Just how bad are former-rental vehicles?

desu I treat rentals like crap

It's like getting married to a used up crack whore

Pretty fucking bad.

>>17500348
>>17500347
>>17500333
fuuuuck. it's almost $1500 less and has 10,000-20,000 less miles than the others

why cruel world

>>17500333
>>17500347
>>17500348
>>17500394
Guys whenever someone starts a thread like this should always be postedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuKBTwAe3BY
>the corolla part demolishes my sides every time

My gf bought a 2012 Ford Fiesta without test driving it. It was a former rental car. Both the motor mounts and transmission mounts were shot.

Never buy from Carmax kiddos. Can you guess what she paid for the thing?

>>17500489
>Miatas are gay
When will the discrimination end?

File: Nabiki.jpg (156KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 640x480px

Bought two ex-rentals back in the day...

* 1996 Dodge Intrepid (pic related). base model with the bigger engine, ran great. Only issue was my own damn fault.

* 2001 Buick LeSabre, it was a perfectly cromulent car, but it needed new tires and rear pads/rotors right off the bat, and it always had minor annoying problems, at least until I lost a transmission and then fuel module.

If you have to buy an ex-rental, buy a full-size or minivan because you know they were used by senior citizens and families.

Would not buy a compact ex-rental on a bet

Another good example of rental car abuse:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HO21RcSx8Eo

File: 1497160805555.png (111KB, 311x304px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 311x304px

>>17500600
>that video also has 1000+ likes and 24 dislikes

>>17500281
>Just how bad are former-rental vehicles?
People redline them.
If they are buying a new car of a similar model, people sometimes rent a similar car for test driving. The car magazines even recommend this practice as you get a better feel for the car than from a dealer test drive. One car magazine even admitted they got their test drive cars this way by going to rental car companies. Thus their car was a realistic car not specially examined and juiced up by the manufacturer for test driving publicity.

>>17500281
>Just how bad are former-rental vehicles?
If there was only some way to tell if the cars only had nice drivers instead of hooning drivers....

If they were rented by me, then they were babied along as I never red-lined mine. I generally put less than 50 miles per day on them since the only time I rent is on business trips. If there was such a thing as a world scoreboard for profitable rental car customers, I'd probably be in the top 5% since I also returned them with more gas than when I got them. The rental car company then sells that gas I paid for to the next rental customer.

If I have a car in for servicing at the dealer, they give me free shuttle service as long as I make reservations for it so they know how to schedule their drivers for optimum pathing of multiple passengers and multiple destinations.

>>17500281
Here's a trick to look for...

The reason most rental cars suck to buy isn't necessarily because they're driven like they are stolen, it's because the type of driver using it constantly changes. One guy will redline the shit out of it, next some chick will not exceed 4k rpm for a week, then some old person will ride the brakes and accidentally pop it in manual mode then complain about it never leaving 1st... so many variables means the car never really gets broken in properly. Also the reason why one-owner vehicles are important.

My dad bought a 2016 Exploder Sport recently (with EcoBoost°) from a rental car company and it's awesome, no issues except saw 22k miles in 1 year. Why ok? It was a company car for somebody. That means from day one until they upgraded it was driven by the same person, same driving style, same roads, etc

So there's that- look for company fleet vehicles

>was really excited about seeing such a good deal
>now feel like i should call it off

pretty bad feels. i'm more alarmed learning about the possibility than a rental has corners cut in production to save money on the mass fleets.

>>17502838
Well, it is true that because the number of cars a large rental agency buys are a profit point, the manufacturer may release "Limited" series of cars. For example, in 2015, GM Chevrolet released the 2016 Malibu Limited which had fleet sales. Of course, it was also sold to the general public as well since that was the last model that used N/A engines. The other mainstream 2016 Malibu was turbo only as were subsequent year models.

>>17502838
>rental has corners cut in production to save money on the mass fleets.
Not always but it is true that past cars in the previous century for Avis and Hertz did have non-standard combinations not offered in the consumer market. Is that old fear valid anymore? So many of those optional things missing in those cars are now standard or even required in today's base models.

>>17500600
>2:01

that is legitimately painful to watch

>>17500600
As much as i like cars i also like abusing the shit out of them.
My dad taught me in a rental and offroading is great.

>>17500507
5k-7k

My civic was a formal rental and its fine

>>17500507
She didn't get the Carmax warranty?

That's the entire point.

Retard alert

People hit those curbs hard. Lift the front and check for loose suspension.

>>17500507
$12.5k?

File: pos.jpg (33KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x480px

>>17500281

The second half of my childhood, my parents drove a former rental 2010 grand caravan.

shittiest car I've ever drove or ridden in, by far.