Date: 18 May 1999 21:53:50 GMT From: blairdavidnopsamcom (BlairDavid) Subject: Re: Better Value--96 900s or 99 93?
In article <19990517204420.16477.00001590nopsamn1.aol.com>, jbridges61nopsamcompany (Jbridges61) writes: >Which would be a better value for money: >Buy a used 96 900s with 43K miles for $15,000 or lease a new 93? >--JB (Los Angeles) Is the '96 a turbo or not? All the 9-3's are turbos now, so in a way you might be comparing very different cars. A 3 year lease for a 9-3 at let's say $300/mos (?) is going to cost a minimum of $11,000 plus any lease and acquisition fees and downpayment/cost capitalization. What you might gain by not taking a carloan or shelling out cash might be 5% a year on the $15,000 you retain = $750/year or $500 after taxes so your only losing $1500 of investment income. So the lease is going to cost you about $9,500 (plus lease/acquisition/cap cost reduction) factoring in that $1500 savings. Is it possible your '96 is going to be worth only $6,500 (after 3 years, even with 75,000 miles)? I doubt it. Even with some major repairs, tires, tuneups, etc. IMHO the '96 will cost less. A lot less if you exceed the mileage allowance on the lease. Of course, you don't get to drive around a brand new car... --Blair