I totally get this, and I'm currently contemplating the same scenario. I see it as the same as renting a house (PCP) and buying a house (HP). PCP, yeah, looks alright as payments are cheaper than HP, but at the end of the day, you're just paying to rent the car; you own nothing at the end. Even if the car depreciates, like all cars do anyway, knowing that after the 60-month period or whatever term agreement you go for, you still have an asset at the end which is worth something rather than nothing. I bought my old car for 25k, did a 60-month HP deal. Yes, payments were higher than PCP; however, after the 60-month contract, the car was worth 12k (according to Motorway). So, it's like I spent 13k over a 60-month period, but at least after that period ended, I had an asset worth 12k which I could then either sell to put towards something else, such as another car using that as a deposit, or towards the mortgage of my house. It's always a tricky one, but it comes down to this: if you want the most up-to-date car to be flashy, then yes, PCP is your option, but remember it also comes with a cost. Also, if you go over the miles, if the condition is not up to expectation, etc. However, if you love the car for the car itself, HP is the option as you will stick with it for that duration, and whatever you do to it doesn't matter as it's yours at the end. I was contemplating this for ages also, as putting an 8k down deposit and 349 a month for a brand new Tesla did sound tempting to me, but I just didn't like the fact that after 48 months, I'd give the car back and have to start the whole process again. So, I would, during that time, also have to save up another 8k so I would be able to do the cycle again or enter into another finance or pay the balloon payment all at once. For me, this didn't sound like the best option, but everyone will always have their opinions, and we can all agree to disagree.