WORKSHOP
Page 82
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Sir, In response to the remanufacturer feature in the February Workshop we were concerned about the overall contents of this report, not least the implication that the facts presented qualified the existence of spurious repairers and their practices.
As a component manufacturer operating a comprehensive exchange scheme, our reaction has to be considered against the safety, technical and economic issues raised in this report in comparison to the objectives and standards we consider important.
In the first instance it was stated that after careful inspection 15% of the old units were rejected; in our opinion this level is dangerously low. Under our quality control standards we experience a rejection rate of 25 to 50%, furthermore new units are injected into the scheme at exchange prices, prices, to replace this loss. Design modifications and updates are also catered for where necessary. Regarding spring brakes, quoted prices suggest component manufacturers to be uncompetitive. In our case we fit new main springs on every occasion; this item represents 35% of the repair costs — we cannot economise to the cost of safety standards.
Finally, we ask what innovations have independent repairers offered to the automotive industry and how much research and investment have they put towards the advancement of vehicle technology? These additional substantial investments have to be covered and while we can look forward to healthy competition, revenues lost to spurious repairers could lead to the demise of manufacturing industry and continued increases in unit costs for manufacturers, resulting in higher prices for new vehicles.
B. Clancy Sales manager Haldex Co Durham