Comment

Comment by Bill Fowler on April 12, 2011 at 1:16pm

If insurance companies were footing the ENTIRE bill for used part useage, they wouldn't be so popular. Who pays for the time you waste ordering and re-ordering used parts, then sending back the unacceptable parts and ordering again, the new part you should have ordered in the first place?

And you are right about another pitfall. Who takes the blame for poor cycle time because you acquiesced to insurer pressure to save a few dollars by trying to obtain a used part suitable for use? You do. You took the blame and took it at your expense. Why would an insurer do anything different? If it works out, they saved money. If it doesn't, it costs you.

Have you ever stopped to consider paint film build or hidden rust on a used part and how that might affect the quality of the repair and the warranty you are many times forced to offer? Guess who pays for any failure after the fact. You got it....you do.

How about used aftermarket parts? Do you ever get those? How to you reconcile yourself to paying more for a used aftermarket part than you would have a new aftermarket part, since the asking price is predicated on the cost of a new O.E.M. part?

Comment by Les Blizzard on April 8, 2011 at 7:04pm

The pricing in our area is fairly consistent, based on the value of a new part. I know this because they will even sometimes ask. "How much is a new one?" And then give me a price.

What I would like to see as an improvement is a consistency in determening quality. Not just from the salvage yard to repair shop, but from salvage yard to salvage yard.

If the part is not in local stock, and the yard buys from another yard the quality really seems to be hit and miss.

Another big problem is an accurate time frame for receiving the part. The yard will say the part is a couple of days away. And it turns into three and then four days for various reasons. Then we get the part and the quality from the distant yard is not acceptable. Then its starting all over to look for a good quality part or deciding to buy new OEM and taking a hit from the salvage usage from the insurance company and also for the lost cycle time waiting for the salvage part that turned out to be fruitless.

All of this leads to the biggest problem I see with salvage parts. The time frame is much longer than the new part even if the salvage part is in stock, and if the salvage part isn't in stock my cycle time really goes out the window. Also there is the time involved with reconditioning the salvage part because, after all it is a salvage part but has to look like a new part when delivering the car back to the customer. 

 

Comment by Bill Fowler on April 8, 2011 at 1:03pm

How would one establish any price consistency in used parts when the purchase price of the wrecked vehicle isn't consistent, the costs to dismantle the salvage vehicle aren't consistent, and the area of the country that the part came from isn't consistent?

Vehicles are exposed to differing amounts of salt, water, sun, etc., depending on where they came from, so the quaility of the part cannot be consistent. Living in the South, I wouldn't dream of knowingly buying a part from a northern climate, whether it appeared the same on the surface or not because it is safe to assume it has been subjected to more salt exposure than a local vehicle.

Pricing consistentcy at the point of sale seems an impossible objective when considering that everything before that point is inconsistent, as I have attempted to illustrate.