Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Rumorpile: GM's Maven Plans an AirBnb-Like Service for Your Car

      Could take on services like Turo

    If you happen to be an owner of a General Motors vehicle and are looking to earn some cash, then a new pilot program might be of interest. Bloomberg has learned from sources that GM is planning to launch a program where owners can rent out their vehicles when they aren't driving them - think AirBnb for cars. This will be launch through GM's Maven car-sharing service sometime this summer. A GM spokesman declined to comment.

    This appears to be another part of GM's plan to transition from manufacturer to mobility provider. GM already has their car-sharing service Maven and invested $500 million into ride-hailing service Lyft.

    This idea of allowing owners to rent out their vehicles isn't new. Companies like Turo and Getaround have been doing the same thing for a number of years. But Alexandre Marian, a director in the automotive and industrial practice at consultant AlixPartners LLP said GM could have one big advantage, having a huge network of vehicle owners that could be part of the service.

    But there is a big risk for owners who decide to offer their vehicles up for rent, what happens if they get into an accident? Maven provides liability coverage for its renters. If you offer your vehicle through Turo have the choice of adding commercial coverage through their own insurance or one of the insurance companies that have partnered with the service. We're expecting GM to have some solution in place if they decide to go forward with this program.

    Source: Bloomberg

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    1 hour ago, riviera74 said:

    No thank you.  Especially to the whole mobility as a service idea, regardless of whether GM or anyone else is pushing this rather awful idea that only a Millennial could love.

    Yea, I have seen how Millennials as well as older people have no respect for the BMW and Mercedes-benz rental car programs on the street of Seattle. The auto's are a mess. No way I would want to let others trash my auto.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    16 hours ago, riviera74 said:

    No thank you.  Especially to the whole mobility as a service idea

    an increasing number of people don't need a car every day so the option of loaning out their depreciating asset makes sense. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It's a really stupid idea, IMO.   Since I work from home, I don't use my Jeep every day, but I wouldn't want some unknown rando driving it.   It's as stupid an idea as airbnb; I wouldn't rent my house out either.  What's mine is mine; it's not community property. If I want to rent a car, I go to Hertz or Enterprise...

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 hours ago, balthazar said:

    So, one either has to keep ALL personal items out of your own vehicle, or empty it everytime you rent it out. Sounds unfeasible, IMO.

    I think this idea is more for people who feel like they need a vehicle but realistically might leave it parked for a week to a month at a time. That's my best guess because what you said would make it a no-go for me right off the bat. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Meh.. I like the car by the hour rentals because I can grab a cub van half a mile from my house, pick up something from Lowes/Home Depot etc, drop it off at home and bring the van back within an hour for about $20.  I was thinking of trying Maven's current offering because they are in the same lot, but it would just be for the experience as they only offer a Malibu and XT5 in that lot.

     

     



     

     

    Edited by frogger
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    40 minutes ago, frogger said:

    Meh.. I like the car by the hour rentals because I can grab a cub van half a mile from my house, pick up something from Lowes/Home Depot etc, drop it off at home and bring the van back within an hour for about $20.  I was thinking of trying Maven's current offering because they are in the same lot, but it would just be for the experience as they only offer a Malibu and XT5 in that lot.

    Lowes and Home Depot offer trucks for $20 for the hour rental. Same with U-Haul and others. Have the auto you love and want to have nice and when needed rent the rarely used truck or van. I see no reason to have you own an auto and then rent it out letting other trash it.

    BMW Program Reach Now - https://reachnow.com/en/

    Mercedes-benz program Car to Go - https://www.car2go.com/US/en/

    Zipcar program - http://www.zipcar.com/

    These 3 are huge in Seattle and I think a good way to go as the cars do get dings, damaged, etc. Zipcar seems to have a nice wide selection of auto's compared to the other two with their only auto options but at least they have car to CUV. So I think that is a better way to go than renting out your own personal auto.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I checked home depot and they expect your car insurance to cover when you rent their vans.. Fine print in my policy covers rentals but not cargo vans or trucks.  I like Maven because it has no membership fee, but they have a very small fleet compared to Zipcar, Car2Go etc so far.  

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, balthazar said:

    $110/day???

    Yea Home Depot and Lowes are pricey if you need it more than the hour compared to U-Haul has the truck for the day for $20 bucks. Then for people who do not have a truck and decide to buy yard stuff and live close, they might as well then rent it, move their purchases to the house and come back and drop the truck off.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've rented trucks and vans from uHaul a few times over the years when I needed to move content from the house to storage and vice versa.   Cheap and effective.   

    As far as services like ZipCar, I could see using something like that if I lived downtown in a large city and didn't drive very often, had access to public transportation, etc.  I would probably use Uber a lot in such a context.   Out here in the burbs I don't need such services. 

    When I lived in Phoenix, I did frequently rent vehicles from my neighborhood Enterprise for weekend getaways to San Diego, LA, the mountains, etc. since my previous Jeep was old and I didn't trust it on road trips. 

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    $110/day is a $3300/month car payment.

    In other words; for what you pay for a BMW daily rental, you get a car for about 3 days/mnth, OR you could get a car for 30 days/mnth for the same money.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Do you refuse to go on vacations and rent a car or a hotel room too? 

    Renting things like that is ALWAYS MORE EXPENSIVE per day/hour/minute than owning it. The convenience is you also don't own it and therefore you don't have to maintain it or store it or pay to park it anywhere or insure it for 365 days a year. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    48 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    $110/day is a $3300/month car payment.

    In other words; for what you pay for a BMW daily rental, you get a car for about 3 days/mnth, OR you could get a car for 30 days/mnth for the same money.

    GM/Maven charges more..

     

    image.thumb.png.2a0f33c3fe6d35772887dcdfb0061e97.png

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    39 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Do you refuse to go on vacations and rent a car or a hotel room too? 

    Renting things like that is ALWAYS MORE EXPENSIVE per day/hour/minute than owning it. The convenience is you also don't own it and therefore you don't have to maintain it or store it or pay to park it anywhere or insure it for 365 days a year. 

    Hotel rooms do skeeve me out a bit. ;)

    Once you need/want to rent a vehicle this way more than, say, 5 days a month, you will pay more over time.
    Maintenance on new vehicles is very minor (I change my oil twice/year), and my insurance (not at all minimal coverage) is a little over $2/day. These are not oppressive costs. The vast majority of people don't pay to park their personal vehicle.

    I dunno- this doesn't make fiscal sense to me, but everyone's situations are different. Inner city use seems to be the only scenario that makes sense; maybe that's the only areas these services are offered (I didn't read into it).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In my urban environment where these services and Uber flourish, we bought a downtown condo a few years ago for investment, it would have cost 80k extra to get one parking spot and $75 a month extra in condo maintenance fees.  Car insurance another $120 a month on average...more for twenty-somethings.

     

     

     

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Rent is $2250 for 700 sq feet.  With that we are just barely cash flow positive.  Real estate has gone nuts here, another reason why many young people don't buy cars, they are too much of a luxury when spending that much on their residence.  The maintenance fee of the spot would be more per sq foot than the condo itself.  We might have been able to rent it out for $200 a month.

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 hours ago, frogger said:

    Rent is $2250 for 700 sq feet.  With that we are just barely cash flow positive.  Real estate has gone nuts here, another reason why many young people don't buy cars, they are too much of a luxury when spending that much on their residence.  The maintenance fee of the spot would be more per sq foot than the condo itself.  We might have been able to rent it out for $200 a month.

     

    And as you state, that is why Zipcar, BMW and MB car service program makes sense for inner city living. I do not see the GM program working in the city, maybe more of a suburban thing, but then people living in the suburban likes their own auto's so again, Just not seeing this working.

    I would love to have facts on if the Cadillac NY program is actually profitable or not.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Happy Birthday!!! Cheers!!!  
    • Yes. Ferrari was always a company selling towards the top tier rich.  I am not sure about Porsche's marketing after 1945, but I do know that Porsche wanted to go up market, really up market,  to sell to the rich in the late 1990s.    Rolex watches were always expensive.  But not always being a  chic jewellery accessory.  Rolex watches were expensive time pieces because they were highly precise time pieces meant for professions that required time pieces that were precise in time telling. Also, Rolexes were also engineered to be tough and not break in those job environments. Therefore the high price tags of them were because the high standard of engineering that went into them.  The value of the brand went up because of the people that bought them praised them. It was after the quartz movement of the 1960s and 1970s that Rolex needed to re-invent themselves as battery powered watches were MORE precise ate their lunch. So...like many other "swiss" automatic watch makers launched their new image as luxury time pieces. It was easy for Rolex to do as Rolex was coveted as a great engineered watch to begin with.   Like I said...its a boys club that they want to be known as and bought by (rich) people that have bought into that boys club mentality.  It aint for you or for @ccap41.   Even if you or @ccap41 had the money, its obvious that you guys have not fallen for this marketing gimmick.  Its barely for me either.  1. I cant afford Ferraris, Porsches or Rolexes. 2. I do not want to be in a Porsche Boys club.  I like Porsches and all, but Im not in their camp.  Not because of the boys club marketing schemes. Its just that I am not a rabid Porsche guy fanatic.  3. If I had 1% money, I am not sure Id be a Ferrari guy either.  After deep thought, I am more of a Ferrari guy than I am a Porsche guy.  But maybe not enough for me to fall for this kind of sales scheme either. 4.  Rolex...   I do like a Rolex.  But I am not one to boast about what kind of time piece Im wearing. So...nix me on that club as well. 5. It looks like I am aligned with you and @ccap41's take on this, but with me, I shrug it off.  I see why the companies want to go down this road. And I see why there are some people...rich people...that do not mind giving their monies away to these companies. And at the end of the day, its what makes them happy and superior to the rest of us as we do not have the time or money or will to buy into any of this. And kudos for them for buying into that lifestyle.    At the end of the day, whether we are talking about Ferrari or Porsche or Rolex, some of their product, past and present, have been REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT product. Whether we are talking about looks and style or engineering and technology, all 3 have styled and engineered awesomeness.  We could talk about their products that were failures, but wouldnt that signal some sort of sour grapes analogy on our part? Its a company's right to mold their brand image as they wish.   Whether we agree to it as individuals is irrelevant. What is relevant though is how collectively we ALL feel about it.  In Ferraris case its a huge success. Porsche and Rolex have to work on it just a tad more. But I feels its successful.  If there is a downfall for Porsche, I think it has more to do with their decisions to being a sports car maker ALONGSIDE being a (rich) family grocery getter/soccer mom SUV maker.  The failure of having two opposing identities is killing Porsche.  And it is a double edged sword.  On the one hand, if not for the SUVs, Porsche would have been gone by the early 2000s.  The inevitable was prolonged?  Rolex... Too many boutique time piece makers have propped up in the last 15 years that took their place in some areas of the really expensive realm.  Quartz time pieces keep on being a nuisance to them. This time around its the fashion watch trend. The name brand watch sellers like Michael Korrs and Hugo Boss and even Porsche that have taken some of Rolexes market share.  The advent of smart watches also hurts them.  So they decided to change it up in the sales realm.  Are there enough Rolex worshippers out there that will buy cheaper Rolexes or older models just to get that one highly anticipated limited edition time piece? Well...although watches are strictly fashion devices today, there are more than enough fashionable time pieces around for people to by-pass Rolex fandom.  Some have their own unique look to them and are sought after and some just emulate Rolex but watch brand snobs are too few today so Rolex has a steep hill to climb because most people that wear watches dont give a shyte what kind of watch you wear.  Unlike cars, car snobbery actually still exits...  Hence why Ferrari is still king of the douchiness and going on strong. Stronger than ever Id say.    
    • Happy (belated) Birthday @G. David Felt!
    • Oh yeah, I forgot to even mention the wireless charging! That is also a game changer. It eliminates yet another thing people are afraid to change, plugging in. Yes, i realize it is EXTREMELY easy to do, but the anti-EV people love to point out "I don't want to have to plug in every night". It's just another thing to check off the list. 
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search