FYI: DC matching prices on "economy" parts

David wrote:
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>>When I had a repair done about 3 years ago (new fender), the body shop
>>>>pointed out to me that so-called OEM parts from Chrysler are likely to be
>>>
>>>>from the same sources as any other aftermarket body part - and can be
>>>
>>>>pretty crappy - not made to the same standards as what came on the new
>>>>car. Also, I'm told that the aftermarket body parts industry has
>>>>improved - as long as the parts are "CARTS" (I may not have the acronym
>>>>exactly correct) certified, you'll do just as well (no worse) than
>>>>getting pseudo-OEM parts from the dealer.
>>>>
>>>>Bill Putney
>>>
>>> And how do you figure, when they are made at the factory building the
>>>cars. That is why the presses for sheetmetal are beside the lines! And
>>>the run faster then the line to supply replacement parts. They are not
>>>subletted to foreign companys, like switches, etc.
>>
>>If you know otherwise, OK, but I find it *very* hard to believe that the
>>manufacturers do anything other than assemble parts that they contract
>>from suppliers. Are you speaking with authority? I speak as one who
>>worked for a supplier of a particular commodity thru the early 90's and
>>visited Ford and Delphi/GM plants quite a few times - they are almost
>>exclusively assemblers of purchased parts and "manufacture" almost
>>nothing. To be honest, we did not supply to Chrysler, but I would be
>>surprised if they don't operate the same way.
>>
>>In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the acceptance tolerances are
>>quite a bit looser in the OEM/aftermarket parts (i.e., production
>>fallout), as we would often sell fallout of the parts we made to "special"
>>buyers within Ford and GM for sale as "OEM" replacements thru the dealers
>>(again, Chrysler probably did the same). IOW, the slogans that say things
>>like "Be sure to always buy Genuine ABC parts" are somewhat
>>misleading/fruadulent.
>
>
> Yes, I have been on the floor of many plants, and they make all sheetmetal
> at the plants. That is why they have the pentastar on the sheetmetal. It is
> called a makers mark, and only parts made by Chrysler can have the pentastar
> mark. What probably happened in your case is the dealer was selling the
> bodyshop korean sheetmetal to make margins, he wouldn't get with the oem
> sheetmetal. But you are right about tolerances. Chrysler tolerances are
> pretty lax compared to Japanese manufacturers. The only sheetmetal
> outsourced, was the infamous plastic fenders on lh cars. which never lined
> up flush with the hood and doors. But then we had a high tolerence, they
> actually used quarters to line up as close as possible.
>
> I would also be surprised if Ford and Gm outsourced sheetmetal. They used to
> outsource bodies in the old days but I do believe sheetmetal is all inhouse
> among manufacturers. It is easier to make inhouse as they are less
> susceptible to damage from moving around to much. as they would if they had
> to be trucked.

OK - thanks for the information. I still wouldn't be surprised if they
outsource replacement parts - the low risk of damage to body parts due
to not shipping wouldn't be a factor anymore, and I know that other
replacement commodity parts sometimes have no pedigree relationship to
the original parts used in vehilce build.

You sure the pentagram can't be used for outsourced parts? I would
think that is simply a matter of contracting and licensing - not
restricted to parts only made in house. But I could be wrong. Would
that mean that, say, MOPAR transmission fluid, whose containers have the
logo on it, is made in house? I'm really doubtful of your claim about
the pentgram being a guarantee of whatever part being made in house.
And as stated above, the business world being what it is today, i find
it hard to believe that they restrict themselves to making their own
replacement body parts if they can save a buck by contracting that out
with same or relaxed tolerances.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Sat, 14 May 2005, John David Galt wrote:
>
>
>>>Good for you, but you're under no obligation to accept repairs made
>>>with "economy" (cheesy Chinese copycat crap) parts. The insurance
>>>company is obliged to return your car to what is known as "pre-loss
>>>condition". If your car didn't have Chinese-made sheetmetal parts on
>>>it before the collision, you don't have to accept them after the
>>>collision. You may want to rethink your choice of insurance company
>>>before you're forced to contend with them in a bigger mess.
>>
>>This is usually not true. The insurance company is required to restore
>>your car to its previous functionality and value, but if they can do
>>that with copycat parts, you have to accept them or pay the difference.
>
>
> Copycat parts, by definition, are not as functional nor as valuable as
> original-equipment parts. Therefore, it is not possible for a car to be
> restored to previous functionality and value with copycat parts. "Original
> appearance" isn't sufficient.

Any experience with the "CAPA" certified parts? Has the business
changed (improved in that regard) over the last few years? Maybe the
rule of "OEM body parts are always better" does not apply anymore?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 May 2005, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Just got our 300M back after having a new hood and some other body parts
>>> replaced (I don't know why that post decided to jump out in front of
>>> *my* car). The insurance co. had specified "economy" parts where
>>> available, but the repairer told me that DC was (at least temporarily)
>>> matching prices, so all the parts they replaced are in fact genuine
>>> DC/Mopar parts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Good for you, but you're under no obligation to accept repairs made with
>> "economy" (cheesy Chinese copycat crap) parts. The insurance company is
>> obliged to return your car to what is known as "pre-loss condition". If
>> your car didn't have Chinese-made sheetmetal parts on it before the
>> collision, you don't have to accept them after the collision. You may
>> want
>> to rethink your choice of insurance company before you're forced to
>> contend with them in a bigger mess.
>
>
> When I had a repair done about 3 years ago (new fender), the body shop
> pointed out to me that so-called OEM parts from Chrysler are likely to
> be from the same sources as any other aftermarket body part - and can be
> pretty crappy - not made to the same standards as what came on the new
> car. Also, I'm told that the aftermarket body parts industry has
> improved - as long as the parts are "CARTS" (I may not have the acronym
> exactly correct) certified, you'll do just as well (no worse) than
> getting pseudo-OEM parts from the dealer.

Correction - the acronym I was trying to remember was CAPA - not CARTS.

ill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:

> Any experience with the "CAPA" certified parts?

CAPA? I've heard of NAPA...

On Sun, 15 May 2005, Arif Khokar wrote:

> > Any experience with the "CAPA" certified parts?
>
> CAPA? I've heard of NAPA...

There's also JAPA and GAPA...

On Sat, 14 May 2005, Bill Putney wrote:

> You sure the pentagram can't be used for outsourced parts?

er...no, it's a Pentastar (though perhaps they used pentagrams on the
'71-'72 Dodge Demon...?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005, Bill Putney wrote:

> Any experience with the "CAPA" certified parts? Has the business
> changed (improved in that regard) over the last few years? Maybe the
> rule of "OEM body parts are always better" does not apply anymore?

None. Fortunately -- touch wood -- I haven't needed to worry about where
any body parts come from. But should that day come, I will be perfectly
happy to dispense with any glossy propaganda from the Certified
Aftermarket Parts Association (or whatever CAPA stands for) and simply
judge part quality by country of origin. Did the part come from North
America, Europe, certain specific South American countries, certain
Mexican plants, Australia, or Japan? Fine with me. Did it come from China,
Taiwan or another such cesspool? Not fine with me.

> John David Galt wrote:
>> This is usually not true. The insurance company is required to restore
>> your car to its previous functionality and value, but if they can do
>> that with copycat parts, you have to accept them or pay the difference.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> Copycat parts, by definition, are not as functional nor as valuable as
> original-equipment parts. Therefore, it is not possible for a car to be
> restored to previous functionality and value with copycat parts. "Original
> appearance" isn't sufficient.

You seem to be using a dictionary I haven't seen or heard of. By
"copycat" parts I (and everyone I've ever talked on this subject)
merely mean parts made by somebody other than the manufacturer of the
car.

Like store-brand food products, it's a matter of opinion (and also
varies from one kind of part to another) whether these are every bit
as good as the name-brand products. Certainly the term doesn't
imply that they aren't.

Arif Khokar wrote:
> I would think that using cheaper aftermarket parts would lower the
> overall value of the vehicle. That would certainly go against the goal
> of restoring the car to its previous *value*.

"Value" means resale value, and unless you can notice the difference
from inside the car, or when looking at the car, that value probably
hasn't changed, however much the owner might have preferred that the
car manufacturer's parts be used.

The main exception is when the car is still under warranty. Then you
can insist on original-maker parts if not using them would void the
warranty.

My company, Farmers, offers an optional rider that lets you insist on
original parts, if you want to pay extra for that coverage.

Bill Putney wrote:

> You sure the pentagram can't be used for outsourced parts? I would
> think that is simply a matter of contracting and licensing - not
> restricted to parts only made in house. But I could be wrong. Would
> that mean that, say, MOPAR transmission fluid, whose containers have the
> logo on it, is made in house? I'm really doubtful of your claim about
> the pentgram being a guarantee of whatever part being made in house. And
> as stated above, the business world being what it is today, i find it
> hard to believe that they restrict themselves to making their own
> replacement body parts if they can save a buck by contracting that out
> with same or relaxed tolerances.

As pointed out by Mr. Stern, change all references to "pentgram" in
above post to "Pentastar"

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

On Sat, 14 May 2005, John David Galt wrote:

> > Copycat parts, by definition, are not as functional nor as valuable as
> > original-equipment parts. Therefore, it is not possible for a car to be
> > restored to previous functionality and value with copycat parts. "Original
> > appearance" isn't sufficient.
>
> You seem to be using a dictionary I haven't seen or heard of. By
> "copycat" parts I (and everyone I've ever talked on this subject)
> merely mean parts made by somebody other than the manufacturer of the
> car.

Yes, indeed. And while that's a nice overspanning theoretical definition,
in the real world the term refers to Chinese crapola.

> My company, Farmers, offers an optional rider that lets you insist on
> original parts, if you want to pay extra for that coverage.

Oh, how big-hearted of them. Pay them *extra* and they'll do their job.
Wow, how magnanimous.