Hertz selling 20k EVs, will replace with gas-powered vehicles | Hacker News Reader

Hertz selling 20k EVs, will replace with gas-powered vehicles

autoblog.com

14 pointsNN8813 comments

EV's only make sense in home markets - the market in which you primarily live. Going on a long trip and renting a vehicle? Why would you rent an EV? You're adding 15% to 20% time to your trip for the added charging. Makes no sense.

You flew somewhere and now need a car. Are you going to rent an EV? No! You don't know where the chargers are locally and chargers are nowhere as ubiquitous as gas stations.

Not sure why anyone thought this was a good idea.

What is a good idea is there's now a company in my home town that's advertising rent an EV for a week and you can see if it's right for you. That makes a lot of sense. Before you lay out $40K to $50K on a new EV and then discover it was a mistake, spend a few hundred and see what life is like with an EV.

I wouldn’t rent one for the simple reason that they would likely want me to bring it back with a full charge. There is always a gas station a couple of miles from a rental car return, and honestly I don’t want the trouble of having to find or wait on a working fast charger. I need 5 min gas and go so I can catch my flight

EVs cost more in almost every way... I had to pay $900 for 3 weeks of super charger ... And since it was a rental the cost was a surprise at the end.

It's entirely situational. I paid less than $300 last year to drive 12K miles. If you're using a supercharger for all your charging, you'll spend the same as using gasoline. It would be pretty unique situation if it actually cost you more.

Situational... Like everything else

Maybe, Rent a gas car if your going to drive that much and not charge at home.

I tried to rent the most basic gas car but they were out... They rented me the tesla at the same cost... Not including "gas"

I see damn.

I spend maybe 40-70 dollars a month on supercharging, Early on I found that it was better only if I needed it. I charge at home right now for free in my building which is nice =)

It makes sense... EV's pay for themselves over the long run, much longer than rental cars stick around for. They typically lease them for up to three years and then flip them for newer vehicles. EV's have lower TCO, but only if you keep it for a decade. With a higher sticker price and insurance, it makes sense the rental sector is having cold feet.

Anecdotally, the exception was Japan, where my wife and I rented a pristine ten year old Aqua direct from Toyota, but that sort of vertical integration seems to be rare here.

You get a better TCO much sooner than 10 years in most cases. Tesla is often not one of those cases, however, because they've historically commanded a price premium that was hard to overcome with lower running costs. That's starting to change, but Hertz bought these cars at a pretty high price point. They'd have been better off working out a fleet deal with GM for Bolts.

This has already been posted at least twice

Yes, they got screwed because 1) Tesla dropped prices repeatedly on new cars, and 2) the payback that makes TCO on an EV lower for private owners is not captured by a rental company.

#1 may or may not have been something they saw coming, but how they missed #2 is a mystery.

[dupe]

more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38952897

Reply on news.ycombinator.com