 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Assessing the Quality of Aftermarket Collision Repair PartsPosted 1/20/1998By Ben McNamara
Non-OEM aftermarket crash parts could benefit the industry because they create competition in a sector where there would otherwise be monopolies, hence making less-expensive alternative parts available. However, although price and availability of parts are factors that sometimes make the use of non-OEM crash parts a practical decision, quality can be compromised by using a non-OEM part vs. the genuine OEM version, according to OEM manufacturers. There are an estimated 35 million vehicle accidents in the United States each year, according to Ford. The retail cost of replacement crash parts has been estimated at as much as $3 billion per year, representing 15 percent of the total crash parts market. OEMs, such as Ford and General Motors (GM), have conducted tests to discredit the quality of non-OEM aftermarket crash parts, and are engaged in campaigns to present their messages to the industry and consumers.
Ford's study For the test program, Ford chose a variety of high-volume parts, including fenders, hoods, header panels and doors. Three types of parts were studied: genuine Ford replacements, CAPA-certified imitations and non-CAPA imitations. The parts were tested for six quality factors. Following are the published findings by Ford:
Based on this testing, Ford concluded that imitation parts are inferior to Ford genuine parts and are not "like kind and quality."
CAPA's response to Ford Ford's study was commissioned from Climax Research Services (CRS), an independent firm in Farmington, Mich. CAPA said it tried to obtain a copy of the report when certain portions were originally released, but Ford would not provide the report, its methodology or the seal numbers of the CAPA parts tested by CRS. Recently, the full CRS study was made available and CAPA contends that this information reveals that the well-publicized Ford summary was deliberately misleading. The CAPA statement reads, "In some cases, underlying data did not support Ford's conclusion that certified parts did not perform well. In other cases, the Ford press release omitted test results showing that Ford parts exhibited significant defects and the corresponding CAPA parts were superior to the Ford parts in several respects." George Gilbert, Ford's crash parts product manager, who was responsible for publicizing the 1994 research study, was deposed Jan. 29, 1997, in a Tennessee class action suit against State Farm Insurance (which was subsequently dismissed) and admitted that CRS's study showed that CAPA parts performed as well as or better than Ford parts in a number of the CRS tests, according to CAPA. CAPA made the following technical analysis of the CRS study:
CAPA's statement concluded, "From a technical perspective, many of the overall findings and conclusions made by Climax Research Services are unsubstantiated and, in some instances, completely contrary to the data they presented in the text of their report. Ford's summary is even more slanted in omitting every Ford deficiency and every instance of satisfactory (or superior) performance by certified parts."
GM's study Nine out of 10 professional used-car/truck appraisers and nine out of 10 consumers preferred the vehicle with genuine GM collision parts. The professional appraisers devalued the vehicle with imitation parts an average of $740 below the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) price guide's wholesale price. The consumers devalued the vehicle with imitation parts an average of $1,670 lower than the NADA retail guide's price. Nearly 20 percent of the study's consumer appraisers would not buy the vehicle repaired with imitation parts even at a reduced price.
CAPA's response to GM The original GM press release on the study stated that the technical tests were conducted by Rousch Technologies in Livonia, Mich. "The implication is that an independent, third-party did the testing, when, in fact, CAPA discovered that GM staff conducted the tests in GM facilities and Rousch staff simply observed," read CAPA's statement. In reference to GM's study, CAPA also stated that, as it understands it, only two of the parts used in the test were CAPA-certified, but that it cannot verify this as GM will not release the seal numbers of the CAPA parts used.
Safety concerns "The crash testing and other evaluations we do to ensure compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as well as the analysis done to meet our own internal guidelines confirms the proper design and assembly specifications are properly in place before we put a vehicle on the market. Any deviation in the use of parts not specifically designed and tested to meet the original specifications, such as the use of imitation/aftermarket parts, can compromise the integral balance between the designed safety systems," McLean said. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) President Brian O'Neill said, "The source of the cosmetic parts used to repair cars has little to do with the possibility of injury in these cars after they've been repaired. With but one exception (windshields), there are no federal standards for replacement parts because there's no reason to believe - let alone assume - that such parts significantly influence car crashworthiness." CAPA stated, "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that cosmetic, non-structural auto body parts, the type of parts CAPA certifies, have no safety ramifications. Contrary to what Ford would have you believe, these parts are not covered by any federal safety standards. One needs to question why the government says crash parts are not safety related but Ford continues to promote that concept."
Satisfying the end user Bill Fix, manager of Bill Fix's Body Shop, North Huntingdon, Pa., said non-OEM aftermarket crash parts should not be used on newer, more expensive cars, but that it is OK to use the parts on older cars that are not in top shape anyway. Stan Hathcock, owner of Webster Garage & Body Shop, Atlanta, Ga., uses aftermarket parts in one of three instances: a customer request; an insurance company request/mandate, as long as all parties are informed; and in the repair of an older vehicle whose owner wants to minimize costs and is not worried about quality of the parts. Concerning improvements to the quality of aftermarket parts, the Texas shop owner said, "Sometimes they fit; sometimes they don't. It's gotten better than it was at first, but I don't use enough of them to really know." Fix said when he orders identical fenders - one time the fender will fit, while the next time it will not. And both will have CAPA stickers affixed to them. He thinks aftermarket parts have improved, but there is still no consistency. "If I knew what to expect, it would be different." He said a shop can expect the OEM part to fit about 99 percent of the time, while the number drops to 50 percent for aftermarket parts. The Texas shop owner said OEM parts are not always perfect either. The doors on some Chevy trucks don't have hinges on them and don't weld just right. However, Chevy is aware of the discrepancies and offers publications instructing shops on how to install the doors properly. The problems occasionally accompanying OEM parts do not compare to the problems with aftermarket parts, said Fix. He cited aftermarket chrome grills as an obvious example of poor quality. "They are a different color, not as shiny, and when out in the weather for a while, the chrome just peels off." The Texas shop owner said he almost never uses aftermarket parts on newer cars. But he said he doesn't have any problem with the idea of using aftermarket parts. His problem is in how insurance companies handle the use of these parts. "The insurance companies don't tell them [the vehicle owners] from the beginning that the estimate includes the use of aftermarket parts," he said. His shop explains to the customer what is being put on the car if he thinks the customer has been misled by the insurance company.
Supply and demand "I think there is a dark side of our industry," Hathcock said. Certain shops, whose owners and managers do not go to NACE or participate in training programs, and don't provide disclosure of the parts being used, are using a lot of these parts, he said. Fix, who is somewhat concerned about the safety of some of the parts his shop is asked by insurance companies to use, asks, "What are you supposed to do? If you don't put them [aftermarket parts] on, you cause too many problems and get on the bad side of the insurance company." Many collision repair parts play only a minor role in the structural integrity or safety of vehicles, according to Hathcock. But he added that with hoods, air bags, some door structures and glass, there are safety concerns when using non-OEM parts. Fix said the OEM tests performed on the structural integrity of aftermarket parts are believable because he has seen similar results through his own experiences. But he noted that OEMs overcharge for certain parts. That's what opened the door for companies to replicate their parts, he said. Hathcock said some parts have gotten better over time, but if he had to group all aftermarket parts together, he would say they have not improved. "It's very sad that we as an industry have progressed so far on so many issues, but have been unable to get a handle on this for the benefit of consumers," Hathcock said. He said the arguments on this issue today are the same as they were 10 or 20 years ago. "Little has changed in the past two decades." cutlines: Ford commissioned a comprehensive quality testing program of replacement crash parts in 1994 and concluded that non-OEM replacement parts are not of "like kind and quality" compared to Ford's parts. In a 1995 study, GM subjected two identically scratched fenders - a genuine GM replacement part (top) and a CAPA-certified part (bottom) - to accelerated cosmetic corrosion aging, and concluded that the GM fender showed superior corrosion resistance.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright (c) 1996-2008. Automotive Service Association. All rights reserved.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crash parts certified by the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA) account for less than 1 percent of all aftermarket parts used, according to Ford. CAPA says it accounts for 3 percent, and recently responded to studies by Ford and GM, criticizing the published results.
