 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / November 20072008 Accord Sedan vs Coupe residual?
I was told by a Honda dealer that the residual value on a 2008 Accord Coupe is 65% after 3 years as opposed to 53% for the Sedan of the same model, the EX-L I4 therefor making the lease much higher on the coupe vs the sedan. Is this true?? I was considering the sedan more so anyway, because of a softer ride I am told and auto dimming mirror on the exl. The only thing the coupe has is projection headlights, but thats no biggie. Any help on this would be appreciated. Al >I was told by a Honda dealer that the residual value on a 2008 Accord Coupe >is 65% after 3 years as opposed to 53% for the Sedan of the same model, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >has is projection headlights, but thats no biggie. Any help on this would >be appreciated. I believe this is a personal choice. Whatever makes YOU happy. I i.e. decided to buy V6 next year summer. >I was told by a Honda dealer that the residual value on a 2008 Accord Coupe >is 65% after 3 years as opposed to 53% for the Sedan of the same model, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Al Shouldn't a higher residual make the Coupe cheaper? A major portion of the lease payment covers depreciation. If the depreciation is less (residual value higher), the lease should be less assuming they have similar MSRP. I recommend buying a reasonably priced car you really like and keeping it longer than three years. You will save a ton of money over the long run. Hi all, Well I went ahead and leased the 2008 EX-L sedan accord. Actually I already researched leasing vs buying and leasing is better for what I want in a car. I do not want a civic or comparable. I want a comfortable luxury type car. Lets say I went with a civic ex auto for 5 years on a buy. The payments would be the same as they would be about 315.00 per month which is less than what I am paying on my accord ex-l, but I'd be making payments for 2 additional years, and in that time the car would not be under warrenty. During the 3-5 year old time frame I would replace the tires, altenator, starter, exhaust, battery and all 4 brakes, plus coolant, trans fluid, etc. The total in out of pocket expenses would be $2790.00. So now for the 3-5 year time frame still has the monthly payment of $315.00 plus the breakdown of the repairs and maint which would be $116.00 totalling $431.00 per month for that 2 year period. Who knows what would happen at the five year mark? At five years, I would be quite bored with the car and want a new car anway. Buying is good for someone that has alot of expenses like kids, college, loans, credit cards etc. I don't, so leasing is sensible for me so i can enjoy a new car every three years. Plus I live in New England and the cars go through hell here with the bad roads, salt, snow and ice. Al > Shouldn't a higher residual make the Coupe cheaper? A major portion > of the lease payment covers depreciation. If the depreciation is less [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it longer than three years. You will save a ton of money over the > long run. > During the 3-5 year old time frame I would replace the > tires, altenator, starter, exhaust, battery and all 4 brakes, > plus coolant, trans fluid, etc. Alternator? Starter? Exhaust? In a 5 years old car? Who told you that? I hope hondas are as good as toyotas, but I have 1995 camry model and 240 thousand miles on it - it has ORIGINAL alternator, ORIGINAL starter, ORIGINAL exhaust. Tires, battery, brakes - that is using up... normal thing. The same with fluids... but not as often. Lease is calculated as a loan, except you pay principal only on the depreciation not the whole car value... You pay interest on the whole car value - bank has to freeze their money to pay for your car to the factory. > The total in out of pocket expenses would be $2790.00. How is it calculated? > So now for the 3-5 year time frame still has the monthly payment of $315.00 > plus the breakdown of the repairs and maint which would be $116.00 totalling > $431.00 per month for that 2 year period. Who knows what would happen at the > five year mark? At five years, I would be quite bored with the car and want > a new car anway. How about buying a 3 years old car going off the lease? :-) > Buying is good for someone that has alot of expenses like kids, college, > loans, credit cards etc. I don't, so leasing is sensible for me so i can > enjoy a new car every three years. Plus I live in New England and the cars > go through hell here with the bad roads, salt, snow and ice. So how much was it exactly? What is your out of pocket lease, monthly payments and residual value? What are your mileage limits? > Alternator? Starter? Exhaust? In a 5 years old car? > Who told you that? I had a 4 year old Nissan Sentra (which I bought new) and thats what went on it at the 4 year 45k mi mark. >> The total in out of pocket expenses would be $2790.00. > How is it calculated? Battery=80.00, tires=1000, altenator=300, starter=300, exhaust=600 etc etc. Things are expensive where I live, I don't know, but maybe where you live things are alot less. > How about buying a 3 years old car going off the lease? :-) That would mean financing the car for an additional 5 years after the lease in order to keep similar or slightly lower payments, all without a warrenty and more repairs. By the time you owned it in 7-8 years, you'd want to throw the car off a cliff even though it would be paid for. You'd be bored out of your mind with it. > So how much was it exactly? > What is your out of pocket lease, monthly payments and residual value? > What are your mileage limits? The car retailed for $27,000.00 and is $385.00 per month which includes paying off my existing lease of $14,000.00 which had 5 payments left and $650.00 in over the mileage fees. That price also includes the mudguards and wheel locks and the road hazard package. Out of pocket cash down was $1500.00, residual is around 16k and its 3yr / 36k miles. I thought it was a good deal since my car is an ex and its a 2005 and the payments are 326.00. This is 59.00 more per month but its 3 years newer and has the leather package. >> Alternator? Starter? Exhaust? In a 5 years old car? >> Who told you that? > > I had a 4 year old Nissan Sentra (which I bought new) and thats what went on > it at the 4 year 45k mi mark. Sentra is not the same car reliability category as accord or camry. >>> The total in out of pocket expenses would be $2790.00. >> How is it calculated? > > Battery=80.00, tires=1000, altenator=300, starter=300, exhaust=600 etc etc. > Things are expensive where I live, I don't know, but maybe where you live > things are alot less. Yes, much less expensive... Bttery you can get for ~$30 at Walmart and replace yourself in 5 minutes. Tires - depending on the fancy kind you want would run you probably as little as $400-500 at Sears, alternator, ehaust or starter - as I said, I did not need for 12 years and 240k miles on camry and I bet you would NOT need them on 3 yrs old accord as well... >> How about buying a 3 years old car going off the lease? :-) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the car off a cliff even though it would be paid for. You'd be bored out of > your mind with it. When you are ready to throw your 7 years accord off the cliff please meet me with the title in your hand - I will take this burden off your hands :-)) I Promise! You are unreal - check the prices of 7 years accords... These cars are still quite pricey even at 7 years old. Nobody is throwing them off the cliff at that age. This is very reliable car which will last much longer than your average escort or cavalier. >> So how much was it exactly? >> What is your out of pocket lease, monthly payments and residual value? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This is 59.00 more per month but its 3 years newer and has the leather > package. Why would you want to pay for wheel locks on a car which belongs to the bank? If somebody will steal the wheels it is not your problem - car is insured, right? If residual is "around 16000" than it is 59% of 27000 :-) Lets see how much your really payed for the lease: 36 x 385 = 13860 13860 + 1500 = 15360 -> this is what you'll pay for the lease over 3 years. Assuming nothing happens to this vehicle, like you will not make more than 12k miles per year, that you will not spill coffee on your sits or not burn them with cigarete butt etc... Otherwise you pay big money :-) I bet that for $15360 you could buy to own a used certified accord sedan... They are much more popular and less expensive as used than coupes. And buying a certified you would get 12k or 1 year bumper to bumber warranty plus many years powertrain warranty which you could upgrade to full bumper-to-bumper warranty as Honda Care for something like $550. In May '07 I got to own a 3 years old w/38k miles accord EX-L '04 silver coupe registered for the first time in Apr'04. It looks and rides as new. No dents or scratches, black leather, XM satelite radio, automatic a/c. I payed 16700 (+ 550 for Honda Care on it - I make a lot of miles >20k/yr) I am sure I overpayed couple of hundred since I was in a big hurry - my old car went to the junkyard and I was shoping for a replacement driving a rental car :-) And the purchased car is now mine to keep or sell when I get bored of it... With the reliability of accords I am not worried about replacing starter, exhaust or alternators every three years... that is unreal. BTW - acording to Kelly Blue Book (www.kbb.com) resale value of the 6 years old accord coupe with 80k miles on the odometer is around $9200-$9800 depending on its condition, so when I get bored with mine accord after 3 years I will be able to recover more than half of what I have payed for the car... > Actually I already researched leasing vs buying and leasing is better for > what I want in a car. ah, in other words you make your decision based on "monthly payment". You were a sucker asking to be fleeced. > ah, in other words you make your decision based on "monthly payment". > > You were a sucker asking to be fleeced. When you lease a car they don't give you a figure based on price of the car, and if they do it will come out the same as if you base it on monthly payments. Either way you'r going to pay the same thing for a leased car. I'm happy with my leased 2008 accord ex-l. I can afford the car without a doubt. On the other hand purchasing it for 3 years and paying 700.00 might be a different story. > > ah, in other words you make your decision based on "monthly payment". > > > > You were a sucker asking to be fleeced. > > When you lease a car they don't give you a figure based on price of the car, that's because it's to their best interests not to. They certainly could--but you wouldn't like it. > and if they do it will come out the same as if you base it on monthly > payments. mmmmm....no.... > Either way you'r going to pay the same thing for a leased car. I'm > happy with my leased 2008 accord ex-l. I can afford the car without a doubt. > On the other hand purchasing it for 3 years and paying 700.00 might be a > different story. If you can't afford to buy it, you have no business acquiring it under ANY circumstances. > If you can't afford to buy it, you have no business acquiring it under > ANY circumstances. Why is that, Elmo? Lease is just paying for the usage of a car which belongs to the bank. > > If you can't afford to buy it, you have no business acquiring it under > > ANY circumstances. > > Why is that, Elmo? > > Lease is just paying for the usage of a car which belongs to the bank. Plus ALL the interest on that loan that's out on the car while you have it in your hands. Either you can afford the car, or you can't. Leasing is for "monthly payment" suckers who don't understand what they're doing and who are easily fooled into paying HUGE amounts of money for the car. The car salesman loves it. Remember, the car salesman doesn't lease you a car. He sells a car. He sells it to the leasing company. Then he acts as an agent for the leasing company, earning a commission for THAT deal. So that's TWO deals he's earning commission on. And he's a pro, so he gets you into that "monthly payment" mode and in the end you have NO idea what you paid for the car. >> > If you can't afford to buy it, you have no business acquiring it under >> > ANY circumstances. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Either you can afford the car, or you can't. I still do not quite get why are you so against leasing... Yes, you pay the usage fee and the interest but you do not have to pay off the principle on this debt. So you can use the car for less (short time) than when you own it. For people not making a lot of miles and generally do not abuse cars it sounds like a good idea and more afordable for people who cannot shell out a full payment for a car... > Leasing is for "monthly payment" suckers who don't understand what > they're doing and who are easily fooled into paying HUGE amounts of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that "monthly payment" mode and in the end you have NO idea what you > paid for the car. For people who think short term it does not matter how much he paid for that car - what he knows is that in his budget a payment of $300 monthly is acceptable but a payment of $400 is not. Of course he is paying more in the long term, but why not? As long he wants to pay more - I do not see your point about of not being able to afford the car. >>> > If you can't afford to buy it, you have no business acquiring it under >>> > ANY circumstances. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >cars it sounds like a good idea and more afordable for people >who cannot shell out a full payment for a car... Circumstances vary of course, but you are paying for the miles you are allowed to use whether you use them or not. If you allowed 15K per year and you use only 7K, you will turn in a car with much lower mileage then what was assumed when they worked the numbers and, of course, they will not be giving a refund. On the other hand, if you use more than the allowed mileage, they will charge you out the wazoo. Same goes for abuse. They assume you will abuse it to X degree and charge you accordingly. If you use it gently and take good care of it, you will be turning in a cream puff and someone else will get the benefit of your care. If somebody dings you in the parking lot, you will pay to repair a minor flaw that you might just live with if you were keeping the car. >> Leasing is for "monthly payment" suckers who don't understand what >> they're doing and who are easily fooled into paying HUGE amounts of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >As long he wants to pay more - I do not see your point about >of not being able to afford the car. You touch on a point here that the real cost of the lease is in the rapid turn over of cars. This is expensive whether you buy or lease, but with a lease you have no choice but to flip a barely used car after three years. If you buy, you have the choice of selling, trading in or keeping the car at that point. Everyone is aware that the depreciation really hits you in the first three years of ownership, but there are other costs as well, notably sales tax. With the quality and cost of today's cars, it is pretty extravagant to trade or lease every three years. If you buy it and keep it for a year after the loan is paid off, you will have built up considerable equity, and maybe have saved some money as well. Do this for a couple cycles and you can start paying cash for your cars. > Leasing is for "monthly payment" suckers who don't understand what > they're doing and who are easily fooled into paying HUGE amounts of > money for the car. The car salesman loves it. That is probably why most newspaper car ads show the prices only in terms of leasing -- that ever attractive low monthly payment! "What'll it take to get you into this beauty-ful Accawd heah?" |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.