Hertz to unload 20,000 EVs and replace with gas-powered vehicles.

[WhatMeWorry]

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4054338-hertz-unload-20k-evs-replace-with-ice-vehicles

 

It seems that the largest rental agency in the world is no longer getting on the EV bandwagon. People do not want EVs, even to rent. The climate alarmists must be rather upset that people are wising up to the deception that EVs are a good alternative to ice vehicles.

[eisfeld]

32 minutes ago, WhatMeWorry said:

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4054338-hertz-unload-20k-evs-replace-with-ice-vehicles

 

It seems that the largest rental agency in the world is no longer getting on the EV bandwagon. People do not want EVs, even to rent. The climate alarmists must be rather upset that people are wising up to the deception that EVs are a good alternative to ice vehicles.

 

Maybe read the article again. The reason for the sale is not that "people do not want EVs". Hertz just wants to improve their profit margins. The company has cashflow issues which are widely known. They are trying everything to generate free cash flow.

[tomazbodner]

"Scherr acknowledged the difficulty -- and cost -- of maintaining the EV fleet during the Q3 earnings call recognizing that collision repairs to EVs "can often run about twice that of a comparable combustion engine vehicle.""

 

They could have saved even more if they stopped renting to id!ots who can't drive.

[Furioso]

I knew EV's were a load of <deleted>!

[Lacessit]

I forget who it was said rentals can go at least 20 mph faster than a privately-owned vehicle.

I suspect the real reason would be the cost of insurance, there's probably a premium on that over an ICE, which gets multiplied by the EV risk.

Another factor may be Hertz makes no profit on refuelling.

Edited January 11 by Lacessit

[chickenslegs]

Isn't it ironic that Hertz is a measurement of electrical current frequency.

[eisfeld]

4 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

Isn't it ironic that Hertz is a measurement of electrical current frequency.

 

Not really, Hertz is just a unit of frequency (once per second) which would equally apply to internal combustion engines as it does to EVs.

[ozimoron]

27 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

 

Maybe read the article again. The reason for the sale is not that "people do not want EVs". Hertz just wants to improve their profit margins. The company has cashflow issues which are widely known. They are trying everything to generate free cash flow.

 

I thought they had gone broke years ago.

[Furioso]

I think this is proof the end of EV's is near. 

[chickenslegs]

9 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

 

Not really, Hertz is just a unit of frequency (once per second) which would equally apply to internal combustion engines as it does to EVs.

I was just pointing out an amusing irony. But, thank you professor, I stand corrected.

[eisfeld]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I thought they had gone broke years ago.

 

They did go broke in 2020 and filed for bankruptcy. They did come back though. But they are still struggling with cash, hence they are taking measures like the sale of cars.

[BenStark]

39 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

 

They did go broke in 2020 and filed for bankruptcy. They did come back though. But they are still struggling with cash, hence they are taking measures like the sale of cars.

 

Nothing to do with shortage of cash flow, they simply woke up to the reality

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hertz-is-selling-20000-evs-and-replacing-them-with-gas-powered-vehicles-153302670.html

 

However, in October 2023, Hertz said it was slowing down plans to electrify its fleet. At the time, CEO Stephen Scherr said EVs cost Hertz "about twice in terms of damage cost repair than a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle."

[eisfeld]

1 minute ago, BenStark said:

 

Nothing to do with shortage of cash flow, they simply woke up to the reality

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hertz-is-selling-20000-evs-and-replacing-them-with-gas-powered-vehicles-153302670.html

 

However, in October 2023, Hertz said it was slowing down plans to electrify its fleet. At the time, CEO Stephen Scherr said EVs cost Hertz "about twice in terms of damage cost repair than a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle."

 

It has all to do with cash flow. Higher collision repair costs -> lower profit margins -> worse cash flow. The CEO explicitly mentioned the contribution to free cash flow in the earnings call.

[MangoKorat]

For general information, very few rental companies make money on car rental itself. If you live in Europe, you may notice that most rental cars only have a few thousand miles on them.  You may also notice the proliferation of 'nearly new' cars for sale at dedicated outlets that only stock cars around 1 year old or less and all have an equally low mileage. Ever wondered where they get all these low mileage cars that are often just a few months old from?

 

Car rental companies have massive buying power - far more than even the largest dealerships and as such can command huge discounts from car manufacturers, from whom they buy direct.  However, the agreements with the manuafacturers are that such cars are only for rental purposes - to protect both the manufacturer's dealers and their retail prices.

 

The rental companies real reason for existence has, in many cases, become secondhand sales from which they make far more money than they do from renting cars.  They simply keep them on the rental fleet for a number of months or a particular mileage, then ship them out to their sales outlets.  These sales outlets are often in a different name and through 'double selling' may appear to have nothing to do with the rental companies at all.  Equally, should you buy a used car from one of these outlets, it is highly unlikely that the registration documents will be in the name of Hertz etc. - they normally use the name of some form of holding company to act as the registered keepers.  That way, the buyers are unaware that they are buying an ex rental car (not there is anything wrong with that) and the sellers have anonymity.

 

The manufacturers don't baulk at the trade as there are huge volumes involved and the sellers make much more profit than they would from simply renting.

 

I've been told of discounts as high as 40% off the manufacturers list price but I have no way of verifying that - when I worked for a dealership, our discount was 18% + maybe 2.5% for hitting volume targets.

Edited January 11 by MangoKorat

[sqwakvfr]

2 hours ago, eisfeld said:

 

Maybe read the article again. The reason for the sale is not that "people do not want EVs". Hertz just wants to improve their profit margins. The company has cashflow issues which are widely known. They are trying everything to generate free cash flow.

Possibly.  I am currently renting a Hertz vehicle from LAX.  They were pushing a Tesla at check-in.  I am renting a Nissan Altima and the Tesla was 30% cheaper.  When I made the reservation the cheapest car available was the Tesla.  Even the lowly Chevy Spark was more expensive than the Tesla. 

[OneMoreFarang]

Another one

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

How many people would buy or would even be interested in EVs if they wouldn't be supported by governments, activists, etc.?

 

[gargamon]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How many people would buy or would even be interested in EVs if they wouldn't be supported by governments, activists, etc.?

 

The demand has diminished substantially in North America. Plugin hybrids are the way to go. No distance limitations and still use electric around town. 

[KhunLA]

You have idiots run a company, then you file bankruptcy.   I see major reasons why not to have EVs for rental cars.

 

EVs are for people who can charge at home.   On business trip or holiday, yea, where do I plug in ?  Relying on the CS network isn't a good selling point, as time is money for the business person, and families want to be at Disney, not down the street charging.

 

Loss income, as they can no longer charge silly price to top up your petrol on return, though guessing they had some silly charge for charging if not brought back full up.

 

With supply chain issues the past few years, or so I read, the ones that did get damaged, probably sat idle longer than necessary, before back on the road.  Possible higher insurance cost.

 

With such a small percentage of population owning EVs at home, there is a learning curve, first week or 2, with charging, registering on vendor apps, and knowing CS networks.   Apparently, the ignorant folks, if forum is anything to go buy, simply don't have the intelligence or patience to want to bother with.   

 

Sometimes the simplest things to learn, aren't for simple people.

 

Then there is the other idiot factor, as with any inexperience driver, and giving them the keys to a 'muscle car' ... lets punch it and see what it can do.   So many have done that in ICEVs and crashed them.   EVs is pretty much the same scenario.   Lets put the 0-100 in 3 secs Tesla to the test ... 'No officer, I was speeding, a dog ran out in front of me" ... 

 

Seriously, what were the bean counters thinking.   Their naïve customers would all the sudden become intelligent ? 

 

And yea, I used to beat the sh!t out of rentals.  It's what we do   They always push the full coverage, so who cares.

 

Also, how old are the EVs, as Hertz doesn't keep their fleet that long anyway.   If downsizing, to meet less demand, and replacing stock, yea, then go back to ICEVs, for a higher profit margin, and less hassle with inexperienced EV drivers who can't get pass the learning curve.

Edited January 12 by KhunLA

[retarius]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

You have idiots run a company, then you file bankruptcy.   I see major reasons why not to have EVs for rental cars.

 

EVs are for people who can charge at home.   On business trip or holiday, yea, where do I plug in ?  Relying on the CS network isn't a good selling point, as time is money for the business person, and families want to be at Disney, not down the street charging.

 

Loss income, as they can no longer charge silly price to top up your petrol on return, though guessing they had some silly charge for charging if not brought back full up.

 

With supply chain issues the past few years, or so I read, the ones that did get damaged, probably sat idle longer than necessary, before back on the road.  Possible higher insurance cost.

 

With such a small percentage of population owning EVs at home, there is a learning curve, first week or 2, with charging, registering on vendor apps, and knowing CS networks.   Apparently, the ignorant folks, if forum is anything to go buy, simply don't have the intelligence or patience to want to bother with.   

 

Sometimes the simplest things to learn, aren't for simple people.

 

Then there is the other idiot factor, as with any inexperience driver, and giving them the keys to a 'muscle car' ... lets punch it and see what it can do.   So many have done that in ICEVs and crashed them.   EVs is pretty much the same scenario.   Lets put the 0-100 in 3 secs Tesla to the test ... 'No officer, I was speeding, a dog ran out in front of me" ... 

 

Seriously, what were the bean counters thinking.   Their naïve customers would all the sudden become intelligent ? 

 

And yea, I used to beat the sh!t out of rentals.  It's what we do   They always push the full coverage, so who cares.

 

Also, how old are the EVs, as Hertz doesn't keep their fleet that long anyway.   If downsizing, to meet less demand, and replacing stock, yea, then go back to ICEVs, for a higher profit margin, and less hassle with inexperienced EV drivers who can't get pass the learning curve.

Cogent points.

I only read about this, this morning. To be honest when I rent cars in the US, I never even use a tankful of gas, so EV might be perfect for my needs which are always local. Maybe I'm the 'exception that proves the rule.'

Does a Tesla 3 really do 0-60 in 3 seconds? I thought Tesla charged extra for improved performance? The article I read implied the ones Hertz are selling are basic Model 3s....although the website ads called them Model 3 Plus, I believe.

I'm not into speed myself, being old I drive very sedately (and have a driver for anywhere further than the 6 kms into my local town or if I have a beer.)

I have always wondered on self-driving cars if such cars are allowed to exceed speed limits or whether they obey all traffic laws? Further who is liable to pay the fines and court costs, would it be the maker of the car or the driver who was using auto-pilot? Same of course goes for accidents.

[KhunLA]

9 minutes ago, retarius said:

Does a Tesla 3 really do 0-60 in 3 seconds? I thought Tesla charged extra for improved performance? The article I read implied the ones Hertz are selling are basic Model 3s....although the website ads called them Model 3 Plus, I believe.

HEY .... don't be messing with my spin ...