Find Audi Dealers in San Francisco, California

San Francisco, CA Audi Car Consumer Discussions

Pretty happy with mine

by esingollo on Thu Nov 08 15:53:54 PST 2007

I bought a 2008 A3 a little more than a week ago. I thought I would detail some of my buying experiences, since it may help some people (several of these postings helped me). Hmm: where to start. I live in San Francisco, CA, and parking is an issue. These fit in quite a few places, and I have begun to see a lot of them around. It also seems to have enough power to enjoy driving (I came from a Lexus ES300, so many, many cars including the 911 that was right next to my A3 would have provided a better driving experience--not that my Lexus did not do exactly what I wanted it to do). I got the 2.0, and may think about having it chipped at some point. But I would not like getting worse gas mileage, and it has enough pickup (or my foot has enough lead in it) that I have spun the tires at least three times since picking it up. I am not a fan of the negotiation--I simply am willing to pay or not. I did a lot of research and test driving before deciding on this car (choices were the A3, the new Smart Fortwo, and Lexus IS250--more on this later). I knew which options I wanted, and in what order. There are three dealerships in a reasonable area, and they all were willing to go to $500 over invoice without any discussion. By the way, the dealer I eventually bought from swears that Edmund's invoice numbers are a little off--but whatever. I was prepared to hear that, and it may even be true. Since I did not want to beat around the bush, I simply said that if you met Carsdirect price with the options I wanted, I would buy it from you today. I think that wound up being something like $400 over invoice. 2008 Audio A3 *Deep Sea Pearl *Auto Trans *Convenience *Premium *Heated Seats *Ipod *Bluetooth *Open Sky *Manual Rear Sunshades *Destination charge *Some kind of Bay Area ad charge bull-crap Pretty much what I wanted, but could not find one with Rear Side Airbags without getting one with Nav--which I definitely did not want (the Nav system in this car sucks, especially compared to the Lexus and considering what you pay for it). All totaled without taxes and plates, it came to $31,258, I think. Not great and not horrible, I think. But all three dealers were going to be within a couple hundred dollars, I think, so I went with one that was closest in location. Like I mentioned, it drives well. In some ways, the interior of my old Lexus is better (very quiet, and this new car definitely has some noise), and the new Lexus IS250 blows the interior away (and its electronic toys are much better, in my opinion). Still, the A3 has three advantages: 1) it is about a foot shorter (this matters in SF, trust me); 2) it is about a second quicker from 0-60; of course I could have gotten the IS350, but its price was much more and the gas mileage was worse; the IS250 and A3 have very similar gas consumption stats; and 3) the IS250 is several thousand dollars more expensive. I cannot say this mattered to me a great deal, since I keep my cars a long time, and since I expect any resale value on the Lexus would have been greater than on the Audi; but it is more expensive. It is nearer to the A4 in price and features; and in some ways on the A3, you can tell. No option for the Quattro except with the bigger engine--at which point, why (except for size) not get the A4? Also, no power front passenger seat. Also, the leather in the A3 is not as nice as in the IS. The other car I was looking at was the new Fortwo that will be release early next year. I test drove it, and liked it. Parking would be a dream, and they are not going to be that expensive (less than $20,000 fully pimped). But it is an anemic car--0-60 in something like 15 seconds. Of course gas mileage would have been great. I did consider it, but I considered that I would be commuting out of the City at least some--and chose the A3. I think my neighbor is going to get the Fortwo, so mabye I will get some experience with it after all. So, after a week, it seems an OK car. I got a little pissed on day six because I found that the rear bumpber had been love-tapped (happens all the time here, and after fuming for a day, you realize it was going to happen sooner or later--probably much sooner). I am having to get use to the reduced length of the car. I can get in to many more spaces, but I am still cautious--I look out over the hood, and think I am an inch away from something. Then I get out to look, and realize I am two feet away. :) It will come to me. It is similar to the back, since I have no trunk. I am a little wary of Audi/VW reputation for build. My Lexus was one of those bullet proof ones--I really only sold it because it was getting a long in the tooth at 180,000 miles and I was hungering for new toys like the ability to play mp3 cds and use bluetooth through the speakers. But after three years of production, the A3 seems to be holding up OK. I did not get the extended warranty, though they said I have a year to decide that. Since I plan on keeping it for a while (8-10 years, I hope), I may try to get an extended warranty once I pass the mileage limit from a third party. One thing I am not going to like is having to take it to the Audi dealership for service. You can reset the oil service warning yourself, but not the 15k maintenance alert, I guess. Lexus or Audi--I hate getting robbed by the dealer. Maybe any VW dealer could do it; or maybe I can find an independent garage to do the work and reset it. I guess they had offered 4 years of free maintenace in previous years, but not any more. Not sure if that is a good sign or bad (keeping the price down is nice). Well, I think that is about it. My girl likes the heated seats and dual climate zone controls (I am just joining the ranks of new car features, after all). I think the BT is fine. I am planning on getting a Garmin NV unit (or maybe even one that gets put in to the dash, although I think that would probably affect the menu and BT functions), but not yet sure which one. Any recommendations are welcome.

Re: Lease vs. Buy Conundrum [edwardsf]

by mcwenzel on Sun Jun 10 19:01:46 PDT 2007

You said: "Regarding your claimed scenario #2, you claim that the contract is silent on the criteria regarding buyout and you don't like their interpretation of the buyout clause" Classic. Since nobody could be this criminally stupid, at this point I am convinced my wife put you up to posting as a practical joke and/or you and RaudiAudi are the same person and this is an endless troll. Either way, I'm out. I need to get back to using confusing and bombastic rhetoric to take advantage of multi-billion dollar corporations. If anyone needs any advice on how to navigate the third party buyout in California or the inherent risks unique to an Audi/VW lease, feel free to e-mail me.

Re: Lease vs. Buy Conundrum [raudiaudi]

by mcwenzel on Sun Jun 10 11:48:47 PDT 2007

No, you are still missing the whole point. The dealer does not "own" the car. They leased it to you, it is owned by the manufacturer, you can return it to any dealer of that manufacturer, it is not owned by any dealer. For the dealer to sell it to you, they have to buy it first. Thus, there is no reason to buy the car from the dealer when you have the right to buy it directly from the finance company. The problem arises when you want to trade the car in to a dealer for another car or have a third party buy the car. If you try to do this, the dealer will have to purchase the car at "fair market value" determined by Audi Financial, and not your negotiated residual. The FMV will likely exceed your residual. There are no add of "fees" by the dealer. The increase in price is a result of Audi Financial charging the dealer a buyout price that exceeds your residual. As I have stated multiple times already, there is no provision in the leasing contract stating that Audi will do this. There is no provision stating Audi will not. The contract is silent on this issue, and therefore, until you are actually in the situtation, you would have no idea what their policy is. The practice of charging a dealer "FMV" solely determined by Audi Financial instead of the negotiated residual is a practice not utlized by other leasing companies. The dealer is not re-negging on a residual. The dealer is simply a conduit/agent in the transaction. You can still buy the car from the Audi Financial at the price in your contract. A third party cannot without paying a premium well above the lessee's residual. Regarding your justification for evading taxes, it sounds like Wesley Snipes in his tax evasion trial. I suggest you petition your State congressman/woman regarding state tax policy rather than commit tax evasion because you disagree with the policy of the government.

Re: Lease vs. Buy Conundrum [raudiaudi]

by mcwenzel on Fri Jun 08 22:59:52 PDT 2007

Well, thanks for clearing that up. If anyone can interpret this post for those of us not in a drug induced haze, I would appreciate it. Next time consider paragraphs. Again, Audi charges MORE to sell the car to a dealer than they do the lessee. Other leasing companies do not do that. That was my original premise, and you have not disproved it. Regarding buying the car "from the dealer" as your "gray area", you can't buy the car from the dealer unless the dealer buys it from Audi first. And guess what, the price the dealer can buy it for is a special increased price that exceeds your residual. So sure, give up your residual price, have the dealer buy it for $1500 more, and then buy it from the dealer, and then sell it to a third party. Yeah, that makes a great deal of sense. Regarding the third party process in california, I read the same article. The author fails to mention numerous ways to avoid ever having to go to the DMV, which begin with signing a limited power of attorney with your lender to allow them to move title directly from the manufacturer, through you, to the third party. I have no idea why the author paid sales tax to a dealer, particularly when California law is clear that if purchasing for resale within ten days, no tax liability is owed. What little value I did glean from your post simply supports my point, so I have to thank you. What is so easy to do with many lenders is extremely difficult to do with Audi (and apparently difficult to do with Nissan). You finally understand. Regarding the Audi Premier Purchase Plan, sure, you can go that route, but not only will your payments be higher than if you had a lease, but you also can only select 15k miles a year. Great plan. And note was is not in the details of the PPP. Whether a third party or dealer can buy the car for the same balloon payment. I have a pretty good idea what the answer is. So it seems your solution, and correct me if I am wrong, is to buy the car from a dealer at a premium well over your residual (because that is the only way you can buy the car from the dealer), and then commit fraud in the title transfer to the third party, rather than simply applying for a refund with the State Equalization Board? Wow, and people hold lawyers in low esteem. I highly, highly recommend you don't follow this advice. Simply complete the transfer within ten days in California or suck it up and pay the tax. In other states, check the taxation laws.

Re: Lease vs. Buy Conundrum [edwardsf]

by mcwenzel on Fri Jun 08 15:51:57 PDT 2007

In closing.... Regarding your attempt to equate the validity of my post with whether there is pending litigation is silly. Certain hostile business practices are legal, others are illegal. You can choose to do business with whomever you like. It is certainly not illegal to charge someone MSRP on a car, and if you don't mind the practice, feel free to buy the car at MSRP. Regarding legality, while I question whether this practice violates California Unfair Business Practices Law, considering in the end I will incur no damages as a result of this hostile practice other than lost time, there is no reason to litigate. Even if I were to incur a loss by having to pay a dealer or third party a premium to purchase the car from Audi at an inflated price, it would not be worth my time to litigate as the loss would be under $2,000. Regarding your comment of the litigiousness of lawyers, behind every sleazy lawsuit is a willing client. I posted this in the first place because others may not be so lucky in avoiding double taxation depending on their state of residency and familiarity with tax laws. Others may have a change in circumstances that requires them to try to exit their lease and get into a different car (whether it be having children, loss of life, change of job, etc...) Audi has chosen to pursue a practice that benefits them at the expense of the lessee. This practice is not disclosed in the lease agreement. This practice is not done by other leasing companies. Whether it is legal or illegal really isn't the point. You can choose to do business with whomever you like, but you should know all the facts prior to making your decision. Oh, and by the way, in response to your equestion regarding "selling or trading" the lease, and why I did not respond to that suggestion, the answer follows. As if it were not obvious, why would one ever trade a lease with one month remaining. Your suggestion made no sense. However, just so everyone is aware, you cannot assign your Audi lease to a third party (through leasetrader or other similar programs) in the last 12 months of the lease. Most lenders do not have this restriction, some have a sixth month restriction. Moreover, you remain liable for the lease even after the lease is assigned to the third party (unlike many other lenders, who allow a clean assignment). Just more food for thought for those considering an Audi lease.

Re: Lease vs. Buy Conundrum [edwardsf]

by mcwenzel on Fri Jun 08 15:42:42 PDT 2007

Here we go again. Could you demonstrate less understanding of basic contractual terms? Please stop doing people a disservice by blatantly misrepresenting my statements and the details of the transaction. You say: "What RaudiAudi (and I) don't understand is why the lawyer, who contends he knows about contracts because he is a lawyer of some sort, signed a contract which he can't comply with." Huh, when did I say that. Of course I can comply with the contract. The contract contains no terms stating that the buyout price will be different for a third party or dealer than it will be for the lessee, regardless of when that buyout is made. And, FWIW, so those reading can guage respective credibility of the posters, I am an attorney who drafts and negotiates contracts on behalf of businesses on a weekly basis. You said: "As previously pointed out, if the lawyer signed a contract he is bound by the conditions of that contract. If the lawyer chooses to sell the car in violation of the lease terms, the contract allows for Audi to penalize him in some manner - as all leasing companies do in one form or another." Selling the leased car, i.e. paying Audi the lease buyout price IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE LEASE. Let me state again, a lease buyout is NOT A VIOLATION OF THE LEASE. To the contrary, it is explicitly authorized by the lease provisions. ALL LEASES allow you to buy out the lease at the end at the residual price. Virtually ALL LEASES allow you to buy out the lease prior to lease end by paying the residual plus remaining payments. Why do they? Because the money they make on the lease does not change based on whether you buy out the lease on day 1 or the last day. In fact, I am sure they would rather have you pay it all on day one, so they can access the money sooner rather than later. Since the interest is already built in to each payment, this would simply give them access to your capital sooner. You said: "If you can give me a cite or a link to a leasing company that does NOT penalize one for selling a car out of a lease, please do." First, it is not "penalizing" for selling a car out of lease. It is the practice of disparate lease buyout price (as stated in the lease terms) based on who the purchaser is. As for leasing companies that don't do this, Honda, Acura, Ford don't. From what I understand, a Ford dealer will do the third party buyout for you at no charge as a courtesy. When I inquired about Audi doing the same, multiple Audi dealers told me that Audi will jack up the price on them to. You said: "Or, if the lease allows him to sell to a third party but at a higher buyout fee, he has to perform that contract term because ... he signed the contract. So if Audi wants to keep you in a lease for their business purposes (which I think we can assume they know better than the consumer), they can penalize him for breaching that lease by selling the car to a third party." Again, you don't understand. First, the lease doesn't "allow" or disallow the lessee from selling the car to anyone for obvious reasons, as the lessee does not own the car, so inclusion of such a term would be nonsensical. Second, the lease does not "penalize" the lessee "for breaching the lease by selling the car to a third party". The lessee cannot sell the car without buying it first. Once the lessee buys the car, he or she can do whatever he or she likes, and Audi does not and could not penalize that transaction becuase they have no privity of contract with the third party. Moreover, the contract is silent as to the terms for selling the car to a dealer or third party, as opposed to selling it to the lessee. You said: "Maybe some companies will let the lessee sell the car to some third schmoe for the remaining payments and residual, but the lessee will still owe them a fee. Otherwise, what is the incentive to stay in the lease?" More nonsense. The buyout price is the buyout price, and most companies will allow you or a dealer or third party to buy the car out at the same price. The buyout terminates the lease. You don't own a "fee" after a lease buyout, regardless of the purchaser. That is why it is called a "buyout", not an early lease termination. You said: "If Audi has violated the terms of the lease by requiring a higher buyout than the lawyer contracted for, then the lawyer has a cause of action against Audi. But it appears that Audi is not violating the lease as the lawyer does not mention litigating the issue (and if a lawyer would not litigate, who would?) Again, if they penalize him beyond the terms of the contract, the lessee has legal redress. Indeed, he could get attorney fees under truth in lending laws." Complete misquote and fabrication. Not once did I state Audi was breaching the express terms of the contract. Please point out for all of us where I ever said that? You should choose your words more carefully. What I stated was that there is no provision in the contract explicitly stating that Audi will charge a dealer or third party more than the lessee for the identical privilege of buying the car from them. The contract is silent on that term. It is counterintuitive that Audi would do this, as evidenced by the fact that are so far the only company I have found that does this. It even angers Audi dealers. It is simply a policy designed to increase their bottom line. While Audi contracted to sell the car to you for X, they figure hey, why not try to get X + Y if we can, and we don't care at whose expense. That is a business decision Audi makes. Other leasing companies DO NOT. You said: "I don't think Raudi was following the tax argument of the lawyer. The lawyer is indeed hosed by the tax circumstances he got himself into. The lawyer never did respond to my suggestion to trade or sell the lease itself. As I said, if one don't understand the risks inherent in a lease or have an uncertain income ... one should not enter a lease." I am not "hosed" as you state due to the provisions of California law permitting one to avoid tax liability if a car is purchased for resale and the transaction is completed within ten days. However, many states do not have such a provision, and the complexity of the third party buyout and unfamiliarity with it (because of Audi's unique refusal to sell to a dealer or third party) by most lenders/dealers makes the transaction convoluted and time consuming. Moreover, when you say the "tax circumstances he got himself into" - you do realize you are talking about State tax laws that every lessee is subjected to right? This is not some special deal for me. Thus the reason for my post in the first place.

Research Audi Cars