ARA cautions acceptance of OEM procedures as industry standards

Naturally the ARA would be against it. Where's their scientific research to show used airbags, seat belts and rusted suspension components etc etc are safe to use?

I'm going to take a junkyard assoociation recommendation over the OEMs? Not likely.

"Recycled OEM parts have been widely accepted for decades, and there is a long track record of their successful use."

This statement might be applicable if we were still repairing our fathers's oldsmobiles.

In reading the statements from OEM's regarding the use of recycled parts, the statement is primarily made because OEM's don't know the condition of the recycled parts. GM made a statement that it "likes" the idea of utilizing recycled parts, however, like the other OEM's, it cannot continue it's OEM warrantee because it cannot guarantee the condition of the "state" of the part.

Why are recylced parts less expensive? Because the seller assumes no risk, has no expense associated with vetting the parts for their history or actual condition other than the industry standard " the doors' got a coupple of hours on it"
with no inspection for prior repair work, etc., etc. etc.
I would agree that there are times when a recycled part makes good repair sense - but to make it THE standard for collision repairers and consumers is pure folly. Unfortunately, if I had to count the times that the calling for the use of a recycled part, which later was received not as promised, or incorrect and thereby drove the cylce time on the job up another 1 - 5 days, DECREASING both profitability AND CSI.....I wouldn't have time to write this post. EVER.

this is a good conversation to have. I think there are valid points on all sides. I dont believe one entity should have the power to control all standards. what we should start talking about is good and safe parameters for usage of all parts, and come up with a good compromise on how and when alternate part's should be used. we as an industry have always been under a thumb. do we want to be under a different one? or can we talk about standard's that will allow our industry greater flexibility while performing good safe repairs with quality parts for a given vehicle judging on year, conditions, and customer expectations. this is the grey area of our industry standard's that really need to be talked about, and standard'd put in place for. anyone game for that?

Valid points on both sides? REALLY? How many times have cycle time and CSI been compromised due to empty promises and expectations from an insurer who said he spoke with the salvage yard personally and the part meets "insurance quality"? Only to be met by a part that has been reconditioned, or repaired, or filled with damage that I will have to repair at my expense and the customers time. Not to mention this is not meeting our companies level of quality, yet we as an industry are consistently measured on cost of repairs and told it is performance......Uuuuuh excuse me, I know I am not a college graduate, nor do I have a degree in bean counting, but I have enough common sense to know that once we as a collective whole start taking the cost of the repairs into consideration and labeling that "performance", everyone looses.
Perhaps I can understand the use of these parts when it comes to bolt on panels, that can be proven to be clean of prior repair, headlamps tail lamps et cetera. But the moment we are discussing the use of these parts when ever the there is a structural integrity issue or an item being used that directly impacts the collision energy management piece. The idea of utilizing salvaged, after market or any other part needs to be tossed out the estimating window!

Todd, MV Auto Collision
Orange County, CA

I think what this is, is really about money,what I think is the manufacturers are pushing this because they are not selling parts, because the ones are selling more parts right now is the stores who sells aftermarket parts and the junkyards, why because of the insurance companies so every body should blame the insurance companies, me as a body shop and all owners of a body shops our job is to do the job right if the insurance include used part, our part is when we received the part lets make a good inspection, and if we find out is not a quality part not accept it, so I think there is not a problem with used parts but not accept to install used on brand new cars, or we need not to accept to install used parts on a car that is 4 years old o newer and about the aftermarket parts, there are a lot of good quality parts that fit right so when the insurance include aftermarket part lets make sure that fits right if not just document everything and ask for a OEM or used, depends of the year of the car so what I think is that if everybody do their job right shouldnt be a problem, but we know insurance want to save money and body shops wants to make money so who is the one who is paying for all of this, the consumer the people who really makes all this happen, because they are who pay for the cars, they are the ones who pays for their insurance and they are who pays for the jobs and at the end they the more affect it so is a shame about all these politicos problems.I can write a book about all this but who cares, everything is about money,I will be doing my part like the way I been doing for 12 years as an owner of NEW ERA BODY SHOP doing the rigth thing for my costumers. HE DICHO VIVA LA REVOLUCION.

This the way it should be
DISCLAIMER FOR PARTS ON A VEHICLE THAT IS GOING TO BE REPAIR.
>used part should be accept it on used cars 5 years or older.

I know there are two sides to this debate, and neither side has to do with the past. If collision repairers don't want recycled OEM parts, they have been able to get their way by asking for huge price adjustments to repair the parts or refusing them because of quality concerns. If collision repairers think they need to adopt standards that are dictated by OE Manufacturers in order to force the Insurance Companies to discontinue the use of Recycled OEM parts, then they are forgetting the lessons they learned from OE Dealerships. OE Manufacturers do not want anyone other than their authorized dealerships to repair their vehicles. If legislators had not intervened, auto repair shops and collision repairers would not have access to proprietary software and repair procedures.
If collision repairers and auto recyclers would spend the time to get a viable procedure for guarantees on part descriptions and delivery times, that would be time better spent.