Date: 8 Feb 1999 16:36:32 -0500 From: lparkernopsamy.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) Subject: Re: SAAB 9-5 or Charysler 300M ?
Doug Hardman (dougnopsamssamg.com) 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. Not so. It's based on projected residual value, which is based on projected depreciation rate. Look in the CR Auto Issue -- they show depreciation rates of a number of cars. : : #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. There weren't any 40k Chryslers from 93. Still aren't except the Viper and Prowler, and I dare say they've kept their value very well. I had a 93 Town & Country that was worth about $2000 more at the end of the lease than the residual. : : #3 Foreign cars just tend to hold value better. Not so. It depends on the demand for them, their reputation, etc. Try an old Audi from the "unintentional acceleration" days -- they depreciated like crazy. Saabs are relatively scarce in this country, which translates into not much demand, which may translate into low resale value. A bank or credit union should be able to tell you the residual for any car. Some manufacturers offer subsidized leases, which inflate the residual.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
