$700 shocks?? Can this be right???

Whatever happened to mechanics that would install used parts, and bill by the job rather than the hour? I remember that my dad had several mechanics that he used (we’re talking the 80’s here). On one occassion our Oldsmobile needed a NEW ENGINE. Dad found one with only about 30K miles at a local junk yard for $200.00 and one of the mechanics he knew in Shelbyville installed the thing for about $200.00 (which I remember dad said was a little high). This was the most extreme example, but I can remember many occassions where we had alternators, struts, and other parts purchased for under $50.00 from junk yards installed for well under a hundred dollars. Now it seems as if every mechanic wants to bill “by the book” rather than the hour (forget about by the job), and if you suggest that they install used parts (that you are willing to obtain) they almost laugh at you. Even when I have agreed to sign liability waivers they say that it’s just not done anymore.

It used to be that there were many mechanics that helped the “common man” keep a car running without paying a fortune. What happened, and are these guys still out there somewhere?

My WAG:

Cars are more specialized now. Diagnosis is mainly by computer (the hardware and software of which have to be paid for somehow). Manufacturers are making components more integrated with the car’s computer system, which means that if you try to use older used parts they may not be compatible. It sometimes seems like more manufacturers are travelling the road that Rolls-Royce has been on for years…constructing the vehicle in ways that make it necessary to bring it to a certified dealer or manufacturer-approved garage for repair.

Regarding Roland’s comments: I think there are very few mechanics now who will use used parts…the reason is, they are afraid to get sued. Second: there aren’t a lot of junkyards left…and most of them only part out new cars…the market for older car parts is almost gone. Plus, scrap steel is up 400%-the Chinese are buying everything they can get their hands on!
Yep, the good old days…recently, I had to get a headlight assembly for a 13-year old Nissan…nobody had it in stock, so I went to a junkyard…they had one (thanks). A new one (if obtainable) was over $250.00!
So, for those of who who want to keep a car running…older cars arenow almost impossible to get parts for (even JC Whitney has stopped selling parts for older cars).

Part of the problem is that the cost of everything the technician buys, or needs has gone up, way up over the years.
When I started in this business, sockets for my ratchet cost about $1 each. (Snap-On circa 1970) Now that same socket is about $10.
I have somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000 worth of tools (replacement cost) that I own to work on your car. Like it or not I have to get a return on my investment.
Don’t even get me started on what a shop pays for hazmat services.

Roland one of the problems with installing a used part the customer brings in, is what happens the the used part is bad? Are you going to be happy paying me again to install another used part? After all I did not sell you the bad part, so I am not going to guarrentee something I did not sell. What if the 2nd part is bad? (I’ve seen this :eek: ) What if the part is not an exact replacement? Who pays for the mods to make it fit?
It sucks, I agree, but cars are way more complex than they were 10, 15 or 20 years ago, and they cost money to keep on the road. All the more reason to maintain your car

And don’t forget, parts just aren’t made to last anymore. By the time it’s “used”, it’s used up. Just like the OEM fasteners/clamps etc. If you have to remove them for service, most of them aren’t designed to be re-used. As light as most components are made, by the time they are in a junkyard they are truely JUNK. (By the way, it was manufacturing some of those cheap OEM parts that paid for my subscripion here, and put beans on the table for the last 8 years.)

Sorry, but all of the talk about costs of tools, complexity, and so on doesn’t answer the basic question.

Why does the manufacturer include both pump and electronics in one module? If they are separate, when the pump goes bad it can be replaced and when the electonics fail they can be replaced.

Why is the pump module in the tank so that the tank has to be pulled for replacement?

I think the answer is partly for ease of assembly in manufacturing. I’m convinced that many design decisions are based on what goes together easily on the assembly line.

I wanted to address the question about what happens if the used part is bad. That actually happened with one of the used struts dad had installed one time. The junk yard replaced it for free and the the mechanic charged $30.00 to put the new (used) one on. Thus the total job jost was about $180 instead of $150.00 compare that to $700 plus today (even adjusting for inflation since this was 1987 or so this is still less than half of what the same job today would cost. Also, with regard to liability if I bring the part, AND sign something stating that I assume the risk, I think the liability would be minimal.

I know lots of people who survive driving $1,000 dollar value cars (mainly old Toyotas and Honda’s). However, they all work on them mainly themselves. Being able to do this saves a great deal of money over going the $300.00 per month route for a new vehicle (not to mention the fact that most of the people in my socioeconomic bracket have bad credit so the $300.00 per month is for a piece of JD ByRider crap, which is also not dependable). My point is that a cheap car that you can keep running for minimal money is almost essential for escaping poverty. Unfortunately, any more if you lack the skills to work on the vehicle yourself it’s tough to do this.

You are definately right about electronics in modern cars! Most modules are sealedand thus not repairable…and the cost of this stuff will stun you! Like a new engine control computer board for a late model FORD-over $1200.00! Therefore, I predict that very few cars from the 1980’s on, will ever survive to become classics-there will be no spare electronic parts for them.
Of course, in some ways, the elctronics are a better solution-take fuelinjection: all modern cars come with electronic fuelinjection. To do FI mechanically, you need a whole pile of expensive, high tolerance mechanical parts-and fixing them ain’t cheap!
The old time carburators could be easily fixed by a moderately capable mechanic. I rebuilt a two-barrel carb once for $25.00 in parts-but those days are long gone!
Eventually, you will keep your car for about 150,000 miles-and then junk it!

Sorry Dave I was in a hurry this morning and forgot to answer your question. The simple answer is money. Every part that a car makers stocks costs money. To buy, to stock, to ship you get the idea. Now let’s look at your fuel pump assembly. It has a fuel sender, a main pump, a filter, and perhaps a transfer pump. Plus wires, hoses, a housing, some clamps and what not. If we stock just the entire unit that is one stock keeping unit. If we go ala carte there is maybe 25 different stock keeping units. Murphy’s law of auto parts states that no dealer will have parts 1, 3, 5, and 7 needed for your repair. If they have anything they will have 2, 4, 6, and 8. :smack:
Back in the 80’s we used to update the transfer pump on some cars. this simple little operation (new pump, new wires, new hose) required 13 different part numbers to complete. We were only changing about half the parts on the sender at that time. do you want to guess the number of times we had to hold a car over because one chickenshit little part was out of stock? Also many of these newer units are not designed to be taken apart and then reassembled for several reason. One is durability, another is calibration. That fuel sender might have been calibrated by its maker to read correctly. If parts are changed, the replacement might not read correctly.

Roland that question about bad parts was not made up out of whole cloth. About 15 years ago one of our dealers had a customer that needed a transmission. They did not have much money. They asked if the dealer would install a used unit. The dealer said that they did not supply used units, only rebuilt ones. The customer stated that they would get one from a junk yard. They bought one for $500 IIRC, and the dealer installed it for $200. The unit was NFG, so a replacemet was brought in from the junkyard. Another $200 in labor. This one lasted a week if I recall. A third one was brought in and another $200 was paid. At this point the customer went to the Buerau of Auto repair and filled a complaint. The dealer had to answer said complaint, and spend time away from work at a hearing. Bottom line is customer bads mouths dealer, when in fact the dealer has done nothing wrong, it’s the junkyard that is passing out piece of shit parts. Oh, and the kicker the rebuilt trans that was too expensive up front would have cost $1100, and it came with a full warrenty. Bottom line is when a customer makes a bad decision, they do not want to hear that. They only want to hear how someone else will pay for the repair. in todays world it does not susprise me at all that a shop does not want to install used parts, or parts that they did not supply.

Your point is well taken. Personally, I try to avoid owning a vehicle that is not a manual transmission. My thinking is that a clutch is cheaper to replace than an automatic.

I actually proposed an idea last Summer that would go along way towards getting lower income people away from the " J.D Byrider" type places of the world. It would have the following features:

  1. People would donate their cars to my hypothetical operation for a tax deduction much like they do GoodWill.

  2. My charity (which would also seek donations from corporations, government, and the public at large) would have a number of mechanics on staff who would decide which vehicles could serve as basic, somewhat reliable transportation. We wouldn’t worry about luxery items working such as power windows, radios, or air conditioning. In addition, paint, rust, and color wouldn’t be much of a consideration. These vehicles would receive basic service (new, *used * tires, fluids, belts where absolutely necessary ect).

3 The vehicles would then be placed on our “charity lot” for a price which would be true rock bottom, just enough to cover our basic expenses (think Good Will prices). Most would sell for well under a $1,000 a few might go for upwards of $2,000 to $3,000.

  1. We would take payments on a case by case basis with little or no downpayment.

  2. We would have a policy that if the car quit and you were making payments on time, you could EXCHANGE the vehicle for one of equal or lessor value if there was one on the lot (you could wait if there wasn’t). This would be a strong incentive to make your payments.

  3. We would also work with all of the local auction houses to get some of the vehicles they didn’t sell at auction for rock bottom prices. In exchange, we would give them any vehicles that we decided were not suitable for our “charity lot”.

  4. We might integrate the concept with an auto mechanics school that provided low cost training for those wishing to become auto mechanics. We would also “beg” the local auto parts stores and dealers for any spare parts they might have.

What really cemented my idea that such a program would be a real benefit was the experience of my brother in law who paid $8,000 at 23% interest for a 1994 Ford Taurus with 120,000 miles from JD Byriders. His transmission went bad and he had bad credit so he didn’t have much choice (furthermore he lives about twenty minutes outside the city so public transportation wasn’t an option). He has three kids, and mortgage.

Three words; Rust, Torque, Tensile-strength.

Not to mention you’ve got break lines to deal with, coil springs/shocks to compress, a drive shaft (possibly), the stabilizing linkeage, and some weight to support. Removing or lowering a rear-end on most cars is not fun for the average mechanic.

So are you saying that it’s cheaper for me if the dealer has to stock fewer parts, or is it just cheaper for the dealer?

And that still doesn’t satisfy me as to why the thing is designed so that the tank has to be removed to change the pump module.

Because ease of service is not a high priority for design engineers. It’s frustrating, because on some cars with in-tank pumps, there’s an access plate that allows replacement without tank removal.

The sale price of a car when new is a major concern during its design. The cost of maintenance is of some concern, particularly with regards to extended maintenance intervals that give the impression of economical upkeep. The cost of repairs is of minimal concern, because it’s a comparatively minor factor in purchasing decisions.

Yes. I believe some number of posts ago I mentioned I believe that the design layout is mainly governed by ease of assembly at the factory.

I swore off Toyotas after my fourth consecutive one (in 4 years) when the price of two floor mats went to $62. That was in 1975.

My brother in law has heart failure-he just got his bill (for service on his 2000 Audi A4). He was charged over $800 for a 4-wheel brake job, and $621.00 for a new alternator!
The reason: Audi is a small car, to remove a part, you have to remove a whole lot of other stuff-which you have to re-install. It is really absurd-there is so little room under the hood that the first step ought to be: remove the engine!

I had a 92 Camry which was diagnosed with needing new “hood gas lifts”. Saint John Toyota wanted about $400 Canadian. Canadian Tire sold me the shocks for $14 each and one hour ($60) for labour.

If your shocks cost $70-100, I’d double check the book labour time with someone else.

That’s the absolute truth. Cars are designed for this… That’s their design lifespan. That’s a helluvalota miles.

Cars are built to deliver the most value to the stockholder. That’s the pure and simple truth. Now the subquestions become, how is that done? Reliable vehicles, sold inexpensively, that delight the customer. So we have to pack feautures into a car as cheaply as possible with as much reliability as possible. Service is considered, but it’s balanced against everything else. Would you pay double for your car so that a shock replacement costs $300 instead of $700? I think not, otherwise we’d spend the money to do so!

So where are the people like me who would like to buy one, inexpensive car and own it their entire lives (or at least for most of their lives)? As I’ve told my wife even if we won the Powerball I still wouldn’t be inclined to buy a new automobile (although, I would shell out the bucks for a new paint job, and several other repairs the Toyota needs). Obviously, this perspective is even more relevent considering that we almost certainly won’t win the Powerball. Instead, we are striving to escape a lower middle class existence, and cheap, used, reliable automobiles that can be inexpensively repaired help to facilitate this objective.

Many surveys have shown that Americans are basically living with minimal savings so I would think that a sizeable percentage of other people might feel as we do. This perspective is strengthened by the success of many “financial gurus” who emphasize spending as little money as is possible on depreciating assets like automobiles. The bottom line is that I think there is a potential market for a low cost, reliable automobile that is cheap (relatively speaking) to maintain and repair.