I once thought about leasing a long time ago ( so dont know if the argument is still valid) but the mandatory insurance made it too expensive. I normally only take insurance when I cannot afford the loss, so my (last year) new car is only 3rd party insured... would you take full coverage if it was not mandated by the lease agreement ?

I recently explored leasing options for a SUV, all around 80k. I asked Mercedes, BMW, Volvo and Range for their leasing offers. Just to mention due to the nature of my job I am not sure if I will be staying in the country for more than two years, and not sure if I would be able/need to take the vehicle with me. So two year lease with return option was an obvious choice.

I got the offers as follows: all downpayment at 10% (i.e. 8000);
monthly installment:

Merc: 750-800CHF
BMW: 800-900
Volvo/Discovery: 1,500 CHF.

The catch is the residual value. Both Merc and BMW had it around 60k at the end of the lease. Volvo/Discovery much less, if I remember correctly, 30-35k range.

Given this parameters, the choice is obvious if I was going for an option to return the car at the end of the lease; I would certainly never pay 60k in cash for two year old vehicle just to be able to keep it.

So I am clear that if I am to purchase the vehicle for myself and keep it, leasing is not an option; if it is to use it and then walk away, then surely it is.

Still 30k chf just to be able to drive a high end SUV for just 2 years doesn't make sense to me.

You do have a point, but if there is a need, what is alternative?

A second hand one costing 25k

Don't go "prestige". Who are you impressing?

A BMW or whatever is not 3x better than a Dacia Duster... although people here will argue with that despite having driven neither marque. Because... status

The problem with that is the full casco.

Given the end value I'm assuming it's an older car, significantly older than 5yrs at the end of the lease.

Your full casco premium is always calculated on the new price (or even the list price, not sure) whereas the payout, if it's wrecked, is limited by what the insurance calls "ZeitWert". For simplicity's sake assume that "ZeitWert" is equal to market value (it's not but let's keep this simple. Consult your contract for the details). That difference isn't that big in the first 3-4 years, especially if you chose one that artificially adjusts the potential payout upwards, but not for significantly older cars. As the owner of an older car your premium is much higher than would be justified by the maximum payout, you literally subsidise the oversized payouts for the 2-3 year old cars.

A real SUV doesn't have to cost much.
https://www.comparis.ch/carfinder/ma.../show/26728849

It's a 2015 Mazda3.
Will be 6 y/o (and a bit) and around 100k km when the lease expires.

I do agree the (full casco) insurance component is a big chunk of overall running cost (luckily will get rid of that soon).
However I still maintain that the initial price (only 16k for a 3y/o fully equipped model, 3k downpayment) + the "real residual value" vs. the one which I will get it for in the end (<5k); were altogether a solid deal in my case.
Perhaps I need to redo the total numbers, not to lie to myself.
Thanks.

Its much better not to go Prestige and buy something more sensible.

But surely a BMW X3/5 is a much better drive than a Duster over 3x. If the OP have kids, do long journeys, needs a some good comfort, loads of features etc. etc. BMW/Mercs/Volvos/ Jeep GCs beat dusters big time.

Duster is a great vehicle but if you can afford, why not some luxury?

Don't forget the mid range.. Skoda Kodiaq, Toyota RAV4s, Nissan Quashkai's and VW Tiguans..

And Hyundai, Kia and Mazda - are very good too; former two great value for sure, and definitely got to "breathing up behind German's necks" in the last years.


BTW @ OP: Have you taken a look in the latest offers for "all inclusive" leases?
I mean I am pretty sure it is cheaper to setup everything by yourself, but it might take away some hassle if you are looking only into brand new cars.

Not everything makes sense to everyone. Some people like nice cars, others like a 4 wheel box that takes from A to B while staying dry and warm. It's OK.

In my country there's a joke about a frugal uncle and the wasteful young nephew. The uncle tells the young man to not waste all his money on partying and drinking with friends every weekend.

- Hey kid, if you don't spend that much in showing off to your friends you can buy a home.
- Uncle, why are you renting after all these years if you don't drink, you don't smoke, you drive a 15 YO car and you don't party with friends?


The joke is about the self-delusion of being frugal because of not spending is the most visible/sinful stuff. But, being a goody two-shoes doesn't ensure the smarts for good overall financial decisions. We know nothing about OP overall situation, the car may just be another line in the monthly budget. If the budget is fine, it's OK to lose. The Tesla model 3 is near luxury pricing once you compare what you get for what you pay.

I have mixed feelings about this. Some of the prestige vehicles, at used prices, offer good value in certain use cases. Example: if you really like a powerful engine and towing capacity, many of the 6-cylinder German engines are relevant, even 10 years old. They still have really good fuel efficiency even when not towing.


Some of the BMWs and Mercs are so common that there is a good workforce to service them well long term, relative to other countries where these models are less common.




Be very wary of BMW X1 and X3 with the 2 litre engines and timing chain problems (e.g. N20, N47 engine). There are some gotchas in other models but none are that bad.