Maintenance has turn into a serious pressure point in fleet budgets. The associated fee of auto maintenance and repairs increased 41% between 2020 and 2025, in response to federal inflation data, and costs continued rising into 2026. Parts cost more, shop labor rates have climbed, and technician availability has tightened, particularly for diesels.
TechForce Foundation estimates that the number of scholars completing automotive technician programs is 29% in need of annual industry demand, while the gap is 52% for diesel technicians.
Fleets can’t control the technician shortage, but they’ll higher understand how vehicle selection affects the quantity and variety of maintenance they’re more likely to buy. Maintenance is rarely the primary consideration when spec’ing, but taking it under consideration matters as costs climb, particularly when multiplied across tons of of units.
To look at how those costs vary, Automotive Fleet worked with the lifecycle cost experts at Vincentric to check projected maintenance expenses for 27 model-year 2026 configurations. The evaluation covers five fleet segments over three years or 60,000 miles and separates manufacturer-scheduled services from expected wear items resembling tires, brakes, wiper blades, and bulbs, which Vincentric classifies as unscheduled maintenance.
Vincentric treats repairs (unexpected services) as a separate cost category. Repairs and warranty work usually are not included on this data.
The outcomes shouldn’t be interpreted as comprehensive segment rankings or purchasing recommendations. The purpose shouldn’t be to discover the models with the bottom maintenance costs; it’s to point out what fleets may miss when maintenance data shouldn’t be a part of the spec’ing process.
Vincentric’s three-year/60,000-mile projections reveal significant maintenance-cost differences on this category, with the Tesla Model Y posting the bottom projected total and the Mercedes-Benz GLC 300 the best.
Maintenance Costs Vary Widely
Even inside these limited comparison sets, the projected maintenance cost differences were substantial. The gap between the lowest- and highest-cost examples ranged from $1,686 among the many chosen half-ton pickups to $3,646 amongst premium and luxury SUVs.
Among the many chosen cargo vans, the range was $2,842 per vehicle. It reached $2,672 amongst compact SUVs and $3,499 amongst passenger cars.
Those figures don’t establish which vehicle a fleet should purchase. But projected maintenance differences that appear relatively modest on a per-unit basis can turn into material at scale.
The composition of those costs matters as well. A vehicle can have relatively low manufacturer-scheduled service costs but higher expected spending on tires, brakes and other wear items.
One other may require more frequent or costlier scheduled service. Looking beneath the whole helps fleets understand not only how much they could spend, but where that expense is predicted to originate.
Vincentric’s projected maintenance costs cover three years/60,000 miles and include manufacturer-scheduled service and expected wear items. Scheduled visits are shown because even small differences in service frequency can multiply into tons of or hundreds of additional shop events across a big pickup fleet.
Hybrids Strengthen Their TCO Case
Hybrids are already strong TCO performers because they mix reduced fuel consumption with comparatively favorable depreciation and resale values. The Vincentric data also shows that chosen hybrids are competitive on maintenance.
The Ford F-150 PowerBoost has the bottom projected maintenance cost among the many six chosen half-ton pickups at $4,296 over three years/60,000 miles. That’s $594 lower than the standard F-150 configuration within the comparison and nearly $1,700 below the chosen Chevrolet Silverado gasoline and diesel models.
The Toyota RAV4 Hybrid’s $4,510 projection is the second lowest among the many five chosen compact SUVs. The Toyota Camry Hybrid’s projected $4,515 total is below those of the chosen Hyundai Sonata and Nissan Altima.
Nevertheless, fleets planning to operate vehicles beyond the three-year/60,000-mile window should extend the evaluation, because hybrid-specific maintenance requirements may turn into more significant at higher mileages.
Vincentric’s projected maintenance costs cover three years/60,000 miles and include manufacturer-scheduled service and expected wear items. Scheduled visits are included because service frequency can create downtime and operational costs that usually are not reflected in the upkeep total alone.
Powertrain Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story
The chosen battery-electric vehicles generally perform well. The Tesla Model 3 and Model Y have the bottom projected maintenance costs of their respective comparison groups, while the Ford E-Transit posts the bottom total among the many chosen cargo vans.
Electrification doesn’t guarantee the bottom maintenance cost. The Cadillac Lyriq’s projected $4,564 total exceeds the gasoline-powered Volvo XC60’s $3,186 and BMW X3’s $4,497. The $1,719 difference between the Lyriq and Tesla Model Y also demonstrates that two BEVs in the identical category can carry different costs.
The compact SUVs reinforce the purpose. The gasoline-powered Volkswagen Tiguan has the bottom projection in that chosen group at $3,728, ahead of the RAV4 Hybrid at $4,510 and three other gasoline-powered models.
A vehicle’s service schedule, expected wear costs and manufacturer-provided maintenance program can influence the result alongside its powertrain. Several vehicles within the evaluation include factory-paid scheduled maintenance for a portion of the three-year cycle. Fleets should understand what those programs cover, how long the coverage lasts, and whether service locations align with their operating footprint.
Vincentric’s three-year/60,000-mile projections show how manufacturer-scheduled service and expected wear-item costs vary amongst chosen compact SUVs. The gas-powered VW Tiguan has the bottom projected total on this comparison, followed by the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid.
Downtime Changes the Calculation
For revenue-generating vans and trucks, the upkeep invoice might not be the most important consequence. What’s more necessary are canceled appointments, delayed projects, extra time, rental expense, and dissatisfied customers.
That makes scheduled service frequency one other specification to look at. Vincentric projects only three scheduled maintenance visits for the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter over three years/60,000 miles, compared with six for the E-Transit, Ford Transit and Ram ProMaster and eight for the Chevrolet Express.
The Sprinter doesn’t have the bottom projected maintenance cost, but its 20,000-mile service interval could provide operational value for fleets that place a premium on keeping vans in service.
The chosen pickups offer one other example. The F-150, F-150 PowerBoost, Ram 1500 and Toyota Tundra each have six projected scheduled visits. The 2 Silverados have eight. Two additional visits may appear inconsequential for one truck, but across 500 units, they create 1,000 additional service events in the course of the alternative cycle.
Over three years/60,000 miles, Vincentric projects the Tesla Model 3 may have the bottom maintenance cost amongst these chosen passenger cars.
Put Maintenance Into the Spec’ing Discussion
None of those projections should determine vehicle selection by itself. The bottom-maintenance vehicle may not have the payload, range, equipment, safety features or operating characteristics the fleet requires. A rather higher-cost vehicle may additionally deliver greater uptime, stronger resale value or higher overall TCO.
The evaluation as an alternative demonstrates why maintenance must have an outlined place within the spec’ing process. Fleets should seek projections that match their intended alternative cycle, examine scheduled service and expected wear items individually, review factory-paid coverage and consider the operational effect of service frequency.
This Article First Appeared At www.automotive-fleet.com
