The results of this first car rental test by the ADAC and its Euro-Test partner clubs throughout Europe were at times bright but sometimes also surprisingly gloomy. Almost half of the 58 test candidates were given an overall rating of “Good”, seven car rental points were rated “Very good”. On the other hand, twelve candidates were rated “Very poor” and nine “Poor”. Service and Vehicle were found to be merely “Acceptable” in three cases. The testers travelled to five countries popular with holidaymakers where they took a closer look at the service and vehicles offered by car rental companies in ten top holiday destinations.
The winner in this test was Avis in Chersonisos in Crete. With its Hyundai Atos, this Greek car rental company came first, followed closely by Avis in Faliraki in Rhodes with a VW Polo and Pinna car rentals in Porto Cervo in Sardinia with a Fiat Punto. These car rental companies achieved high scores primarily due to the excellent technical condition of their cars. The only criticism here resulted from a lack of equipment, such as a first-aid kit or warning triangle, as well as smaller failings in tyre pressure. Service and the rental procedure were also smooth and served customer needs. The rental agreements were understandable, insurance coverage was comprehensive and clearly laid out, and special agreements were documented. A few points were deducted only for vehicle handover and vehicle return procedures. In Crete and Sardinia, the car was in fact checked for damage on collection and upon return. All three car rental companies, however, only noted the condition of the vehicle in the rental agreement when the car was collected.
Last place in this test went to Avsar car rentals in the Turkish town of Alanya with its Suzuki Samurai. This off-road vehicle – with a 1992 registration the oldest vehicle in the test – was in an absolutely desolate technical condition. A mobile scrapheap with defects that posed a serious threat to road safety. These included deep cuts and tears in the tyres, a bent steering linkage, a faulty seat belt that and broken headlights. Points were also deducted at Avsar for service. For instance, it was not possible to identify whether and how the vehicle was insured, nor was the vehicle checked for damage. Apart from many other points of criticism, such as an extremely dirty interior and no first-aid kit, no tools or warning triangle, this car rental company was awarded points only in the "Rental agreement" category. This was clearly laid out for the customer, in two languages and gave a precise overview of the rental price.
The second and third-last candidates fared only marginally better than the last placed candidate: Luna Cars in Playa de las Américas in Tenerife with a Citroën Saxo and Rental-one in Chersonisos on the island of Crete with a Daihatsu Cuore. Both of these vehicles were also found to have considerable technical defects. These defects were so serious that both vehicles were a hazard for all motorists. Worn brakes, an airbag that did not work properly and worn tyres were just some of the items noted on the defect list for the Citroën. With more 200,000 kilometres on the clock, the Daihatsu's biggest failings were found in the steering and shock absorbers.
The testers also came across difficulties in the rental procedure: Staff were neither competent nor friendly and left the customer in the dark concerning the terms and conditions for renting and the condition of the car. Furthermore, both vehicles had not been cleaned for a along time and their interiors were extremely dirty. What is remarkable here is that Rental-one as one of the poorest candidates in the test and Avis as the winner in the test are both located in the same holiday destination. So it makes sense to compare.
Generally speaking, it must be said that if there is trouble, this already starts as soon as you begin to discuss renting. If you want to spontaneously rent a car at your holiday destination, car rental companies often leave you in the dark about how the vehicle is insured. Agreements concerning insurance or added costs are neither upheld nor recorded in writing. Details concerning the deductible are often missing entirely. Service also leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, information about refuelling or the rental terms, is often missing, the vehicle is not checked for damage when it is handed over nor are any useful telephone numbers provided. The customer is left in the lurch and, if worst comes to worst, with unpleasant consequences – as happened in the test – for instance with an additional credit card charge.
The list of criticisms could be continued without any interruption regarding the technical condition of the vehicles. At times, the results were alarming, because categories such as "Chassis, brakes and steering" which are important for safety were given low scores for many of the vehicles rented. Apart from a few exceptions, the testers awarded a positive result to the "Engine compartment" and "Lighting and electrics" categories for all 58 cars.
The following section contains more test details listed in the sequence of the individual categories of the checklist:
Generally speaking, many of the vehicles tested were in a good to very good technical condition, however, considerable safety-relevant failings were also found. The main points of criticism were air pressure that was clearly outside the tolerance range – i.e. either far above or below the manufacturer's specifications. In addition to this, there was damage to tyre tread and side walls, to the steering linkage, to the break discs and linings, defective electrics and lighting as well as seat belts that did not work properly. The equipping of the vehicles with first-aid kits and warning triangles also left a lot to be desired.
Engine compartment
Ratings: 52 “Very good”, 3 “Good”, 3 “Poor”
On the whole, very good scores were recorded in this category. Some minor failings were all that was found here, for instance, not enough windscreen wiper fluid or engine oil. Three of the vehicles, however, had considerable defects. These were the Suzuki Samurai from Avsar/Alanya, the Tofas Sahin from Star/Alanya and the Daihatsu Cuore from Rental-one/Chersonisos. In the case of the Samurai, the expansion tank for the cooling system was missing which at worst can result in a mechanical breakdown. The Sahin was rented with defective shock absorbers and the Cuore had considerable wear and tear on the right track rod end which influences steering and driving performance.
The most important category in vehicle rating focused on essential and safety-relevant aspects, such as tyres, the condition of wheels and wheel fastening, suspension, braking performance, hand brake and steering. Although the overall rating was “Very good”, more than one third of vehicles in this category had substantial and serious defects.
A good result was achieved particularly for size, brand and tyre age. Only one complaint was found here, i.e. in the case of the Daewoo Matiz from Royal in Chersonisos in Crete. This car was on the road with non-approved tyres. The cars also did well with regard to wheel fastening, suspension and the condition of rims. This, however, could not be said for tread depth where in three cases tyres were found to be worn down to 1.6 millimetres and less. The Renault Clio from Sol Gonza in Playa de Las Américas in Tenerife even had no tread left on the outside of the front wheel, the Citroën Saxo from Classic Cars, also in Tenerife, had no tread left on the inside of the rear wheels, and in the case of the Fiat Punto from City in Taormina in Sicily, the tyres here were just one step away from no tread at all.
Serious damage to tyres was criticised seven times and was the second most frequent complaint. A burst tyre or sudden loss of pressure was foreseeable with tears, peeling and damage of this kind. The loser in this category once again is the Fiat Punto from City in Taormina. Due to damage to the body structure, the tester had to mount the spare wheel in order to avoid endangering both himself and others. The loser was followed by the Citroën Saxo from Olympic in Faliraki/Rhodes, the Fiat Albea from Avis in Alanya, the Suzuki Samurai from Avsar in Alanya, the Hyundai Accent from ATA in Alanya, the Renault Clio from Montemar in Torremolinos, as well as the Seat Ibiza from Autos Rigo in Cala d’Or/Majorca.
Tyre pressure was another cause for concern among the testers. Nine vehicles were found to be defective here and this is by far the most frequent technical failing. The worst example of carelessness was the Fiat Punto from Smeralda Express in Porto Cervo/Sardinia. All the tyres were found to be up to 0.8 bar below the manufacturer's specifications. The tyres of the Citroën Saxo from Olympic in Faliraki/Rhodes and those of the VW Polo from Sixt in Albufeira in Portugal were only slightly better. Pressure ranged from 0.8 bar below and up to 1.7 bar above the specified level.
Despite the overall “good” result regarding the condition of brake discs and linings, the testers still had to express strong criticism in three cases: The Citroën Saxo from Olympic in Faliraki/Rhodes, the Tofas Sahin from Star in Alanya and the Citroën Saxo from Luna Cars in Playa de las Américas all had linings that were either badly or completely worn. In the latter case, these were down to 0.5 millimetres. The hand brake was found to be defective in two vehicles. In the case of the Tofas Sahin from Star and the Suzuki Samurai von Avsar, both in Alanya, excessive lever travel and little to no braking performance were found. A KO (knock-out) criterion applies for these four vehicles.
The car experts reported significant defects in four cars with a view to steering. Once again, the vehicle with the poorest rating in this test was the Suzuki Samurai from Avsar in Alanya. Its steering linkage was badly bent and had too much play. Criticism was also expressed with regard to the Daihatsu Cuore from Rental-one in Chersonisos, the Fiat Punto from City in Taormina and the Renault Clio from Montemar in Torremolinos.
This category was awarded the second-best result of all the categories. The experts were satisfied with lighting and electrics. There were only three exceptions here which failed due to defective low-beam headlights and/or brake light or broken indicators. Three other vehicles had failings especially in their electrics. Further points were deducted, above all, for broken-off, bent or worn windscreen wipers and defective spray nozzles.
The following five vehicles in total failed in this category: The Fiat Panda from Europcar in Porto Cervo/Sardinia, the Fiat Punto from City in Taormina/Sicily, the Suzuki Samurai from Galaxia in Playa de las Americas, the Citroën Saxo from Luna Cars, also in Playa de las Américas, as well as the Suzuki Samurai from Avsar in Alanya. Its list of defects: defective parking light, defective side indicator, broken back-up light, loose battery and no front windscreen wipers.
The poorest result of all the vehicle-related categories was recorded here. In 35 cases, there was no car manual, in 42 cases, the required one or two warning triangles were missing, in 57 cases, the car did not have a first-aid kit and in seven cases, the spare wheel was found to have significant failings. Another negative aspect here was that the off-road vehicles usually had no airbags just like the older small cars. This was true also for the Daihatsu Cuore or the Tofas Sahin – a significant failing in terms of passenger safety. One positive finding was that 57 cars did in fact have a complete set of tools and that seat belts (apart from two exceptions), windows and mirrors (with one exception in each case) were intact. Moreover, 44 companies had a child seat available on location for a small child.
The following cars failed completely in this category: the Citroën Saxo from Olympic and the Daihatsu Cuore from Rental-one in Chersonisos/Crete, the Suzuki Vitara from Autos Mallorca d’Or in Cala d’Or/Majorca, the Suzuki Samurai from Blue, the Hyundai Accent from Redox and the Fiat Palio from Cross (all in Bodrum), the Suzuki Samurai from Avsar and the Tofas Sahin from Star each in Alanya, as well as the Suzuki Samurai from Galaxia in Playa de las Américas in Tenerife.
The result recorded in this part of the test is disappointing. Only a few companies made a good impression here. In addition to this, major differences and serious failings were found in customer service. Some of the main failings found here were that checking for damage was neither carried out nor was it documented, refuelling procedures were not mentioned, very little information was given about the vehicle, and the additional costs charged for a second driver and extras such as a child seat were high.
A slightly better result was recorded for "Insurance coverage" and "Contracts/ agreements". It was remarkable that out of 58 rental agreements no two were the same. The differences became particularly obvious when it came to insurance coverage: Statements made by employees, general terms and conditions, flyers and written provisions in the rental agreement differed significantly. Translations which fail to convey the proper meaning, printing errors or carelessly filled in contracts made it even more difficult to recognise the services actually provided. In some cases, insurance was included in the rental price, and sometimes horrifically high extra fees were charged. The biggest shortcoming, however, was the lack of information concerning the deductible. This also varied significantly: From just a few euro up to 750 euro for a vehicle in Greece that belongs on the scrap heap or 1000 euro for a Renault Clio in Turkey. On average, the deductible ranged between 200 to 300 euro. Talking about money, the total rental price was not clearly broken down and shown in twelve cases.
In order to gain the best possible coverage even for a holiday car rental, we advise that you ask and have everything confirmed in writing if possible. The range of insurance coverage offered is diverse and it is hence difficult to gain an overview. The biggest problem in the test was the discrepancy between what was said and what was recorded in writing, as well as the different coverage sums. The rental price usually contained a basic form of insurance. However, theft insurance and the exclusion of a deductible are handled very differently. Sometimes these were included in the price, and sometimes they were not. In 44 cases, however, staff explained the insurance coverage to the testers and in 41 cases the topic of theft insurance was also addressed. The biggest stumbling block, however, is comprehension, because the completed contract usually leads to confusion only. In 16 cases, it was not even possible to identify the basic insurance coverage and in 22 cases it was not clear whether the car was insured against theft.
This important category of the rental procedure test part produced the poorest result of the entire test. The most frequent rating here was Very poor. In many cases, it was not possible to have the vehicle checked for damage, to obtain information from staff about refuelling or other services, such as information concerning the vehicle. 22 car rental companies left customers in the dark about office hours and when they could return their vehicle and 54 threatened fines if refuelling procedures were not observed.
A negative aspect in this category was the sometimes horrific costs charged for a second driver. The highest rate was charged in Albufeira in Portugal, ranging from 10 to 31 euro. The testers were, however, pleased to note that 36 rental companies did not charge extra for a second driver. The price range for child seats was also incredible. 32 rental companies provide these free of charge, the rest charged on average between three and six euro. The biggest profiteer here was Avis in Porto Cervo with 36 euro (!).
When it came to checking the vehicle for damage at the time of pick up and return, the consumer protection organisations also found handling to be too relaxed. Here, a rating of “Very poor” had to be given 54 times. A rating of “Good” or “Acceptable” was awarded once only and “Poor” was awarded twice. A positive example is set by Sixt in Albufeira. In this case, only the tank level was not documented. Everything else was recorded in writing. Although the condition of the vehicle was noted on internal slips or on copies in all the cases tested, these documents were not handed over to the testers. This approach on the part of car rental agencies is neither acceptable nor transparent for customers.
One positive aspect was that it was possible to communicate in English in 55 rental companies and that staff were in most cases competent and friendly. A very mixed result was recorded with regard to cleanness and with a view to vehicle documents. The testers had to criticise the cleanness of 15 vehicles. The points of criticism ranged from ashtrays that had not been emptied to extremely dirty seats. In 18 cases, no emergency numbers were provided and no vehicle registration document was provided in 24 cases.
Contracts/agreements
Ratings: 39 “Very good”, 1 “Good”, 18 “Very poor”
The contract language was a big plus in this category. 50 agreements additionally contained an English translation of at least the most important provisions. Only eight agreements were issued in the respective national language only. Strong criticism was voiced with regard to Hertz in Chersonisos, Pandacar in Albufeira and Luna Cars in Playa de las Américas where it took several queries before the rental agreements were handed out and in the case of the latter no rental agreement was handed over at all.
There were repeated problems when it came to the bill. A credit card is essential for the deposit and renting. However, there are some risks involved since the signature on the rental agreement is usually an authorisation to charge the card and hence constitutes a blank credit-card slip. One negative example of this occurred with Deep in Bodrum. The tester's credit card was charged the deductible sum of 300 euro. The reason for this was alleged damage to the vehicle. This is why our testers recommend that you agree to a cash payment or a sum that is then also authorised. Another point of criticism was the clarity with which prices were presented in the agreement. In twelve cases, it was not clear which costs were charged for what nor what constituted the full amount of the total price.
EuroTests - EuroTest 2006 - Car Hire Test 2006
The results of this first car rental test by the ADAC and its Euro-Test partner clubs throughout Europe were at times bright but sometimes also surprisingly gloomy. Almost half of the 58 test candidates were given an overall rating of “Good”, seven car rental points were rated “Very good”. On the other hand, twelve candidates were rated “Very poor” and nine “Poor”. Service and Vehicle were found to be merely “Acceptable” in three cases. The testers travelled to five countries popular with holidaymakers where they took a closer look at the service and vehicles offered by car rental companies in ten top holiday destinations. 
Last place in this test went to Avsar car rentals in the Turkish town of Alanya with its Suzuki Samurai. This off-road vehicle – with a 1992 registration the oldest vehicle in the test – was in an absolutely desolate technical condition. A mobile scrapheap with defects that posed a serious threat to road safety. These included deep cuts and tears in the tyres, a bent steering linkage, a faulty seat belt that and broken headlights. Points were also deducted at Avsar for service. For instance, it was not possible to identify whether and how the vehicle was insured, nor was the vehicle checked for damage. Apart from many other points of criticism, such as an extremely dirty interior and no first-aid kit, no tools or warning triangle, this car rental company was awarded points only in the "Rental agreement" category. This was clearly laid out for the customer, in two languages and gave a precise overview of the rental price. 
The list of criticisms could be continued without any interruption regarding the technical condition of the vehicles. At times, the results were alarming, because categories such as "Chassis, brakes and steering" which are important for safety were given low scores for many of the vehicles rented.
Serious damage to tyres was criticised seven times and was the second most frequent complaint. A burst tyre or sudden loss of pressure was foreseeable with tears, peeling and damage of this kind. The loser in this category once again is the Fiat Punto from City in Taormina. Due to damage to the body structure, the tester had to mount the spare wheel in order to avoid endangering both himself and others. The loser was followed by the Citroën Saxo from Olympic in Faliraki/Rhodes, the Fiat Albea from Avis in Alanya, the Suzuki Samurai from Avsar in Alanya, the Hyundai Accent from ATA in Alanya, the Renault Clio from Montemar in Torremolinos, as well as the Seat Ibiza from Autos Rigo in Cala d’Or/Majorca. 
The result recorded in this part of the test is disappointing. Only a few companies made a good impression here. In addition to this, major differences and serious failings were found in customer service. Some of the main failings found here were that checking for damage was neither carried out nor was it documented, refuelling procedures were not mentioned, very little information was given about the vehicle, and the additional costs charged for a second driver and extras such as a child seat were high. 
A negative aspect in this category was the sometimes horrific costs charged for a second driver. The highest rate was charged in Albufeira in Portugal, ranging from 10 to 31 euro. The testers were, however, pleased to note that 36 rental companies did not charge extra for a second driver. The price range for child seats was also incredible. 32 rental companies provide these free of charge, the rest charged on average between three and six euro. The biggest profiteer here was Avis in Porto Cervo with 36 euro (!).