"This is my best deal": Subaru Outback 2.5 Limited 36/10 $428/mo with only 1st month DOS



Been lurking for a while and just started making moves this weekend on a new lease. Looking at a few different vehicles, one being a 2019 Subaru Outback 2.5 Limited. Looking to walk out with 1st month down only.

I’ve included the numbers below and attached their offer sheet too. IDK what the second sheet is saying…


**MSRP: $36,662
**Selling Price: $32,522
**Monthly Payment: $428
**Cash Due at Signing: $428

**Months: 36
**Annual Mileage: 10
**MF: 0.0011 (Max sell rate)
**Residual: 59%

**Region: TN
**Leasehackr Score: 7.2yrs (couldn’t get the numbers to match the dealer’s offer sheet.)


That’s QX60 money and then some. I don’t get Subaru at all.

If it’s the apple of your eye, then I guess it is.

A four-cylinder car of humble origin for $425 a month seems exorbitant to me.


Look for a 3.6R Limited. Better MF and Residual. You should be able to get an Outback Limited 3.6 for under the 350 sign and drive. Shoot for 15-16% off before the $500 lease incentive.


Agreed. It has been the apple of my eye for some time haha. But after digging into the mechanics of leasing and seeing the numbers, it just doesn’t make sense. I’ll probably still shop around to a few more Subaru dealerships, but they’ll need to come down a decent amount for me to make a move.


This is the perfect example of the correct way to “lease hack” IMO. Do the research up front and consider the combination of residual, MF, incentives and MSRP for all vehicle trims to find out which is the best value for the term that you are looking for. Sales guys don’t know how to do this, and even if they did they wouldn’t care to tell you.

OP - regarding the ‘recap’ sheet - he is showing you that he is “losing” money. If the dealer were really losing money, would they do this deal? I really despise when dealers waste time to show me that screen. They could be getting a $10,000 step incentive for all I know. I don’t care how much money they’re making or losing as long as it’s the best deal that I can get. And between the $698 admin fee and the marked up MF, they’re not exactly burning a pile of cash in the back seat.

Provide this sheet to all local dealer sales managers in your area and ask them to beat it. That’ll be the answer regarding if it’s the “best” deal or not.


Got my 2017 limited in 2016 (October) for $339/mo w/ 1k out of pocket (first pmt, taxes, fees, etc). I know it’s not that recent, but frankly when I renew this year (if I stick w/ Subaru), I would want the same deal. MSRP was 36,135 (included remote starter, and option pkg 24). Final sales price was 34,297 and residual was 66% for 36mo lease. This being said, I think you can def do better than $400/mo.


I know that the limited as a $500 lease incentive with a strong MF and residual (confirm on edmunds for your area). Your deal can either be replicated or beat today on a 3.6 Limited.


So I followed up with dealership. I basically said please confirm if this is really your best offer because I’ve got plenty of other dealers to contact. They said that the best they can do, so I am moving on.

Now the other dealers in the area have an easy offer sheet to beat.


If I’m reading it correctly, the second sheet is showing his sales price against invoice. He’s just trying to show you that they’re not making an immediate profit on the sale and will depend on holdback and bonuses to make up for it. It looks like this is probably a moderately competitive deal on a car that just doesn’t lease all that well.

It’s actually pretty common practice because dealers often depend on volume sales, not profit per sale.


I work in profit and revenue management and it’s not uncommon in multiple industries to make money this way.

one example is AP cost on pasta is $50.

However there is a rebate for $40 if sold.

So technically if they sold the pasta at $20, they are losing $30 on every case!

However that doesn’t make sense since they are receiving a huge rebate.

What dealer is losing is often meaningless (I saw this multiple times as an auditor in many industries)


Yeah, that’s part of what makes car sales so confusing. We blame the dealers but really it’s a much larger issue than “sleazy salesmen” or “slimy dealerships”. It’d be a nightmare trying to figure out profit per vehicle sold with all the rebates and kickbacks.


This is a bad deal…at least for Southern California.

I was offered a 3.6, 38.5K msrp, for $380/month with 9.5 tax, 36/12, zero drive-off.

My current Outback leased in 2016, is $365 month, zero drive off, 36/12, 36K msrp.

Not sure why people say Subaru doesn’t lease well…I’m under 1% on my Outback.


This is my point - if a dealership truly had negative margin on a deal, they would not sell it at that price. It’s just a sales tactic to convince you that you’re getting a great deal. One step up from the giant inflatable wiggly man. Better than the balloons and banners though.

Front end gross and back end gross is not the entire margin. It might be 80% of it, but it’s not the complete story. Any well run dealer is considering the actual cost of a vehicle in its inventory. Fixed and variable overhead, inventory cost, SG&A, etc etc. Conversely, they also have positives such as step bonuses, dealer to mfr incentives, ownership group to dealer incentives, service net, F&I etc. The salesman basic screen shows none of that and he has no idea. The sales managers are aware of this and it’s their job to ensure that the dealer turns a profit in total.

At the end of the day, it’s up to the dealership management what they are willing to sell a particular car for. I don’t care at all if their sheet shows a $XXXX gross profit or a $XXXX gross loss as long as it’s the best deal that I can get on the vehicle that I want.


I feel like this ties into some leverage I’ve tried to pull with this particular Subaru dealer and a few others.

All the dealers around Middle TN (including Huntsville and Little Rock) have at least 30 new Outbacks sitting on their lots. This dealer told me “they’ll easily move them” and pointed to the Forester being more popular as the reason why. It’s only March, but I wonder when that 30+ become “oh shit we’re overstocked.”


my sister just leased this same car in NY for around $500 total out of pocket @ $305 per month.
Looks like a really bad deal to me.


You can do way better than this. I’ve personally shopped an Outback recently and under 350 should be doable tax included with drive offs, probably better.


Because they didn’t lease well 5-10 years ago and people just keep repeating this. Same as about Volvo’s bad quality.


I’m new to this thoughtful leasing club, but even when vehicles “don’t lease well”, they’re still being leased by the unknowing consumer, right? It’s just that conscious consumers (like members on this site) are able to avoid these clear land mines .


Much of the buying public doesn’t understand leasing, pays the advertise price and leaves, so yes, they’re being leased.


People think that leasing a car for $500 is a good deal, since it’s less expensive per month than the 60mo finance note at $600. It’s a totally idiotic and financially irresponsible mentality. A stunning number of people don’t even understand that lease prices are negotiable, let alone the factors that constitute a lease payment amount.

“Don’t lease well” to us just means to us that RV is low, MF is high, or rebates/incentives are poor. All of these are set by the financial institution/manufacturer and cannot be negotiated.