If you are going to be driving a considerable distance (500-700 miles) in a short amount of time (such as a long weekend trip), renting a car makes sense. I have done so a few times, at a cost of barely more than $100 each time.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to rent a car if you're only going to use it once a week or so? I mean, with the payment itself, plus insurance, plus gas, regular maintenance, is it worth the price?
Rent a car for the weekend? It's like $50/day, so only $3k/yr to do it once a day per week. (Not factoring in the added cost of gas, or the discounts you can get by regularly renting a car and getting your own non-owner insurance)
I spent $4205 on car expenses last year, not including fuel (since I'd pay fuel separately on a rental car as well). That's for two cars (spouse & I), so I'll say $2100 per car.
The cheapest rental car I could find (searched kayak.com) is $72/day.
So, renting could only be cheaper if I used a car less than 2100/72 = 29 days per year.
But that's not counting cost or inconvenience/time of getting and returning that rental car. The few times I'd had to rent a car I've had to get an Uber ride to get to the rental place and then back home, so that adds another $20 or so to the rental.
There's an alternative though, at least for those who need an everyday car with low range and do big trips in rare occasions: renting a car when needed.
I've switched to renting cars for large mile trips. Unlimited mileage rentals are so cheap it's worth it to avoid wear and tear even on my older car or my girlfriend's nicer vehicle--and removes the risk of my old car breaking down in an inconvenient place. Last rental was an SUV for $65/week that I put hundreds of miles on. Some of the rentals I have put 1k+ miles on for <$100.
Theoretically, renting a car for rare long drives is a reasonable proposal. In practice, it's a PITA in most areas. You go to pick it up, the rental office is understaffed, so you wait 20-30 minutes or more. Then they spend time trying to upsell you on the car and insurance and fuel plans, and then tell you they don't have the actual car model you reserved but they have a [not really comparable] substitute. Then you have to spend time walking around the car, looking for dents and scratches so they don't get charged to you when you turn it in.
It would be more practical if it worked like on the TV ads where you just walk up to your car, get in, and go.
Honestly, I think if I were to drive a seriously long distance, I'd rent a car. Not only does it save wear 'n tear, but it's hard to find something that's more of a pain than a mechanical breakdown a long way from home with something you own.
Even if you have planned it in advance, car rentals get expensive quickly, especially if you want something more than a passenger car.
SUV/Pickup rentals are often >$500/week, AND the agreement will claim that I'm not supposed to take it off road, so if I'd like to go out to some hiking trailhead along the way, I'm totally uninsured if anything happens on that dirt road.
Adding $1000 to the cost of one of my yearly vacations adds up to a lot of money over the life of a car.
--------
On that same note, long trips are quite common for many Americans who don't commute those distances. My daily commute is 4 miles each way, I could bike it if the road had better infrastructure for it.
On at least 2 weekends a month, I'm driving 200+ mi each way, and my destinations typically do not have charging infrastructure (or paved parking lots). I know lots of people who do the same for their various outdoor hobbies.
I do a lot of 600-1000 trips. I definitely prefer to rent. Driving long distances messes up your car, especially the interior. But, usually I’m going some place for many weeks and renting is too expensive.
I don't know that it's worth as much as a few grand to drive a few miles with the dealer sitting next to me in the car. For a few hundred bucks I could rent a car for several days and base my impression on that experience.
reply