Going to LA next month - WHY are SUVs so much less expensive to rent??

Pricing cars to rent for a trip to sunny southern California. Renting during a weekday. Compact cars are about $70 a day -- but full-size Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs are $30, from Enterprise.

Aside from the lower MPG from an SUV, what's the catch, guys? Some hidden California SUV tax that I'm not factoring in? Just seems a bit mysterious.

 

I don't know if this is the reason for the price difference, but I do know from having spent some time in LA last month that SUVs are a bitch to park in certain parts of LA.

And I would think gas prices factor in as well. Regular unleaded is still well over $3/gallon in most of California.

 

I was going to say, when I priced cars a few months ago the SUVs were like $89 a day and the compact cars were $27. Obviously not in LA.

 

That's definitely odd. I rented a car in LA a few weeks ago on a weekday and the compacts were in the $30s and the SUVs in the $90s. Have you checked other companies?

 

Perhaps they're running a special on SUVs. Or they have tons of them that no one wants to rent but the compact ones are being rented like crazy.

Doesn't have to make sense, but if you can get on for that rate, go for it.

 

I did -- but kept the Ford Escape level instead of the Grand Cherokee for the parking aspect. Although, at this rate, I guess I have no problem with the $14 a day for the all-inclusive coverage (vandalism, parking dents, etc).

 

Not necessarily a catch. Some companies will adjust their rates based on supply and demand. If the above is your case, I can only imagine it involves either pricey gasoline, tight parking spots or a combination of both.

Unusual to see SUVs costing less than compacts. But it's also possible that the location(s) you checked have too many SUVs sitting around while a waiting list exists for the smaller vehicles.