Should I trade in a car I own to lower my payments on a new lease?
You need to look at the numbers when you're ready to transact.  What your crossover is worth now, what the truck will lease for then, what financing deals may or may not be available will all change. I'm not sure why you've already decided you will lease the truck, perhaps you're planning to take advantage of some kind of business write off.  I would personally never put anything down on a lease, though I have argued with people on here about that particular decision.  The reality is you need to look at the numbers.  Some banks will adjust the interest you pay on your lease to account for your down payment, some don't.   Consider a $9,000 lease, $250 per month for 36 months.  Consider you pay $1,000 up front as a down payment.   Example 1: $1,000 lowers the amount due on the lease to $8,000 lowering your monthly payment to $222.22 from $250, the downpayment has accomplished nothing.  Over the 36 months you will have still paid the same $9,000.   Example 2: $1,000 up front changes the amount owed and other fees generally applicable to a lease (gap insurance etc) and your payment drops to $215, your total over the lease is now $8,740 ($1,000 down and $7,740 in payments).   You need to look at the numbers.  In general if you know you will be purchasing the truck at the end of the lease it's more financially advantageous to just purchase it from the start. Trade-in values are generally below what you can get in a private sale. To directly answer your question, you should sell the crossover yourself and use the balance to purchase your new vehicle. I would encourage you to use the $9k to finance directly without a lease, especially if you are planning on financing after the lease term. The lease will not save you money over the time you drive the vehicle in this case, and worse, will likely expose you to risk of having to pay additional fees if you break certain terms in the lease (mileage, wear and tear, etc) Best option mathematically is to use the $9k to purchase a vehicle for cash. This provides the lowest total cost of ownership.  Even if you are afraid of purchasing a lemon, leasing a vehicle is awfully expensive insurance against that possibility. You would have to rack up some significant repairs to justify the cost of the lease vs cash over the term of operating the vehicle.
"I don't have a lot of time to keep going back and forth. It seems like we differ on a bunch of things. But I do want to respect your final question when you ask me what I thought was wrong in that post.  You mention things like the government regulating things like water and air. Those are common goods. These cannot be in the hands of a corporation. Man did not put those things there. So, man cannot take ownership of these things. Bottled water, running water, oxygen tanks, etc, those things are man-made products or services for a market. I can go to a public body of water and swim in it because no one owns it. I can go to the shore in my favorite bathing suit and swim in the beautiful ocean water if I so please without needing to pay or trade with anyone for access to the ocean. But I cannot start pumping water out of the ocean and into a big tank for me to haul away. The government needs to step in and put an end to anyone that does that sort of thing. Same goes for anyone trying to tamper with the water or doing something that is harmful to people or the life living in the water. Government needs to stop all of that. Also, yes the ""municipality then cleans and purifies the water and pumps it to your house in public facilities and treats the resultant sewage"". But are you also claiming that it was the government that created the solution to clean and purify our water supplies? Because they sure didn't.  As for electricity, the way it is delivered and made available to our homes is a commodity. Electricity is natural, but just like how water when bottled becomes a consumer product, the generation and delivery of electricity to our homes is a product and service. If a company delivering electricity to customers in a city is using public infrastructure, then of course they have to share it. That makes sense as the electric company does not own the utility poles, streets, etc. The government should regulate that.  The government handling trade agreements is a job of the government. We need them to do that. I believe in an open, free, and consumer-driven market. I don't want a lot of regulation on this - such as tariffs that Trump has talked about - because history shows that could lead to the costs inflating with quality not following suit. His rants on jobs fleeing offshores followed by his talks of tariffs on foreign imports would be a terrible idea. I want the government to negotiate trade deals as long as it is in the best interest for this country. This is what grows an economy. Imagine if Apple couldn't import iPhones unless they paid a 30% tax since it was assembled in China. That would kill sales of iPhones because Apple would have to pass most - if not all - of that cost on to the consumer. Samsung phones (for argument's sake, let's say these aren't made in China. I don't think they are anyway, but just saying) would begin to take a larger share of the consumer market because prices would be lower since Samsung didn't have to pay a 30% tax.  As for the coffee pot from china starting a fire in my house. No one would by a coffee pot if there was a known fire-starting issue with those coffee pots. The government telling china that coffee pots need to be a certain specification is really irrelevant. The issue would resolve itself because no one would by the coffee pots. Once this became a known problem, stores would take it off the shelves and no longer sell it. We have cars that are recalled left and right. Car seats for infants and toddlers that are recalled every year. So on and so forth. I know the federal government has a recall process, but usually its the manufacturer that will announce the recall first. If there is a bad product out there, it will die out and no longer be made available for purchase. I don't see the the federal government slapping regulations on car manufacturers that mandate ""all tires must not fall off of the car while in motion"". No. Instead, the manufacturer, who is in the business of making money, which they need to sell cars to make money, would create a car where the tires are not likely to ever fall off while a car is in motion (or even when idle).  The last thing I want to touch on is the Obamacare mandate. If I don't want something, why am I being forced to pay for it? Why do you agree with this? I am already paying into social security and I wish I wasn't. I will make my own investments with my income to prepare for retirement. Why should I pay for health insurance if I don't want it. The government should not be making my life choices for me. I have one responsibility on this earth as it pertains to my behavior. That is to respect others inalienable rights such as the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as I do not harm someone in an immoral way (e.g. steal, kill, physical harm, property damage, disclose personally identifiable information, etc), I should be free to live my life without government interference. I am fine with paying into a system for true welfare cases. Some people fall into bad situations that they could not help. Some people are born into a terrible situation. Those people need help. But I don't want to pay for stupid ass things like Chuck Schumer's idiotic idea of Medicare for people over 55. He wants to lower the medicare age by 10 years. This is the insane progressive ideas that literally just worsen societies. [""In 2016, Medicare benefit payments totaled $675 billion, up from $375 billion in 2006.](http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/) A $300 billion increase in just 10 years and that schmuck wants to lower eligibility by 10 years. If this were ever signed into law, I am (plus other American workers) going to be forced to pay into this. That means less money for me to save and invest for retire or an emergency. Less for my daughter. Less for my mortgage. Less for me to continue my education. Less on whatever I choose to do with my money that I spend 40 hours/week in an office for. My time is spent doing something asked of me by a corporation. That corporation pays me for my time. It's a mutual agreement resulting in a trade of money for my services. I do it because I want to do things and provide for my family. I don't do it because someone decided to spend 4 years for a degree in graphic design and can't get a job. I also don't do it for people that have a cash only income (both illegal immigrants and legal citizens do this) and don't declare all of their income making them eligible for Obamacare. And, lastly, I do not do it for people that decide to live off of the system and are physically and mentally fit to work in some capacity. I should not be forced to pay a mandate just because I'm here breathing.  Obama - just like all progressives - normalized this ""breathing"" tax. It isn't right. Of course, Obamacare falls apart if there aren't enough healthy people to subsidize the sick people. That's why the mandate was obviously put in place. But just because the mandate is needed to make it work, doesn't make it right to force on people. My mortgage needs to get paid. If all my neighbors chipped in $75/month, I could make it work. Well, is it right to force my neighbors to pay my mortgage? Nope. I made the decision to buy my house. They did not. Not to mention, with socialized health care, services are rationed and that is just sickening. Big Gov: ""Oh, you're 80 years old and you need a knew knee? Well, you did live for 80 years, so we're going to deny that request."" In a system where I pay for my own health care and insurance, I can get a new hip and a new knew if I needed it and it would all be done within a week or 2 most likely. You have 51 week-old Charlie Gard who Britain and the wonderful EU (sarcasm) ordered to die. He did so just last week even though his parents had the money to fly him here and have a doctor perform a potentially life-saving surgery. Yep. When the government owns healthcare, they own your health. That's my other big reason for hating Obamacare. It truly is a bad thing. We have world history that can easily show anyone what it looks like if we keep going down this path.  I am done for now. I am not trying to convince you of anything. That usually doesn't happen as people are set in their ways. If anything, this exchange of messages is for the person(s) out there that want to learn what is right and what is wrong. What liberty is and what it isn't. Taxing people as a way to redistribute wealth is wrong. Imposing mandates so people buy a product/service is just straight up wrong. Our income is a representation of our time spent fulfilling the responsibilities of an agreement that we voluntarily made with an employer. Our money is our time. Our time is our liberty. And if we aren't infringing on the rights of others during our time, then the government needs to stay out.  Catch you later." Dealerships make a lot of money in the finance department.  One of the thing they play upon is your emotional reaction of purchasing a new vehicle (new to you in this case).  They perform all sorts of shenanigans, like adding undercoat, selling gap insurance, or extended warranties.  They entice you with a promise of a lower interest rate, but really what they are trying to do is back you into a payment.   So if you can fiance 20,000, but the car you are buying is 16,000, then they will try to move that figure up to the 20K mark.  In your case it sounded like some borderline (at the least) illegal activity they used to fool you into paying more.  It sounds like you regret this decision which puts you a step ahead of most.  How many people brag about the extended warranty or gap insurance they got included in the sale?   As mentioned in another answer the best bet is to go into the dealership with financing in place.  Say you were able to get a 3% loan on 16K.  The total interest would be ~1600.  If you avoid the finance room, you might avoid their dubious add ons that would probably cost you more then the 1600 even if you can get 0%.   If you are going to buy a car on time, my advice would be to not fill out a credit app at the dealership.  The dealership people through a conniption fit, but hold your ground.  If need be get up and walk out.  They won't let you leave. One thing I must mention, is that one feels very wealthy without that monthly pain in the a$$ payment for a car.  You may want to try and envision yourself without a car payment, and make steps to making that a reality for the rest of your life. "Welcome to Personal Finance and Money. This answer will depend a lot on what is most important to the buyer, for example, whether it is important to always be in a newer car, to save money, or strike a balance between the two. There are trade-offs and I don't think there is one right answer for all circumstances. Leasing Leasing does make financial sense for at least two types of people I'm aware of: The company I work for provides company cars to sales executives, which we lease. We lease because it wouldn't be appropriate for a salesperson to meet a client in a car that clearly appears used. Similarly, I know people who value being in a newer car all the time, and for them, leasing makes more financial sense then buying a new car every 2-3 years, and selling their old car which is now 2-3 years old and has depreciated significantly. They understand that they are paying more to always be able to be in a newer car. I used to work with a manager who, every time the new model of the car he owned came out, would see the car and buy it on the spot, even though he already owned last year's model, and he didn't need two cars. He just couldn't help himself; he felt he had to have the new model. It's no use sermonizing about how he ""should"" learn to save money by just being content with what he had. In reality, if he is going to buy the new model every year no matter what, he should lease rather than buy. From my experience, I would only recommend leasing if you would otherwise be buying a new car on a regular basis, and the lease would be less expensive. This is probably the most cost effective way to maintain the highest possible quality, but would cost much more than buying and holding a new car or buying a value used car. I don't see reliability as much of a factor here since the seller will have a very good idea of how much maintenance will cost, but you will pay a premium to be able to pay a fixed cost for maintenance instead of risking a worse-than-average experience. Buying New According to Edmunds and BIGResearch, only a relatively small number of people are ever in the market for a new car at a given point in time. While you do pay quite a bit more to own a brand new car instead of the same car that is 2-3 years old, there are several reasons I'm aware of why people buy new cars: Number 4 is probably the biggest reason, and many people are willing to pay for the certainty of knowing that the miles are correct, the parts are new, the car is in good working condition, etc. Additionally, some makes of cars have much higher resale values than others (such as Hondas), meaning that there isn't as large of a drop in price between a new car and a used car. Many people consider buying a new car the best way to ensure they get the best reliability since they know the initial condition of the car and can care for it meticulously from that point on. This can especially make sense when the buyer intends to keep the car for the like of the car as the buyer will then benefit from having no car payments once it is paid off. Buying Used Buying a used car is the most affordable option, but for a given quality of car the reliability can be a significant potential pitfall. It can be very difficult for a non-professional to tell whether they are getting a good value. Additionally, it is hard for an owner who wants to sell a used car in excellent condition to get the true value of the car, and much easier for an unscrupulous seller to to get the market price by selling to an unaware buyer (the ""lemons"" problem in economics). You could buy an inspected car with a limited warranty from a retail seller like CarMax or a dealership, but you often pay a significant premium that cancels out much of the biggest reason to buy used - saving money. However, there is an opportunity to save money when buying used if you're willing to compromise on the condition of the car (if you don't care whether a car has hail damage, for example), or if you are able to wait until you find a motivated/distressed seller who needs to sell quickly and is willing to sell at a discount. If cost is your primary priority, buying a used car is likely the best option, but I would recommend the following in all circumstances: If the seller isn't willing to offer both of these, I would walk away. When buying used, you will also need to consider maintenance, which will vary significantly based on the make and model of the car as well as the condition, which is another risk you need to be willing to take on if you choose to buy used." Two adages come to mind. Never finance a depreciating asset. If you can't pay cash for a car, you can't afford it. If you decide you can finance at a low rate and invest at a higher one, you're leveraging your capital.  The risk here is that your investment drops in value, or your cash flow stops and you are unable to continue payments and have to sell the car, or surrender it. There are fewer risks if you buy the car outright.  There is one cost that is not considered though.  Opportunity cost.   Since you've declared transportation necessary, I'd say that opportunity cost is worth the lower risk, assuming you have enough cash left after buying a car to fund your emergency fund. Which brings me to my final point.  Be sure to buy a quality used car, not a new one.  Your emergency fund should be able to replace the car completely, in the case of a total loss where you are at fault and the loss is not covered by insurance. TLDR: My opinion is that it would be better to pay for a quality, efficient, basic transportation car up front than to take on a debt. I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd get rid of the extra car and do everything I could in the following months to repay the emergency fund. Even without the interest payments, I'd consider getting rid of an unused car due to the very nature of a car being a depreciating asset that has insurance expenses and annual registration fees on top of that depreciation. The one exception to the above would be a classic car that was purchased for an investment that is always garaged and doesn't need to be registered for road use. I take it for granted that most people who can afford such investments don't need my advice about when to sell. "You are still paying a heavy price for the 'instant gratification' of driving (renting) a brand-new car that you will not own at the end of the terms. It is not a good idea in your case, since this luxury expense sounds like a large amount of money for you.  Edited to better answer question The most cost effective solution: Purchase a $2000 car now. Place the $300/mo payment aside for 3 years. Then, go buy a similar car that is 3 years old. You will have almost $10k in cash and probably will need minimal, if any, financing. Same as this answer from Pete: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/63079/40014 Does this plan seem like a reasonable way to proceed, or a big mistake? ""Reasonable"" is what you must decide. As the first paragraph states, you are paying a large expense to operate the vehicle. Whether you lease or buy, you are still paying this expense, especially from the depreciation on a new vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to pay for this luxury if the cost is significant to you. That said, it will probably not be a 'big mistake' that will destroy your finances, just not the best way to set yourself up for long-term success." Generally speaking, buying a fancy new car out of college is dumb. Buying a 3 year old flashy car with a 60 month loan is going to eat up your income, and when the thing starts breaking down, you'll get sick of buying $900 mufflers and $1,000 taillights pretty quickly. Buy a car that nobody wants for cheap and save up some money. Then buy yourself your dream car. Edit based on question update. You're posting to a Q&A site about money, and you're asking if spending over $30k (don't forget taxes) on a luxury car when you're making $60k is a good idea. You have car fever, and you're trying to sell this transaction as a good deal from a financial POV. At the end of the day, there is no scenario where buying an expensive car is a good financial transaction.  For example, since you're planning on driving too many miles for a lease to make sense, the certified pre-owned warranty is a non-factor, because you'll have no warranty when the car breaks down in 4 years. The only reason CPO programs exist is to boost residual values to make leases more attractive -- luxury car makers are in the car leasing (as opposed to selling) business. Obviously, the best thing financially would be to continue using your present car, unless it impacts you financially on a regular basis. For example, maintenance or breakdowns impacting your ability to work. An unreliable car also impacts your freedom, for example preventing you from taking road-trips you might want to take or taking up free time with maintenance. Give thought to what it is about your present car that you dislike, both to determine the value you gain from a new car and what's most important to you. Anytime you buy a car, you generally lose thousands of dollars simply driving it off the lot. This is the profit which goes to dealers, salespeople, etc... and not part of the actual value of the car. Cars also depreciate over time, with most of the depreciation happening in the first few years of operation. Many of the newer model cars have additional expenses. (For example, replacement $200 keys or electronic systems that can only be repaired at special facilities.) In addition, if you have insurance (other than the minimum third-party required by law), consider the rate increases and add up the long-term impact of that. Imagine you had invested that money instead at 8% interest over the lifetime of the car. If you don't have insurance, consider what you would do in the unfortunate situation where you were at fault in a collision. Could you afford to lose your investment? Even with safe responsible driving, there is always the potential for road/weather conditions or mechanical failures. If you determine there is sufficient value to be gained from changing vehicles, I would recommend that you buy a vehicle with history from someone privately, doing appropriate background checks and consulting friends or family who know about vehicles and can provide feedback. Do research into the models which interest you ahead of time, read online reviews. Every vehicle generally has known advantages and disadvantages which can take years to discover, so buying an older vehicle gives you the advantage of knowing what to expect. I would say there is probably a reasonable middle ground between using a 1991 vehicle you don't like (that's as old as you are) and getting a relatively new model. Look at what you value in the vehicle, consider all the costs, and find the balance that works best for you. Vehicles from 2000-2005 years are quite affordable and still 10-15 years newer than your car.