Jump to content
  • 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

    PASS, Knowing how people trash rentals, I will not have my nice clean well kept auto's trashed by others.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    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.

    Share this comment


    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. 

    Share this comment


    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
    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    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. 

    Share this comment


    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

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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.  

     

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    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. 

    Share this comment


    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

    Share this comment


    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).

    Share this comment


    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.

     

     

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If I may ask- what's the rent on said condo?
    And am I reading you right- that they charge you $75/mnth to maintain the parking spot?

    Share this comment


    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.

     

    Share this comment


    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.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I would assume there would some discount in one's lease in order to do this as well. Making a few bucks just would not be enough....

    Share this comment


    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.




  • Similar Content

    • By dwightlooi
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.

      View full article
    • By dwightlooi
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.


      This post has been promoted to an article

      This post has been promoted to an article

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.


      This post has been promoted to an article

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.


      View full article
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. dufus22
      dufus22
      (45 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...