Financement auto à 0%: recours collectif autorisé
- Thread starter MrSpace
- Start date
JoeyV
New member
So, how does one expect to get the same price s someone who front up the cash right away...yet take their sweet 7 years time and get the same deal?
Le taux normal d'une voiture est d'environ 4.75%. Durant la promotion, l'individu a le choix de sauver 4.75% d'interet. Si y'a pas de rabais au comptant...celui qui paye cash a pas de rabais lui.
"Hey madame la juge, c'est pas juste je veut payer le meme prix que l'autre gars qui a paye cash...mais moi je veut prendre mon temps pi payer en 7 ans!"
lol
Le taux normal d'une voiture est d'environ 4.75%. Durant la promotion, l'individu a le choix de sauver 4.75% d'interet. Si y'a pas de rabais au comptant...celui qui paye cash a pas de rabais lui.
"Hey madame la juge, c'est pas juste je veut payer le meme prix que l'autre gars qui a paye cash...mais moi je veut prendre mon temps pi payer en 7 ans!"
lol
sgsr20
New member
My thoughts exactly... Finance at a preferred rate (0%), save... Pay cash, save even more...
chicito
New member
Nope, no disrespect, but sorry you're wrong. Here's the correct formula:
First, one should calculate the monthly payment using Loan Amount+Extra Cost and the original interest rate r = R/1200
P=(Loan Amount+Extra Cost)*r(1+r)^N/(1+r)^N-1
Then APR (a = A/1200) is then calculated finding the integer by solving the following equation using:
a(1+a)^N/(1+a)^N-4-(P/C)=0
whereas Loan Amount = Loan Amount = price of car - rebate + fees + taxes;
whereas Extra Cost = delta between full price with taxes - discount with taxes;
whereas Interest Rate (R) = 0
whereas No. of Months (N) = 60
This will give you 6.3184, wish is the correct APR
'nuff said
What you did is essentially found what does 3K mean out of 19765, a simple cross-multiplication.
Note you should be adding cost of living to find the real interest, say 2%, a year to the equation as well. This means that 1000$ today would be worth 1020 next year.
chicito
New member
Voila
1) I never said you were wrong
2) You are talking about the Annual interest rate where as I am not and neither is the lawyer you might be good in math but not in reading
It's very simple, If you take the car at 0% for 24, 36, 48, 60 months whatever, it will cost you 3000$ more than if you paid it cash because 0% therefore the TOTAL meaning ALL OF THE INTEREST ADDED TOGETHER OVER THE TERM = 3000$ because that is the Difference in buying and financing. Especially in this case you actually calculated APR to be 6.3184 which actually you cannot because you're asuming it's taken over a period of 60 months which DOES make you wrong right there because it might be for 48 or even 72 which does happen just like recently FORD offered 0% for a 72 month term. I AM NOT SAYING the client pays 13% ANNUAL (APR) but rather the the difference in Total between the person who finances and the person who buys will be 13% which in order words is the TOTAL INTEREST PAID at the end of the term.
And in this case who cares about the cost of living because the car depreciates in value faster than the cost of living and you don't pay the cost of living to the dealer anyways
Last edited:
ca reste qu'elle aurrait sauvé le 13.8% du prix qu'elle a payer s'il elle avait profité du rabais "payer comptant" ... la elle à payer le vrai prix de la voiture, sans rabais et financer à 0% ... au bout de la ligne ca lui revient [les rabais + taxes] plus chère que de s'etre débarrasser du paiement au jour 1 ...
si elle avait l'argent cash faut considérer si l'argent placé le temps du financement choisis rapporte plus que le 13.8% .... surement pas si c'était dans une compte épargne à la banque haha ...
le montant du rabais+taxes dans ce cas, correspond exactement au prix du financement à 0% .... soit les "interets" payé ... maintenant reste à diviser le 13.8% par le nombre d'année avec la formule complexe pis ca va donné le % annuel correspondant ...
vous pouvez aller voir le constructeur de toyota, ya le % équivalent afficher quand il sont à 0% quand on considère les rabais applicable ...
chicito
New member
1) I know you did not, I was the one who said so. But thank you for acknowledging my mathematical skills.
2) yep, the lawyer said intérêt annuel réel. Which I referred to my previous post
To make a long story, there's nothing free in life. If Ford offers 0% APR for 72 months, it's because they like you. It's because they despise GM even more!
Again ignore the article a 5 year old could have written better. On CTV news this morning he said total interst of 13.8% more than the cash buyer.
I bet you anything that the person who wrote the article interviewed the lady and didn't even bother speaking to the lawyer.
This is probably what happened:
She went to the lawyer with the original complaint about the change in value after 6 months
The lawyer realized that she was:
1) Dumb for buying a Neon Brand New
2) Dumb for paying 20 000$ for a Neon
3) Dumb for wanting a rebate on her car after 6 Months
4) Dumb for wanting to sue the car company
5) Can't do math and doesn't know anything about money
He was Smart enough to figure a round a bout way to sue the company for the ad when he saw it and in his head he saw $$$
Now the writer of the article went to speak to her and she gives all the wrong info thinking he's sueing for what she originally said cause she's too dumb to understand what he's doing
Writer writes a BS article without checking his info as this happens quite often with BS people
She probably wants a free Neon now cause everybody wants free stuff
Last edited:
Takumi-Fujiwara
New member
I don't get it.
Why does MR army support this bullshit.
What does a rebate on cash purchase have to do with financing.
Why does MR army support this bullshit.
What does a rebate on cash purchase have to do with financing.
chicito
New member
I'm not supporting this bullshit as there's no bullshit here. It's simple economics.
A cash-back incentive is exactly that, an incentive. A 0% financing is another incentive, just like a free dog toy when you buy a bag of dog food.
I simply do not comprehend why would a judge even allow this class-action. The lady, right or wrong, felt cheated, the lawyers saw an opportunity to either make some money or a name for themselves, the judge... no clue!
A cash-back incentive is exactly that, an incentive. A 0% financing is another incentive, just like a free dog toy when you buy a bag of dog food.
I simply do not comprehend why would a judge even allow this class-action. The lady, right or wrong, felt cheated, the lawyers saw an opportunity to either make some money or a name for themselves, the judge... no clue!
Last edited:
