The Car and Truck Fleet and Leasing Management Magazine

Market Trends

The Dangers of Extending Replacement Cycles

May 12, 2009, by Mike Antich - Also by this author

By Mike Antich

In a recessionary economy, senior management demands expense reductions and limits capital expenditures. Since fleet operations are usually among the top 10 contributors to corporate capital expenditures, there is pressure to defer vehicle replacements. However, there are dangers to arbitrarily extending fleet vehicle replacement parameters. These policy changes could actually prove to be counterproductive to the intended goal.

Vehicle replacement policy is one of the most critical aspects of fleet management. Nearly all fleet-related expenses, both fixed and operating, are influenced by when a vehicle is replaced. The best fleet replacement cycle is when vehicles are replaced at a point in time when the combination of holding and operating costs per mile are at their lowest. It is important to keep in mind that we're not talking about absolute costs, but the ratio of cost to use  as expressed in cost per mile. Historically, for most fleet cars this has been either around 65,000 miles or after 36 months in service. The average fleet replacement policy for light-duty trucks ranges from approximately 48-51 months and 75,000-100,000 miles.


Cyclicality of Operating Expenses

Over the life of a vehicle, operating expenses, if graphed out, have the appearance of an upward-slanted sine wave. For the first 35,000-45,000 miles, operating costs are generally limited to preventive maintenance, such as oil changes, wheel alignments, tire rotation, etc. Operating expenses spike upward when wear items, such as tires and brakes, need to be replaced. These operating expense events are predictable and usually occur between 30,000-45,000 miles. Upon replacing these wear items, operating costs decline, but not back to the previous level. This upward "ratchet" effect continues throughout the life of a vehicle. Operating expenses remain at this new level until the second round of tires and brakes are needed, which occurs in the 60,000-80,000 mile range. Of course, actual maintenance and repair expenses are not quite so cooperative and sometimes fall outside these predictable increments as tires go flat, hoses breach, belts fray, or windshields need replacement as a result of flying road debris. The key point is that maintenance expenses are cyclical. By extending replacement beyond 65,000 miles runs the risk of incurring additional expenses such as a new set of tires and brake replacements.

Even when a vehicle strictly adheres to the fleet PM schedule, the normal wear and tear on the drivetrain and engine causes fuel economy to degrade below the level when the vehicle was newer. As vehicles accumulate mileage, drivetrain efficiency declines, affecting gas mileage. This was especially relevant when gasoline was selling for more than $4 per gallon. In addition, the potential of increased overall fleet fuel efficiency with higher-mpg models is not possible if replacement is postponed.


Triggering Additional Hard and Soft Costs

One consequence to extending replacement parameters is the impact on OEM incentive dollars, especially if they are tied to tiered volume purchasing. Extending replacement parameters could decrease purchase volume to a lower tiered incentive rate.

By extending replacement parameters, you reduce average resale value. Although there is less of a stigma to purchase used vehicles with 80,000-plus miles on the odometer, retail buyers pay more for a used-vehicle with 65,000 miles than they will for a vehicle with 85,000 miles. Plus, most likely, the vehicle will be another model-year older, further decreasing resale value. Another remarketing consequence is that employees will be less likely to purchase out-of-service company vehicles with higher mileage and deteriorated interior and exterior conditions.

Employee safety risks increase due to vehicle breakdowns and parts failures when operating higher-mileage vehicles. There is also the higher probability of an expensive catastrophic failure, which could put the driver in a dangerous highway situation.

An extended replacement cycle also incurs soft costs. The older the vehicle, the greater the probability its overall condition will deteriorate. The potential increases for diminished driver productivity as the probability of downtime escalates with more unscheduled maintenance requirements. With the average fleet car driven more than 2,000 miles per month, there will be wear and tear to the driver's seat, carpeting, and cabin odor, affecting driver comfort. At 65,000-plus miles, a vehicle has experienced its fair share of dings, dents, scratches, and other minor damage. This cosmetic damage is not cost-efficient to repair and reflects poorly upon the company's image. Also, driver morale sags if they know they must drive their vehicles another year or more.


A Counterproductive Strategy

In the final analysis, fleet replacement parameters vary by fleet application. Proper expense tracking, operating expense management, knowledge of new vehicle/equipment availability, and the used-vehicle market is necessary to determine proper cycling for company vehicles. Simply postponing vehicle replacement does not reduce net costs and most likely increases them, while adversely affecting driver productivity.

Let me know what you think.



  1. 1. Randy Owen [ May 12, 2009 @ 02:17PM ]

    Right on Mike. Fleet managers need to educate decison makers regarding life-cycle costs and remind them that there is no free lunch. Defering vehicle and equipment repalcements does not save money; it just pushes a recuring obligation from one year to the next. While cuting funds from the capital budget in a time of fiscal hardship is likely unavoidable, fleet managers need to argue for increased maintenance budgets and other higher approriations if the fleet is going to age, as well as restoration of replacement funds as soon as possible. If not, decsion makers may conclude that funding fleet repalcements is purely discretionary and reduced funding levels may become permanent. This is the time where good data and performance metrics can play a critical role. Showing management that operating costs are going up and fleet availability is going down as a consequence of the fleet aging is much more likely to produce reults than telling them.

  2. 2. John Brewington [ May 12, 2009 @ 02:48PM ]


    Thank you for another great article. Extending replacement cycles, for whatever reason, is almost always near-sighted and rarely does one find a fleet that allocates adequate resources to ever catch up after such a maneuver. The best approach for convincing management of the value of holding steady with replacement schedules is through life-cycle cost analysis. Regrettably, even this does not work with those who are looking for short-term results.

  3. 3. Jeff Price [ May 12, 2009 @ 03:34PM ]


    Excellent article. This is over looked at times and some fleets get into a mind set that driving vehicles longer saves money, but it truely doesn't.

  4. 4. Scott Bingham [ May 13, 2009 @ 06:46AM ]

    We recently increased our replacement cycle from 90,000 to 105,000 miles. This decision was made after a 2 and a half year study on every aspect of vehicle fleet costs. We looked, in detail, at repair costs, preventive maintenace costs, surplus returns, depreciation costs, vehicle upfitting costs, and towing isntances. Our data indicates that the Total cost per mile for vehicles reaching 90,000 miles is more, in every class, than vehicles that are reaching 105,000 miles.

  5. 5. Michael Innello [ May 13, 2009 @ 10:37AM ]

    Excellent article!! You are 100% right !!!!!

  6. 6. Sue Miller [ May 18, 2009 @ 08:38AM ]

    Mike, Succinct information like this from an industry leader is akin to hiring an outside consultant. Always timely and always well done. Thank you for this great article / management tool. Best Regards, Sue Miller

Comment On This Story

Email: (Email will not be displayed.)  

Comment: (Maximum 10000 characters)  
Leave this field empty:
* Please note that comments may be moderated.

Fleet Incentives

Determine the actual cost of owning and running a vehicle in your fleet. Compare vehicles by class and model.

Sponsored by

Michael Sims is fleet operations manager for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Read more

Author Bio

Mike Antich

Editor and Associate Publisher

Mike has covered fleet management and remarketing for more than 20 years and entered the Fleet Hall of Fame in 2010.

» More

More From The World's Largest Fleet Publisher