Well, at some times it can be.

* * * *

BMW, like most automakers, is trying to wean customers from leases. GM is doing the same thing with their financial promtions, giving incentives for leasees to BUY their next vehicle instead of leasing it.

IN the past, BMW could lease a new car for ridiculously low rates, based on the premise that the used cars had such high resale prices that the depreciation was not significant.

However, the recent recession has affected BMW resale prices, which were already starting to take a hit. Unfortunately, later model BMWs have become more and more complicated, and as a result, less reliable. As a result, these cars can be a nightmare to repair once out of warranty (ask me how I know, I have four).

And BMW offers some of the shortest warranties in the business. No 10-year powertrain warrenty here. And BMW automatics have a nasty habit of breaking at 70K miles (many were GM boxes to begin with). If you buy a BMW, get a manual transmission, IMHO.

Ford used to dump cars in super lease deals at the end of the year to keep the Taurus and Escort in their “most popular” categories, and yes, these could be a “good” deal, compared to a regular lease, but still expensive.

Even at a “good” lease rate, you are still “buying” the immediate and most dramatic depreciation a car can have – the first 10 minutes it leaves the lot.

A car that is a year old with 12,000 miles on it is nearly indistinguishable from a brand new car – it wil last about as long (with proper care) and even has a warrenty nearly as long. However, even though you are getting 5-10% “less” car, you will pay 20-30% less in terms of purchase price AND lose less in depreciation over time.

So no, leasing is never a very good deal, even with these “givaway” leases. The more complicated you can make any financial transaction, the easier it is to rip-off the consumer. Most consumers look only at monthly payment (the sure road to poverty) and gloss over COM (Cost of Money) and puchase price (yes, there is a purchase price in a lease, and many leasees pay over sticker!).

And, as many a leasee has discovered, at the end of the lease, they will nail you with “gotcha” fees, including excess milage and “wear and tear”.

For example, most leases limit milage to 12,000 miles a year. Most Americans drive and AVERAGE of 15,000 miles a year. What are you going to do, skip work once a week? From the get-go, the lease is designed to nail the customer at the end of the lease.

Over a three year lease, that comes to 9,000 miles in excess milage, which at 25 to 50 cents per mile can run from $2250 to $4500 in overage charges. Not chump change. If that was added into the monthly cost, the “bargain” lease rate doesn’t seem to “bargain” any more.

(add in the fact that many leasees pay up-front fees, or sacrifice their trade-in as a down payment, and these are really loser deals).

For example, one friend of mine turned in his truck at the end of a lease, only to have the dealer claim that the Rhinoliner (spray-in bedliner) he had installed would have to be removed (impossible to do) or he would be charged “excess wear and tear” on the vehicle.

Of course the irony here is that, if he had not put in the bedliner, he would have been charged for the inevitable scratches to the truck bed.

He ended up leasing another truck for three years from the same dealer (excess wear threats are often used to coerce leasees into leasing another vehicle).

For what he spent in six years of truck lease payments, he could have OWNED outright, the original truck, which would be six years old now, with easily another six years of life left in it, or a resale value of $10,000.

But with the lease, he is WALKING after six years, with no truck at all.

(Or, for the same monthly lease payments he made to buy a “loaded” truck, he could have made loan payments on a more pedestrian model, and owned it outright after three years).

I dunno know about you, but TEN GRAND is a lot of dough. So I don’t see how leasing can be a “good deal” if you come out that far behind over time.

No car payments is really the best way to go, IMHO. I have six cars, and they are all paid for.

FWIW.

The problem for a small car company is this: Certifying a car for US sales is a prohibitively expensive task. Not only do you ahve to meet EPA certifications, but crash-testing as well.

Add to this the cost of developing a new car platform, and the concept of a small car company is financially impossible. That SAAB and VOLVO were sold off to larger companies was not unusual, it was inevitable. Perhaps if they had merged, they could have survived alone.

Most cars today are developed on common platforms. Very few companies have unique platform structures. While BMW may survive this way, note that BMW is famous for re-using old parts and components and using the same components across model lines. The rubber isolation mounts for a secondary air pump on a 2002 BMW is the same part as an air cleaner isolaton mount on a BMW 2002 (circa 1973).

A friend of mine rented a Mazda 6 recently, and I was chagrined to see that the electronics on the car were nearly identical to the new BMWs. It would appear they are using a common supplier.

So, even if SAAB were to be “independent” as a car company, many of the components would come from the same suppliers as other car companies, so the product would not be as unique as before.

While the old SAAB 900 was an intersting car, like the BMW 2002, it could not be built today. The cut-under doors (with recessed rocker panels) would never survive side-impact crash test requirements. The bolt-upright windshield would never pass muster from an aerodynamic point of view.

And a small company in a small country could never afford to develop all the safety components and engine systems needed for a modern car.

World automotive production capacity was already 20-30% over demand BEFORE the current recession started. Now that the shiite has hit the fan, the luxury of having underperfoming factories in order to satisfy national automotive pride is a luxury no one could (or should) afford.

GM will have to downsize dramatically. SAAB will be sold off. The question is – who would buy it?

Leasing is NEVER a “good deal”

Well, at some times it can be. Both the BMW 7-series and VW Phaeton have high prices, in part to create status for mentioned cars. So at times, there has at least in Germany been very favourable leasing deals to be had on these cars. Since BMW and VW doesn’t want to lover the prices (=lower prestige) they just “sold” them at very favourable leasing rates. At times I’ve heard that the 7-series was almost as cheap to lease as the (then new) 5-series.

Query: Can Sweden really support two car companies in this day and age?

It all comes down to if the companies have the owners and staff to create cars that customers want to buy. AB Volvo and Scania both do great building large trucks etc., so a small country doesn’t make it impossible to have two car companies. But perhaps harder – due to small domestic market.

Leasing is NEVER a “good deal”, even with “nothing down” and “only” $311 a month. That’s nearly $4000 thrown away in a year. Add in the extra cost of collision and comprehensive insurance for a brand new car (at $500 deductable) and you’re spending easily $5000 to drive around in a new car for 12 monhts.

Oh, and don’t go over those milage limits or put any scratches or “excess wear” in the car. Tell Junior not to spill in the back seat – Daddy doesn’t really own this one.

To many people, the idea of a perpetual car payment “makes sense.” But for about four years’s of such payments, you can own outright, a secondhand car that will easily last 8-10 years or more. Meaning that you can put another 20 grand into your 401(k) over that time period.

Leasing a “bargain”? Never.

The road to middle-class povery is paved with lease agreements and car payments.

I live on retirement island, and I see firsthand what happens to people, who, in their 40’s leased brand new cars every year or two. They said they could “afford” it at the time. But now they are in their 60’s and broke – ouch. Living on Social Security is not fun.

As for the SAAB 9-7 selling for “about 30 grand”, this illustrates another big problem with GM and American brands in general. They put joke prices on cars and then discount them dramatically.

When I see my local car dealer offering “$10,000 off!!!” on a new American-made car, this does NOT entice me to buy, but rather the opposite. Since their basic pricing is so clearly premised on a LIE, I am less inclined to do business with them.

If you get into a business arrangement with anyone, predicated on a LIE, then don’t expect things to improve later on. And they warned you at the outset what kind of businesspeople they were, so you have no one to blame when it goes horribly wrong later on.

The new-car-buying experience at most dealers is already a horrible nightmare of being jerked around. Having these ridiculous prices and discount games makes it even worse.

Thanks but no thanks. The best “deal” out there is a well-maintained secondhand car that you pay cash for. I’ll keep my old BMW X5, thanks. It’s paid for – no one is taking it away in 12 months, and I paid a lot less than 30 grand for it and it holds its resale value better than the SAAB 9-7x.

Is the SAAB 9-7x the new Oldsmobile Bravada? (Remember those?) Since the demise of Oldsmobile, was SAAB recruited as the badge brand for tarted-up Chevies? If so, how sad.

Note also, that the SAAB comparison page conveniently forgets to list gas milage. In this day and age, I’d have to think twice before buying another full-time AWD vehicle, considering how many times I’ve used the AWD on the one I have.

Query: Can Sweden really support two car companies in this day and age? Given the platform engineering of both Volvo and Saab, what is the compelling case to be made for either brand? As car designs coelesce into a few basic shapes and forms (and a lot of common engineering, even between competing brands) why do we need so many brands?

http://www.saabusa.com/comparator/addVehicle.do?divisionCode=sb&modelYear=pvc=50300&pvc=null&cmpModelYear=2009&cmpMakeName=Chevrolet&cmpModelID=5966&cmpModelTrimID=24967&

The SAAB is 10 grand more than the trailblazer.

And for some reason, the Saab loses 5″ of legroom in the front (due to the key on the floor?).

What is interesting, is that the Saab is about the same price as a BMW X5, which I already have. The X5 holds about 50% of its resale value every 5 years.

They are offering 0% financing on the SAAB 9-7x (don’t bother asking if your credit score is below 740, though). But as CNN/Money noted in an article today, even at fire-sale prices, you’ll still take a bath on an American car in terms of resale value.

The last (and I mean LAST) American car I bought (for $25,000, or $7K off list price!) was worth about $8,000 after five years and 65,000 miles.

GM has to work on the resale value problem. It may be a problem of perception or the customers. The types of people who buy American cars treat them like dixie cups – they use them and then throw them away.

Myself, I can’t see spending nearly 50 grand on a disposable car.

FWIW.

When the jig is up next year, we won’t be getting another. It’s fun while it lasts!!

First of all, Saab is no where near dying. Ever been to Europe? They are everywhere and well considered.

As far as the 9-7 being something that should have been dumped before starting, let me just say this: “Has anyone tried to buy one recently?”. I own a 2003 9-3 and happen to be in the market for a medium-sized SUV, so the 9-7 pops up on my radar screen. Did you know that you can buy a 9-7 for $10k under sticker right now? Either this is testiment to a problem child, or a silly way to buy a pretty dam, nicely equipped SUV for $30k.

 I own a Audi A6, which by all accounts is the standard of interior refinement. Ashtray cover fell off, Stereo cover quit shutting, Vanity mirrors will not open (too much glue from the factory, windows will not roll back up if rolled down, Sideview mirror button broke off. All of this plus too many recalls to even count.

20 years ago, I inherited my mom's chevette. Never, ever, ever had one problem with it. My cars: Audi A6 1998, and 06 97x Saab. I love the saab and yes I drove the Porsche, VW, Lexus, etc.. They were nice, but I got a deal on the Saab and I almost never see another one. Which I actually enjoy. Proud GM Saab Owner with an AUDI for Sale.

This is Saab, Volvo, and Subaru heaven.

Liberal yuppies, college professors, and trustafarians literally crawling out of the woodwork.

I’ve seen one Trollblazer.

One. A single, blandly silver, seemingly embarrased-of-itself example.

GM screwed the pooch with this one.

Saab-owners doesn’t “roll over”. Like old money, they just wither and die…

Toyota does a much better job of leveraging it’s partner companies than GM manages. The recent tie-up with Isuzu, another former GM partner, is going to give Toyota access to excellent diesel engines. I wonder what is to become of the current Isuzu US organization, such as it is. GM managed to almost entirely kill off Isuzu in the US.

This is not the engineers fault, it is a management problem. No engineers in their right mind would come up with a stupid idea like that. No, this is bean-counters talking. Bean-counters that have absolutely no idea what Saab is all about, or for that matter, what GM is all about. No car guy would put their name on this “thing” without putting their reputation on the line, and no car guy would buy this “thing” without realizing that the only thing it is, is a Trailblazer with the ignition key between the seats and a hefty pricetag. And that’s the problem. The buyers can see through the scam. And that’s why the public is sick and tired of this “thing” without ever having seen one. And that’s why it scored on TTAC:s twat-list, without actually being a badly built car. It is sad, it really is.

“not fragile” well I beg to differ.

I too have lived with said cupholder, and once it’s broke, you don’t want to know how much it costs to fix ($75 dollar part + a couple of hours labor). My coffee now sits wedged between the door and seat

I like my 95 wagon but I would never even consider the 97.

GM actually expects people to care?

Oh, its not a trailblazer, because of where we put the key?

Certainly some GM/Saab engineers and employees have to be smarter than this. The question is how do these problems happen- isn’t there management in place to push back on ridiculous ideas like the 9-7x. When announced, everyone knew it was a terrible idea- why didn’t GM?

Add to that the fact that the 9-2x is based off of a terrific platform, that upholds the two carmaker’s shared commitments described above, and you have a great car. It obviously shouldn’t have been priced the way it was priced, given the only-slightly-differentiated-rebadge job, but at the usual discount the 9-2x shines.

The 9-7x, on the other hand, violates most of Saab’s commitments — utility? Well, it does carry a lot. Uniqueness? It’s a bland warmed over clone with many brothers and sisters across the GM portfolio. Performance? Nah. Character? None. Efficiency? Not with 21 optimistic highway mpg, and the interior room efficiency (including headroom) ont he platform is really crummy for its size. Traction? AWD, I guess. Unique engineering solutions? Just the hack-job relocation of the ignition key.

“9-7X… bam! The future (and quite likely the end) of Saab’s ability to roll!”

Yes, the Saab engineers wanted to use the Sigma platform developed for Cadillac but weren’t even allowed to create a Saab prototype as far as I’ve been told.
Cadillac engineering just said “get lost”. Which took them to the ancient Trailblazer platform.

But here’s the catch: The SRX works out to be cheaper once you factor in GM Card earnings and you can get Magnetic Ride Control on the SRX. This makes loving this SAAB very difficult indeed.

Well, Britney recorded most of her hits in Sweden, with Swedish songwriters/producers (Max Martin et al)… I belive one of the first k-fed&brit pictures were taken in Sweden – so that connection is not that bad at all.