EyeSight is 20-20
…Hindsight Can Be Expensive

The post EyeSight is 20-20 Hindsight Can Be Expensive appeared first on Nylunds Collision.

Dear Members of the United States Congress,

I am writing this open letter to express my strong opposition to H.R. 1879 and S. 812, Promoting Automotive Repair Trade and Sales Act of 2017, also known as the PARTS Act. I am especially disappointed in U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and lead sponsors U.S. Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), with original cosponsors Reps. Blake Farentold (R-TX), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Scott Perry (R-PA) and Jim Langevin (D-RI) who have put their names in support of this bill.

I am the current very proud owner of Nylund’s Collision Center located in Englewood, Colorado.

I oppose the Parts Act for the following reasons:

A. The language of the PARTS Act completely ignores the value of established patent law, specifically as it relates to the investment in design, manufacture and especially safety testing of vehicles that are built as an entire unit to work seamlessly with all other parts of the same vehicle.

B. The language of the PARTS Act suggests that it is against, or ignorant of the safety of the consumer who would – in an effort to save money – purchase parts that may appear to be “similar or the same in appearance to the component part”. Failure of an imitation part that appears to be the same after an accident could put the lives of the vehicle’s occupants at risk.

1. Appearing similar or same in appearance is not the same as being the same.
2. Aftermarket component parts are not subject to the same crashworthiness tests as OEM parts
3. Aftermarket component parts are manufactured, sold and certified as individual parts and have no collaborative data nor accountability to all associated parts of the vehicle which is designed to work together as a whole unit.

C. The PARTS Act is a blatant attempt to boost the profit margins of the insurance companies and their associated partners, lobbyists and the manufacturers and distributors of aftermarket parts.

1. Under the guise of protecting the consumer’s wallet, no consideration is offered to the actual costs of manufacture.
2. The only beneficiaries are those who stand to gain the most – and they are the insurance companies, manufacturers and distributors of aftermarket parts.

D. Accountability to safety is obfuscated by the pursuit of profits.

1. Who will oversee the manufacturers’ production and at what expense?
2. Where will the money come from to assure the consumer that aftermarket parts are in fact now identical to OEM parts?

The words, “Your Money or Your Life” used to be uttered by muggers in a dark alleyway. Today, they’re being uttered by members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, along with their posse of special interest lobbyists and associations. The consequences in the balance are the same now as they were then.

Please make this letter part of the record of any hearings on H.R. 1879 and/or S. 812.

I urge you to consider the value of life above the value of insurance company profits.

I urge you to vote against H.R. 1879 and S. 812 – and vote for the lives of the people who voted for you.

Note: I am calling upon my own state Senators & Congressmen (Cory Gardner and Michael Bennett / Jared Polis, Mike Coffman, Diana DeGette, Scott Tipton, Ken Buck, Ed Perlmutter and Doug Lamborn) to vote NO on H.R. 1879 and S. 812.

Resources:
Who Should Be Held Responsible?
We Fight Because #YourLivesMatter

Aftermarket-centered PARTS Act back for new Congress

An open letter to Langevin and Whitehouse

The post Open Letter to Congress appeared first on Nylunds Collision.

A recent article written by John Huetter in RDN Repairer Driven News highlighted the news of CAPA (Certified Automotive Parts Association) decertifying two lots of aftermarket parts after said parts failed to meet OEM specifications.  The article went on to ask the question why such parts have not been recalled at the federal level.  We agree that decertified parts ought to be recalled.

The question that, to our knowledge, is not yet being addressed is this: Who is and/or should be responsible for notifying (and subsequently protecting) the end user (the consumer) in the event of such decertification?  What happens when parts that were previously certified become decertified?  And who is telling the consumer who may currently be driving on no-longer certified parts?

It would appear to us that the current onus belongs to no one in particular. Its a game of high-stakes pass-the-buck that in fact, ultimately victimizes the end user. It is our position that the responsibility clearly belongs on the shoulders of the institution with the loudest voice requiring or endorsing the use of these aftermarket parts if and when they become decertified.

We believe that the insurance companies that continue to insist upon the use of aftermarket parts are in the best position to notify the consumer (their insured and/or claimants) of the decertified nature of affected parts. The consumer should be put on notice and be allowed to make the decision of whether they wish to continue with decertified parts, or be given the option to have said parts replaced.

Many – if not all insurance companies otherwise guarantee the replacement of aftermarket parts that are later found to be defective and not within “generally accepted industry standards”.

We are calling upon legislators and legal authorities, both here in Colorado and across the nation to investigate these insurance practices in order to protect the consumer. A process needs to be put into place where end users of aftermarket certified parts (later decertified) can be put on notice and make the final determination if they want those parts to be replaced.  And we are calling upon the insurance industry to step up to their responsibility to protect the consumer, instead of their bottom line.

Right now, we are not aware of any such process.

The ultimate solution is what we do in our business. At Nylund’s Collision Center, we refuse to use aftermarket parts.  We choose to side with the original manufacturer of our guests’ vehicles, and only make repairs with OEM parts.

The post Who Should Be Held Responsible? appeared first on Nylunds Collision.

The title of today’s Nylund’s Response is:

Say What?!?

The original article states:

Excellent Warranty
Parts manufacturers want their products to flawlessly work on every intended application. A warranty placed on the parts protects against improper fitment or function for months after technicians install the replacement components on the vehicle. Drivers can bring their vehicle back to the shop to report any issues with the way the parts work. At that point, technicians can perform quick repairs or send the parts back in for replacement to rectify the problem. Although outright failure rarely happens, clients and technicians alike appreciate this commitment to excellent from aftermarket parts suppliers.

Are we still talking about AFTERMARKET parts?  There’s only one way to guarantee that parts work flawlessly on every intended application.  And that is to use the parts that were DESIGNED FLAWLESSLY to work flawlessly.  Any change to the design (which is the very definition of reverse-engineered and made-differently aftermarket parts) immediately discounts a part’s ability to work “flawlessly”.

Warrantees do not protect against improper “fitment” (is that a word?) or function. Warrantees pay when cheap, ill-fitting and poorly crafted parts fail. Suggesting that any part is “better” because the manufacturer backs it with a warrantee is like saying “take our word for it… if it breaks, we’ll give you another one.”

Note the shift in responsibility in the next sentence… “Drivers can bring their vehicle back to the shop to report any issues…”. It’s subtle – but this idea is rampant among corner-cutters in the collision industry. It puts the quality control inspection all on the customer and makes the assumption that it’s not “wrong” if no one complains.

The original article goes on to say:

Lower Price
When automakers source body panels and other components from parts manufacturers, they essentially act as an intermediary in the transaction. Having a middleman often drives up the cost for the consumer as the parts change hands several times. Auto body technicians can place an order straight from the aftermarket parts suppliers to obtain the lowest price possible for their clients. The lower price point can eliminate the need for clients having to pay for repairs exceeding the insurance coverage amount. Lower repair costs may also keep monthly insurance rates from rising after making a claim.

Auto manufacturers source their parts from manufacturers who design them to fit perfectly with the overall design and safety standards of the vehicle(s) they are making. Auto body shops (not technicians) purchase parts from distributors (the actual middlemen that the article is trying to suggest increase the cost of the parts) – not from the aftermarket manufacturers.

It is ridiculous to suggest that aftermarket parts are better than OEM because they are “cheaper”. Consider this logic by simply opening up your refrigerator or wardrobe.  Do you purchase the least expensive “everything”? Of course not.  But what about where ultimate safety is concerned?  Do bridge builders, building contractors, or engineers who design our roadways opt for the least-expensive building materials? Such a notion is simply unthinkable.

We wrap up our CONSUMER ALERT on aftermarket parts by addressing the things that really matter.

At Nylund’s Collision Center, we do not have customers… we have guests.  And nothing is more important to us than our guests’ safety and that of their loved ones.  We will not use aftermarket parts on safety related or structural parts – ever. We take our responsibility to repair your vehicle to it’s pre-accident condition very seriously.  We will not cut corners to help insurance companies increase their profit margins.  At Nylund’s… if it isn’t perfect… it isn’t leaving.

The post Consumer Alert Part IV Aftermarket Parts appeared first on Nylunds Collision.

The title of today’s Nylund’s Response is:

Are You Flippin’ Kidding?

The original article states: Aftermarket parts manufacturers create components that meet or exceed quality metrics used by the manufacturers.

Wrong. Nope. Incorrect. Invalid. Untrue. Irresponsible.

We have made this case over and over, but for the record, let’s bang this drum one more time.  Aftermarket parts – by their very definition – ARE NOT and CANNOT BE manufactured to meet or exceed quality metrics used by the manufacturers.  Vehicle manufacturers patent their parts, which prevents ANY OTHER part – no matter how similar – to be exactly the same. With that in mind, it stands to reason that ALL OTHER parts cannot fit as well, and do not respond to impact and/or collision stimulus in the same way as the original part.

Example: The front bumper of a vehicle often houses airbag or other safety deployment sensors.  These sensors are calibrated to work specifically with the bumper and are timed within a 1/100th of a second. Think that doesn’t matter much? Take a look at this video.

When it comes to the safety of our guests and the integral structure of their vehicles, we here at Nylund’s Collision Center will NEVER compromise by using cheaper, ill-fitting aftermarket parts.  Cutting costs at the expense of safety just to increase the insurance company’s profits isn’t just wrong… it’s unthinkable.

Here is the next outrageous statement from the original article: In fact, it’s not often known that automakers frequently source their main components from outside manufacturers, and then label them with their own brand before selling the items in the parts department.

In fact, the above statement has absolutely nothing to do with whether aftermarket parts are better than OEM parts.  The origin of OEM parts isn’t in question.  They could be manufactured in Detroit, Michigan or Tokyo, Japan and it would have no impact on the actual issue being discussed. The question is – are knock-off parts as good (or better) than the ones specifically designed to work together with all other parts on your vehicle. (Spoiler alert: they are NOT.)

Please consider the following photo as we provide tangible proof of the insanity of thinking that aftermarket parts are the built to meet or exceed original manufacturer’s metrics:

Here is the Nylund’s Collision Center official Position Statement on the use of aftermarket parts.

In our next article, we will address the other Denver body shop’s assertion that aftermarket parts are actually “optimized” to circumvent original flaws in OEM parts.

The post Consumer Alert Part II Aftermarket Parts – Nylund’s Response appeared first on Nylunds Collision.

Today, we begin our multi-part series of the Nylund’s reply to the points made in the original article:

The original article starts by saying:

Auto body technicians see all sorts of damage from deep scratches to shredded panels on vehicles damaged in a collision or by vandals. The damage requires the use of new parts and materials to restore the vehicle to its original condition.

You’ve Outsourced and It Shows

In an article that suggests that aftermarket or third-party parts are just as good as OEM, we find no small irony that for all intents and purposes, it appears that even the authorship of the article appears to be… obviously “aftermarket”. 

It is our opinion, and that of many of our industry partners across the US, that NO BODY SHOP EXPERT could have written this article.  And while we find no issue with ghost-writing services in general – we do object when incorrect and ultimately unsafe information is presented as if it came from an industry expert.  There are far too many errors in the article to believe for a moment that an actual body shop owner (or technician, for that matter) actually wrote this article.

We agree that auto body techs see all sorts of damage.  We’ll also agree to the concept that said damage requires parts and materials to repair the vehicle to it’s “pre-accident” condition.  But that’s about all we are going to agree on, and in the interest of public safety – we’re setting the record straight as it relates to how – and WHY – we do what we do here at Nylund’s.

The original article states: Auto body technicians must source the necessary parts from a number of manufacturers, depending on cost and availability.

Technicians do not source parts.  Parts managers or office staff source parts.  Here at Nylund’s, we source from the manufacturer because OEM parts are the ONLY parts that are specifically patented to fit and perform to the original safety standards designed for your vehicle.

The original article goes on to say: Although technicians strive to save their clients time and money, it’s also important to obtain only the highest quality parts for the repairs.

There is an intrinsic conflict in this sentence.  Again, it’s not the technician’s role to save customers time or money.  But even if it were – that has nothing to do with obtaining only the highest quality parts for the repairs.  In most cases, it is not the customer’s money being spent to make the repair – it is the insurance company’s money.  And THAT is the real issue here. 

The only two entities that benefit from suggesting that aftermarket parts are as good as OEM are the makers of aftermarket parts – and the insurance companies.  The more money the insurance companies save by buying aftermarket parts means the more profit they make.  This, however, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with obtaining the highest quality parts for your vehicle’s repair.

In our next article, we’ll tackle the suggestion that aftermarket parts manufacturers “meet or exceed” quality metrics used by the original manufacturers.

The post Consumer Alert Aftermarket Parts – Nylund’s Response appeared first on Nylunds Collision.

Safety and Value Are Sacrificed

If a repairer will sacrifice the quality of your repair without your knowledge by using non-original manufacturer’s parts, what other shortcuts are they willing to take for the sake of saving money for an insurance company?

Aftermarket parts are, by definition, reproductions.  They are imitations, copycats and reverse-engineered parts that are designed to accomplish only one goal: to offer an alternative “similar” part that are less expensive than OEM parts.  Their only purpose: to save money.

Ask yourself… ask your auto body shop… ask your insurance company: “Who is being saved money?  And at what cost?”  The answer is: aftermarket parts save money for the insurance companies.  They do not offer you a discount on your premiums – and in many cases, will raise your rates, sticking it to you not once – but twice.

As a consumer you should be informed, and have a full understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of using aftermarket or reconditioned parts on your vehicle.  But that means that YOU will have to ask those questions, because the great majority of body shops will never tell that they are in a financial partnership with your insurance company.  They will not tell you that they’re using inferior, untested or ill-fitting parts.  Instead, they will put the proverbial “lipstick on a pig”, making everything look great – while your vehicle’s value… and possibly your very safety has been forever compromised.

The fact is, according to the law, the insurance companies are obligated to pay whatever it costs to repair your vehicle to it’s PRE-LOSS condition.  You have the right to insist upon the original, manufacturer’s parts – specifically designed for your vehicle’s safety and value.  It does not cost you more – you pay your deductible, and they must repair the vehicle properly.  Proper repair with inferior reproductions simply makes no sense… and it can cost you everything.

In the photo above, you will see an actual estimate provided to Nylund’s by a popular cut-rate insurance company.  Please notice that this estimate is for a brand-new, 2014 Lexus luxury SUV.  Every red arrow indicates where the insurance company has insisted upon ordering reconditioned (RECOND) and aftermarket (A/M) parts.  Of particular interest are the last two arrows where they are calling for an aftermarket radiator and an aftermarket condenser unit.  Remember: those are imitation parts that are NOT identical to the original parts provided by the manufacturer.  The use of those two parts will very likely void the warranty on all parts associated with the cooling system of the vehicle – potentially including the engine.

Should you allow those parts to be used in your vehicle’s repair, no matter what happens – you will never again be in a position to require the insurance company to replace them with OEM parts.  Your vehicle will absolutely be worth LESS when it comes time to trade it in or sell.  And in some cases, your very safety could be compromised.

Ask yourself: should you really be saving the insurance company money at YOUR expense?  Or should you insist, as we do here at Nylund’s, that the only correct way to repair a vehicle is to replace broken parts with original, manufacturer’s parts.

BREAKING NEWS: As this article was being written, a photo directly related to the use of substandard parts came across our Facebook stream.  CLICK HERE to view (Warning: Graphic Image)

The post Why Would Anybody Do This To You? appeared first on Nylunds Collision.