Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 14:57:10 -0500 From: websrfrnopsamere.com Subject: What about cost of lease>
So, how does the lease costs compare for 300M and Saab 9-5? One can lease Saab 9-5 base sedan for $399/month, but its a V4 stick shift. Can anyone extrapolate the cost and come up with a number for Saab SE V6? What is the comparable cost of lease for 300M? From leaseanalyzer.com, I played with some numbers and here is what I cameup with SAAB 9-5 Base SAAB 9-5 SE V6 300M MSRP 31600 36800 28950 Residual 19476 (61%) 22448 (61%) 17660 (61%) 14475 (50%) Mthly Pymt 399 467 367 (61%) 443 (50%) Money Factor 4% 4% (Assumed Based on Saab numbers) So my assumption is that if SAAB SE V6 also has a residual of 61% and the 300M has a residual of 50% then I'm better of leasing SAAB since I can get it for extra $25. But, if 300M has 61% residual, it makes sense to lease it since I would save about $100 even with the SE V6 having a residual of 61% which it may not since there is no manufacture incentive. Can you guys post what it has cost you to lease the 300M and the residual that was used for calculating the cost of lease? Kris-- Eoin wrote: > I thought I was going to buy (or lease) a 300M about 6 weeks > ago, but I leased my Saab instead (I got a 9-3). I drove two different > 300Ms, but both felt exactly the same. They are speedy enough baseed > on Car and Driver's numbers, but they don't feel nearly as quick or > fast as the 250hp suggests. The Mitsu Diamante (about 225hp) feels > much quicker, and even the 4 cylinder 9-5 "feels" like it'll blow the > Chrysler's doors off. The numbers show the two to be fairly > competitive. > As to the lease, all the information I could get (NADA, > Consumer's Union, Edmund's) indicates that Saabs still have among the > worst resale values in their classes. This has always been the case > out west where I live. However, Saab is HEAVILY subsidizing their > current lease. Their money factors (that's a lease's equivalent to an > interest rate) work out to 3.5% or less (I saw as low as a 1% > equivalent), and they're guaranteeing as high as 58 or even 60% > residual after 39 months (the figures do not change when you shorten > it to 36 months). That residual is about 12 percentage points higher > than the most optimistic 3-year projection I found. > I personally don't think the Chrysler has anything on the Saab > in long-haul cruising (for front-seat occupants), either. They are > REALLY fast cars due to excellent aerodynamics, and they'll cruise all > day long at over 100mph with never a care. I really wanted to get a > 300M. I really wanted to like it. But it was the same as every other > car I drove; certainly nice in the objective sense, but very blah > compared to the Saab. And with a nearly-free lease, you have no > resale-value horror story awaiting you. HTH > > --Eoin > > On Mon, 08 Feb 1999 11:33:48 -0500, websrfrnopsamere.com wrote: > > >All those who have leased a SAAB 9-5 or Chrysler 300M, could you please > >post your details? I'm looking for leasing a SAAB 9-5 V6, or Chrysler > >300M and would like to the compare the costs. My understanding is that > >the cost of leasing a car depends on its residual value. Does anyone > >know how these two cars compare in terms of residual value? > > > >I'm equally impressed by both these cars, the only thing I dont like in > >the Chrysler is the instrument panel. It looks cluttered with the big > >A/C fan dial and at the same time SAAB 9-5 is a bit more pricey. I'm a > >little confused about the engine specs. > >SAAB 9-5 Horse Power = 200nopsam, Torque = 229nopsam. > >CHRY 300M Horse Power = 253nopsam, Torque = 255nopsam. > >Does these numbers mean that the SAAB would have more "zip" while > >driving in the city and the 300M is better for the long haul? How does > >SAAB perform at 6400 rpm and viceversa? > > > >Has anyone considered these two cars and decided which one you want to > >buy? if so, for what reason? I know that these two cars are not in the > >same price range, but its not exactly like comparing apples and oranges, > >may be more like watermelon and seedless watermelon, so please post. > > > >Thats more questions than what I wanted to ask in the first place, maybe > >I should've done it in three different postings, but please post your > >response. > > > >Thanks > >Kris-- > >
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
