[LDB]

Every current money offer, at least according to Edmunds, applies only to leasing. They do have zero percent financing but with money rates so low that's not a huge thing compared to $4600 or so for a lease and $0 for a purchase.

 

[rmay635703]

Not really accurate, the advertised prices seem to be lower for cash purchases, but these are just dealer specials, no "deal" is listed as the reason for the reduced purchase price

 

[trm2]

Every current money offer, at least according to Edmunds, applies only to leasing. They do have zero percent financing but with money rates so low that's not a huge thing compared to $4600 or so for a lease and $0 for a purchase.

It is 4,600 cash that comes from the 7,500 tax credit.

 

[LDB]

Not really accurate, the advertised prices seem to be lower for cash purchases, but these are just dealer specials, no "deal" is listed as the reason for the reduced purchase price

I'm going by the info on Edmund's website. http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/volt/2017/car-incentives.html

 

[LDB]

It is 4,600 cash that comes from the 7,500 tax credit.

It's GM money not the IRS credit I believe.

 

[Joe67]

Every current money offer, at least according to Edmunds, applies only to leasing. They do have zero percent financing but with money rates so low that's not a huge thing compared to $4600 or so for a lease and $0 for a purchase.

The statement "They (Chevrolet) don't want to sell any Volts" is false.

 

[bjrosen]

Leases don't make any sense for Volts. Leasing works best for cars that hold their value, Chevy's don't and EVs even less so. The pricing of EVs is distorted by the huge tax credits that are available. In addition to the $7500 federal tax credit there are state rebates, MA is $2500 for example. Leasing companies aren't eligible for state rebates, just the Federal, and they only pass on a portion of that (that's the $4600 you mentioned). However the full tax incentives are reflected in the resale value of the car so the leasing company has to treat the initial value of the car as $10,000 less than the purchase price. On top of that EVs depreciate much faster than ICE cars because the technology is improving rapidly. A 2020 Malibu isn't going to be substantially better than a 2017 Malibu (non-hybrid) so the depreciation is just a function of the wear and tear on the car. A 2020 Volt might be much better than a 2017 Volt, for example the battery range might be 100 miles instead of 53. If that happens the value of today's Volt will be substantially degraded, the leasing company has to assume the worst so they will factor in a technology depreciation factor as well as the normal depreciation factors.

 

[trm2]

It's GM money not the IRS credit I believe.

The leasing company gets the tax credit, that is the part they pass onto you.

 

[DonC]

Good lease deals are based on discounts off MSRP, and these discounts are available when purchasing as well. Also note that from GM's and the dealer's perspective a lease and a sale are pretty much the same thing.

Leases don't make any sense for Volts. Leasing works best for cars that hold their value, Chevy's don't and EVs even less so. The pricing of EVs is distorted by the huge tax credits that are available. In addition to the $7500 federal tax credit there are state rebates,

You're mistaken on two counts. One is that leases don't make sense for cars that suffer above average depreciation. In fact leases make the most sense for these vehicles since you're not paying for all the depreciation.

You're also mistaken on the Volt's depreciation. Once you consider the tax credits -- which you need to do -- Volts hold their value very well. Lots of folks make the mistake of using MSRP when calculating depreciation. The correct way is to treat the purchase price as MSRP minus $7500. That is what you (or a leasing company) would pay. Counting state rebates make this more obvious. For example, you can buy a Premiere Volt for $36K. Minus the tax credit and a rebate your actual price would be close to $27K. Three years depreciation should be 50%, which would put the Volt at $13.5K. Not likely you could find one at retail for that price.

That said, leasing a Volt makes sense since you get more than half the tax credit over the first three years. If you assume a 10 years life, you should be getting less than a third. For the first generation Volt leasing wasn't attractive because the credit was added to the residual rather than being subtracted from MSRP, making the option of buying the car at the end of the lease unattractive. Now a good part of the credit does get subtracted from MSRP and the residuals are more reasonable.

 

[Volt Cop]

For example, you can buy a Premiere Volt for $36K. Minus the tax credit and a rebate your actual price would be close to $27K.

This, I don't understand. You still finance, or pay, the sale price. 27K? That would be a dream. The tax credit is not a rebate as some people seem to think. Lots of people will not qualify for the full tax credit.

 

[bjrosen]

This, I don't understand. You still finance, or pay, the sale price. 27K? That would be a dream. The tax credit is not a rebate as some people seem to think. Lots of people will not qualify for the full tax credit.

If you don't qualify for the full rebate you shouldn't be buying a new Volt, you are much better off buying a used one. The price of a used Volt already has the full tax credit factored into it/

 

[Delta]

I'm not sure I understand why above average depreciation would make a better case for leasing. It only makes sense if the dealer doesn't account for the depreciation when a residual value is determined. If the dealer guesses that the vehicle depreciates 50% over the term of the lease and it's only 40% then you've overpaid for the lease duration and you have a good buy option when the lease is over. If the dealer guesses that the vehicle depreciates 50% and it really depreciates 60% then you can walk away and not buy at the 10% overvalued residual.

If the residual is calculated at a high depreciation rate and is accurate, you pay that depreciation in your lease just as if you purchased the vehicle. There's zero difference except that you paid finance charges for the lease duration.

At least if you purchased the vehicle up front, you can always just keep it longer since that depreciation curve isn't a static linear function like a lease payment. A period of time without a payment is a good thing for the consumer and what the dealers don't want. The only magical thing about the lease periods is that they are guaranteed to capture the maximum amount of depreciation in a vehicle since that's always in the beginning.

You're mistaken on two counts. One is that leases don't make sense for cars that suffer above average depreciation. In fact leases make the most sense for these vehicles since you're not paying for all the depreciation.
.

 

[LDB]

So if a tax credit is of no use, due to excellent accounting/CPA or whatever, then leasing and getting $4600 passed through rather than $0 direct can be a good benefit.

 

[Qinsp]

Every current money offer, at least according to Edmunds, applies only to leasing. They do have zero percent financing but with money rates so low that's not a huge thing compared to $4600 or so for a lease and $0 for a purchase.

It's strange, but GM does have huge discounts on 2017 Volts. I know. I bought one a few days ago.
The dealer knows about these discounts, but they can choose whether or not to participate. There are some threads about it.

For a loaded Premier/DCPII/ACC/NAV, I had the MSRP reduced almost 20%. Rydell Chevrolet.

 

[trm2]

So if a tax credit is of no use, due to excellent accounting/CPA or whatever, then leasing and getting $4600 passed through rather than $0 direct can be a good benefit.

The tax credit has nothing to do with a good CPA. It has everything to do with your tax liability based on your income.

 

[JD4JC]

The tax credit has nothing to do with a good CPA. It has everything to do with your tax liability based on your income.

An aggressive (or maybe reckless--not necessarily "good!") CPA might reduce one's federal income tax liability to zero through tax planning, in which case the credit would have everything to do with the CPA, i.e., no tax, no credit!

 

[DonC]

I'm not sure I understand why above average depreciation would make a better case for leasing.

Your point is a good one but it doesn't work this way as a practical matter. Compare two cases. "Good Car" depreciates 40%. "Bad Car" depreciates 60%. Now your assumption is that the residual will be 60% of MSRP for "Good Car" and 40% of MSRP for "Bad Car". But manufactures want to move their vehicles, so, in order to keep their cars competitive, the captive financing arm will make sure the residuals are more or less the same. With the same percentage residual, you get a better deal with cars that suffer heavy depreciation.

The Volt and other electrics pose special issues since the tax credit and state rebates greatly complicate the situation and make comparisons to ICE vehicles quite difficult.

This, I don't understand. You still finance, or pay, the sale price. 27K? That would be a dream. The tax credit is not a rebate as some people seem to think. Lots of people will not qualify for the full tax credit.

I'm assuming you can use the tax credit. If you can't then leasing is even more attractive.

 

[canehdian]

It's the opposite in Canada.
When finance rates were 0%, lease rates were 6%. It makes no sense to lease here unless you have a benefit to doing so (perhaps business write-offs) or you really only want to rent a car for x years and don't want to have to find a buyer afterwards (no matter the extra cost).

edit: just for fun, I went to check current rates.
Finance is 2.49, lease is double, at 5.9 (still!)

But the bigger shocker was seeing THIS as the front page for gm.ca
So much for 'not advertising' or 'hiding it away in the back'
Also quite the juxtaposition showing it with a truck.