Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:33:43 -0800 From: RED <davharnopsamnet.net> Subject: Re: SAAB 9-5 or Charysler 300M ?
I looked at the Chrysler 300M. I have to admit it's a cool and attractive car, but the 9-5 just somehow "felt" better to me. The seats seemed better and so did the headroom (I'm kinda tall). In the 300, I was looking right through part of the green sun tint at the top of the windshield. I didn't get an SE but a dressed-up 2.3LPT. I like the nimble handling of the 9-5 as well as its other on-road manners, although the 300 certainly has more off-the-line excitement. But that's not too important to me. Another thing. SAAB's cuurent lease deal assumes a 62% of MSRP residual. I don't think banks are bound to use "real" residuals, so they can jack around residual values and/or interest rates to make a lease attractive. I know that the current lease deal on the 9-3 assumes a much lower residual but has also has a much lower interest rate. I got an even better deal than the $399/mo SAAB promotion by negotiating the price of the car down. Lease would have been about 379/mo including tax but I also put in more cash up front. Somehow, I doubt that the car will be worth anywhere near 62% after 39 months or 39,000 miles. So this sort of gives the bank an advantage because you can never get out of the lease without paying a lot of money. In other words, the car will never be worth the cost of the lease buyout. Bob Doug Hardman wrote: > > In article <36BF11EC.FD6425C0nopsamere.com> , 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? > > An educated guess would say that the Saab would have a better residual value > based on the following. > > #1 The Saab costs more. Generally the lease rate is based on 40% of the cars > MSRP. > > #2 Saabs tend to keep their value best within the first 5-7 years. eg: I > just got a 93 9000CSE for $12,500. Find a $40K Chrysler from 93 that's still > worth that. > > #3 Foreign cars just tend to hold value better. > > > 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? > > I've driven both as well. The torque on the 9-5 blew me away! It's a hell of > alot "zipier" than the 300M. If you are a city type person, I think the 9-5 > would be A LOT nicer in those "Gotta get in that lane NOW" situations. > > -Doug > > -- > ---------------------<>-]|[===--===] Douglas Hardman > dougnopsamssamg.com AMG Advertising & PR, Inc. > http://www.accessamg.com Resident Cyber Samurai > 216-621-1835 Cleveland, OH
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
