Stretching contract terms to as long as 84 months might be necessary to get the car buyer into a payment they supposedly can handle.

But more than 2,000 automotive dealers and F&I executives presented with survey questions from AutoPayPlus acknowledged the potential long-term negative implications of pulling that lever to get the deal bought and the car rolled over the curb.

AutoPayPlus said its survey data highlights a growing “84-month trade-in cliff” that is removing customers from the purchase cycle for too long, threatening future sales volume and dealer profitability.

According to the online survey conducted in March, AutoPayPlus found that nearly two-thirds of dealers (64%) report more than three-quarters of their customers are now choosing loan terms of 72 months or longer.

Furthermore, 76% of dealers said they are “extremely concerned” that these extended terms are keeping customers away from the showroom for too long, disrupting the repeat-purchase cycle that has historically driven dealership revenue.

And AutoPayPlus acknowledged the negative equity problem compounds the issue at nearly every turn.

A majority of respondents (90%) reported encountering negative equity “frequently” or in “almost every deal,” reflecting a market in which elevated vehicle prices and stretched contract terms have made underwater trade-ins the norm rather than the exception.

“When a customer owes more than their vehicle is worth, the transaction stalls thus reducing showroom traffic, limiting inventory turnover, and eroding the dealer’s ability to build the kind of repeat business that sustains long-term growth,” AutoPayPlus said in a news release.

What may surprise industry observers is where dealers place the blame for possible complications.

While public attention has focused on interest rates and vehicle sticker prices as the primary affordability barriers, AutoPayPlus pointed out that dealers tell a different story.

When asked to identify the single biggest threat to their 2026 sales goals, nearly 60% of respondents pointed to customer cash flow and budgeting challenges outpacing high MSRPs (26%) and high interest rates (14%) combined.

“The implication is significant, as the affordability crisis facing auto retail is less about the cost of borrowing and more about the consumer’s ability to absorb a large fixed monthly obligation within the realities of their household budget,” AutoPayPlus said.

AutoPayPlus mentioned its survey results also uncovered a “significant and largely untapped” revenue opportunity for dealers willing to look beyond the traditional F&I transaction.

Despite widespread acknowledgment that the current model is under strain, with 85% of respondents agreeing that a shift toward recurring, servicing-based revenue is necessary, AutoPayPlus pointed out that the industry has been slow to act, in part because many dealers are simply unaware of what’s available.

The survey showed 75% of respondents said they had no idea that biweekly payment servicing could be structured as a reinsurable, tax-deferred product, comparable in structure and profit potential to a vehicle service contract.

“The industry has been so focused on rate conversations that it has missed the real problem entirely,” AutoPayPlus founder and CEO Robert Steenbergh said in the news release. “Dealers aren’t losing deals because of the Fed. They’re losing them because their customers can’t manage a large monthly payment alongside their household expenses.

“The solution isn’t a lower rate. It’s a better payment architecture,” Steenbergh continued. “Offerings like our RePayPlus program are designed to close this gap by allowing dealers to generate ongoing income from every enrolled customer long after the original sale closes.”

For more information about this survey data and to learn more about AutoPayPlus’s reinsured bi-weekly payment program, RePayPlus, visit www.autopayplus.com.