Is 0 down $215 month 36/10 2017 crosstrek lease a good deal?

kek

The crosstrek is painfully slow af.
The 6sp is like a turtle
The cvt is like a snail

leasing cars is easier to write off as a business expense

>lease
>$215 a month

holy fucking lol

I just bought an crosstrek from 2013 and my payments would've been less than $80 per month if I didnt just pay in cash outright.

Why the fuck do you need a 2017 one?

>leasing cars is easier to write off as a business expense
95% this

leasing is for people who don't need to fuck up their car with mods, don't drive over the contracted mileage, and keep the car in very good condition

at end of lease you can
(a) give back car because you'd rather drive something else
(b) buy car because you like it and the residual is less than the wholesale
(c) pay off lease and sell privately because the wholesale is more than the residual

It literally is the exact same process.
t.business owner
You morons always make this excuse and it's just not true. Getting a tax credit for car usage is SUPER fucking simple anyways.

The CrossTrek is good only for a very certain type of driving & road.

The AWD works well, but the suspension is really stiff on harder surfaces, the interior is cheap, the CVT is SHIT (get manual), 1.6 is really underpowered, and the bootspace is "meh"

They're also really not that fun to work on; cramped engine bay, plastic everywhere and special tools needed

If you live somewhere with mostly gravel roads/rougher terrain and you get a manual with the 2.0 litre gas engine and the most expensive options package then its ok... but just "ok"

It's not about the ease of writing the car off. The idea is to avoid having assets.

>Unless you're wealthy, or have a strange set up where you occasionally drive but then don't for long period of time, maybe in the service for example. Then do not lease.

We got the 2.0 here and the reviews state the manual is TRASH.

They were like "We wanted to like it, but the manual is a shitty afterthought, the CVT is way better at using what little powerband the car has".

Anyone buying a crosstrek should get a 2.0 CVT.

With a lease you're paying for a pretty much brand new car. If you own it it's just going to lose value and require maintenance and repairs. A new set of tires is 2 or 3 lease payments, A brake job is a monthly payment, etc. Most people would rather not worry about those things and just lease for the peace of mind.

Well, where/what terrain did they review it in?

City driving, sure - I can see why you'd prefer a CVT, but if you live in the city/DD there then I will say that the Crosstrek is a terrible choice

The CVT is slow to shift between the modes, noisy, allows for no actual engine braking (increased brake wear), and lets not even talk about their reputation of unreliability

It breaks our hearts to admit this, but the CVT is better at accessing what little power the engine makes. Although the CVT whines as the redline nears, the stepped ratios keep the rpm in the powerband. In the manual, the four-banger hangs the revs between shifts, shifting quickly disrupts the driveline, and frequent downshifts are necessary during spirited driving to locate any signs of life. At least the sleepy engine and the CVT provide an upside in the form of fuel efficiency. Crosstreks equipped with the automatic earn an EPA combined fuel-economy rating of 29 mpg, versus 25 with the stick shift.

caranddriver.com/subaru/crosstrek

Basically you dont want anything to do with the manual.

I didn't say that power was the issue. The 1.6 is underpowered with both manual and CVT, while the 2.0, during test runs, has ok power for both. The issue lies more with what I said in , that its a transmission really not suited for the typical terrain here, as well as the road to her workplace which is a good 2 miles up a mountain road

The 2.0 CVT would be better than the 1.6 CVT, but a manual with both engines OR even the 2.0 diesel with 114hp would be much more suited to my area

>financing a depreciating asset

theres x-mode for whatever "terrain" you think you're driving in.

Why would you want to avoid having assets?

I.... dont see how that has to do with what I said

How fast do you need to be going off road? Are you retarded? OP is retarded for leasing an off road vehicle that will 100% get torn up.

I’ll keep my 2000 Forester with one inch lift and slightly larger than stock all terrains.

I’ve had it for years and love it still, gets me everywhere I need to go. Not as gutless as the crosstrek either.

>Child Support
>Divorce

Bank can't take your car if it's actually another bank that owns it.

Good point, thanks.

Damm shame Subaru STILL hasn't fixed they're shit-tastic DBW algorithms. My 07 Legacy 5mt is the same shit, the throttle lags like hell on input and rev hangs like a mother fucker, probably the worst manual I've ever driven. Subarus with cable throttles we're actually pretty good but they've been complete shit to drive ever since they moved to DBW. It's possible to fix it with a tune which many WRX/STi owners do but I'm not dumping $300+ into a non-GT Legacy just to fix something that literally every other manufacturer has long since figured out. I think Honda does it best with their ECO button, turn it on for a laggy-bullshit throttle or turn it off for a normal feeling throttle.

I dont understand how people dont go over the mileage. I mean i drive at least 20-25k miles a year. I would be able to drive a lease for like 3 weeks before going over

I'll explain one situation where leasing is appropriate.

I wanted a new Toyota 4Runner. Sticker is $40k. Even at 0% financing, with $3k down my monthly payment would be $550/month for 60 months.

Meanwhile, i can lease a new 4Runner with $3k down for $349/month. At the end of the lease, i can buy the 3 year old 4Runner outright for $27k. Keep in mind, 4Runners hold their value such that a 3yr old 36k mile 4Runner goes for $33,000-36,000.

In this situation, there was very little downside to leasing. I cannot buy a 3 year old 4Runner for anywhere near as low a price as i can buy mine for at the end of my lease, and i will know i covered all the maintenance, and i got to drive a brand new car for 3 years at a very low monthly payment.

For any car that holds its residual value (like a Toyota or Subaru), leasing can be a good thing.

Do you have to pay cash for the vehicle at the end or could you finance the leftover 27k?

I can finance it. Who wouldnt want to finance a used vehicle that's selling for 20% less than other examples?

So if that's the case then why would the leasing agent even give you the option to buy it back when they could just keep it and sell it for 20% more than they would have sold it to you?

Because buyback options are a standard lease term.

Do i need to post a picture of my lease for you to believe me? Do you really not understand that residual vehicle value affects whether a lease is a good deal or not?

No dude I believe you it just sounds weird to me considering that it it sounds like you're getting a bunch of money out of the dealerships

Also since it's a 4Runner I'm assuming you're using it to the best of its ability has an off-road vehicle so how do you deal with mileage and scuffs and chips and other body damage at the end of the lease?

I use it to tow boats and haul people/tools around, with the occasional off-road. And i said i was buying it at the end of the lease, so the dealer isn't going to care what i've done to it.

>lease payments are anywhere from half to a third of financing payments
>you could lease a new car for 3 years, trade it in and lease another new one for 3 years, and still have paid less out of pocket than financing a car for 6 years
>most car warranties cover all maintenance over a 3 year lease term, while a financecuck is paying for maintenance after 3 years
>at the end of a lease you can just turn in your car if you dont like it and get something else, or buy it outright
>dealer has to take your car back at lease end even if you were in an accident, so long as you repaired the vehicle to insurance company standards

Gee i wonder why anyone leases

Yeah but won't they still thing you for the mileage and for anything you've done to the vehicle regardless of whether you're going to buy it or not they're still going to get every single penny out of you that they can

It doesn't work like that. They don't really care if it comes back slightly scratched or with a few tiny dents. Usually anything smaller than a credit card is okay. If you give it back they'll fix the dents, polish the scratches and re-finance it for mad profit to somebody who doesn't buy new because muh depreciation.

Interesting. I'm gonna have to look into this. You say that the lease usually comes with a maintenance package? Where in every 5000 miles you bring it in to have its oil changed etc etc? I do know that they say leasing is not a good option for people who drive a lot usually I do around 12,000 miles to 15,000 miles a year is leasing not for me?

Wrong.

Leased vehicles have the same warranty as any new vehicle. That means 3 year 36k mile bumper to bumper including oil changes.

Damn that's pretty sweet. I've been looking at a new taco but the payments for a new one with packages that I want, 4x4 were out of my price range:0
Wew lad. Why does Veeky Forums hate on leases again?

Most dealerships will do high mileage leases. Keep in mind the monthly price will increase.

So if you were planning on doing by back at the end of the lease then would it be better to just take the low mileage lease or would that be factored into the residual at the end anyway?

Veeky Forums hates leases because Veeky Forums is primarily inexperienced retards who repeat what their boomer parents tell them.

You can lease a new Taco for $329/month with $3k down. Do it.

The only risk on going over on miles if you plan on buying the car is that lenders might not appraise it at the value you agreed to buy at in the lease.

Those figures were actually for the TRD sport taco. A base would be even less.

Which I guess it's not a big deal considering that most lenders will do a loan-to-value ratio up to 110 to 115%... The only problem I have is that, based on my driving habits, I do around 20,000 miles a year so that would probably not work too great for me.

It's pretty dumb that you can select the base model in 4x4 but you have to pay an extra 5k for the locking diffs. I'm mad af rn

Leasing is always more expensive than buying outright

Always?