Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:27:32 -0400 From: Four Weis <mweinopsamcom> Subject: Re: toyotas and saabs
Just Bob wrote: > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:54:01 -0400, Four Weis <mweinopsamcom> wrote: > > > > > > >Brian wrote: > > > > > > >If they were really impressed by the NG Saab, they would have kept the car - but > >they don't. In others words, the people who lease and drive them for three to > >four years do not consider them a good value. > > No way. Leasing is a whole different mentality. 95% of the people > who are leasing aren't even considering keeping the car. They take > the lease because they get a new car every three years, which is > what they want. Take a look at some of the numbers on lease returns: > very few folks keep *any* make of leased car past the lease end. > Most all leases have roughly the same return rate - that includes > BMW's Lexi's, etc. Years ago, nobody leased a car. Nowadays, dealers > push the alleged lower monthly cost of a lease hard, and lots of > folks get sucked in. It has a whole lot more to do with prices and > selling strategy than it does with the NG series. > > Bob I noticed the words 'alleged' and 'sucked'. I recall some people justifying a lease on paper with numbers based on the concept of leasing a car every three years versus buying and trading in the car on a new one. Their explanation seemed to make sense if you wanted a new car every three years. One of the 'benefits' of a new car every three years was the lack of problems with a minimum level of maintenance. This leads to the obvious, what are they doing with all of these three year old cars that probably have not been properly maintained? Are there enough 'suckers' willing to buy the leased cars and then have major problems two years later? Is this where the poor reliability reputation for Saabs and Volvos being developed? I buy my cars new and keep them until they die, which is why I still have a 1982 Volvo, so I don't have these issues.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
