With the freight recession in its third year, many fleets are extending the lifecycle of their equipment. The strategy carries risks, including higher maintenance costs and the potential for unplanned downtime as these assets age.
So what is the best decision? The answer depends on a fleet’s makeup.
“I’m not telling you to replace or extend,” Brian Antonellis, senior vice president of fleet operations with Fleet Advantage, said on a Nov. 20 trucknews.com webinar, sponsored by FullBay. “I’m telling you to do the homework to make sure you understand the impact of your decision on [fuel efficiency] and repairs and maintenance.”
Antonellis said fleets need to understand their full cost curve to determine whether extending equipment lifecycles is the right choice. As tractors and trailers age, “the complexity of the repairs starts to increase, and the costs start to increase,” he said.
At the outset, it may cost $1,500-$3,000 annually to maintain new equipment, as only routine repairs and maintenance are generally required. After five years, that figure could be $15,000 or higher, as more complex maintenance is needed and additional unplanned downtime is likely.
Beyond maintenance, Antonellis said fuel economy degrades over a truck’s lifespan. Even a fractional change can quickly add up across a fleet of vehicles traveling 100,000 miles (160,000 km) a year each. These costs keep climbing each year a vehicle remains in service.
“Managing cost is managing risk,” said Adam Wolk, vice president of fleet maintenance at Canada Cartage, which operates 3,000 power units and 4,000 trailers.
He said not every asset ages at the same pace, so it’s essential to match the equipment to the appropriate lane. For example, an unexpected problem can be addressed faster and at a lower cost on a busier freight route than on a less busy route farther from a repair location.
Peter Cooper, CEO of Ascend Consulting, said it is not uncommon for fleets to overlook some costs associated with keeping equipment longer. For example, they may not consider whether their technicians have the advanced skills to perform an engine or transmission rebuild on an aging tractor.
These sophisticated projects take longer to complete than preventative maintenance. This can lead a fleet to keep additional vehicles on hand to put into service when needed, or to bring on extra technicians. The added expenses, including the need to outsource more maintenance, should be factored into the equation when determining if extending the lifecycle is the right decision, Cooper said.
Of course, the higher cost for new tractors is a main reason for delaying the purchase of new equipment during uncertain times.
Wolk said they do offer better fuel economy than older models, and the improved data collection and telemetry abilities can boost productivity. He added that having equipment can help recruit and retain drivers, helping reduce human resources and onboarding costs.
The fuel-economy gap between a 2026 truck and one from a decade ago can be substantial, Antonellis said. Fuel savings can average $12,000 a year per truck, and that is more math fleets need to factor in when making equipment decisions.
