Potential pitfalls with maintenance costs
A good fleet management specialist can help steer you through the whole life costs maze to find the optimised whole life cost profile for your fleet, taking into account all your vehicle requirements including vehicle types, length of contracts, forecast mileages and so on.
Taking service maintenance and repair (SMR) as an example, some manufacturers will specify a vehicle, especially if it is a tailored specification for fleet business, with smaller wheels and then offer a free of charge upgrade to larger wheels.
Not only does this increase the maintenance cost, as those tyres are more expensive to replace, it can also increase the CO2 output and therefore the tax bill for the employer and employee.
Service intervals that are deliberately nudged just outside typical fleet WLC benchmarks are also surprisingly commonplace. A 21,000 mile service interval, for example, is set mainly to reduce the number of scheduled services in a typical three year/60,000 mile replacement cycle, and hence reduce the stated whole life costs.
At CLM, we can help avoid these pitfalls by ensuring that careful consideration is given to all likely specification and by spreading fixed cost points across agreed mileage periods, especially as very few fleets run to exactly the forecast or benchmark mileage.
Calculating fuel cost
There is clear and compelling evidence that many manufacturers’ fuel consumption figures are on the generous side, as a result of the laboratory test conditions currently used in calculating fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
A study by the European Transport and Environment movement found that the gap between test results and real-world performance had increased from 8% in 2001 to 40% in 2014, and suggested that it was continuing to grow.
For some time now, we at CLM have, on behalf of our fleet clients, been employing methodologies to improve the accuracy of fuel consumption figures used in WLC.
Fuel makes up a significant percentage of any vehicles running cost. So it stands to reason that if the figures used are too generous, then the WLC figure itself is understated and not a true reflection of the real cost of running the vehicle.
This quickly renders any side-by-side comparisons meaningless and makes it very difficult to get a true comparative cost picture.
What we do, is to employ a percentage of the official manufacturer’s figure – typically 70-85% of the combined cycle depending on the vehicle model and journey profile – to achieve what we feel is a more accurate picture.
We then base our WLC calculations on this premise on a consistent basis across all models.
Further problems with plug-in hybrids
The picture is further complicated when looking at plug-in hybrids. Given that they are allowed to start the test cycles with a full electric charge, which is not commonly the case at the beginning of each real world journey, we believe the result is further distorted.
Again, dependent upon a client typical journey profile, and charging facilities, we may only take 50-60% of the claimed fuel consumption figures through to our WLC’s to give what we believe is a more accurate whole life cost picture.
By employing our methodology on a consistent basis, we find it is still possible to achieve reasonably accurate WLC figures, such that our client’s car selection decisions are optimised, based on robust and transparent data.
If you would like more information about the calculation of Whole Life Costs, then please get in touch.