numbers on one vehicle, is there any reason I should bother to break down the numbers on subsequent offers or am I got just comparing total lease cost.”
I think I have provided a few examples of where that strategy doesn’t pay off. The best way to make sure you’re getting a good deal is to have as much information about the deal as possible. Anything less is an exercise in compromise. How much are you willing to roll the dice in the name of voluntary ignorance?
Perhaps a better way to answer this question is by asking another:
Can anyone suggest a scenario where not knowing the details of a deal will be helpful to your negotiating position?
I can’t think of a deal I have ever walked out of saying to myself “boy, I sure wish I had known less about what was going on there. That would have been the deal breaker!”
What I read when I see questions like this being asked is more of “do I really actually need to put in the effort or can I just wing it?”
I agree with your logic, and again it comes down to pre-incentive discount with simple validation of the other variables.You suggest ways to become more granular and analytical on looking at best deal leases, but I think the true value to consumers would be to provide much more focus on best lease values, to use your terminology.
I recommend we suggest consumers look at best lease values first when car shopping, and then try to find the best deal lease on the top 1-3 picks. Right now, we seem to skip the first step, which I believe to be more important. Whats the point of getting the best deal on a car, say a $260/mo $24K MSRP Honda Civic when you could have had a $45K Giulia for the same cost? You may have had the best lease deal on the Civic, but c’mon, at some point it just gets ridiculous.
Back to the original topic, my point is fairly simple, and I don’t think it conflicts with your point.
Yes, you should validate all deal variables (RV, MF, etc.) on each quote you receive.
Once you receive the quotes for a given car model, the only difference should be the pre-incentive discount. This will be after you get rid of any marked up MFs and ensure the correct incentives are applied.
At this point, you can compare to other cars especially ones from other OEMs, which is why I suggested to put everything in common terms (First month DAS for instance). This is where you can compare leases across makes, models, etc. Max_g still hasn’t answered his own question regarding comparing deals with different DAS amounts.
So here in lies the problem. The only way to know these values are different are by actually breaking them down. One has to do the math. When the question is “hey, can I just totally ignore breaking any of this down?” the answer is always no.
Now if you break everything down, do all the math, and then compare total lease cost as your measuring stick, you’re good to go. But you shouldn’t skip the first steps in the name of not wanting to do the work.
The issue with going purely off of value is that often times there’s a reason vehicles that are a “good value” are a “good value”. The giulia offers may offer a great value if you’re only measuring msrp vs lease price, but it also includes a lot of pain with it. Many of the really good value lease deals when measured on a scale of msrp vs lease price are horribly out of date and frankly don’t deserve to be the msrp they are. Should a Tundra that is almost 15 years old now really command the same MSRP as a truck that is actually a modern design? Or does it represent a good lease value because the MSRP is inflated based on the product you’re getting?
" Now if you break everything down, do all the math, and then compare total lease cost as your measuring stick, you’re good to go. But you shouldn’t skip the first steps in the name of not wanting to do the work."
Yes thats what I’m saying!!! There is no debate on that subject.
To your second point, agreed that better deals are typically on older cars. But, when making the decision on which car to lease, consumers should know generally whats out there. My point is that I believe lots of folks would actually take the much cheaper Tundra over the newer GMC Sierra if they actually knew how much different the prices are (~1/2 price).