SpicyMikey

Howard, you might want to do your math again. It's true that a car is a bad investment. However, leasing it doesn't make that fact change . In fact, unless you get some promotional lease deal from the manufacturer, the total cost of ownership is always more expensive when leasing then buying. The only advantage to leasing is if you own your own business. You can writeoff 100% of lease payments in the year they occur, while, owning only allows you to writeoff the depreciated value on a pre determined schedule.

Bottom line; if you bought a car and sold it every 3 years for a new one, you'd be slightly ahead of the game versus perpectually taking out 3 year leases. Do the math, compare apples to apples, and you'll see it's true. It's a bit of an illusion caused by the lower monthly payments with leasing.

Howard 44

I agree. I fortunately do own a business so the lease option works. And yes, leasing vs ownership (over a 6-7 year period) is marginally less attractive economically.

But I disagree that buying a car every three years and selling it is more economical then a 3 year lease. A dealer would offer low blue book and good luck selling a $25,000 car (for cash) to a private party in Los Angeles.

There are three categories of car 'ownership' in L.A. You either lease because you can afford to, you lease because you live beyond your means (live for the moment) and can't afford the down payment, or you bought your car and intend to drive it into the ground. That covers 85% of the L.A. drivers. You'll need divine intervention to find one person of the remaining 15% who will buy a three year old $25,000 used car. If that person has $25,000 to spend, it will not be on a used car.

GoHawks

Again, I don't understand your point about being compensated. I'm sure Lexus paid for theirs as well.

The link wasn't provided to you to showcase whether the filmclip was professionally done or not. It was provided to point out the engineering that went into the RL. Stating whether or not the Lexus one is more polished, or whether the narrator (of either film) is compenstated is irrelavent.

neuronbob

Actually, the Temple of VTEC (from which that video is from gives mostly technical advice, and that video is one example. They're pretty good at what they do. It is biased, but then again, they're the Temple of VTEC, no reason they wouldn't be. I don't think Shawn (the guy in the video) is compensated for any of this stuff, certainly not by Honda or Acura.

As far as lease deals....if Acura is offering its standard lease deal, it's a bad deal. Ewww. search a bit here and you'll find our pontification on Acura's RL leases. For the RL, it's simply a better deal to purchase. In any case, it seems you're leaning toward leasing the Lexus. That's OK! You have to buy/lease what fits your needs and your research, and it's certainly not a bad car. Two of my colleagues have the GS350 and sing its praises.

However....to me, the RL offers better driving dynamics and its navi is superior to the Lexus in that it can be activated while moving. For me, it was the best bang for the buck financially, and I don' t require the cachet that owning a Lexus brings.

Keep us updated on your decision!

SpicyMikey

That's true, Acura offers no incentives on RL leases. In that situation you are dealing with what I mentioned earlier. In an apples to apples comparison leasing will be more expensive. However, lease deals are very often offered by manufacturers with slight financial incentives to make it more attractive then purchasing. Why? Because they know you'll probably be back in 3 years for a new car. They're willing to eat a little cost on the financing. With a purchase, you're more likely to base your next car buying decisiion on financial circumstances at that time and you may linger with the car until it starts having problems. Usually thats 6 or more years down the road.

Personally, I only leased once in my life because it was a killer deal. I personally hardly ever find a lease deal attractive enough for me to compensate for the negatives. I don't want to worry about teh mileage or keeping great maintenance records, I want the option of "tweeking" the car if I want to make changes to the wheels or add tint, etc., and lastly, I don't like the idea of being under a binding contract. Never know where life will take you.

gavine

[QUOTE=Howard 44] In fact (and I think this applies to all Hondas/Acuras), their engines are designed to rev high. Not something I'm happy about (or accustomed to) as more wear and tear occurs.


The RPM's on the highway on the RL are very low. Going 60mph, they are about 1700 RPM. That's "V8-low". Rarely will the RPM's go above 2,000 on the highway. I haven't noticed but I would guess you need to be going over 85mph to get above 2,000RPM.

I had a 1985 Totota that revved at 4,000PM going 70MPH (3,000 at 60MPH). I sold it with 160,000 miles on it and it had never even burned any oil. I don't think RPM's under normal driving will wear-out an engine. Redlining it often.....now that's a different story.