Essay by Eric Worrall
First published JoNova, h/t KN, tony_g, bnice2000, doonman – Customers don’t want EVs: “… eliminate a disproportionate number of lower margin rentals and reduce damage expense associated with EVs. …”
From the Hertz official SEC statement;
Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (the “Company” or “Hertz”) has made the strategic decision to sell approximately 20,000 electric vehicles (“EVs”) from its U.S. fleet, or about one-third of the global EV fleet. These vehicle dispositions, which were initiated in December 2023 and are expected to take place in an orderly fashion over the course of 2024, will cover multiple makes and models. EVs held for sale will remain eligible for rental within the Company’s fleet during the sales process. The Company expects to reinvest a portion of the proceeds from the sale of EVs into the purchase of internal combustion engine (“ICE”) vehicles to meet customer demand.
The Company’s decision to reduce its EV fleet will result in the recognition, during the fourth quarter of 2023, of approximately $245 million of incremental net depreciation expense related to the sale. This non-cash charge represents the write down of the EVs’ carrying values as of December 31, 2023 to their fair values, less related expenses associated with the disposition of the vehicles. This charge is in addition to the depreciation expense that the Company will report for the fourth quarter in the ordinary course with respect to the remainder of its fleet. Future depreciation expense on the specific vehicles held for sale is expected to be limited to impacts from changes in the vehicles’ condition and general market factors. Any gain or loss associated with the ultimate disposition of any specific EV will be recognized in the period of sale. The Company does not expect this EV fleet reduction and the corresponding addition of ICE vehicles to have a material impact on its asset-backed securitization facilities, nor does it anticipate the need to make additional cash contributions to such facilities as a result of this strategic action.
The Company expects this action to better balance supply against expected demand of EVs. This will position the Company to eliminate a disproportionate number of lower margin rentals and reduce damage expense associated with EVs. The Company will continue to execute its strategy around EV mobility and offer customers a wide selection of vehicles. The Company continues to implement a series of initiatives that it anticipates will continue to improve the profitability of the remaining EV fleet. These initiatives include the expansion of EV charging infrastructure, growing relationships with EV manufacturers, particularly related to more affordable access to parts and labor, and continued implementation of policies and educational tools to help enhance the EV experience for customers. Going forward, the Company will continue to actively manage the total size of its EV fleet, as well as the allocation of EVs among customer segments, including leisure, corporate, government and rideshare.
It is expected that the planned reduction in the EV fleet and reinvestment in additional ICE vehicles will improve Adjusted Corporate EBITDA across 2024, as vehicles are rotated, and in 2025, by which time all of the vehicles included in this plan are expected to be sold. By year end 2025, it is expected that the aggregate two-year benefit to Adjusted Corporate EBITDA related to the sale will approximate the incremental net depreciation expense to be recognized in the fourth quarter of 2023. It is expected that this benefit to the Company’s financial results will be derived from higher revenue per day and lower depreciation and operating expenses related to its remaining fleet. The Company further anticipates that incremental free cash flow generation related to this action will approximate $250 million to $300 million in the aggregate over 2024 and 2025.
The Company expects to report financial results for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2023 on February 6, 2024. Consistent with expectations, the Company expects to report revenue for the fourth quarter of 2023 in the range of $2.1 billion to $2.2 billion, in line with historical seasonality relative to its third quarter. Adjusted Corporate EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2023 will be negatively impacted by the incremental net depreciation expense associated with the EV sales plan, and further burdened by higher depreciation expense in the ordinary course as residual values for vehicles generally fell throughout the quarter greater than previously expected. While direct operating expenses per transaction day, excluding collision and damage, will be flat for the quarter and down for the year, expenses related to collision and damage, primarily associated with EVs, remained high in the quarter, thereby supporting the Company’s decision to initiate the material reduction in the EV fleet. The Company expects to report a negative Adjusted Corporate EBITDA (excluding the impact of the non-cash charge related to the EV sales plan) for the fourth quarter in the range of ($120 million) to ($130 million).
The Company’s estimated results for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2023, are preliminary in nature and subject to change as results for such period are finalized. Estimates of results are inherently uncertain and subject to change, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update the estimated results. The Company’s estimates contained in this Current Report on Form 8-K may differ, perhaps materially, from actual results. Hertz is in the process of finalizing its fourth quarter 2023 financial statements and will discuss actual performance and more details in its regularly scheduled earnings release and conference call, which are planned for February 6, 2024.
The Company cannot, without unreasonable effort, reconcile its forecasted range of Adjusted Corporate EBITDA, a non-GAAP financial measure, to its most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, net income (loss) attributable to the Company, due to the uncertainty and inherent difficulty of predicting the occurrence and the financial impact of items impacting comparability as of the date of this Current Report on Form 8-K. Management uses Adjusted Corporate EBITDA as an operating performance metric for internal monitoring and planning purposes, including the preparation of the Company’s annual operating budget and monthly operating reviews, and analysis of investment decisions, profitability and performance trends. This measure enables management and investors to isolate the effects on profitability of operating metrics most meaningful to the business of renting and leasing vehicles. It also allows management and investors to assess the performance of the entire business on the same basis as its reportable segments.
Source: https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/47129/000165785324000010/htz-20240111.htm
What can I say? Another bad day for EV manufacturers.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hertz’s $245 million write-off from dumping a third of their EV fleet turns out to be an underestimate, that is only $12,250 estimated loss per vehicle (245 million / 20,000). I mean, who would want a second hand rental EV, which may have been treated harshly, which might even have undetected damage to the battery pack?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I imagine Hertz doesn’t want to pay for astronomical insurance premiums for fires in their parking lots and compensate travelers whose ride went up in smoke. I bet they didn’t want to spend time in court with renters who missed their connections due to a car that ran out of juice. How about those renters whose car ran out of juice in a snowstorm and they froze because of no heat? I imagine there are a dozen other reasons not to rent electric vehicles.
If I was a golfer, I might rent an electric golf cart. (I think most of them still use lead-acid car batteries.)
Yes. But the deep draw fish trolling motor type, not the car SLA type. Difference is mainly in lead electrode thickness. Skinny means higher start power but shorter sulfation life.
I would not assume Hertz buys insurance from any other company for their Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty vehicles
Rental car companies often have their own insurance policies to cover their vehicles and operations. In many cases, they may be self-insured, meaning they assume the financial risk of providing insurance themselves rather than purchasing it from a traditional insurance company.
If they do insurance in house then they still have the higher costs when the repair bills and write-offs come in. They just self pay instead of paying a premium upfront to a third party. Each division will have profit targets, if there is a separate insurance division and the costs go up they will be charging the rental side more.
And Hertz clearly stated repair costs were much higher than expected. I bet they have delays getting spare parts too. The EVs cost too much, repair costs are too high, and depreciation is too fast. That’s three strikes right there.
I spent 30 years debating my Dad who was an electrician in favor of electric cars. He admitted the batteries had to be improved to make EVs viable. For 30 years better batteries were always “coming in 10 years”. In the ten years after he died in 2013, we still do not have those better batteries. They seem llie fusion power, always coming in 10 years. The global warming crisis is always coming in 10 years.
If you are a leftist, both good things and bad things seem like they are always coming in 10 years, and then they never show up.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
All of the above. The market forces are speaking and the govt better wake the F up!
God bless internal combustion engines.
Yep, but the dEVil rides on.
The hybrids are good too
EVs stink
And are expensive too
Almost every known EV problem ends up being worse than we initially thought
My theory is leftists
love anything with “trans”
Transitions
Transformations
Transnationalism
Transients
Transgenders
Transvestites
You forgot the biggest one:
Transfer of wealth from the productive of society to the unproductive.
From those who work for a living, to those who vote for a living.
Hertz will be there to rent you an ICE vehicle when you need to go away for a couple of days, go far away, go on a business trip and can’t afford the recharging time half way to your destination. Individuals will only be able to buy EV’s. Hertz is “getting” the plan now…
I guess that Hertz are getting off the EV bandwagon before the industry goes up in smoke.
Too soon?
An EV might work out OK for a commuter that makes the same schedule and trip every day. People rent cars because they don’t live in the neighborhood and aren’t following a regular schedule. They’re unfamiliar with the location of charging facilities and don’t have the time budgeted to wait around for the battery to be reinflated. Hertz was probably well aware of this before ever buying an EV but there was something else that influenced their decisions, maybe a big discount, subsidy or tax break.
“reinflated” I like that. Brings to mind stories about the road trips my grandparents took when they were newly married and the multiple spares they had to take. My grandmother kept a log that included the number of tires they swapped out or patched each day. I am glad that EVs don’t come with a spare battery pack, however
Right. You are on a business trip. You have a limited amount of time. You may already be stressed out. The airfare, hotels, and meals are expensive, you have deadlines, and you want to get home again by Friday night. Who has the time on a business trip to jerk around with an electric car and with charging stations?
ESG and women most likely.
Given the huge virtue signal EVs would have for the Hertz brand the economic benefits of ICEs must be huge. Going down the list I see capital costs both vehicles and support infrastructure. Then capacity utilization as EVs cannot provide as many billable hours per vehicle. Insurance, ouch. Then there’s margins. Obviously they cannot place the full cost of EV adoption on just EV renters so their entire fleet costs more, thus less competitive.
I was looking for a main reason for their actions, but could not find one on a quick first pass. Is it the case that Hertz find them to suck for a multitude of reasons?
Also, I’m slightly surprised that California and other states do not (yet?) have a law mandating EVs in rental fleets.
See my comment just posted. There is a BIG but nonobvious reason.
Many Parisian taxis are Toyota (or Lexus) hybrids. Wonder which is virtue signal and which is tax incentive?
I would expect that all the other rental agencies Enterprise, Discount, National, Budget, Avis will be following suit. Lose the contracts for fleet supply and your car model is dead. This will simply add to the unsold EV vehicle backlog for the manufacturers and add further pressure on them to suspend production. If people don’t want EVs on a rental basis, they certainly are unlikely to want to own one.
Ok I haven’t rented a car in years so I went to Enterprise to look and see.
All the regular type cars are indicated as “gasoline”.
They don’t provide EVs until you get to LUXERY vehicles. And MOST of those are ICE, so they provide for virtue signaling or for government rental requirements for their employees.
So apparently Enterprise didn’t drink the cool aid!
Enough wasted time for me.
Fun story.
Enterprise is the US largest car rental company, by far. They were not even on the Hertz/Avis competitive rental threat radar until they decided to come after airport rentals on price. Ouch.
What they did was grow a huge non-airport rental car market with car dealers doing service/repairs and needing loaners. And they hired only college grads, then gave them responsibility/reward to manage their local car service markets. To this day, you go into Enterprise and they are all in casual coat and tie or female equivalent.
Here in Fort Lauderdale, when I take my old Beemer in for BMW service, the dealer never gives me a new loaner. He knows I ain’t buying. So over to the Enterprise desk I go—BMW still pays (in the service bill), but Enterprise doesn’t ever rent Beemers. Works for me.
Do they ever offer an EV?
Nope.
Please explain why these Hertz used EVs are high mileage cars if people don’t want to rent them?
“Lose the contracts for fleet supply and your car model is dead”
Total BS
As a relatively young seller of only electric cars, it doesn’t have a big fleet sale business, like traditional auto makers. Fleet sales amount to roughly 15% of all new vehicles sold.
If they didn’t lose money, fleet auto sales were still considered low-profit line items, a way for automakers to pad their budgets and keep factories open.
We accidentally rented an EV from Hertz last summer. It was a surprise “special”, exactly what I didn’t want. I needed it to drive up the mountain near our home to scout out the birds. It just barely made it 5,000 ft and a minuscule 34 miles up the mountain. It was nearly dead at the top and hardly recharged at all going down. I barely made it home. THE PITS!
Did they charge you for bringing it back uncharged?
” It just barely made it 5,000 ft and a minuscule 34 miles up the mountain.”
That claim is very hard to believe.
Either the battery was barely charged, or the EV was defective, or your claim is BS. My vote is for the latter
Electric cars can climb steep hills. Electric motors provide instant torque, which can be advantageous when climbing hills. Additionally, many modern electric cars are equipped with powerful motors and advanced traction control systems that allow them to handle steep inclines effectively.
“””””Electric motors provide instant torque, “””””
“””””many modern electric cars are equipped with powerful motors “””””
Do you understand the issue is not related to power. The issue is how long that power can be delivered by the battery. Nothing you show here addresses that!
Actually EVERYTHING he mentioned shows intentional ignorance. Power output at the wheels takes power input from the batteries. The batteries are the limiting factor, not the electric motors. He knows that but his DENIAL personality wrote that post.
I have asked Richard to provide which of his multiple personalities writes each post, or the different parts of each post so we know who we are responding to, but he/they refuse.
The claim of barely a 34 mile range when hill climbing is BS
Probably, but I still would not be caught outside of a heavily populated area with one. Nope.
The fact that the motor is capable of providing traction doesn’t prove that the battery is able to provide the power that the motor needs to provide that traction.
Climbing takes a lot more power than does travel on flat land. Battery and motor efficiency drops as current draw increases.
Finally, battery capacity drops as the battery temperature goes down. Temperatures go down as elevation increases.
Once again, the data you provide fails to support the claim you are making.
Electric cars suck for many many reasons and you’ll never convince me or us otherwise until they can;
Until then and really, even then I still won’t.
“It was nearly dead at the top and hardly recharged at all going down”
Were you driving an EV or hybrid? EVs don’t recharge while moving.
If you brake while going downhill then you can get regenerative braking which will recharge the batteries. When set high then as soon as you take your foot off the accelerator pedal the car starts to brake. So moving from EV to ICE and back is problematical.
Of course they do. What IS regenerative breaking?
I did some digging on this earlier today out of personal curiosity. More deliberate Hertz bad stuff is evident than in JoNova’s delightful cross post by EW.
Found two used Hertz Tesla Model 3 from MY2021 newly for sale here in south Florida (there is a Hertz used rental car ‘dealership’ in Fort Lauderdale as well as a Tesla store, so my fast on line research was very easy). Both are priced about $20k. Ok, an off lease MY2021 M3 at the Tesla store is also about $20k. ‘Mark to market’ charge per the Hertz SEC filing is legal but not legit. Both Hertz used MY2021 offerings had surprisingly high mileage—92k/93k—compared to 20-30k for used off lease at the Tesla store.
Means the Hertz EV batteries are near warranty expiration (IIRC Tesla battery warranty is 7yr or 100k miles). Also means the Hertz batteries likely saw a lot of 220V rapid charging in order for Hertz to turn these EV rentals around enough to get such high mileage in just 2-3 years—rapid charging significantly shortens battery life even in balmy South Florida. A direct unavoidable result of the Nernst equation in electrochemistry,
(Background knowledge. We have a tenant who used to work Hertz returns at FLL. He said their working job motto was ‘wash, gas, go’. The reason is all the FLL tourists with confirmed arrival and return flights. Hertz only keeps enough available rental cars on hand to cover known booked demand plus maybe about 5%, because the shared separate FLL rental car garage has a fixed capacity for all rental brands.)
Translation, Hertz is dumping its likely big hidden EV battery liability onto the unsuspecting public. The quarter $billion write down to ‘used Tesla market’ is likely about half of their actual liability exposure. Not a good deal, as the used MY2021 $20k Tesla M3 EV will cost the buyer $40k+ after the soon needed replacement battery at the oh so convenient nearby Tesla store here.
‘Fairly new’ MY2021 EV is NOT a ‘fairly new‘ high mileage+rapid charged MY2021 EV battery. NOT how battery electrochemistry works. To repeat, the Hertz SEC disclosure is legal—but NOT legit.
“rapid charging significantly shortens battery life even in balmy South Florida.”
Please provide data to explain what you mean by significantly? Your entire argument is based on the hard to define word significantly.
Here is some literature on the influence of charging rate on battery degradation and their conclusions:
Gao et al. (2017) NMC battery degrades significantly on C-rates higher than 1. Battery degrades by 10% and 23% at 1.2C and 1.5C respectively at the end of 300 cycles as against degradation by 7% at 1C.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775317305876?via%3Dihub
Somerville et al. (2016) Increased charging rates negatively affect the lifetime. Charging at rates higher than 4C alters the chemical composition resulting in significant damage and reduction of life.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775316313842?via%3Dihub#sec3
Anseán et al. (2016) Capacity degradation is 15% at 1C and 17% at 4C after 4,000 cycles. Up to 1000 cycles, the degradation from both charging rates are similar.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775316305249?via%3Dihub
BS studies
I spent an hour searching the internet fpr definitive data from ACTUAL vehicles and could not find any.
Ford engineers in 2022 trying to answer this question were unable to locate high mileage EVs that were mainly or entirely fast charged.
Therefore no conclusion was possible.
It seems that few EV owners take long trips with their EVs (at least not more than once) and therefore rarely do fast charging on the road. The second problem is most EVs are and relatively new and driven under 10,000 miles a year … and over 90% EV owners also own ICEs and/or hybrids, which they use for longer trips
The two studies are BS doe the following reasons
No field studies of actual EVs that would be the gold standard for creating lab test simulations
Lab simulations not verified versus actual EV field observations These lab simulations are merely assumed to represent real EVs on the road
The papers suggest single cells were lab tested, rather than a 2000 cell EV battery in an EV case of an actual EV
Most important: No numerical data on the percentage loss of EV range from fast DC charging versus slow AC charging at home
Everyone claims fast charging will reduce battery range faster than slow charging
That is the only possible conclusion now.
I did my BS scan of the studies quickly and could have missed something.
Tell me if I did
The claim that EV fast charging battery deterioration is “significant”, as I read here and elsewhere frequently, must be supported by field testing data from actual high mileage EVs. Or else the claim is likely be an exaggeration.
On the other hand, most disadvantage of EVs eventually turned out to be worse than originally thought, and this problem may not be an exception
Sometimes “we don’t know” is the correct answer for science or engineering questions.
Your long winded reply did not debunk the studies given by Alpha. “BS” is not an intelligent response. And your Googling is not evidence that the studies are wrong.
Show me he numerical data from the studies
None was found to define the percentage loss of range from fast charging, even in a lab simulation
So the studies are BS.
I call them as i see them
As we here well know. the only people who could actually answer this question are the car manufacturers like Tesla who have ALL the data on the vehicles they have sold through the connection of those vehicles to the ether.
They DO NOT provide ANY of that data to anyone, because, IMO, they don’t want anyone to know the truth of battery life.
As to your Ford BS. The only batteries Ford should be concerned with are those in Fords, and they should have all the data for their sold autos.
Finally YOU claim that CO2 does have a greenhouse effect based on laboratory scientific experiments. How can YOU take those results and project them on the REAL WORLD if you say experiments showing damage to individual cells cannot be projected to a 2000 cell battery??
Again, with multiple personalities, I can understand how the one who posted this is not the same one who claims CO2 causes Global Warming.
You have two personalities
Dumb and dumber
Says the guy who declares that any study he disagrees with to be just BS.
“I did my BS scan of the studies quickly and could have missed something. Tell me if I did”
yeah right….
Well. Intrigued by the ferocity of some of the replies I did a cursory lookup of views on this. The issue isn’t whether in a lab setting rapid charging degrades life. It probably does, depending on the test setup, but that is not the real world environment. The issue is whether the batteries as installed in the cars as part of the car system suffer degradation from rapid charging.
As far as I can tell, and my lookup was not exhaustive, the answer is that it depends on the car and the manufacturer. As long as the car heats up the battery in cold weather before starting a rapid charge, and cools it in hot weather similarly, and tapers the charge according to how full the battery is, the answer seems to be that rapid charging doesn’t cause any significant degradation over slow charging. Yes, some additional degradation, but nothing significant.
The charging has to be much slower at very low capacities and also at very high ones.
Either way batteries lose capacity over time and recharges.
Another thing that causes rapid degradation is either emptying and keeping it empty or near empty, or keeping it on 100% by trickle charging. A worst case would be rapid charging from empty on a cold day with no pre-heat, or on a hot day charging from 80% with no precool.
If however you have a model which doesn’t have preheat and precool and you rapid charge repeatedly, then it will degrade rapidly. Some older models, particular Leafs, suffered from this.
If this is right its still not much comfort. Either preheat or precool is going to add time and energy to the refuelling process. Either way you still have to be wary of a car with a battery that has not been carefully looked after. Either way you still have the insurance problem, and you also have the capacity problem in the local supply as everyone moves to EVs.
I don’t see anything to change the basic balance sheet on this. It still does seem that the smart thing to do is make sure that in the next year or two you equip your household with a three year old ICE, and prepare to drive it into the ground over the next 15 years. It also doesn’t materially affect the charge time problem. You still will take 30-45 minutes to rapid charge on a trip, and this is going to create the congestion problem. Even if rapid charging works and doesn’t overly degrade, it doesn’t change the basic parameters.
Mr. Greene: Did you google “Nernst equation” before you posted? Mr. Istvan has demonstrated knowledge and experience in this field, while you have demonstrated a determined ignorance in this field. Your previous comments completely ignore differences between EV batteries and charging methods. Your question shows your ignorance.
What exactly do you learn from reading at this site? Anything??
No science in your commet
N attempt to refute anything I wrote
Just childish insults
Typical conservative “debate” strategy.
No data = no answer to the question of how much battery range is lost from fast charging of real EVs, based on field studies
Conclusions without data are meaningless.
What have YOU learned from reading at this site?
How to throw down insults when someone writes anything you disagree with?
I searched for data
You provided claptrap
Mr. Greene: Drake has you pegged. I ordinarily don’t claim “science”, I merely point to the stark contradictions in your own posts, which is too easy to be “science”. As Alpha said, you have no data regarding CO2 warming atmosphere “in the field” yet don’t see the contradiction to your demand for field data here. Of course, batteries are not chaotic like the atmosphere (do you agree?) and might be tested in a lab (unlike the atmosphere). Hey, I stumbled into science there! You seem to not know what you just said. And, unlike others here, I’ve tried to point out that one of your personalities (h/t Drake, again) opposes AGW. Until you admitted to gaslighting (is there science in gaslighting?).
I have learned a great deal reading here ever since Mark Steyn recommended it. I learned M. Mann is a lying hoaxster here (and Climate Audit, also Mark Steyn rec.).
… is shillish a word?
The irony just drips
Now we know why Richard is so eager to be disagreeable. It boils down to politics.
Self awareness is not a skill that the left cares for.
Are you so desperate to support EVs that you have been reduced to quibbling over insignificant details?
I am not desperate to support EVs’
I have recommended hundreds of anti-EV articles on my blog over many years]
I never want to buy one.
But I will not lie about or exaggerate their faults, especially with no data to make such claims.
Mr. W: He doesn’t know what “significant” means, so “insignificant” is beyond him.
Can anyone explain how doing the same work in a shorter time can, in any way, not lose more energy to degradation?
The Nernst equation is all well and good but surely this is just the second law of thermodynamics?
The only equation consumers need to remember is “Good, Fast, Cheap: pick two”.
surely this is just the second law of thermodynamics?
Haven’t you heard? It’s been repealed and replaced with the law of unicorn rainbows.
The Nernst Equation relates the Free Energy change delta G and thus the equilibrium constant K of the Redox reaction to the electrode potential of the cell. It assumes the system is at equilibrium with no current flowing, so is not applicable to a battery supplying a motor.
Wrong. You just have to adjust the input variables.
Very, very interesting. It points to recharge time as being a real and insurmountable problem with EVs. The fantasy is that we just replace ICE with EV and carry on as normal, but if in fact refuel times are 30-40 minutes as opposed to 5 mins, it is not going to happen. If you add to this the fact that even 30-40 minute charges shorten battery life that’s also why its not going to happen.
The only way the EV ban is going to work out is greatly reduced driving, which will in turn mean greatly reduced car ownership, and this will have all kinds of far reaching economic and social consequences. And political ones too!
The question is whether the US, UK and EU are going to blink. At the moment it seems not. Trade in your ICE car for a decent three year old one with a reputation for reliability and longevity, and you should get another 15-20 years out of it, and can watch this charade from the sidelines. But there will be a lot of suffering, some of it in very unexpected places.
“…if in fact refuel times are 30-40 minutes as opposed to 5 mins, it is not going to happen”
and that’s the best case scenario, often you have to wait another 30-40 minutes or more before a charging space becomes available.
A bonus for coffee and donut sellers…
I get anxious if there is not a pump available at a gas station today and I have to wait another 5min.
“Trade in your ICE car for decent 3 year old one.” Precisely what we did last year. Car slightly older than three years but low mileage.
And all for the ruse that CO2 is catastrophic to the climate and hence our lives. It is preposterous on its face.
I’ve got a 2019 CRV with only 30K. I plan on driving it a while!
“Also means the Hertz batteries likely saw a lot of 220V rapid charging”
208/240 volts AC is NOT rapid charging
Type 2 charger
Level 2 equipment offers higher-rate AC charging through 240V (in residential applications) or 208V (in commercial applications)
480 volt DC is rapid charging
Type 3 charger
Bound to happen. Lithium batteries supply DC, Hertz is a measurement of a property of AC.
Ahhh… a well used argument ! 🙂
But worth overdoing until it hertz.
I’d say to use it, but not too frequently !
Just curious enough to look this up: damage expense associated with EV’s? Turns out damage expenses with EV’s are about 25% higher than with ICE vehicles. This appears mostly to be due to the entire battery/cable/electric motor not doing well in even a minor collision. Then you have to replace the battery if there is even the slightest suspicion of damage, so they won’t start an expensive fire. What’s not to like?
RL, I have been researching this. The problem is not the electric machine or the HV cabling. Those are fairly easy to inspect and repair. (I have owned a NiMH battery Ford Escape hybrid since 2007, so far no major problems despite one very serious accident (we slid off an icy mountain going to church Xmas day).
It is purely the EV LiIon battery, where even minor internal damage to cells/cooling system can be ‘lethal’ and there is no present means to inspect/repair. And as we have oft seen, battery failure is usually catastrophic.
Since the battery is about half the cost of an EV, this has an insurance limiting sales effect.
Nightmare. Idiocy. NO!
Hertz will still have 40,000 incendiary vehicles after the initial disposal. You’ll be able to rent one for the kid’s Prom or maybe a wedding later this year.
Show us the rental agreement on charges to customers for the return of the car at less than full charge. A huge markup for having to charge up the car after return might turn off any potential renters if they read the deal ahead of time. Just asking about the fine print.
$35 charge for Hertz to recharge
With an extra $25 added on if you return it with the battery charge below 20% (some sites say 10%, not entirely sure on that figure) as a ‘critical low battery fee’.
In Paris, these few years, at least half taxis were Toyota hybrids (with a few Teslas).
But this week, I saw a bunch of Toyota fuel cell hydrogen taxis.
I have never seen that many H2 cars.
The latest fad!
Everyone is a little pressed for time when flying home. Nobody wants to take an hour or two to charge their rental before returning it at the airport. Hertz doesn’t want to take an hour or two for recharging and their customer doesn’t want to wait for their car.
Rapid charging (see comment above) guarantees shortened battery life.
By how much?
EV batteries with minimal rapid charging are easily capable of over 200,000 miles with no more than 10% to 20% loss of range .. and that loss of range does NOT make a 200,000 mile EV worthless
Mr. Greene: See what I mean? Your comment treats all EV batteries as if there is no difference. BTW, your first complaint was, “significant” was vague. You insist on precision, what’s “minimal”?
You’re embarrassing yourself again.
The Ford electrical engineer I got the information from did not have more detailed data but his comment was few EVs drivers did much fast charging or long trips. Ford paid EV owners a big fee to examine their EV batteries for one day.
I have a reliable electrical engineer source who was working on an EV program.
The drivers who loaned their EVs to Ford did not keep track of how many times they fast charged their vehicles. The driver survey had “minimal” as one possible answer. It was, by far the most popular answer. No more precision was possible.
You have no data for “significant”, just the usual insults.
I try to collect the best data available and I share it
You provide claptrap and insults.
Mr. Greene: Your “data” is talking with a “Ford engineer” who could be imaginary? Who are you to demand “data” or “science” from others? I don’t provide “data” on the word “significant” (what a goof you are) any more than you do for words like “minimal”. If you want to fight about words, you’re out of your depth.
Once again, your lack of self awareness is astounding.
There is more to things that affect battery life than rapid charging. Age, number of charging cycles, level of minimum and maximum charge, ambient temperature and, yes, frequency of rapid charging.
https://cars.usnews.Com/cars-trucks/advice/how-long-do-ev-batteries-last
The subject was fast charging
The claim was repeatedly made of “significant” battery deterioration
No data support that claim.
No data support your assertion of “minimal” either. Mr. Istvan has backed up his use of the word “significant” before, and he appears to be smart enough to leave you twist rather than address your profound ignorance (or is the Ford engineer the ignorant one?). Smarter than me, it seems.
what the hell is “minimal rapid charging”?
I have seen a video that a Tesla Uber driver made…he bought a new Tesla and expected to really excel in the Uber biz by doing huge miles in the car….he did about 80 t0 100 thousand miles in a year and the battery lost like 10 or 15% of capacity and he claims that Tesla told him that the batteries are not designed for that kind heavy usage. Maybe it was about draining the bat to near zero and fast charging to over 90%.
Rapid charging does that. Guaranteed. And Tesla smartly applies limits, which its software detects. So frequent rapid charging voids battery warranty.
You keep talking about rapid charging but present no data. I believe you are exaggerating a problem.
Embarrassing yourself again. In defense of the indefensible EV. Mr. Istvan has provided data on this in the past, look it up yourself (after you google Nernst?).
I see no data
Just speculation
Seems fantastic that Mr. I would have such data while Ford engineer working on an EV program do not.
“I see no data”. We know.
Re: rapid charging. It seems to me the EV should keep a log of charging events. For example, the date and time the charger was connected and disconnected, battery level before and after charge, and whether it was a rapid charger or otherwise. The mileage and ambient temperature at charge time would be helpful, too.
This info would be of interest to a buyer of a used EV.
Tesla does. And voids battery warranty if rapid charging exceeds their limits. Is in the warranty fine print. Look it up yourself.
An EV battery would normally lose up to 10% of range with 100,000 miles of driving but that would usually require ten years with a typical EV.
Probably more related to the number of charges and discharges rather than the years.
Mr. Greene: “An EV battery…” Which one?
Don’t bother replying unless you provide the data you demand of others.
Sorry I do not have the full list of EVs tested by Ford EV engineers and others to satisfy you. That would be confidential information and 1% is a generalization for a decade. :oss of range is actually faster in the early years and then slows down to average about 1% a year over ten years.
The argument of a crybaby is “Your information is never good enough so you can’t prove anything you say, nyah, nyah, nyah”
But then YOU have nothing but insults
Mr. Greene: Sorry you can’t back up what you say again, but your Ford engineer is not “data”.
Give us a name so that we can confirm for ourselves that this engineer actually is, and is actually qualified to make the claims that your claiming.
You demand proof from others, yet you are unable to provide proof for your claims.
Then you insult those who disagree with you, all the time whining about insults sent your way.
RG, a couple of problems.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/hertz-ev-fleet-sale-tesla-report/
There Is More to Hertz Dumping 20,000 EVs From Fleet Than Appearances Suggest
Hertz’s investor report makes it clear it’s not just about consumer demand. It’s about Tesla.
Alex KiersteinWriter
Jan 11, 2024
So then according to the article, Hertz can simply take the loss and then reinvest into EV’s that are not Tesla’s and all will be well. Except that’s not what they are doing. They are replacing Tesla EV’s with ICE vehicles. A strange decision since its not about consumer EV demand but Tesla pricing.
The battery fan club will eat its own on the way down and who better than their previous darling Tesla? Besides Elon should have known better than to mess with the Twitterati virtue signalling echo chamber. The woke folk need their safe spaces but Musk being the entrepreneur he is knew he couldn’t survive on their custom alone.
The small EVs are expensive cars with high collision repair costs.
Customers will not pay extra for an EV and the resulting Hertz profit margin must be very low. Cheap Hertz ICE vehicles of the same compact have a better profit margin.
That Hertz is selling 2 to 3 year old vehicles is unusual. They usually sell ICE vehicles after one or two years.
These are high mileage used EVs.
How did they get to be high mileage if customer demand was so weak?
What was the choice of available vehicles? Hertz only keep a limited number of vehicles on hand, if the ICE vehicles were rented first, leaving only EV’s, then where’s the choice?
You ignore the curiosity factor.
After being bombarded by pro EV propaganda for years, there are a lot of people who are interested in trying out an EV, and a cheap way of doing that is to rent one for a couple of days.
The critical question is, how many of these people rent EVs a second time.
Bingo. I used to be a road warrior for work and rented cars out of curiosity all the time. Never rented an EV as one wasn’t available in the $ range my company allowed but did a couple of hybrids. I’ll tell you this, 3 days behind the wheel of a Prius and I never had a desire to rent another or buy one.
Mr. Greene: You seem to think this is a killer point, but you know the business (so you say), seems like their business model is to put lotsa miles on each and every car in the fleet. Of course, I have no data, but you know the business. Hertz is not saying there was never demand for EV, but Hertz’ action here speaks for itself- Hertz learned from this experience. Something quite foreign to you. Insults is why you come here, isn’t it? Why complain when you get what you seek?
There are many reasons why people would not want to rent an EV, but I discovered an interesting reason that I have not seen mentioned. I was looking over the perks of my credit card. They quite often include insurance coverage on rental cars, particularly cards geared for travelers. My card exempts coverage for exotic (expensive) rentals, and in the list of those vehicles was Tesla. I haven’t yet checked what my auto policy says, but there is no way I would rent an EV without proper insurance on it. If you consider renting an EV for any reason, check your coverage!
Good catch. No doubt, though, the rental company will sell insurance coverage but it might be expensive.
I checked the Hertz cars for sale. Lots of Long Range Model 3’s with 60-90k miles. All over $30K.
Not a great deal for the buyers, IMO.
You might haggle a bit-
Hertz’s Ex-Rental Teslas Can Be Had For As Low As $16,000 (msn.com)
This may not be the death of them, but unless the technology improves so that their reliability gains traction along with more competitive pricing, longer cruising ranges, and a greater variety of model availability, they’ll simply be relegated to niche markets. The manufacturers need to realize that they need to focus on producing compact, urban-area EVs suited for short-range driving rather than overpriced status symbols that few people can afford or are willing to buy in the first place. especially when resale values are low, reliability is less than for gas/diesel types, and repair costs are almost prohibitive.
EVs failed the rental business test. Unless you already have an EV at home and just need to rent one at your business destination why would you put up with learning how to charge one on the road? Or worry that the promised charging station at your hotel is scheduled out or broken? I’m sure some would like to rent one just to see what they’re like though and won’t mind the EV shortcomings on the road.
Who would want ANY second hand EV, which may have been treated harshly, which might even have undetected damage to the battery pack?
Well, obviously some people do, otherwise they would be impossible to sell at any price, but I wouldn’t want to risk it.
This is yet another conservative article completely misinterpreting why Hertz is selling EVs
No understanding of the rental business
ICE rentals are typically sold after a year or two. Selling these 2 to 3 year old EVs is not unusual.
The EVs being sold have mileage over 50,000, and up to 100,000 — prove they were getting a lot of use. No evidence at all Hertz customers did not want them. Who was driving all those miles in them? Hertz customers. But why ruin a good “EV’s are awful” story with conclusions backed by data?.
EVs are awful for many reasons, but NOT because Hertz is selling used high mileage EVs
Hertz explained exactly why they are selling so many EVs and replacing them with ICE vehicles. The second reason requires a little thinking,
(1) High repair costs
(2) EVs are low margin rentals.
The primary EVs being sold are Tesla 3’s and Tesla Y’s. These are compact cars and compact rentals get compact prices. That may be okay for Hertz profit margins when renting a Toyota Corolla that costs Hertz $22,000 for a 2024 mode, but not okay for renting a Tesla 3 that costs $39.000 for a 2023 model, but was originally $45,000 for 2021 model.
Hertz customers see a Tesla 3 as a compact car and a Toyota Corolla as a compact car. They don’t care that Hertz paid a small fortune for a compact Tesla 3. Renting a compact Tesla 3 must have a lower profit margin than renting a compact Toyota Corolla,
Here’s the real story:
(1) EV repair costs are high versus ICE
(2) Rental customers expect to pay a small price for a small car, and they don’t care that a small EV costs a lot more than a small ICE. They are not going to pay a premium for a compact EV.
Hertz will soon find out depreciation of EVs was faster than expected and much faster than ICE cars. And that was before they started selling.
Let the usual insults begin now …
Hertz-Car-Sales-1-1536×1356.png (1536×1356) (pressablecdn.com)
If the usual insult is “you admitted you only come here to gaslight, so why are you pretending to make an intelligent comment?”, then you got it!
You definite do not pretend to make an intelligent comment.
BTW, how is an article that is almost entirely quoting from Hertz’ SEC statement a conservative article?
Seems like an intelligent question.
“ICE rentals are typically sold after a year or two. Selling these 2 to 3 year old EVs is not unusual”.
While it may not be unusual to sell 2-3 year old cars, what you fail to recognize is that they are not replacing the EVs with other EV’s, they are replacing them with ICE cars. They are not replacing ICE cars with EV’s, at least, not any more.
These were ride share cars with high mileage later moved to rental lots where there were already enough EVs to meet customer demand. Rental companies are aways buying new ICE vehicles usually after a year or two.
The company bought far too many EVs and later discovered the high cost was amplofied by high repair costs.
Don’t tell me this Hertz miscalculation means the death of EVs, after US BEV saes rose over +50% in 2023 versus 2022.
Hmmm, you have spent well over a day proclaiming that the high mileage on these cars was proof that they were popular as rental cars.
Now you let us in on the fact that these cars were already high mileage even before they “moved to the rental lots”.
So did you know that you were lying earlier?
Hertz is taking a $245m (at least) hit here. They’ve probably been taking a beating on them since Day 1, but would have needed to raise either all their prices or just those for the EVs. Neither choice would be desirable.
(1) Higher repair costs…
So how does that impact the renter on the insurance agreement?
Sometimes details matter.
The cost for renting a compact EV has to be competitive with the cost of renting an ICE.
The higher EV insurance / purchase / repair costs can not be passed to customers without the consequence of fewer EV rentals.
Tell me, can you rent a Mercedes for the same price as a cheap compact?
You proclaim that other people don’t understand the rental business, then you assume that expensive EV is going to rent for the same price as a less expensive ICEV.
PS: I find it fascinating how you go around insulting everyone who disagrees with you, then get offended when some of those insults get returned.
Ask the rental customer if they are willing to pay a premium for an expensive (for Hertz) compact EV versus a cheap (for Hertz) compact ICE rental. The Tesla 3 is no luxury car. And there is already a $35 recharge fee for the EVs.
Avis/Budget is OK if you return the car 70% charged, but it’s $35 if not, and $70 if it’s below 10%
In other words, you have no idea whether the claims you are making are true or not, and want other people to gather the data to prove your claims.
Interesting how everything you disagree with is dismissed as being
“conservative” science.
So … why doesn’t the President of the United States of America ride in an electric limo? Seems like a clean idea to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_state_car_(United_States)
Or maybe just Zoom …
The waste. The waste.
That limo weighs 15000 to 20000 pounds with no batteries. Bad choice for batteries / electric motors — they are best in tiny lightweight city cars.
No EV manufacturer has ever said that. Joe Biden never said that. Al Gore never said that. John Kerry never said that. Gavin Newsom never said that. Kathy Hochul never said that. The complete list of politicians who want to ban ICE vehicles have never said that.
The only person ever to say that is you.
I’ve never met an ICE horsepower I didn’t like!!