[PetreC4]

Further to pcc125’s point I also think it’s a value proposition. My RRS is the first SUV I’ve ever owned. I considered many, was interested in a few. Prices were high for many comparables. The Range Rover seems to be a more unique, upscale offering. It’s different, and good. Range Rover/LR growth has been significant in 2024 and into 2025 with high per end product RR,RRS and the Defender leading the way.

 

[Hodog16]

Traditionally leasing the RR is a horrible value proposition as dealers rarely discount and mark up the money factor.

I recently toyed with the numbers on a $130k PHEV and even with expiring $7500 and the $3000 conquest and assuming say a 5% discount and buy rate, it was still over $1800 a month for 36 months. With say $4000 due at signing that’s almost $70k to drive it for 3 years 36k miles. Does it really depreciate that much in reality?

 

[PHXATC]

Traditionally leasing the RR is a horrible value proposition as dealers rarely discount and mark up the money factor.

I recently toyed with the numbers on a $130k PHEV and even with expiring $7500 and the $3000 conquest and assuming say a 5% discount and buy rate, it was still over $1800 a month for 36 months. With say $4000 due at signing that’s almost $70k to drive it for 3 years 36k miles. Does it really depreciate that much in reality?

If it doesn't depreciate that much, you can get a "deal" when the lease is up and just buy it outright at that point and go resell it...or keep it.

Cars are a losing proposition. Every car I buy or lease, I expect the entire cash outflow to be sunk cost and gone, in my head they are worth zero. Just me thought.

@AngryPenguin have you asked this question on the MBZ forums to see what S Class owners might say?

 

[AngryPenguin]

@AngryPenguin I also looked into buy vs lease last year. I looked at a 3 year lease without financing (lump sum payment for 3 years) followed by outright purchase. Despite the $7500 rebate on the lease, this turned out to be a lot more expensive than buying the car outright. I plan to keep this one for seven years, lets see.

Yeah that's what I'm now debating as well. Own for >4 years. extended warranty can be purchased for up to 8 years total. Maybe own for 8.

The crazy part is a 3 year old RR (yes, last body style) is less than half the price new. I can flat out purchase a 1 or 2 year old L460 for the total sum of all of the lease payments.

Yeah, I know. This isn't an intellectual purchase but it's crazy to me how Range Rover will not even discount lease payments by a nickel if I pay for all 4 years up front.

Two RR dealers have told me the total margin per Tata is now 3%. When the first one told me, I rolled my eyes. When the 2nd one told me, I started to believe that there really is no negotiation room

Anyway, the price is what it is - I'm not too fussed over it. Just will have to decide if I'll pull the trigger or just spend more of my money on Ritz Carlton cruises. They take $50K a year from me....

 

[PetreC4]

Buy vs Lease has been debated in many forums. I've purchased and leased. The opportunity cost of outright buying a depreciating asset like this turns me off. If the lease rate is decent enough and you have the ability to write-off your lease payments; leasing has its advantages, particularly after tax. You have purchase options at the end of lease term and there is little residual value risk. One way or another you pay.

 

[PetreC4]

Traditionally leasing the RR is a horrible value proposition as dealers rarely discount and mark up the money factor.

I recently toyed with the numbers on a $130k PHEV and even with expiring $7500 and the $3000 conquest and assuming say a 5% discount and buy rate, it was still over $1800 a month for 36 months. With say $4000 due at signing that’s almost $70k to drive it for 3 years 36k miles. Does it really depreciate that much in reality?

Always an interesting debate. What is the interest rate inherent in the lease and what is the residual value? Important factors.

It is hard not to consider the opportunity costs of keeping that kind of capital cost invested unless it's real pocket change - then readers probably haven't read this far. LOL

You can always reduce the optics of "high monthly payment" with a calculated downpayment. Of course then there is the waiver of depreciation for insurance......

 

[Lev]

How can you compare a sedan with big SUV? You can also drop Porsche 911 to the mix with the same logic (I'm having hard time to get) 😂

 

[Hodog16]

Problem with any down payment on lease is that money to reduce the cap cost is forfeited if the car is totaled. In other words one pays early to reduce lease payments that no longer exist.

Right now 36 month 12k lease for a P550e has a 50 percent residual with buy rate around 5.2 percent (0.0228? Something like that). Again most LR dealers would jack up money factor so this was best case scenario.

 

[PetreC4]

Problem with any down payment on lease is that money to reduce the cap cost is forfeited if the car is totaled. In other words one pays early to reduce lease payments that no longer exist.

Right now 36 month 12k lease for a P550e has a 50 percent residual with buy rate around 5.2 percent (0.0228? Something like that). Again most LR dealers would jack up money factor so this was best case scenario.

Not sure this is the case if you have a waiver of depreciation as part of insurance.

 

[PetreC4]

Problem with any down payment on lease is that money to reduce the cap cost is forfeited if the car is totaled. In other words one pays early to reduce lease payments that no longer exist,.

I've seen this argument before. Makes no sense. The leasing company cannot recover what it did not finance. How you insure the car, and the obligations under the lease for any make-whole provisions are important, including whether you, the lessee bear the brunt of the depreciation. But "paying to reduce lease payments that no longer exist" is not a thing.

 

[Hodog16]

It is a thing at least in the US--that's why the common sentiment is not to put a down payment on a lease. I don't know if it's different in Canada.

It makes perfect sense, using very simple numbers:

Let's say the total cost of the lease is $20,000 split up over 10 payments using two scenarios:

A: If I put no money down, then the payments are $2,000 a month.

B: If I put $10,000 down, then the payments are reduced to $1,000 a month.

If the lease is completed, then at the end of the lease in A and B I've paid $20,000 for 10 months.

Lets say the car is totaled after four payments, so the lease is over. The manufacturer gets their money back as a combination of insurance money from the at fault party as well as gap insurance which is included in lease payments.

In A, I've paid $8,000. In B, I've paid $14,000.

 

[PetreC4]

I get it completely. The lien holder is getting paid, no matter what. You as the equity holder, whether you own it, finance it, whatever, have a risk unless you specifically insure it (which I did). Waiver of depreciation clauses are detailed, so you have to read them carefully and talk with your insurer. It was a big deal with a Range Rover, let me tell you. My point was that its about equity risk, not about forgone lease payments because of a downpayment. But you can manage it...at least in Ontario, you can.

 

[bluestraveller]

I suppose you also have to carry some sort of coverage in case the car gets into an accident during the lease (not totaled) but that reduces the residual value? I’ve never done a lease myself, mostly just outright cash purchases and a few finances when there was an incentive involved.

 

[Hodog16]

That’s one of the huge benefits on a lease that you don’t have to care about diminished value because you aren’t the owner. But you do have to carry insurance etc and pay for property tax.

In fact I leased a vehicle for my teenager to drive to high school. If the carfax gets dinged, not my problem after the lease is done.

 

[Mark_CT]

We did Silversea cruse and hated it. Should have done Ritz

 

[pcc125]

We did Silversea cruse and hated it. Should have done Ritz

There are plenty of charter boats all around the world that you can hire with crew for less than a Ritz cruise, and you, and your friends if you want to share cost with, have the whole boat and can go and stop anywhere you want to. For a couple, I recommend at least a 45 ft boat or catamaran, and for two or more couples, a bigger one. Catamarans are surprisingly spacious and comfortable. Nothing beats a private charter in my opinion.

 

[AngryPenguin]

There are plenty of charter boats all around the world that you can hire with crew for less than a Ritz cruise, and you, and your friends if you want to share cost with, have the whole boat and can go and stop anywhere you want to. For a couple, I recommend at least a 45 ft boat or catamaran, and for two or more couples, a bigger one. Catamarans are surprisingly spacious and comfortable. Nothing beats a private charter in my opinion.

This is where I'll disagree. Chartering boats is far more expensive than a Ritz Cruises though I think we've taken this thread quite a bit off topic!

Ritz isn't that expensive. It's ~$50K CAD for 2 in a nice suite on most of their sailings in EMEA/JAPAC.