The Most Discounted New Cars And SUVs You Can Buy In April 2025, According To Consumer Reports
Considering the current state of the economy and the risk all these Republican tariffs and uncertainty pose to employment, this isn't exactly what we'd call an ideal time to buy a new car. And yet, plenty of people find themselves in a position where buying now might still be a better option than putting it off and potentially paying more in the future when their car finally dies for good. Used cars tend to be cheaper, but on the other hand, there's less risk over the next several years if you buy new.
If you're one of those potential buyers, then how do you get a good deal on a new car? Well, one of the best ways is to find a car that's already heavily discounted. Those aren't necessarily going to be the coolest, most in-demand vehicles, but they do all come with a warranty. So which new cars currently have the biggest discounts? Our friends at Consumer Reports recently sorted through actual transaction data from TrueCar to figure that out, and while the actual discounts at your local dealer may differ, including between trim levels, this list is at least a good place to begin your search.
Read more: Consumer Reports' 10 Best Used Cars Under $20,000 Are A Great Way To Dodge Republican Tariffs
2025 Subaru Legacy Premium AWD
Consumer Reports' Overall Score: 82
MSRP: $27,510
Average Transaction Price: $26,187
Average Discount: $1,323
2025 Audi A3 Premium Plus 40 TFSI quattro
Consumer Reports' Overall Score: 76
MSRP: $38,200
Average Transaction Price: $36,362
Average Discount: $1,838
2025 Infiniti QX50 Luxe AWD
Consumer Reports' Overall Score: 69
MSRP: $46,300
Average Transaction Price: $43,865
Average Discount: $2,435
2025 Subaru Outback Touring XT AWD
Consumer Reports' Overall Score: 85
MSRP: $42,910
Average Transaction Price: $40,638
Average Discount: $2,272
2025 Mercedes-Benz C 300
Consumer Reports' Overall Score: 65
MSRP: $48,450
Average Transaction Price: $45,556
Average Discount: $2,894
2025 Mercedes-Benz GLB250
Consumer Reports' Overall Score: 58
MSRP: $45,800
Average Transaction Price: $42,913
Average Discount: $2,887
2025 BMW i4 eDrive35 Gran Coupe
Consumer Reports' Overall Score: 89
MSRP: $52,800
Average Transaction Price: $49,416
Average Discount: $3,384
2025 Mercedes-Benz EQB250+
Consumer Reports' Overall Score: N/A
MSRP: $53,050
Average Transaction Price: $49,526
Average Discount: $3,524
2025 Mercedes-Benz GLA250 4Matic
Consumer Reports' Overall Score: 55
MSRP: $45,000
Average Transaction Price: $41,905
Average Discount: $3,095
2025 Mercedes-Benz CLA250
Consumer Reports' Overall Score: 59
MSRP: $44,400
Average Transaction Price: $39,826
Average Discount: $4,574
Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox...
Read the original article on Jalopnik.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. 'While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,' said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.' Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was 'committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.' Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late. 'If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?' Kaufmann said. 'She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she's siding with special interests.' Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,' Summit said Wednesday. 'At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto 'is a major setback for Iowa.' The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval. 'We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,' Grassley said. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. 'Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,' he said. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Summit's project and its critics The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face. 'Big money, greed & self interest won the day,' said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline's route. 'Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US regulators push through last-minute delay to new private fund reporting rules
By Chris Prentice NEW YORK (Reuters) -U.S. regulators scrambled on Wednesday to extend a deadline for new data reporting requirements for investment advisers to private funds, just one day before they were due to take effect. The rules, adopted by two U.S. markets regulators in February 2024, will require advisers to disclose more information to regulators in a bid to boost the government's ability to spot risks from private markets that have swelled in size in recent years. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission extended the deadline for compliance to later this year in a 3-1 vote on Wednesday, less than 24 hours before firms had to comply. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also voted in favor of an extension, marking the second time the regulators decided to push back the deadline after previously postponing it in January. "Additional time is required for dialogue with filers, review of the reasonableness of the data demands, and review of the actual utility of the information collected," SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said during Wednesday's open meeting. Private funds have pressed the SEC to review this rule, among others, and have warned the new requirements are unnecessary and costly. The firms now have until October 1, 2025 to comply. The new data, which includes disclosure of events pointing to significant stress within 72 hours, would be accessible to the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which gathers top financial regulators across the U.S. government to monitor systemic risks. Regulators have cautioned for years that growing private markets could pose increasing risks, particularly as they are more opaque and less vigorously regulated than traditional markets. Federal agencies have begun a push to loosen regulations as part of Republican President Donald Trump's agenda since he took office in late January. "The SEC and other regulators, including FSOC, depend on these detailed data to better comprehend when the private markets may be experiencing turbulence that could affect our entire financial system, because these entities generally operate outside our regulatory purview," said Caroline Crenshaw, the lone Democratic SEC commissioner.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Missouri special session ends with passage of KC stadium funding, disaster aid
State Rep. Chris Brown, R-Kansas City, speaks Wednesday in favor of the bill he handled that would finance new or improved professional sports stadiums in Kansas City (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent). The Missouri House closed the special legislative session Wednesday with votes to finance professional sports stadiums in Kansas City and provide tornado relief for St. Louis. Three special session bills, already approved in the state Senate, are now in the hands of Gov. Mike Kehoe. He is expected to sign them quickly, putting the decision on whether to stay in Missouri in the hands of the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals, who are also considering an offer from Kansas to cross the state line. State Rep. Chris Brown, a Republican from Kansas City handling the stadium bill, asked his colleagues to do what they would do to retain any large employer. 'We really need to, or should, look at these franchises, not just as entertainment,' Brown said. 'They are entertaining, obviously, but it's an incredibly big business.' Opponents of the legislation said it improperly benefits wealthy team owners at the expense of other Missourians. They also contend the bill is unconstitutional. 'The middle class, everyday Missourian is expected to pay for this,' said state Rep. Richard West, a Republican from Wentzville. 'We've been promising for years for some form of tax relief or tax adjustment or something to ease the burden on what they have, and this is exactly the opposite of what we promised them to come up here to do.' The measure to finance new stadiums was the most controversial of the three bills, passing on a 90-58 vote, with 32 Democrats joining with 58 Republicans to provide the majority. There were 13 Democrats and 45 Republicans who voted against the bill. To finance the stadium construction, the bill sets aside tax revenue generated by the teams and economic activity at Arrowhead and Kauffman stadiums. Estimated at just under $1.5 billion over 30 years, the funding would pay for half the costs of improvements at Arrowhead and a new home for the Royals. The Kansas offer would cover 70% of the construction costs for new stadiums, but it expires at the end of the month. The bill passed Wednesday requires financing from local governments, either in Jackson County, where the teams currently reside, or Clay County, which is trying to lure the Royals. It is impossible to put a ballot measure before voters in the time remaining for the Kansas offer. House leaders from the Kansas City area had differing views on whether the teams should accept or reject Missouri's offer now that it is a firm commitment but without knowing what voters will approve in the Kansas City region. 'I don't know what the teams will do,' said House Speaker Jon Patterson, a Lee's Summit Republican. 'They have their own plan. I think that's very unlikely, but I'm just worried about the things I can control, and teams are on their own schedule and will act accordingly.' House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Democrat from Kansas City, said the teams should make a decision before June 30 'I would call on them to do so,' Aune said. 'We bent over backwards here in the Missouri legislature to deliver them something by the end of their imposed deadline of June 30. And I would very much like for them to hold true to that deadline and let us know where they're going before that.' Chiefs owner Clark Hunt issued a statement thanking the legislature but made no commitment. 'The passing of this legislation is an important piece of the overall effort,' Hunt said. 'While there's still work to be done, this legislation enables the Chiefs to continue exploring potential options to consider remaining in Missouri.' Patterson and Aune also disagreed on whether the extra disaster aid and property tax controls Kehoe added to the special session agenda had made the difference between success and failure on the stadium bill. Patterson said each bill was considered on its own merits and that the property tax provisions may have cost votes. The stadium legislation won 103 votes in the House in May but the bill died in the state Senate. 'I'd like to think that people took a look at both those things on their own,' Patterson said. 'I don't think anybody here voted for one thing just because of the other.' The House voted down two amendments so the bill did not require another vote in the state Senate. Patterson said it would have failed the second time around. 'A second Senate vote on the (stadium bill) would have been impossible, just the political climate after that vote,' Patterson said. 'So we were very mindful of that. I thought if it goes back, it's not going to pass.' Aune said the additional disaster aid was essential to securing Democratic votes. 'If he wanted to get this stadium done, which is an economic development opportunity for the state and a priority of our governor, it was necessary to make sure that he could shore up those votes by making folks happy in other ways,' Aune said. During debate on the special session spending bill, the House fell silent as state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins, a St. Louis Democrat, described the devastation of her north St. Louis legislative district. Collins was home on May 16 because the General Assembly adjourned early instead of working to the final day allowed by the Missouri Constitution. She was in her car, preparing to attend a high school graduation when the tornado hit, she said. 'I watched a tornado rip through the middle of my house district,' Collins said. 'I also watched it rip off my roof, and I watched the tornado rip off my neighbor's roof. To this day, debris still sits in my front yard, and I'm a girl that has no insurance.' Four of the five Missourians who died in the tornado lived in her district, Collins said. The disaster relief provisions in the legislation address both the devastation of the May 16 tornado in St. Louis and the damages suffered by other Missourians in storms and flooding earlier in the year. They are: $100 million in the spending bill for storm recovery in the city of St. Louis; $25 million for home repairs and other housing needs through programs of the Missouri Housing Development Commission, available in any county included in a request for federal disaster aid; A tax credit worth up to $5,000 for insurance deductibles paid for residential damage in an area included in a request for federal disaster aid. The legislation would allow $90 million in claims this year and $45 million per year for future years. The provisions were demanded before the Senate vote because of uncertainty about the federal response to the tornado. Kehoe asked President Donald Trump for a federal disaster declaration for the tornado on May 25 and for April 29 storms in Scott on May 19. Trump approved both late Monday, making federal aid for emergency housing and rebuilding available to individuals and providing money to reimburse the state and local governments for recovery costs. State Rep. Raychel Proudie, a Democrat from Ferguson who is in her last term in the House, asked her colleagues to stand by St. Louis for the long-term. 'For those of us who will be termed-out next year,' Proudie said, 'we need the rest of you who will be here five years later to continue to remember this day, to remember this time, to remember these last three weeks, to continue to pour help into these communities, into these people.' The property tax cap in the stadium bill will be imposed in 97 counties. There would be 75 counties where basic tax bills would not increase more than 5% per year and 22 where no increase would be allowed. The list excludes most of the largest counties of the state and many members opposed it because the Missouri Constitution requires property taxes to be 'uniform upon the same class or subclass of subjects.' Another constitutional objection was raised that the bill improperly aids a private entity by giving state support to the Chiefs and Royals, in violation of a provision added to the Constitution in 1875. 'I haven't heard an argument yet that this bill is going to be upheld,' said state Rep. Bill Hardwick, a Republican from Dixon. 'I've only heard arguments that we should ignore the fact that it's unconstitutional.' The likelihood of the property tax provisions being blocked by the courts led at least one Democrat to vote for the bill. State Rep. Kathy Steinmetz of Columbia, speaking at a news conference after the vote, said she sees the cap as shifting the tax burden for schools to state taxpayers. 'They're ending up paying more,' she said, 'so that we can help the school districts that are not putting forth that local tax effort.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
