Hacker News Reader

Comment by evansolomon | Hacker News Reader

When you factor in gas, Zipcar can easily be cheaper. If you live in SF, for instance, Zipcar is most likely the cheapest way to rent a car to go to Tahoe. On a trip last year my (Zip)car beat the other car by about $20 after all was said and done. So the $75/day can be misleading at times.

Also, unrelated, Zipcar allows members who are under 25, which makes it much more expensive to rent a car from a traditional place like Enterprise. Being currently under 25, this is a massive benefit.

View on HN

Interesting. I'm based in Chicago.

That said, I literally just drove the San Fran to Tahoe drive after visiting VC firms in the bay area 2 weeks ago. We did it in a National rented vehicle (granted it was carrying 7 people..) and our gas bill was only $90. And that was in a Toyota Sequoia, so I've got to assume a compact car would be something like $40-$50 (feel free to correct me). If you rented the car for $30/day (normal rental, not a Sequoia), then it would be way cheaper.

  Rental  $30*4 + $40 = $160
  Zipcar  $75*4 = $300

I'm not trying to argue unnecessarily, I just see Zipcar as smart for trips < 2 days only. I think that's the customer they are targeting, too. Also, its great to know that as gas prices go up, Zipcar becomes a better option.

On ZipCar I can get a Subaru Impreza for $66/day. For a three day Tahoe trip, that's a great deal. Renting a 4wd drive vehicle from a rental agency is way more than $30 a day.

It works out better for a two day trip, since that's a much higher gas/day ratio. Also, as someone else mentioned, there is a huge benefit to having a 4wd vehicle in this case, and the premium for that at traditional rental car companies is significant.

I mostly agree re: the 2 day statement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com