I have to say at the beginning I’m pretty much a noob when it comes to fixing cars. Not long ago we replaced the large hose running from the bottom of the radiator to the engine, and we were patting ourselves on the back about it. Now, for the same car, we need to have the starter replaced, and the car is in the shop now. I’ve asked the mechanic to return the old starter to me, but he says it can’t be done. I didn’t quite follow the explanation except that he said something about a “core”, which I assume means the permanent magnet (it’s a PMGR starter).
I gathered from his statement that old starters and starter parts are normally used to rebuild/repair other starters. IOW, the normal expectation is that old starters are “recycled” into the market, as it were. He said he’d have to charge me extra to take away the old starter, but if I wanted to do that and have someone else look at it, I could return it to him afterwards and get that money back–essentially a deposit.
Yes. You get a discount of sorts when you replace an alternator or starter because they are able to turn the old one in for remanufacturing. Think of it as a bottle deposit.
#1 at least in CA, and I believe in many other states, you have a near absolute right to have your old parts returned to you. This is to discourage replacing parts with obvious wear but lots of life left.
#2 I guarendamntee you that they write the estimate under the assumption there will be no core return then it’s a bonus if you dont ask for it back.
Refusal to return parts upon request in CA can get any repair based business in CA fined (IIRC $250 first incident)
It used to be that you only had to turn in a core for rebuilt or remanufactured parts. This basically meant that you buy a used part that someone had fixed at a big plant somewhere that does nothing but fix starters and alternators all day long. You have to send your old one in so they can fix it and sell it to the next guy.
What’s odd though is that lately I’ve noticed them asking for cores even on new parts, which doesn’t seem to make much sense. Maybe the parts have scap value or something, or maybe it’s just a shakedown.
I think “core” just refers to the fact that you’re sending the main part back, the core of it. There’s a core charge on a lot of things that don’t have magnets.
Sounds reasonable. I don’t know the law, but whoever buys the part has to return the core. Essentially, he had to pay, say, $20 extra for the part as a deposit until he turns the old part in to get the money back. If you want the old part back, he can’t return the core and is out $20, or whatever the core charge is. He’s going to either get the $20 from returning the core or from you if you want the core.
edit: Since CA law was mentioned, this says in CA you may have to pay the core charge if you want the parts back.
Automotive professional in California here.
You are correct about #1, but with the limitation that you have to ask when the repair order is written. If you don’t ask when the repair order is written the shop will probably return the parts assuming they haven’t done a trip to the dumpster. I have had cases where the customer called a day or two later and wanted their parts back. If I had them fine, but I have had cases where they had gone to the dumpster.
As far as #2 goes you are incorrect in all but one special case. Estimates always include the core credit with one exception. If the old part has physical damaged and not eligible for core credit then the cost of the core is added. An example of this might be an engine that has thrown a rod through the side of the block, or a transmission has hit a rock and has a broken case.
Getting back to the OP why do you want to talk the starter to someone else for a second (after the fact) opinion? IMHO if you don’t trust the shop where the car is at, why did you take it/ tow it there?
Also depending on the fault in the starter there is no way to diagnose it if it is not attached to the engine.
As far as getting you core charge back after taking the starter with you, the answer is maybe, it would depend on the shop and the supplier.
The term “core” doesn’t refer to a magnet, it means the old part that is to be turned in for rebuilding, whether it’s a starter, water pump, ECU (computer), or what have you. The “core charge” is a deposit of sorts. The shop has already paid (or incurred) the core charge in obtaining the part.
Repair prices are typically quoted under the assumption that the shop will retain the core and return it to the parts supplier to recoup the core charge. This is a longstanding and well established practice. If the customer wants to retain the core, that’s certainly doable so long as the customer pays the core charge. It’s not paying extra to get your old part back, it’s giving up the discount you would have gotten had you not taken your old part.
It does seem counterintuitive when one is accustomed to paying core charges only on rebuilt parts. I figure it’s a way to get old parts that can be rebuilt beyond what’s available from salvage yards and such, so in that light it makes sense to me.
There is another side to this also.
A starter I priced out today was a Re-Man and the core charge was $60.00
I also had a new starter that didn’t have a core charge. Had that new one listed a core charge like the re-man that would mean the re-man company would have to pay big bucks for a broken item, Better to get them from a salvage company at scrap + coffee price.
Its all about getting rebuild-able parts back for nothing + shipping.
CV axle shafts can have core costs higher than the re-man shaft! and if we send one in with damage we eat the core if we didn’t catch it!:o
Let me be a dissenting voice and mention that if you always insist on getting all your old parts back you’re being a bit of a pain-in-the-ass because what you’re essentially saying to them is, *“I think you’re going to try and rip me off and replace things that aren’t broken so I want to verify them with a third party”. *
I would not fault a reputable shop owner for, not in so many words, telling you to fuck off.
On the other hand, are we supposed to just shower service businesses with money and trust that nobody would ever cheat us? If so, then upon what is that trust to be based?
Or that could be an indication that there’s something to hide. Either way, it’s useful though, because it might mean it’s better to take the custom elsewhere.
Yeah, those are both valid points. But you really can’t have one without the other. Asking for the parts back is saying I don’t trust you. It would be like going to a restaurant and first asking to be given a tour of the kitchen to make sure it isn’t filthy before being seated. You’re assuming guilt. And I’d bet anything that there are ten times as many filthy restaurant kitchens as there are dishonest mechanics!
Asking for the old parts really is no big deal and has been part of California law for over 40 years, so it is just part of the business landscape. I don’t mind it at all, except for two things. The first is it happens so rarely we have to be extra diligent not to throw the old parts into the trash form force of habit. The second is the person that calls two days later and is upset we don’t have their parts bagged, tagged and ready to go.
I’m not surprised that The People’s Republic of California has had this law forever. I’m surprised it’s still even legal to *own *a car there!
But to me it’s sort of stupid because the only people who would be able to tell anything from old parts are people who would work on their own cars in the first place! Seriously, if you showed a used car part to the average person they would not even be able to say what it was let alone what it does or how it does it or if the used one was still doing it or how you’d go about testing if it still did whatever it’s supposed to do or if it even came from their car at all!
Actually the automotive repair laws on California make lots of sense, and as a guy that runs a legit quality shop I don’t have a problem with them. They protect me as well as the consumer. For example it is hard to say in court that you car’s engine just blew up when you started it in your driveway when the signed repair order said " customer was on freeway, low oil pressure light came on and customer said they drove for three more miles before pulling over. Engine then had a knock in it"
And yes the above is true, I was being sued for $7,500 over the repair. I won.
I don’t think it’s the same as assuming guilt - it’s a contract; the customer provides payment, the contractor performs the work - it’s not unreasonable to ask to see some evidence demonstrating that the work has been carried out.
If a contractor finds “Can you show me what you’ve done?” threatening, they’re in the wrong job.
In the case of restaurants, the cleanliness is rated by professional inspectors (well, it does here) - so the evidence of the quality exists in the form of a certificate. When the inspectors turn up to do their job, they’re explicitly looking for problems - and not even then are they really considered to be assuming guilt. It’s not a courtroom - it’s a contracting service.
I don’t have a problem with showing the old parts to a customer. Sadly, it’s not unheard of for a shady shop to charge for replacing a part that they did not replace, so I can’t fault a new customer for wanting some evidence that things are on the up-and-up. Of course the truly devious can show a part that came off of some other car, so it’s not a foolproof approach.
More commonly, some customers are just curious about what a given part looks like. Usually, though not always, the problem with the old part is demonstrable, which again satisfies a normal curiosity. I typically ask if they’d like to see the old part. Some jump at the chance, some couldn’t care less. If there’s no core charge on the part, the customer is welcome to take it (hardly anyone does). If there is a core charge, they’re welcome to look at it, but must pay the core charge to take it with them.
I do bristle at having my integrity questioned. If I get the feeling that the customer truly doesn’t trust me (which can take forms other than asking for the old part), I wonder why they’re dealing with me. In an extreme case I might “fire” the customer, though I can’t recall the last time that occurred.
Nevertheless, developing trust is a significant aspect of fixing folk’s cars. A lot of people feel vulnerable when having their cars worked on. It’s a combination of not having the knowledge to verify or disprove what they’re told, having heard horror stories of blatant rip-offs, and often spending a sizable amount of money. It behooves a shop to keep the customer’s perspective in mind, and to communicate as best they can to alleviate the customer’s reasonable concerns.
