Buying a new car? Why you might want to abide by the 20% rule
Buying an automobile is one of the biggest purchases many Americans will make in their lives. New car prices have hit record highs, creeping up to an average price of nearly $50,000 in 2025, according to Kelley Blue Book.
If you're buying a new car in 2025, choosing the right financing strategy can have a huge impact on your ownership experience and monthly payments. What is the "20% rule," and how can you use it to your advantage when purchasing the car, truck or SUV of your dreams?
Thousands of drivers will finance new cars in 2025. The way you structure your financing plan affects how much equity you have in your new vehicle as well as your monthly, annual and total payments including interest.
A minimum down payment of 20% can make financing deals less expensive in the long run. The down payment "reduces the principal loan amount and the interest you're likely to pay" according to Chase Bank.
Suppose you're financing a new 2025 Toyota RAV4. If you secure a 60-month (five-year) financing loan with an interest rate of 4.99%, your monthly payments could be as low as $440 a month with 20% down (before taxes, fees and interest). A 20% down payment on the 2025 RAV4 ($29,2590 before taxes and fees) works out to $5,850. This leaves a principal amount of 80% of the SUV's MSRP ($23,400 plus taxes, fees and interest).
Your monthly payment is your principal loan amount divided by your loan term (60 months in the example above) plus the fluctuating monthly cost of interest on the principal (4.99% annually in the example above). Drivers can save thousands in interest payments by putting at least 20% of a car's total cost as a down payment because of the cost of interest over time.If you want to save even more money on your car loan and are able to manage your monthly payments after a 20% down payment, there are methods to pay the full cost of your car's financing before the end of your loan term. That said, there could be costs associated with paying off your car loan early, and it could hurt your credit score.
If you pay your monthly loan amount and make additional payments on the principal, you can pay off your vehicle before the end of your loan term. That ensures you will reduce the amount of total interest you pay through financing, but it can have unintended consequences depending on your lender.
Ultimately, the best way to ensure you save money on interest when financing a vehicle is to make the largest down payment possible and gain more equity in your car. The "20% rule" is a strategy to reduce the total cost of financing a vehicle, but you can tailor your financing agreement to your individual financial needs and goals.
The average auto loan payment was $675 as of Q1 2025, according to the consumer credit reporting company Experian. NerdWallet says the average annual percentage interest rate for new cars is 6.70% for people with a credit score of 661 to 780. Interest rates increase significantly for drivers with lower credit scores (13.22% for a 501 to 600 score).
Between rising new car prices and high interest rates, financing a new car is more expensive than ever. Before purchasing a new car, truck or SUV, drivers should:
Assess the new vehicle's true cost, including taxes, fees and interest.
Calculate the precise monthly auto loan payment and see if it fits within your budget.
Consider how a high-percentage down payment could reduce your total financing expenditure.
Brand-new cars may be fun to own and drive, but they are seldom needed; used cars car provide sufficient value for more affordable prices. Thanks to depreciation, American drivers can find great deals on used car models that cost thousands less than new. So if you're in the market for a new car in 2025, be sure to triple-check your numbers before making any financial commitment.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What is the 20% rule for car buying, why do drivers follow it?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Toyota Highlander Generations Overview: The RAV4's Big Brother
Just as the Toyota RAV4 was a trailblazer in the compact crossover segment, the larger Highlander did the same in the midsize segment, long before almost every major brand had a model competing in this space. The Highlander has now been around for 25 years in the USA and is in its fourth generation. For larger families who need more seating and cargo space, it's a logical step above the RAV4. Here's how the various Toyota Highlander generations have changed through the years, and how they've contributed to the insane number of Toyota cars on the road. Produced for the 2001 to 2007 model years, the Highlander was introduced as a more comfortable alternative to the 4Runner; the latter is a body-on-frame SUV more suited for off-roading. Initially, buyers could choose from either a 2.4-liter four-cylinder or a 3.0-liter six-cylinder, with power sent to the front or all four wheels. A 3.3L V6 was later available. A manual Highlander wasn't available, so transmission choices were limited to four- or five-speed automatics. A hybrid was also launched later; it used a 3.3L V6 and electric motor, and could hit 27 mpg combined. While the base 2.4L made just 155 hp, the 3.3L model had 215 hp. With just 30.2 inches of third-row legroom, the first Highlander's rearmost row wasn't ideal for adults, but the extra versatility was welcomed by buyers in the United States, as the model easily surpassed 100,000 annual sales figures for every year it was on sale besides the abbreviated first year. This Toyota Highlander's model years were from 2008 to 2013, after the XU40 was revealed in 2007. Third-row legroom remained tight at 29.9 inches, which was actually slightly less than in the first-gen model. The XU40 looked neater, though, and the modernized dashboard gained a 6.1-inch center touchscreen. Engine options included a 2.7-liter four-cylinder, a 3.5-liter V6, a 3.3-liter V6 hybrid, and a 3.5-liter V6 hybrid. The hybrids used a CVT, while the rest got either five- or six-speed automatics. The base 2.7L now made up to 187 hp, while the 3.5L hybrid was up to 280 hp. The second-gen Toyota Highlander's mild redesign came for the 2011 model year, with the usual updates to the headlights and grille, along with a new 50/50 folding third-row seat. Sales of this generation dropped slightly, but Toyota still managed to sell over 100,000 Highlanders in 2011 and 2012. Related: Toyota RAV4 Generations Overview: Evolution Of The Crossover Pioneer This Toyota Highlander generation's model years ran from 2014 to 2019, with the 2017-2019 models being facelifted. Not only larger, the XU50 had a bolder appearance than the conservative first two generations, as competition in the segment intensified. The XU50 was available with a 2.7-liter four-cylinder, a 3.5-liter V6, and a 3.5L V6 hybrid. A six-speed automatic was equipped to 2.7L and early 3.5L models, but the V6 later gained an eight-speed automatic. As before, FWD and AWD versions of the Highlander were sold. The 2.7L remained rather sluggish with its 185 hp, but the hybrid produced up to 306 hp and much more easily coped with a full house of people and luggage. Inside, the XU50 exhibited nicer materials than before and seating for up to eight people. Bizarrely, third-row legroom decreased again, this time measuring only 27.7 inches. Overall, the XU50's improvements were well-received; in 2017, the Highlander logged over 200,000 sales for the first time in a single year. Going into production in 2019, the fourth and current Highlander has been on sale since the 2020 model year, and is recognized as the most reliable mid-size SUV. Sharper styling, better safety and infotainment, and better cargo space behind the third row were some of the improvements. Third-row space remains an issue, with just 27.7 inches of legroom, but Toyota finally addressed this by introducing the larger Grand Highlander in 2023. A major improvement came at the bottom end of the XU70 lineup, where the sluggish four-cylinder units used previously were replaced by a standard V6 producing 295 hp. This model was complemented by a 243-hp hybrid. As of the 2023 model year, a 2.4-liter turbo-four replaced the V6; with 265 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque, this engine provided a more balanced combination of power and performance. All non-hybrid Toyota Highlander models use an eight-speed automatic. As long as you don't need generous third-row space, the latest Highlander is a solid and competent mid-size SUV. It's not exciting to drive, but that's never been the model's main selling point. Upper trims can be specified with more luxurious finishes and second-row captain's chairs, and dual 12.3-inch screens are available. Related: 6 Vehicles With the Most 3rd Row Legroom Sales peaked in 2021, with over 264,000 Highlanders sold. Since then, it appears the more practical Grand Highlander has eaten into sales of the normal Highlander. Nevertheless, this remains an important Toyota model and is one of the top-selling three-row SUVs in America. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Tony Robbins sends strong message to Americans on 401(k)s
Many Americans preparing for retirement through savings and investments often encounter significant financial hurdles as they work toward a secure and enjoyable future. They eventually come to realize that while Social Security provides a foundational stream of income, it was never designed to fully support every cost of living throughout the entirety of retirement. According to renowned motivational speaker and author Tony Robbins, although 401(k) plans offer valuable opportunities, workers frequently encounter scenarios that could jeopardize their long-term financial well-being. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Regularly contributing to retirement accounts that offer tax advantages - such as 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) - is a smart financial strategy. Taking full advantage of these contributions, particularly with regard to 401(k) plans when an employer match is available, can greatly enhance retirement savings over the long term. Robbins has emphasized the importance of financial awareness when it comes to retirement planning. One of his key messages is a warning to American workers regarding misconceptions about Social Security and 401(k) plans. Related: Jean Chatzky sends strong message to Americans on Social Security A crucial part of effective retirement planning certainly involves understanding how Social Security benefits are determined and carefully choosing when to begin claiming them. By postponing benefits beyond one's full retirement age, retirees can receive higher monthly payouts from the program. Considering this background, Robbins highlights a critical caution about how 401(k) plans are used - urging workers to avoid common pitfalls that could affect their financial futures. Tony Robbins points out that for three decades, companies managing 401(k) plans were not required to reveal how much they were charging in fees. Now that disclosure is mandatory, he believes many providers hide those costs in lengthy, complex documents - making it hard for individuals to truly grasp what they're paying and keeping them largely uninformed. "What the majority of Americans don't realize is that an increase in 1% in fees will cost you 10 years in retirement income," Robbins wrote. More on retirement: Dave Ramsey offers urgent thoughts about MedicareJean Chatzky shares major statement on Social SecurityTony Robbins has blunt words on IRAs,401(k)s Robbins uses a straightforward hypothetical scenario to underscore the long-term impact of investment fees on retirement savings. In his example, three employees - let's call them Employee 1, Employee 2, and Employee 3 - each invest $100,000 at age 35 into separate mutual funds. All three investments generate the same steady annual return of 8%, and none of them withdraw any funds for 30 years. However, each employee is subject to a different annual fee: 1%, 2%, and 3%, respectively. By the time they reach age 65, Robbins clarifies, the variation in fees has created a striking difference in their account balances. Despite identical contributions and returns, Employee 1, who paid the lowest fee, has nearly double the retirement savings of Employee 3, who paid the highest. Related: Dave Ramsey sends strong message to Americans on Medicare Robbins emphasizes that the cost of high investment fees doesn't end at retirement. Using the scenario of each employee needing $60,000 annually to fund their retirement, he notes that the long-term consequences become even clearer. The employee facing the highest fees - Employee 3 - depletes their savings before reaching 75, while Employee 1, who paid the lowest fees, sees their nest egg last until age 95. According to Robbins, this stark contrast demonstrates how even small differences in fees can compound into significant financial disparities. It's a powerful reminder, he says, that being mindful of investment costs isn't just a matter of saving money - it's a crucial step in safeguarding long-term financial security. "I learned about these abuses while writing 'Money: Master the Game,' and it made me so angry that people were getting robbed blind," Robbins wrote. "So I brought in America's Best 401(k)." America's Best 401(k) is a retirement plan provider that says it aims to reduce the high fees commonly associated with traditional 401(k) plans. Robbins asked the firm to asses the 401(k) plan used by his own research company and ended up using their proposed solution. "They showed me that we were paying 276% more than we needed to for the same exact stocks," Robbins wrote. "It saved my employees $5 million in their retirement, and it cost nothing." Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary warns Americans on 401(k)s The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority's ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a "reputational cost" for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek. She added that the decision gives "fodder" to the perception that "moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens." Why It Matters In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations. California's regulations "require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles," the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California's regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target "global climate change rather than local California air quality problems." Jackson's dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster What To Know In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the California regulations. In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority's application of "standing doctrine," writing that "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function." She argued that "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making." Jackson's dissent says the court is "setting us down that path." "I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said later in the opinion. Jackson argues that this perception, and even a mere "'appearance' of favoritism, founded or not," can undermine public confidence in the highest court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, filing a separate opinion and not joining Jackson's. What People Are Saying Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine 'evenhandedly'...A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion." Beth Milito, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a Friday press release: "Small businesses have the right to challenge overreach by government agencies and seek relief from harmful regulatory actions. The D.C. Circuit's opinion set an unreasonable standard for plaintiffs to prove that the court can remedy their injury. This would have made it nearly impossible for indirectly regulated parties to challenge regulating agencies. NFIB applauds the Court for reversing the lower court's opinion and ensuring that small businesses have a clear course of action and a fair chance at proving that the court can provide suitable relief." Kristen Waggoner, president and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Friday on X (formerly Twitter): "The ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA has significant implications beyond just environmental SCOTUS ruling will help plaintiffs, like these churches, hold the government accountable when its regulations have the downstream effect of violating their fundamental rights. An important win." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.
