Citing recent crash tests by Ford, presentations conducted at the Collision Industry Conference in January and July, and testing by the Certified Automotive Parts Association (CAPA), the article states that, "Tests have found that some non-OEM parts fit poorly, are more prone to rust and corrosion, don't always meet federal safety standards, and may not provide good protection in a crash."
Consumer Reports also noted that insurance companies had increasingly pressured shops and consumers to utilize aftermarket parts for repairs as a cost-saving measure, and that in the magazine's recent insurance survey respondents' satisfaction with repairs was slightly lower among those who felt "pressured" to use DRP shops and aftermarket parts. The article further urges consumers to check their invoices to see if aftermarket part were used to repair their vehicle, and if so, to demand that they be replaced with OEM parts.
The report prompted the Automotive Body Parts Association (ABPA) to fire off a letter to the magazine, criticizing its unscientific approach, and reliance on what the ABPA characterized as biased tests conducted by Ford."Consumer Reports bases its highly questionable recommendation that consumers 'demand that they [aftermarket parts] be replaced with original equipment,' on egregiously unscientific tests and unwarranted criticism from organizations that have a significant financial stake in the outcome of the debate on aftermarket parts," said the letter, signed by Eileen Sottile, co-chair of ABPA's legislation and regulation committee. "Ford Motor Company’s hypothetical assertions supported only by computer simulations of a couple parts merely represent one more play by the company to create a monopoly for its own replacement parts; and quotes from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety appear to be based on presumption rather than actual research and factual data."
The report quoted David Zuby, senior vice president for vehicle research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), as saying that parts associated with crash protection could not be changed "willy-nilly" because they impact system performance.
"I was asked whether changing out structural components at the front of the vehicle might affect the crashworthiness of the vehicle," says Zuby, who spoke with ABRN after the Consumer Reports article was published. "I said that if that was done without care, that it very well could effect the crashworthiness of the vehicle. But what I also talked to the reporter about was that, theoretically, it's possible to re-engineer structural parts so that they will perform the same as OE parts."
Zuby noted that parts on the front of a vehicle, for instance, could affect how the airbag sensors operate. "If you make change to those parts that change what the airbags sensors see, then you don't know what the response of the airbag system will be," he said.
The IIHS has been working with CAPA to crash test vehicles that have had aftermarket parts installed on them, so that they can compare that data with existing OEM crash test results. Zuby expects those tests to be completed later this year.
The Ford tests were reported at the CIC meeting in Chicago July 21, with Ford stating that its engineers had found that the aftermarket bumper bar it tested was made of mild steel instead of ultra-high strength steel, and that a radiator support was made of plastic instead of magnesium. Click on Ford tests slam aftermarket structural parts at CIC. In computer-simulated crash tests, the aftermarket parts changed the timing of the crash pulse, which the automaker claims could affect air bag deployment.
The ABPA and CAPA have recently crossed swords over ABPA's plans to support new aftermarket parts standards being developed by NSF International. Statements made by CAPA executive director Jack Gillis in a series of public letters prompted the NSF to file a lawsuit against CAPA seeking an injunction and damages for false and misleading statements about the new certification program. Click on NSF International files suit against CAPA.
In another development in the ongoing aftermarket parts debate, the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) in August filed a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission regarding Honda's recent statements that use of aftermarket parts would void warranty coverage, claiming those statements were a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
“We request that FTC take immediate action to require that Honda withdraw the statement and issue a correction that use of non- Honda parts will not cause a owner to violate their warranty,” said Kathleen Schmatz, AAIA president and CEO, in a statement released on Aug. 26. “To our knowledge, Honda has provided no specific evidence to support their claim that there are problems with use of non-Honda aftermarket parts for their vehicles or that use of such parts creates warranty-related issues for their customers.”
To see the Consumer Reports article and a video of a Ford front bumper reinforcement and an OE replacement part in crash tests, click here
