Is it advisable to go for an auto loan if I can make the full payment for a new car?
Full payment is always better than auto-loan if you are prudent with finances. I.E if you take a loan, you are factoring the EMI hence your savings will remain as is. However if you manage well, you can buy the car with cash and at the same time put aside the notional EMI as savings and investments. The other factor to consider is what return your cash is giving. If this more than auto-loan interest rate post taxes, you should opt for loan. For example if auto-loan is 10% and you are getting a return of 15% after taxes on investment then loan is better. Company Car lease depends on terms. More often you get break on taxes on the EMI component. But you have to buy at the end of lease period and re-register the car in your name, so there is additional cost. Some companies give lease at very favourable rates. Plus if you leave the job lease has to be broken and it becomes more expensive. There needs to be more numbers with your choices, without those any answer is purely speculation. Assuming that India is much like the US, you are almost always better to go with a company leased car.  That is if you are not responsible for the lease if your employment ends with the company. Here in the US companies typically reimburse, so tax free, their employees for about 50 cents per mile, or about 31 cents per kilometer.  This barely covers the gas and insurance and falls way short when one includes deprecation and maintenance.  So it is better to have the company to pick up all those costs.      Borrowing money on a car is just plain dumb no matter what the interest rate.  So I would stick with choice number 1 or 3 depending on the arrangement for the company leased car. The next question becomes how much you should spend for a car?  I would say enough to keep you happy and safe, but not much more than that until you are wealthy. Without knowing the terms of the company leased car, it's hard to know if that would be preferable to purchasing a car yourself. So I'll concentrate on the two purchase options - getting a loan or paying in full from savings. If the goal is simply to minimize the amount paid for this car, then paying the full cost up-front is best, because it avoids the financing and interest charges associated with a loan. However, the money you would pay for this car would come out of somewhere (your savings). If your savings were in an investment earning a risk-adjusted return rate of, say, 5% APY and the loan cost 1% APY, you'd have more money in the long run by keeping as much money in your savings as possible, and paying the loan as slowly as possible, because the return rate on your savings is higher. Those numbers are theoretical, of course. You have to make a decision based on your expectation of the performance of your investments, and on the cost of the loan. But depending on your risk tolerance and the loan terms available to you, a loan may well make sense. This is especially true when loans costs are subsidized by manufacturers, who often offer favorable financing on new cars to drive demand. But even bank loans on cars can be pretty inexpensive because the car is a form of collateral with predictable future value. And finally, you should consider tax treatment -- not usually a consideration in purchases of cars by consumers in the US, but can vary due to business use and certainly may be different in India. See also: How smart is it to really be 100% debt free? What percentage of your savings is the full car payment?  If it's a significant chunk, then I'd finance some of the cost of the car in order to maintain liquidity.
When you get a loan (car, home, student) the lending company (bank) give the (auto dealer, previous home owner, school) money. You as the borrow promise to pay this money back with interest.  So in your case the 100,000 you borrow requires a payment for principal and interest of ~965 per month. After 240 payments you will have paid the bank ~231,605.  So who got the ~131,000 in interest. The bank did. It was used to pay interest to the people who made deposits into the bank. It was also used to pay the expenses of the bank: salaries, retirement, rent, electricity, computers, etc. If the bank is a company with investors they may have to pay dividends to them to.  Of course not all loans are successfully paid back, so some of the payment goes to cover the loans that are in default. In many cases loans are also refinanced, or the house is sold long before the 20-30 year term is up. In these cases the amount of interest received for that loan is much less than anticipated, but the good news is that it can be loaned out again. Go to your local bank or credit union before talking to a dealership. Ask them if putting both names on the loan makes a difference regarding rates and maximum loan you qualify for. Ask them to run the loan application both ways. Having both names on the loan helps build the credit of the spouse that has a lower score.    You may find that both incomes are needed for a car loan if the couple has a mortgage or other joint obligations. The lender will treat the entire mortgage payment or rent payment as a liability against the person applying for the loan, they won't split the housing payment in half if only one name will be on the car loan. Therefore sometimes the 2nd persons income is needed even if their credit is not as good. That additional income without a significant increase in liabilities can make a huge difference regarding the loan they can qualify for. Once the car is in your possession, it doesn't matter who drives it. In general the insurance company will put both spouses as authorized drivers. Note: it is almost always better to ask your bank or credit union about a car loan before going to the dealership. That gives you a solid data point regarding a loan, and removes a major complexity to the negotiations at the dealership. "I usually recommend along these lines.  If you are going to drive the same car for many years, then buy. Your almost always better to buy, and then drive a car for 10 years than to lease and replace it every 2 years. If you want a new car every two years then lease. You're usually better off leasing if you're going to replace the car before the auto loan is paid off or shortly there after. Also you can get ""more car"" for the same monthly money via leasing. I honestly would advise you to either buy out your lease, or buy a barely used car. Then drive it for as long as you can. Take the extra money you would spend and spend it on an awesome vacation or something.  Also, if you're only driving 15 miles a day, then get a cheap, but solid car. Again, just my advice." "Yes, it is possible for you to refinance your existing auto loan, and so long as you can get the loan on more favorable terms (e.g.: lower interest rate), it is absolutely a smart thing to do. In fact, you would be well advised to do so as soon as possible if the car was a new car, if you refinance a NEW car soon enough you will likely still be able to get new car interest rates. Even if it is a pre-owned vehicle you shouldn't wait too long, since your car will only depreciate in value.  You will almost certainly get more favorable terms from any bank or credit union directly then you would when you go through the dealership, because the dealership is allowed to mark-up your interest rate several percentage points as profit for themselves. Your best bet would be to go to a local credit union, their rates tend to be most competitive since they are ""owned"" by their members." "I think the part of your question about not wanting to ""mess up more"" is the most important element. You say you know someone with good credit who is willing to co-sign for you, but let's be honest -- your credit isn't bad for no reason.  Your credit's bad because you have a history of not paying on your obligations. Putting someone else's credit at risk, even though they may be willing to try and help, could be doing exactly what you said you're trying to avoid -- messing up more.  This person's heart is in the right place, but you really have to ask yourself if you should put them in jeopardy by agreeing to guarantee your debts. So the vehicle you bought is older and has a lot of miles -- you knew that when you bought it.  So you're paying a high interest rate because of your bad credit history -- you knew that when you bought it.  Why you think the vehicle's only going to last another year is what confuses me.  There are many vehicles out there with much higher mileage that are still on the road, and with proper preventative maintenance there's no reason your truck can't do the same. The fact is, you just don't like what you're paying or what you're driving (even though you were good with both when someone was willing to extend you credit), so now you see this other person's willingness to co-sign for you as your ticket out of a situation you no longer want to be in. My suggestion is that you stay with the loan you have, take care of the vehicle to make it last, and prove that you can pay your obligations.  Hopping from loan to loan isn't going to do your credit any favors.  One of the big factors for your credit score is the average age of accounts.  Going and signing a new loan now will only drag that number down and hurt your score, not help it.  And there's no guarantee the next car you buy with your friend's help is going to last the length of that loan either. I would be careful about this ""grass is greener on the other side"" attitude and just bear through your situation, if only to prove to yourself that you can do it.   There's nothing saying your friend won't still be willing to co-sign for you later on down the line of something does happen to the truck, but you can show them that you're trying to be responsible in the meantime by following through on what you already agreed to." Your short-term time frame makes buying used the best option, but it seems you already are aware of that.  Look into a certified pre-owned model if you are concerned about lemons. You will usually get some sort of warranty.  However, be aware that any car can be a headache with repairs.  I would not recommend a lease because basically you are still paying for the depreciation on the car plus interest. Generally, this is the most expensive way to drive a car. You may find the numbers look good for a lease but beware of the 'gotchas' in the terms that can put you way over budget (over mileage, wear and tear, etc.).  My best recommendation is to buy gently used with cash. This gives you the most flexibility and best resale value. If you finance a late-model vehicle, be aware that depreciation can leave you upside-down on your loan. That would put you in the position of having to shell out cash just to get rid of the car. Generally speaking personal loans have higher rates than car loans.  During fairly recent times, the market for car loans has become very competitive.  A local credit union offers loans as low as 1.99% which is about half the prevailing mortgage rate.  In comparison personal loans are typically in the 10-14% range.   Even if it made mathematical sense to do so, I doubt any bank would give you a personal loan secured by a car rather than car loan.  Either the brain would not work that way; or, it would simply be against company policy. These questions always interest me, why the desire to maximize credit score?  There is no correlation between credit score and wealth.  There is no reward for anything beyond a sufficiently high score to obtain the lowest rates which is attained by simply paying one's bills on time.  One will always be limited by income when the amount able to borrow is calculated regardless of score.   I can understand wanting to maximize different aspects of personal finance such as income or investment return percentage, etc..  By why credit score?  This is further complicated by a evolving algorithm.  Attempts to game the score today, may not work in the future. "This is ""incentive financing"". Simply put, the car company isn't in the business of making money by buying government bonds. They're in the business of making money by selling cars. If you are ""qualified"" from a credit standpoint, and want to buy a $20k car on any given Sunday, you'll typically be offered a loan of between 6% and 9%. Let's say this loan is for three years and you can offer $4000 down payment and/or trade. The required monthly payment on the remaining $16k at the high end of 9% is $508.80, which over 3 years means you'll pay $2,316.64 in interest. Now, that may sound like a good chunk of change, and for the ordinary individual, it is, possibly enough that you decide not to buy today. Now, let's say, all other things being equal, that the company is offering 0.9% incentive financing. Same price, same down payment, same loan term. Your payments over 3 years decrease to $450.64, and over the same loan term you would only pay $222.97 in interest. You save over $2,093.67 in interest over three years, which for you is again a decent chunk of change. Theoretically, the car company's losing that same $2,093.67 in interest by offering this deal, and depending on how it's getting the money it lends you (most financial companies are middlemen, getting money from bond-buying investors who expect a rate of return), that could be a real loss and not just opportunity cost. But, that incentive got you to walk in their door, and not their competitor's. It helped convince you to buy the $20,000 car. The gross margin on that car (price minus direct costs) is typically 20% for the dealer, plus another 20% for the manufacturer, so by giving up the $2,000 on the financing side, the dealer and manufacturer just earned themselves 4 times that much. On top of that, by buying that car, you're committing to buy the parts for the car, a side business with even higher margins, of which the car company gets a pretty big chunk. You may even be required to use dealer service while the car's under warranty in order to keep the warranty valid, another cha-ching. When you get right down to it, the loss from the incentive financing is drowned in the gross profits they make from selling the car to you. Now, in reality, it's a fine balance. The percentages I mentioned are gross margins (EBITDASG&A - Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization, Sales, General and Administrative costs; basically, just revenue minus direct cost of goods sold). Add in all these side costs and you get a net margin of only about 3.5% of revenue, so your $20k car purchase may only make the car company's stakeholders $700 on the sale, plus slightly higher net margins on parts and service over the life of the car. Because incentive financing is typically only offered through the company's own financing subsidiary, the loss isn't in the form of a cost paid, but simply a revenue not realized, but it can still move a car company from net positive to net negative earnings if the program is too successful. This is why not everyone does it, and not all at the same time; if you're selling enough cars without it, why give away money?  Typically, these incentives are offered for two reasons; to clear out old cars or excess inventory, or to maintain ground against a competitor's stronger sales numbers. Keeping cars on a lot ready to sell is expensive, and so is not having your brand driving around on the street turning heads and imprinting their name on the minds of potential customers."