|
I'm trying to figure out some loan information. We're selling my grandfather's car and I'm trying to find out how badly he got ripped off on the loan, because it looks like a lot. I'd like to know, if possible from the following information, the original purchase price and the interest rate of the loan. Car: 2005 Ford Five Hundred, AWD, presumed to be bought new. Payoff balance this month, after 51 payments: $3988.89 Monthly payments: $412.68 (assuming they were all this amount and on time) Loan ends Nov 2011
|
# ? Nov 11, 2009 00:34 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 08:03 |
I couldn't tell you the purchase price, but he's already paid over $21k ($21046) so looks to me like $25000 is the total. Wiki indicates that the AWD models were around 28k new so he may not have done too badly!
|
|
# ? Nov 11, 2009 02:54 |
|
Two Finger posted:I couldn't tell you the purchase price, but he's already paid over $21k ($21046) so looks to me like $25000 is the total. If he pays the $9000+ in regular payments, it'd end up at around $30k. Still not too bad. I don't know what his down payment was, though. I hadn't thought of that.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2009 03:00 |
|
CornHolio posted:If he pays the $9000+ in regular payments, it'd end up at around $30k. Still not too bad. The real question of course is how bad is the CVT?
|
# ? Nov 11, 2009 03:06 |
CornHolio posted:If he pays the $9000+ in regular payments, it'd end up at around $30k. Still not too bad. Would the dealership be able to give you the original receipts if you told them you're the executor of his will and needed it for his files, or some equivalent bullshit?
|
|
# ? Nov 11, 2009 03:08 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:The real question of course is how bad is the CVT? I was going to take it out and get it washed last weekend, but didn't get to. I did look at the engine, and couldn't make heads or tails out of the Ford 3.5. I couldn't even find the alternator looks like a royal bitch to work on, thats for sure. Two Finger posted:Would the dealership be able to give you the original receipts if you told them you're the executor of his will and needed it for his files, or some equivalent bullshit? I like your thinking. I'll see what dealership it was and give them a call. CornHolio fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Nov 11, 2009 |
# ? Nov 11, 2009 03:15 |
|
CornHolio posted:Payoff balance this month, after 51 payments: $3988.89 These numbers don't make sense. You can calculate an NPV at various discount rates to find out the original balance for different interest rate scenarios, then calculate a simple amortizing payment on that NPV amount at the same rate, for the expected period, and the payment should match if everything's right. But I can't get it to converge with your numbers. I don't think that term could possibly be right, it just doesn't work out to have payments that high, but a payoff that low with 24 months left to go. Closest I can get to making sense is a 61 month term on $20,094 financed at 9.1%. That works out to a $412.68 payment with a $3959.76 balance owed after payment 51, with about $1/day accumulating in interest. Since 61 month auto loans aren't typical, I instead guess you're off by one payment: 60 months on $19834 @ 9.1% is $3959.82 owed after payment 50 plus $1/day.
|
# ? Nov 11, 2009 05:13 |
|
I agree with SAJ, I can't make sense of it at a 72 month loan like your post implies. 60 months makes much more sense and also shows that he didn't get done over too badly unless he put a big down payment along with the loan.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2009 20:22 |
|
Harry posted:This is bullshit. I was looking around for a car recently and the only ones even close to this price range were cars from the late 80's. These aren't super reliable cars and there's a decent chance you're a turn away from a $2000 repair bill. I drive an 88 Honda Accord that I paid $1300 for over a year and a half ago. In that time, I've spent about $250 fixing things that broke, maybe $150 doing routine maintenance and fixing little things that didn't affect safety or drivability. I'm going to spend maybe $350 doing the timing belt, water pump and my CV halfshafts before I make the 1100 mile trip back home for Christmas. After that, there's almost nothing that needs to be done to the car, and it'll last another 50k easy. There kinds of cars aren't the easiest to find, I did do a lot of looking, but they are definitely out there. By the time this one finally shits the bed, I'll have enough saved up to get something a whole lot nicer.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2009 21:33 |
|
I pay $69/month currently through GEICO with no violations on my driving record and no accidents in over 5 years. I just got a speeding ticket a couple weeks ago, but I got an attorney who will get the charge reduced to a no-points violation so that insurance doesn't get wind of it. That said, my 25th birthday is in January and my policy renews in February. Typically, how much can I expect to see my rate go down by? I hear 25 is the magic number for a huge rate decrease...
|
# ? Nov 13, 2009 22:24 |
|
Hip Hoptimus Prime posted:I pay $69/month currently through GEICO with no violations on my driving record and no accidents in over 5 years. I just got a speeding ticket a couple weeks ago, but I got an attorney who will get the charge reduced to a no-points violation so that insurance doesn't get wind of it. That said, my 25th birthday is in January and my policy renews in February. Typically, how much can I expect to see my rate go down by? I hear 25 is the magic number for a huge rate decrease... My insurance didn't drop at all overall when I turned 25 because I lost discounts that I had that "expire" when you turn 25. There was a Steer Clear and some other discount for having good grades. So if you have expiring discounts it won't change much. I have state farm and they could care less about speed tickets unless you get your license suspended or do something really dumb like 100 in a 55. Maybe Geico is different, but I got a ticket a couple of years ago and they didn't even know about it (nor did they care when I mentioned it).
|
# ? Nov 14, 2009 00:22 |
zamin posted:I drive an 88 Honda Accord that I paid $1300 for over a year and a half ago. In that time, I've spent about $250 fixing things that broke, maybe $150 doing routine maintenance and fixing little things that didn't affect safety or drivability. I'm going to spend maybe $350 doing the timing belt, water pump and my CV halfshafts before I make the 1100 mile trip back home for Christmas.
|
|
# ? Nov 14, 2009 01:09 |
|
Harry posted:Great job on being the huge exception to the rule. No, he's right, I bought a fair condition '16 stutz bearcat last year for a pittance from the duke of grafton. Except for the standard wear items (re-vulcanizing the tires, whale oil changes, etc.), I haven't had to put a single cent into it for upkeep. It's been my daily driver for a year now, and I've had no problems. Sounds like you just need to educate yourself (by you I mean your negro servants) about basic automobile maintenance.
|
# ? Nov 14, 2009 12:50 |
|
Magic Underwear posted:No, he's right, I bought a fair condition '16 stutz bearcat last year for a pittance from the duke of grafton. Except for the standard wear items (re-vulcanizing the tires, whale oil changes, etc.), I haven't had to put a single cent into it for upkeep. It's been my daily driver for a year now, and I've had no problems. Sounds like you just need to educate yourself (by you I mean your negro servants) about basic automobile maintenance. Is it bad that I pictured the 70s Stutz Bearcat II when reading this post? (This is a 1916 Bearcat, much better looking) Also, say what you will about early automobiles, but I certainly wouldn't trust a modern car to race around the world.
|
# ? Nov 14, 2009 16:03 |
|
Harry posted:Great job on being the huge exception to the rule. I'll be the first to admit that most older and cheap cars are complete pieces of poo poo and should be avoided at all costs. You really have to look for the ones that won't require twice what you paid to keep it running for longer than a year. I looked at a whole lot of cars before settling on this one. The good thing is that good condition late-80's Hondas and Toyotas are fairly undervalued. The blue book difference between a complete rust bucket and one that will do another 100k with little relative maintenance costs is something like $500-750 dollars.
|
# ? Nov 14, 2009 19:04 |
|
CornHolio posted:Also, say what you will about early automobiles, but I certainly wouldn't trust a modern car to race around the world. Tons of cars have advertised that their development testing has included nonstop (except for fueling and tire changes) running equivalent to going around the world.
|
# ? Nov 14, 2009 21:04 |
|
kimbo305 posted:Tons of cars have advertised that their development testing has included nonstop (except for fueling and tire changes) running equivalent to going around the world. Yeah, but 'equivalent to going around the world' and 'actually driving through loving Siberia before roads were even hardly invented' are kind of different.
|
# ? Nov 14, 2009 23:37 |
|
CornHolio posted:Yeah, but 'equivalent to going around the world' and 'actually driving through loving Siberia before roads were even hardly invented' are kind of different. I'm pretty sure modern cars would have no problems with the latter, either.
|
# ? Nov 14, 2009 23:38 |
|
kimbo305 posted:I'm pretty sure modern cars would have no problems with the latter, either. I don't think even a Hummer could do it. Maybe a Baja-spec SUV or something, but even then, most cars today can't even be fixed on the side of the road with basic tools. Modern cars are too complicated, too used to modern roads and too used to having a dealership within 50 miles to make a trip like that.
|
# ? Nov 14, 2009 23:56 |
|
CornHolio posted:Yeah, but 'equivalent to going around the world' and 'actually driving through loving Siberia before roads were even hardly invented' are kind of different. If you can drive a Toyota Hilux to the north pole, Siberia shouldn't be an issue.
|
# ? Nov 14, 2009 23:57 |
|
well once again audience, we've successfully tricked CH into talking about cars in BFC.
|
# ? Nov 15, 2009 00:05 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:If you can drive a Toyota Hilux to the north pole, Siberia shouldn't be an issue. They didn't drive it back though. I'm pretty sure they 'coptered it back. kimbo305 posted:well once again audience, we've successfully tricked CH into talking about cars in BFC.
|
# ? Nov 15, 2009 00:28 |
|
CornHolio posted:They didn't drive it back though. I'm pretty sure they 'coptered it back. Clarkson and May flew back because they're pussies, the Icelanders drove the Hiluxes back to where they started.
|
# ? Nov 15, 2009 00:52 |
hobbesmaster posted:If you can drive a Toyota Hilux to the north pole, Siberia shouldn't be an issue. That was hardly stock, though.
|
|
# ? Nov 15, 2009 01:28 |
|
Two Finger posted:That was hardly stock, though. A modern truck could do as well as a 60hp, 5000 lb car, I'm positive. Provided it could get cheats like this "At one point the Thomas covered only 60 miles in 4 grueling days, using teams of horses and enormous human effort to move ahead." Buy an SVT Raptor, you're probably good to go.
|
# ? Nov 15, 2009 01:37 |
|
zamin posted:I'll be the first to admit that most older and cheap cars are complete pieces of poo poo and should be avoided at all costs. Personally, I'd rather pay a little bit for upkeep than be in debt with a car payment. For example, right now I pay 264/month on my vehicle. 264 x 12 = 3,168 every year. So paying $1,500 to fix a couple things, and not having a car payment and the debt with it, would be worth it to me. I know that when I pay off my car, I'm probably going to keep it going with normal maintenance and repairs until it's about to die and then I'm only going to buy what I can pay cash for at that point. That's just me though. I have a relatively small amount of debt compared to a lot of people between my credit card and auto loan, but I still hate it nonetheless and can't wait to be rid of it all.
|
# ? Nov 15, 2009 17:27 |
|
So what happens if you come out ahead at the end of a car lease? Is that even possible? If I had a beater work vehicle, and I wanted to lease a luxury car, that would not rack up miles, is that a terrible idea? If the lease payment is disposable income to begin with? Does a lease effect your credit the same as a loan? theitguys fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Nov 18, 2009 |
# ? Nov 18, 2009 13:51 |
|
theitguys posted:So what happens if you come out ahead at the end of a car lease? Is that even possible? It happens. My friend at work had the company lease him a car..he put so few miles on it that it was worth something like 5K more then the lease buy-out at the end of the term. He asked if I wanted to buy it out as he was just returning it, but I was afraid of getting in trouble at work. It would have been pretty sweet to get a 18K car for 13K
|
# ? Nov 18, 2009 15:07 |
|
theitguys posted:So what happens if you come out ahead at the end of a car lease? Is that even possible? Pretty sure it's the same as a loan credit wise. Leases in general are a pretty bad idea. You are basically paying the depreciation on a car when it depreciates the quickest - during the first few years. Leases generally only make sense when you want to drive new cars often, and you can afford to do so. Afford is a very general term though, I would say that you'd want the payment to be a very small percentage of your monthly income. If you want a really nice luxury car, just buy a 5-10 year old one. Many people can't tell the difference between a 2 year old and a 7 year old benz anyway. With regard to owning cheap cars as was discussed a bit earlier, scoffing at the idea of owning a reliable $1500 doesn't seem too far out there. You just need to buy from the right person that cares for their car and has maintenance records. In addition you want to buy a car that has a generally good reliability reputation. I value condition far over the # of miles on the car. There are lots of cars out there that really have no value, but are reliable as hell. Ford Escorts come to mind, they are boring tinny little cars, but you can't kill them. I bought one after I wrecked a car and just needed something to drive until I found my next car. It was $1200 and only had something like 80,000 miles. Everything on the car worked just fine. I imagine I could have put another 100,000 miles for not much beyond tires and brakes.
|
# ? Nov 18, 2009 18:49 |
|
n8r posted:Pretty sure it's the same as a loan credit wise. Leases in general are a pretty bad idea. You are basically paying the depreciation on a car when it depreciates the quickest - during the first few years. Leases generally only make sense when you want to drive new cars often, and you can afford to do so. Afford is a very general term though, I would say that you'd want the payment to be a very small percentage of your monthly income. If you want a really nice luxury car, just buy a 5-10 year old one. Many people can't tell the difference between a 2 year old and a 7 year old benz anyway. Some accountant will probably chime in here and explain the tax benefits on leasing absolutely everything if you're a business.
|
# ? Nov 18, 2009 21:35 |
|
Repost from AI.Throatwarbler posted:I admit that most online resources tend to frame the argument in a ridiculously stupid fashion that misleads a lot of people. TL;DR - Leasing a car is always better than buying a car. Plenty of people seem to have objections to this but none of them seem to be able to put numbers on paper or otherwise show a scenario where I am wrong.
|
# ? Nov 20, 2009 18:05 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:Repost from AI. I guess that the only comment I'd have regarding this is that if you're going to have car payments either way, they you're at least somewhat right. The one area where this can come back to bite you is if your lease agreement has condition restrictions (fewer than X miles, no scratches etc.) since the penalty fines for these terms can be somewhat high and can directly hurt your bottom line, making the deal far less favorable. I'd also point out that if you buy your car outright, new or used, you will end up with a better deal than if you do any sort of payment option since you will not have the interest working against you. You do need to factor for the opportunity cost of having the money tied up, but that would need to be weighed on a case-by-case basis.
|
# ? Nov 20, 2009 22:35 |
|
I should have posted the second part which address your points.T0MSERV0 posted:I guess that the only comment I'd have regarding this is that if you're going to have car payments either way, they you're at least somewhat right. The one area where this can come back to bite you is if your lease agreement has condition restrictions (fewer than X miles, no scratches etc.) since the penalty fines for these terms can be somewhat high and can directly hurt your bottom line, making the deal far less favorable. This is irrelevant. Of course, as part of your agreement, there needs to be a limit on how far you can drive the car. Mostly the limits are within what a typical person drives the car within the period. If they are not, again, see my point 3. Your car with mileage y is worth x at the end of the lease term, regardless of the mode of ownership. If you feel that the total amout of depreciation you are paying at the end (i.e. all your payments plus the mileage cost) is greater than the actual depreciation, then simply buy the car out and sell it on the used market. Remember, it's an OPTION, NOT AN OBLIGATION. quote:I'd also point out that if you buy your car outright, new or used, you will end up with a better deal than if you do any sort of payment option since you will not have the interest working against you. You do need to factor for the opportunity cost of having the money tied up, but that would need to be weighed on a case-by-case basis. I admit that this really does confuse a lot of people, because the TMV calculation used for a typical lease is not very intuitive. Again, the TMV calculation is irrelevant to the buy vs lease argument. You are paying the interest rate you are paying, regardless of whether you lease or finance. This bit confuses people because in a typical lease, what actually happens is that you borrow the entire purchase price of the car (less downpayment and such), and pay interest on that amount, but since you are only repaying the principle up to the agreed-upon depreciation amount, i.e. the declining balance is not going to zero but to the residual, this interest amount will necessarily be greater than if you had financed the entire purchase price over the same period, since you are paying far less in principle. If it helps, you can compare buying a car outright with cash versus paying the entire lease amount up from in cash in the form of a massive downpayment. Leases even allow you to "pay down principle" in the form of security deposits that reduce interest cost for the lease duration and are returned to you at the end of the lease.
|
# ? Nov 20, 2009 22:53 |
|
How does buying a car, paying it off over 3 years, driving it for 2 more and then selling it compare to buying a car, leasing it for 3 years, buying it, driving it for 2 and then selling it. It seems to me that you're suggesting that it'll come out nearly the same in terms of the total amount a person puts in in payments depending on interest?
|
# ? Nov 20, 2009 23:14 |
|
sanchez posted:How does buying a car, paying it off over 3 years, driving it for 2 more and then selling it compare to buying a car, leasing it for 3 years, buying it, driving it for 2 and then selling it. It should, but with the lease you have the option of returning it at the end of year 3. Once again, there isn't really any need to bring financing into it, since the discussion isn't about paying more or less interest, it's about leasing the car versus buying the car. You can pay more or less interest either buying or leasing.
|
# ? Nov 20, 2009 23:26 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:The biggest problem I see is that you're treating used cars as a commodity. They aren't. If you end up returning your car, you are not going to find a used one in the same condition. If nothing else, you don't have as solid of an idea of maintenance and pre-existing problems on the used car you replace it with. Even if you were able to do that through some miracle, you'd still have to pay all the costs of getting the car reregistered. That will put you behind, though the significance depends on where you live.
|
# ? Nov 21, 2009 00:21 |
|
Lyesh posted:The biggest problem I see is that you're treating used cars as a commodity. They aren't. If you end up returning your car, you are not going to find a used one in the same condition. If nothing else, you don't have as solid of an idea of maintenance and pre-existing problems on the used car you replace it with. Even if you were able to do that through some miracle, you'd still have to pay all the costs of getting the car reregistered. That will put you behind, though the significance depends on where you live. See point 1. The car is worth what it's worth at the end of the term. It may be worth more to you than it is to someone else, but that is true regardless of whether you buy or lease. This has no bearing on the original buy/lease decision. As a side point, a car at the end of a 3 year lease is going to have had at least the maintainance needed to keep the warranty in place. Modern cars are generally much more durable than they were 15 or 20 years ago, franchise dealers are confident enough to sell off lease CPO units with significant CPO warranties. Again, this is unrelated to the buy vs lease argument.
|
# ? Nov 21, 2009 00:37 |
|
Throatwarbler posted:TL;DR - Leasing a car is always better than buying a car. Just for clarification's sake, this applies to purchasing a new car vs leasing a new car. You still save a ton of money if you decide to go with a used car. See the quoted portion below: quote:if you are willing to drive a 5 year old car 5 years from now, why aren't you willing to drive a 5 year old car RIGHT NOW? It would definitely be cheaper than either leasing or buying a new car right now
|
# ? Nov 21, 2009 01:54 |
|
plester1 posted:Just for clarification's sake, this applies to purchasing a new car vs leasing a new car. You still save a ton of money if you decide to go with a used car. See the quoted portion below: I usually recommend to family and friends to buy a car for the best years of it's life. Usually years 2 - 4. Any major flaws have already been addressed under warranty, they're not trashed, and the initial depreciation hit is usually over. I REALLY REALLY want a new Ford Taurus, but poo poo, look at the projected resale value. http://www.kbb.com/new-cars/ford/taurus/2010/resale-value?id=248579 If I can swoop in at the 24 or 30 month mark and pick one up for 22K and then dump it 2 years later for 15.5K It would only cost me 6K + basic maintenance for 2 years of car ownership. It would still be under factory warranty so any major repairs would be covered.
|
# ? Nov 21, 2009 02:13 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 08:03 |
|
skipdogg posted:I usually recommend to family and friends to buy a car for the best years of it's life. Usually years 2 - 4. Any major flaws have already been addressed under warranty, they're not trashed, and the initial depreciation hit is usually over. You have to watch out for a survivorship bias on this setup, though. Most people who are not having any problems with their car won't sell it at the 24/30 month mark.
|
# ? Nov 21, 2009 05:28 |