When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Tesla is the cheapest luxury brand to maintain, and not just among electric vehicle brands, but also those with internal combustion engines (ICE), according to a new study.
The findings come from Clunker Junker which looked at maintenance cost data from the last ten years and cross-referenced vehicle price data.
As in most auto studies, they divided brands and vehicles into popular and luxury. The popular car winner was Toyota. The Japanese automaker took eight of the top ten cheapest cars to maintain.
The Toyota Land Cruiser, Toyota Sequoia and Toyota Supra took the top three spots, with the Land Cruiser costing 13.41% of its value to maintain over a 10 year period.
When it comes to the luxury car space however, Tesla as a brand dominated the results, and is significantly cheaper than Toyota in the popular segment to maintain.
The study found that Tesla’s long-term reliability cost owners only 7.09% of the car’s value to maintain. The next closest was Lexus, which according to the study will cost owners 12.28% over a 10-year period. The numbers only increase from there, with Porsche (17.27%), Mercedes-Benz (18.60%), and Lincoln (19.16%) rounding out the top five.
There is not much difference in cost for many of these brands/models, but if you plan on keeping a BMW long term you are going to be intimate with your mechanic. Almost every Toyota is good value long term.
Wow, a GT-R is at the top 4? Would have never thought. Japanese reliability is real
Not sure how the GTR is cheap to maintain, it’s ridiculously expensive. The brakes are ridiculously expensive, the transmission fluid without labor is almost $1,000 and factory run flat tires are also ridiculously expensive. Then if you take it to the dealer for an oil change or alignment they gauge you and add the GTR tax. Just including that in the results makes me question the survey.
Not sure how the GTR is cheap to maintain, it’s ridiculously expensive. The brakes are ridiculously expensive, the transmission fluid without labor is almost $1,000 and factory run flat tires are also ridiculously expensive. Then if you take it to the dealer for an oil change or alignment they gauge you and add the GTR tax. Just including that in the results makes me question the survey.
Maybe it was focusing on purely reliability...things you don't have to fix often. I know nothing about GT-R's, but I always assumed in my mind they are not cheap to own
Not sure how the GTR is cheap to maintain, it’s ridiculously expensive. The brakes are ridiculously expensive, the transmission fluid without labor is almost $1,000 and factory run flat tires are also ridiculously expensive. Then if you take it to the dealer for an oil change or alignment they gauge you and add the GTR tax. Just including that in the results makes me question the survey.
I know someone with a 2016 most of the consumables are not expensive at all. Rotors are up there, pads are cheap. Biggest potential expense with the car is many suspension parts are OEM only. Fluids are fluids nothing special there. https://www.amsoil.ca/lookup/auto-an...38dett-2-turbo
Far, far cheaper car to own vs. most exotics. Also understand the criteria, this study is % of new car price.
I know someone with a 2016 most of the consumables are not expensive at all. Rotors are up there, pads are cheap. Biggest potential expense with the car is many suspension parts are OEM only. Fluids are fluids nothing special there. https://www.amsoil.ca/lookup/auto-an...38dett-2-turbo
Far, far cheaper car to own vs. most exotics. Also understand the criteria, this study is % of new car price.
And there is the problem......% of new cost is a useless metric. It's not cheap to own in absolute terms and THAT is what matters.
Otherwise you could argue a private jet is ultra cheap to own since it makes you money owning one!
And there is the problem......% of new cost is a useless metric. It's not cheap to own in absolute terms and THAT is what matters.
This is silly. A Toyota Corolla is going to cost less to own than an LS500 as is expected. Otherwise we could make a chart that shows how much less "reliable" a $80,000 car is vs. $16,000 simply based on the cost of consumables and general repairs. Not apples to apples.
Otherwise you could argue a private jet is ultra cheap to own since it makes you money owning one!
If you want to make this comparison, then we can compare running costs of cars used to make money like a rental or taxi. I think you know what cars are the best here.
This is silly. A Toyota Corolla is going to cost less to own than an LS500 as is expected. Otherwise we could make a chart that shows how much less "reliable" a $80,000 car is vs. $16,000 simply based on the cost of consumables and general repairs. Not apples to apples.
If you want to make this comparison, then we can compare running costs of cars used to make money like a rental or taxi. I think you know what cars are the best here.
Then go buy a GTR for yourself if it's so cheap to run, that's like saying fuel costs only matter within the vehicles class not how much it's costing you monthly.
That's idiotic. Cost to run is a defined amount not a percentage based metric, otherwise everyone would run low percentage cars if thats what really matters. It's not, actual cost to run is defined in dollars
At first this data depressed me since I really like the BMW X3.
BUT- when looking at how they depreciate and can be picked up cheaper than a used Tesla I get more happy.
Wish the article showed the actual numbers they used for the MSRP, mileage ran, and what actual repairs were done so we could see if money could be saved DIY or an Indy
-I'll use what we have to go on.
Of course I'm looking at this as cuting a check for a used one that already took a big depreciation hit vs buying it new and driving it for 10 years.
It's really not that bad plus I would save a huge chunk buying used.compared to Tesla used prices.
($46k new) * (34.5%)= $1,5870 over 10 years or $1,587 per year or $132.00 per month
I know someone with a 2016 most of the consumables are not expensive at all. Rotors are up there, pads are cheap. Biggest potential expense with the car is many suspension parts are OEM only. Fluids are fluids nothing special there. https://www.amsoil.ca/lookup/auto-an...38dett-2-turbo
Far, far cheaper car to own vs. most exotics. Also understand the criteria, this study is % of new car price.
Yes far cheaper than exotics but this is just a general cost of ownership right? If you were to use just OEM stuff to make all of these cars apples to apples, the brakes and rotors are $6,000 and a transmission change is $1,000 just for the fluid plus labor and as I mentioned OEM tires are a lot. That’s why many go aftermarket. Plus you better hope the transmission doesn’t act up, that’s $20k. This study is over 10 years so these are likely to be maintenance items (except tranny replacement).
I did forget the cost of a new GTR is up there but I still think 5% seems low if you daily drive the car.
01-13-23, 01:05 PM
Least & Most Expensive Luxury Brands to Maintain [DTC]
