MORE than expensive - outrageous!
#136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <bh8jivcop1ij3m0hohg50rikbh0p5c5vm1@4ax.com>, D. Martin
<dmartin7@videotron.ca.remove> wrote:
> Even if the car has only 110,00 miles it stll is 22 years. Some parts
> will need replacing even with the low mileage.
>
> I feel like I'm explaining this to my cat. God said forgive them they
> do not know any better.
>
> Daniel
I have already conceded that age has SOME bearing on the matter. But
the condition of the running gear and the fact that the car is well
maintained makes mileage a better determinant of the condition of the
car in this case.
The igniter is not one of those parts that's prone to wear and tear or
deterioration over the years. It's one of those run or don't run
parts,
and it should last the lifetime of the car.
<dmartin7@videotron.ca.remove> wrote:
> Even if the car has only 110,00 miles it stll is 22 years. Some parts
> will need replacing even with the low mileage.
>
> I feel like I'm explaining this to my cat. God said forgive them they
> do not know any better.
>
> Daniel
I have already conceded that age has SOME bearing on the matter. But
the condition of the running gear and the fact that the car is well
maintained makes mileage a better determinant of the condition of the
car in this case.
The igniter is not one of those parts that's prone to wear and tear or
deterioration over the years. It's one of those run or don't run
parts,
and it should last the lifetime of the car.
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <bh8jivcop1ij3m0hohg50rikbh0p5c5vm1@4ax.com>, D. Martin
<dmartin7@videotron.ca.remove> wrote:
> Even if the car has only 110,00 miles it stll is 22 years. Some parts
> will need replacing even with the low mileage.
>
> I feel like I'm explaining this to my cat. God said forgive them they
> do not know any better.
>
> Daniel
I have already conceded that age has SOME bearing on the matter. But
the condition of the running gear and the fact that the car is well
maintained makes mileage a better determinant of the condition of the
car in this case.
The igniter is not one of those parts that's prone to wear and tear or
deterioration over the years. It's one of those run or don't run
parts,
and it should last the lifetime of the car.
<dmartin7@videotron.ca.remove> wrote:
> Even if the car has only 110,00 miles it stll is 22 years. Some parts
> will need replacing even with the low mileage.
>
> I feel like I'm explaining this to my cat. God said forgive them they
> do not know any better.
>
> Daniel
I have already conceded that age has SOME bearing on the matter. But
the condition of the running gear and the fact that the car is well
maintained makes mileage a better determinant of the condition of the
car in this case.
The igniter is not one of those parts that's prone to wear and tear or
deterioration over the years. It's one of those run or don't run
parts,
and it should last the lifetime of the car.
#138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <PQiWa.331$5F4.29273289@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
<zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Go price auto glass for older cars.....its more costly for 20-40 year old
> cars than the newer ones in production as there are fewer of them on the
> road, the glass becomes more expensive, as they can't the cost over
> many many units. Auto parts are the same thing.....there aren't near as
> many 81 Civics on the road as there might be 91 or 01 Civics. Companies do
> not look at the profitability of ing the cost around.....they look at
> he profitability of having to support each unit. If this part were no
> longer made, you'd gladly pay your $193 to obtain it....used....to get your
> car running again. Its your money...you can spend it where you want.....but
> don't blame Honda for this.....its pure and simple economics of scale.
Yes, if the part were no longer made I would have had to do something
else. But the part IS available and I was ripped off for it IMHO.
As for economies of scale, I am accustomed to seeing that as something
enjoyed by the entire firm, i.e. on the macro scale, rather than an
analysis directed at one part only, unless the part is the only one
they make or a major part of production.
The Honda parts department is full of parts and whatever the costs are
that put them there and keep them there are amortized over all of the
parts in inventory. So the cost per item beyond manufacturing cost is
across numerous items.
Sure, the dealer could say that they sell too few of an item to stock
it anymore, but could they call themselves a proper parts department
without it? It's a bit like a grocery store. Probably 25% of the
items in the store account for 90% of their receipts. But, if they
decided to get rid of the other 75% of stock and replace it with more
of what they sell the most of, would they still be a grocery store?
The store I go to doesn't sell too many jars of jalapino stuffed
olives, but they need to carry a few jars in order to call themselves a
grocery store, and carry some other obscure items as well. Otherwise,
they would just be an o'sized convenience store.
So you'd thing that the owner or manager of the dealership would be
aware of the high priced stuff and realize that someone might get a bit
miffed at having to pay $193 for a $27 part, miffed enough to turn
against the dealership. It's bad business.
<zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Go price auto glass for older cars.....its more costly for 20-40 year old
> cars than the newer ones in production as there are fewer of them on the
> road, the glass becomes more expensive, as they can't the cost over
> many many units. Auto parts are the same thing.....there aren't near as
> many 81 Civics on the road as there might be 91 or 01 Civics. Companies do
> not look at the profitability of ing the cost around.....they look at
> he profitability of having to support each unit. If this part were no
> longer made, you'd gladly pay your $193 to obtain it....used....to get your
> car running again. Its your money...you can spend it where you want.....but
> don't blame Honda for this.....its pure and simple economics of scale.
Yes, if the part were no longer made I would have had to do something
else. But the part IS available and I was ripped off for it IMHO.
As for economies of scale, I am accustomed to seeing that as something
enjoyed by the entire firm, i.e. on the macro scale, rather than an
analysis directed at one part only, unless the part is the only one
they make or a major part of production.
The Honda parts department is full of parts and whatever the costs are
that put them there and keep them there are amortized over all of the
parts in inventory. So the cost per item beyond manufacturing cost is
across numerous items.
Sure, the dealer could say that they sell too few of an item to stock
it anymore, but could they call themselves a proper parts department
without it? It's a bit like a grocery store. Probably 25% of the
items in the store account for 90% of their receipts. But, if they
decided to get rid of the other 75% of stock and replace it with more
of what they sell the most of, would they still be a grocery store?
The store I go to doesn't sell too many jars of jalapino stuffed
olives, but they need to carry a few jars in order to call themselves a
grocery store, and carry some other obscure items as well. Otherwise,
they would just be an o'sized convenience store.
So you'd thing that the owner or manager of the dealership would be
aware of the high priced stuff and realize that someone might get a bit
miffed at having to pay $193 for a $27 part, miffed enough to turn
against the dealership. It's bad business.
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <PQiWa.331$5F4.29273289@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
<zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Go price auto glass for older cars.....its more costly for 20-40 year old
> cars than the newer ones in production as there are fewer of them on the
> road, the glass becomes more expensive, as they can't the cost over
> many many units. Auto parts are the same thing.....there aren't near as
> many 81 Civics on the road as there might be 91 or 01 Civics. Companies do
> not look at the profitability of ing the cost around.....they look at
> he profitability of having to support each unit. If this part were no
> longer made, you'd gladly pay your $193 to obtain it....used....to get your
> car running again. Its your money...you can spend it where you want.....but
> don't blame Honda for this.....its pure and simple economics of scale.
Yes, if the part were no longer made I would have had to do something
else. But the part IS available and I was ripped off for it IMHO.
As for economies of scale, I am accustomed to seeing that as something
enjoyed by the entire firm, i.e. on the macro scale, rather than an
analysis directed at one part only, unless the part is the only one
they make or a major part of production.
The Honda parts department is full of parts and whatever the costs are
that put them there and keep them there are amortized over all of the
parts in inventory. So the cost per item beyond manufacturing cost is
across numerous items.
Sure, the dealer could say that they sell too few of an item to stock
it anymore, but could they call themselves a proper parts department
without it? It's a bit like a grocery store. Probably 25% of the
items in the store account for 90% of their receipts. But, if they
decided to get rid of the other 75% of stock and replace it with more
of what they sell the most of, would they still be a grocery store?
The store I go to doesn't sell too many jars of jalapino stuffed
olives, but they need to carry a few jars in order to call themselves a
grocery store, and carry some other obscure items as well. Otherwise,
they would just be an o'sized convenience store.
So you'd thing that the owner or manager of the dealership would be
aware of the high priced stuff and realize that someone might get a bit
miffed at having to pay $193 for a $27 part, miffed enough to turn
against the dealership. It's bad business.
<zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Go price auto glass for older cars.....its more costly for 20-40 year old
> cars than the newer ones in production as there are fewer of them on the
> road, the glass becomes more expensive, as they can't the cost over
> many many units. Auto parts are the same thing.....there aren't near as
> many 81 Civics on the road as there might be 91 or 01 Civics. Companies do
> not look at the profitability of ing the cost around.....they look at
> he profitability of having to support each unit. If this part were no
> longer made, you'd gladly pay your $193 to obtain it....used....to get your
> car running again. Its your money...you can spend it where you want.....but
> don't blame Honda for this.....its pure and simple economics of scale.
Yes, if the part were no longer made I would have had to do something
else. But the part IS available and I was ripped off for it IMHO.
As for economies of scale, I am accustomed to seeing that as something
enjoyed by the entire firm, i.e. on the macro scale, rather than an
analysis directed at one part only, unless the part is the only one
they make or a major part of production.
The Honda parts department is full of parts and whatever the costs are
that put them there and keep them there are amortized over all of the
parts in inventory. So the cost per item beyond manufacturing cost is
across numerous items.
Sure, the dealer could say that they sell too few of an item to stock
it anymore, but could they call themselves a proper parts department
without it? It's a bit like a grocery store. Probably 25% of the
items in the store account for 90% of their receipts. But, if they
decided to get rid of the other 75% of stock and replace it with more
of what they sell the most of, would they still be a grocery store?
The store I go to doesn't sell too many jars of jalapino stuffed
olives, but they need to carry a few jars in order to call themselves a
grocery store, and carry some other obscure items as well. Otherwise,
they would just be an o'sized convenience store.
So you'd thing that the owner or manager of the dealership would be
aware of the high priced stuff and realize that someone might get a bit
miffed at having to pay $193 for a $27 part, miffed enough to turn
against the dealership. It's bad business.
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
You seem to forget that it is the manufacturer that controls the price of
the product....not the dealership.....and sometimes the dealership doesn't
even stock the item...they order it from the factory warehouse. Their
markup on the product isn't all that much either. The dealer's cost on this
item is probably around $150 or so. One thing I failed to mention......your
so-called $27 part was made to live in an environment of heat, moisture,
dirt, and other corrosive elements. This part was designed to be much more
sturdy than any electronic item put into a laptop computer. I remember
having to buy a new coil in 1981 for my 1980 Honda Accord that I owned then.
As I recall, the price of that part, then was about $50 and a mechanic
friend charged me $15 labor to install it. Your idea of pricing is fixated
back to the 70's and 80's where costs of things have changed immensely. And
your analogy of how a grocery store stocks items is totally off. You can't
compare apples and oranges as is the case here.
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720031833316147%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> In article <PQiWa.331$5F4.29273289@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
> <zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Go price auto glass for older cars.....its more costly for 20-40 year
old
> > cars than the newer ones in production as there are fewer of them on the
> > road, the glass becomes more expensive, as they can't the cost
over
> > many many units. Auto parts are the same thing.....there aren't near as
> > many 81 Civics on the road as there might be 91 or 01 Civics. Companies
do
> > not look at the profitability of ing the cost around.....they look
at
> > he profitability of having to support each unit. If this part were no
> > longer made, you'd gladly pay your $193 to obtain it....used....to get
your
> > car running again. Its your money...you can spend it where you
want.....but
> > don't blame Honda for this.....its pure and simple economics of scale.
>
> Yes, if the part were no longer made I would have had to do something
> else. But the part IS available and I was ripped off for it IMHO.
>
> As for economies of scale, I am accustomed to seeing that as something
> enjoyed by the entire firm, i.e. on the macro scale, rather than an
> analysis directed at one part only, unless the part is the only one
> they make or a major part of production.
>
> The Honda parts department is full of parts and whatever the costs are
> that put them there and keep them there are amortized over all of the
> parts in inventory. So the cost per item beyond manufacturing cost is
> across numerous items.
>
> Sure, the dealer could say that they sell too few of an item to stock
> it anymore, but could they call themselves a proper parts department
> without it? It's a bit like a grocery store. Probably 25% of the
> items in the store account for 90% of their receipts. But, if they
> decided to get rid of the other 75% of stock and replace it with more
> of what they sell the most of, would they still be a grocery store?
> The store I go to doesn't sell too many jars of jalapino stuffed
> olives, but they need to carry a few jars in order to call themselves a
> grocery store, and carry some other obscure items as well. Otherwise,
> they would just be an o'sized convenience store.
>
> So you'd thing that the owner or manager of the dealership would be
> aware of the high priced stuff and realize that someone might get a bit
> miffed at having to pay $193 for a $27 part, miffed enough to turn
> against the dealership. It's bad business.
the product....not the dealership.....and sometimes the dealership doesn't
even stock the item...they order it from the factory warehouse. Their
markup on the product isn't all that much either. The dealer's cost on this
item is probably around $150 or so. One thing I failed to mention......your
so-called $27 part was made to live in an environment of heat, moisture,
dirt, and other corrosive elements. This part was designed to be much more
sturdy than any electronic item put into a laptop computer. I remember
having to buy a new coil in 1981 for my 1980 Honda Accord that I owned then.
As I recall, the price of that part, then was about $50 and a mechanic
friend charged me $15 labor to install it. Your idea of pricing is fixated
back to the 70's and 80's where costs of things have changed immensely. And
your analogy of how a grocery store stocks items is totally off. You can't
compare apples and oranges as is the case here.
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720031833316147%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> In article <PQiWa.331$5F4.29273289@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
> <zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Go price auto glass for older cars.....its more costly for 20-40 year
old
> > cars than the newer ones in production as there are fewer of them on the
> > road, the glass becomes more expensive, as they can't the cost
over
> > many many units. Auto parts are the same thing.....there aren't near as
> > many 81 Civics on the road as there might be 91 or 01 Civics. Companies
do
> > not look at the profitability of ing the cost around.....they look
at
> > he profitability of having to support each unit. If this part were no
> > longer made, you'd gladly pay your $193 to obtain it....used....to get
your
> > car running again. Its your money...you can spend it where you
want.....but
> > don't blame Honda for this.....its pure and simple economics of scale.
>
> Yes, if the part were no longer made I would have had to do something
> else. But the part IS available and I was ripped off for it IMHO.
>
> As for economies of scale, I am accustomed to seeing that as something
> enjoyed by the entire firm, i.e. on the macro scale, rather than an
> analysis directed at one part only, unless the part is the only one
> they make or a major part of production.
>
> The Honda parts department is full of parts and whatever the costs are
> that put them there and keep them there are amortized over all of the
> parts in inventory. So the cost per item beyond manufacturing cost is
> across numerous items.
>
> Sure, the dealer could say that they sell too few of an item to stock
> it anymore, but could they call themselves a proper parts department
> without it? It's a bit like a grocery store. Probably 25% of the
> items in the store account for 90% of their receipts. But, if they
> decided to get rid of the other 75% of stock and replace it with more
> of what they sell the most of, would they still be a grocery store?
> The store I go to doesn't sell too many jars of jalapino stuffed
> olives, but they need to carry a few jars in order to call themselves a
> grocery store, and carry some other obscure items as well. Otherwise,
> they would just be an o'sized convenience store.
>
> So you'd thing that the owner or manager of the dealership would be
> aware of the high priced stuff and realize that someone might get a bit
> miffed at having to pay $193 for a $27 part, miffed enough to turn
> against the dealership. It's bad business.
#141
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
You seem to forget that it is the manufacturer that controls the price of
the product....not the dealership.....and sometimes the dealership doesn't
even stock the item...they order it from the factory warehouse. Their
markup on the product isn't all that much either. The dealer's cost on this
item is probably around $150 or so. One thing I failed to mention......your
so-called $27 part was made to live in an environment of heat, moisture,
dirt, and other corrosive elements. This part was designed to be much more
sturdy than any electronic item put into a laptop computer. I remember
having to buy a new coil in 1981 for my 1980 Honda Accord that I owned then.
As I recall, the price of that part, then was about $50 and a mechanic
friend charged me $15 labor to install it. Your idea of pricing is fixated
back to the 70's and 80's where costs of things have changed immensely. And
your analogy of how a grocery store stocks items is totally off. You can't
compare apples and oranges as is the case here.
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720031833316147%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> In article <PQiWa.331$5F4.29273289@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
> <zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Go price auto glass for older cars.....its more costly for 20-40 year
old
> > cars than the newer ones in production as there are fewer of them on the
> > road, the glass becomes more expensive, as they can't the cost
over
> > many many units. Auto parts are the same thing.....there aren't near as
> > many 81 Civics on the road as there might be 91 or 01 Civics. Companies
do
> > not look at the profitability of ing the cost around.....they look
at
> > he profitability of having to support each unit. If this part were no
> > longer made, you'd gladly pay your $193 to obtain it....used....to get
your
> > car running again. Its your money...you can spend it where you
want.....but
> > don't blame Honda for this.....its pure and simple economics of scale.
>
> Yes, if the part were no longer made I would have had to do something
> else. But the part IS available and I was ripped off for it IMHO.
>
> As for economies of scale, I am accustomed to seeing that as something
> enjoyed by the entire firm, i.e. on the macro scale, rather than an
> analysis directed at one part only, unless the part is the only one
> they make or a major part of production.
>
> The Honda parts department is full of parts and whatever the costs are
> that put them there and keep them there are amortized over all of the
> parts in inventory. So the cost per item beyond manufacturing cost is
> across numerous items.
>
> Sure, the dealer could say that they sell too few of an item to stock
> it anymore, but could they call themselves a proper parts department
> without it? It's a bit like a grocery store. Probably 25% of the
> items in the store account for 90% of their receipts. But, if they
> decided to get rid of the other 75% of stock and replace it with more
> of what they sell the most of, would they still be a grocery store?
> The store I go to doesn't sell too many jars of jalapino stuffed
> olives, but they need to carry a few jars in order to call themselves a
> grocery store, and carry some other obscure items as well. Otherwise,
> they would just be an o'sized convenience store.
>
> So you'd thing that the owner or manager of the dealership would be
> aware of the high priced stuff and realize that someone might get a bit
> miffed at having to pay $193 for a $27 part, miffed enough to turn
> against the dealership. It's bad business.
the product....not the dealership.....and sometimes the dealership doesn't
even stock the item...they order it from the factory warehouse. Their
markup on the product isn't all that much either. The dealer's cost on this
item is probably around $150 or so. One thing I failed to mention......your
so-called $27 part was made to live in an environment of heat, moisture,
dirt, and other corrosive elements. This part was designed to be much more
sturdy than any electronic item put into a laptop computer. I remember
having to buy a new coil in 1981 for my 1980 Honda Accord that I owned then.
As I recall, the price of that part, then was about $50 and a mechanic
friend charged me $15 labor to install it. Your idea of pricing is fixated
back to the 70's and 80's where costs of things have changed immensely. And
your analogy of how a grocery store stocks items is totally off. You can't
compare apples and oranges as is the case here.
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720031833316147%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> In article <PQiWa.331$5F4.29273289@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
> <zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Go price auto glass for older cars.....its more costly for 20-40 year
old
> > cars than the newer ones in production as there are fewer of them on the
> > road, the glass becomes more expensive, as they can't the cost
over
> > many many units. Auto parts are the same thing.....there aren't near as
> > many 81 Civics on the road as there might be 91 or 01 Civics. Companies
do
> > not look at the profitability of ing the cost around.....they look
at
> > he profitability of having to support each unit. If this part were no
> > longer made, you'd gladly pay your $193 to obtain it....used....to get
your
> > car running again. Its your money...you can spend it where you
want.....but
> > don't blame Honda for this.....its pure and simple economics of scale.
>
> Yes, if the part were no longer made I would have had to do something
> else. But the part IS available and I was ripped off for it IMHO.
>
> As for economies of scale, I am accustomed to seeing that as something
> enjoyed by the entire firm, i.e. on the macro scale, rather than an
> analysis directed at one part only, unless the part is the only one
> they make or a major part of production.
>
> The Honda parts department is full of parts and whatever the costs are
> that put them there and keep them there are amortized over all of the
> parts in inventory. So the cost per item beyond manufacturing cost is
> across numerous items.
>
> Sure, the dealer could say that they sell too few of an item to stock
> it anymore, but could they call themselves a proper parts department
> without it? It's a bit like a grocery store. Probably 25% of the
> items in the store account for 90% of their receipts. But, if they
> decided to get rid of the other 75% of stock and replace it with more
> of what they sell the most of, would they still be a grocery store?
> The store I go to doesn't sell too many jars of jalapino stuffed
> olives, but they need to carry a few jars in order to call themselves a
> grocery store, and carry some other obscure items as well. Otherwise,
> they would just be an o'sized convenience store.
>
> So you'd thing that the owner or manager of the dealership would be
> aware of the high priced stuff and realize that someone might get a bit
> miffed at having to pay $193 for a $27 part, miffed enough to turn
> against the dealership. It's bad business.
#142
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <VLjWa.346$Z05.30633069@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
<zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
> You seem to forget that it is the manufacturer that controls the price of
> the product....not the dealership.....
Someone else here looked up the price at another dealership and it was
$40 cheaper.
> and sometimes the dealership doesn't
> even stock the item...they order it from the factory warehouse.
That wasn't the case. In a worst case scenario, I would have had to
park the car at the shop o'nite. Again, that wasn't the case, and I
felt compelled to spring for the part because the mechanic had already
done the job except for replacing the part.
> Their
> markup on the product isn't all that much either. The dealer's cost on this
> item is probably around $150 or so.
I can't account for the relationship between the dealer and the
manufacturer, not the cost structure.
> One thing I failed to mention......your
> so-called $27 part was made to live in an environment of heat, moisture,
> dirt, and other corrosive elements. This part was designed to be much more
> sturdy than any electronic item put into a laptop computer.
They did this by inserting the electronics into the unit and then
filling the cavity with resin. See the picture called "gizmo" I posted
in alt.binaries.test for a picture of the inside after I removed the
cover.
> I remember
> having to buy a new coil in 1981 for my 1980 Honda Accord that I owned then.
> As I recall, the price of that part, then was about $50 and a mechanic
> friend charged me $15 labor to install it. Your idea of pricing is fixated
> back to the 70's and 80's where costs of things have changed immensely. And
> your analogy of how a grocery store stocks items is totally off. You can't
> compare apples and oranges as is the case here.
"Totally off?" Where do you get that? You can't see the parallel
between stocking some obscure auto parts and the stocking of obscure
grocery items? Pretty clear to me. If they just had headlights and
spark plugs, could they call themselves a parts department? No. They
need to have SOME slow-moving parts, they can't all be fast movers.
Just like the grocery store with gourmet items. They need to have
those in order to call it a grocery store. That's not "totally off."
It's not "partially off," "moderately off," or even "slightly off."
It's "right on."
Just because I have an '81 Honda doesn't mean I'm living in the '70's
or '80's. The 1999 notebook computer I use doesn't mean I live in the
90's. I think that the 2003 bread machine I bought means I live just
as far into the new millennium as you do.
<zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
> You seem to forget that it is the manufacturer that controls the price of
> the product....not the dealership.....
Someone else here looked up the price at another dealership and it was
$40 cheaper.
> and sometimes the dealership doesn't
> even stock the item...they order it from the factory warehouse.
That wasn't the case. In a worst case scenario, I would have had to
park the car at the shop o'nite. Again, that wasn't the case, and I
felt compelled to spring for the part because the mechanic had already
done the job except for replacing the part.
> Their
> markup on the product isn't all that much either. The dealer's cost on this
> item is probably around $150 or so.
I can't account for the relationship between the dealer and the
manufacturer, not the cost structure.
> One thing I failed to mention......your
> so-called $27 part was made to live in an environment of heat, moisture,
> dirt, and other corrosive elements. This part was designed to be much more
> sturdy than any electronic item put into a laptop computer.
They did this by inserting the electronics into the unit and then
filling the cavity with resin. See the picture called "gizmo" I posted
in alt.binaries.test for a picture of the inside after I removed the
cover.
> I remember
> having to buy a new coil in 1981 for my 1980 Honda Accord that I owned then.
> As I recall, the price of that part, then was about $50 and a mechanic
> friend charged me $15 labor to install it. Your idea of pricing is fixated
> back to the 70's and 80's where costs of things have changed immensely. And
> your analogy of how a grocery store stocks items is totally off. You can't
> compare apples and oranges as is the case here.
"Totally off?" Where do you get that? You can't see the parallel
between stocking some obscure auto parts and the stocking of obscure
grocery items? Pretty clear to me. If they just had headlights and
spark plugs, could they call themselves a parts department? No. They
need to have SOME slow-moving parts, they can't all be fast movers.
Just like the grocery store with gourmet items. They need to have
those in order to call it a grocery store. That's not "totally off."
It's not "partially off," "moderately off," or even "slightly off."
It's "right on."
Just because I have an '81 Honda doesn't mean I'm living in the '70's
or '80's. The 1999 notebook computer I use doesn't mean I live in the
90's. I think that the 2003 bread machine I bought means I live just
as far into the new millennium as you do.
#143
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <VLjWa.346$Z05.30633069@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
<zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
> You seem to forget that it is the manufacturer that controls the price of
> the product....not the dealership.....
Someone else here looked up the price at another dealership and it was
$40 cheaper.
> and sometimes the dealership doesn't
> even stock the item...they order it from the factory warehouse.
That wasn't the case. In a worst case scenario, I would have had to
park the car at the shop o'nite. Again, that wasn't the case, and I
felt compelled to spring for the part because the mechanic had already
done the job except for replacing the part.
> Their
> markup on the product isn't all that much either. The dealer's cost on this
> item is probably around $150 or so.
I can't account for the relationship between the dealer and the
manufacturer, not the cost structure.
> One thing I failed to mention......your
> so-called $27 part was made to live in an environment of heat, moisture,
> dirt, and other corrosive elements. This part was designed to be much more
> sturdy than any electronic item put into a laptop computer.
They did this by inserting the electronics into the unit and then
filling the cavity with resin. See the picture called "gizmo" I posted
in alt.binaries.test for a picture of the inside after I removed the
cover.
> I remember
> having to buy a new coil in 1981 for my 1980 Honda Accord that I owned then.
> As I recall, the price of that part, then was about $50 and a mechanic
> friend charged me $15 labor to install it. Your idea of pricing is fixated
> back to the 70's and 80's where costs of things have changed immensely. And
> your analogy of how a grocery store stocks items is totally off. You can't
> compare apples and oranges as is the case here.
"Totally off?" Where do you get that? You can't see the parallel
between stocking some obscure auto parts and the stocking of obscure
grocery items? Pretty clear to me. If they just had headlights and
spark plugs, could they call themselves a parts department? No. They
need to have SOME slow-moving parts, they can't all be fast movers.
Just like the grocery store with gourmet items. They need to have
those in order to call it a grocery store. That's not "totally off."
It's not "partially off," "moderately off," or even "slightly off."
It's "right on."
Just because I have an '81 Honda doesn't mean I'm living in the '70's
or '80's. The 1999 notebook computer I use doesn't mean I live in the
90's. I think that the 2003 bread machine I bought means I live just
as far into the new millennium as you do.
<zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
> You seem to forget that it is the manufacturer that controls the price of
> the product....not the dealership.....
Someone else here looked up the price at another dealership and it was
$40 cheaper.
> and sometimes the dealership doesn't
> even stock the item...they order it from the factory warehouse.
That wasn't the case. In a worst case scenario, I would have had to
park the car at the shop o'nite. Again, that wasn't the case, and I
felt compelled to spring for the part because the mechanic had already
done the job except for replacing the part.
> Their
> markup on the product isn't all that much either. The dealer's cost on this
> item is probably around $150 or so.
I can't account for the relationship between the dealer and the
manufacturer, not the cost structure.
> One thing I failed to mention......your
> so-called $27 part was made to live in an environment of heat, moisture,
> dirt, and other corrosive elements. This part was designed to be much more
> sturdy than any electronic item put into a laptop computer.
They did this by inserting the electronics into the unit and then
filling the cavity with resin. See the picture called "gizmo" I posted
in alt.binaries.test for a picture of the inside after I removed the
cover.
> I remember
> having to buy a new coil in 1981 for my 1980 Honda Accord that I owned then.
> As I recall, the price of that part, then was about $50 and a mechanic
> friend charged me $15 labor to install it. Your idea of pricing is fixated
> back to the 70's and 80's where costs of things have changed immensely. And
> your analogy of how a grocery store stocks items is totally off. You can't
> compare apples and oranges as is the case here.
"Totally off?" Where do you get that? You can't see the parallel
between stocking some obscure auto parts and the stocking of obscure
grocery items? Pretty clear to me. If they just had headlights and
spark plugs, could they call themselves a parts department? No. They
need to have SOME slow-moving parts, they can't all be fast movers.
Just like the grocery store with gourmet items. They need to have
those in order to call it a grocery store. That's not "totally off."
It's not "partially off," "moderately off," or even "slightly off."
It's "right on."
Just because I have an '81 Honda doesn't mean I'm living in the '70's
or '80's. The 1999 notebook computer I use doesn't mean I live in the
90's. I think that the 2003 bread machine I bought means I live just
as far into the new millennium as you do.
#144
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720031238362523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
> Now, that's the kind of analysis I can understand. Thank you.
>
>
>
> In article <vU3Wa.621$GN6.355@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>, Den and Barb
> <dj1732spam@alltel.net> wrote:
>
> > I have tried to follow this thread and have yet to read "WHY" a $28.
part
> > retails for $193.
> > You see, the "parts business" is one of the most lucrative businesses
> > around. ALL auto parts are subject to the rule of "doubling". The
> > manufacturer of the part (a Honda subcontractor) charges his normal
selling
> > price plus at least 100% since this is a "spare" part. (This is true of
ALL
> > auto parts suppliers.) Then add another 100% for the factory markup;
then
> > another 100% for the dealer markup.
> > Therefore $193. /2 /2 /2 = $24.+ which is the price of the part that the
> > manufacturer paid on the assembly line. The only modifier to this
universal
> > gouging is when some independent manufacturer begins making similar
> > replacement parts because there's money to be made e.g. brake pads,
air/oil
> > filters, etc. This forces everyone on the gravy train to restructure
their
> > pricing to be competitive.
> > Obviously, the Honda rotor is not replaced often enough to entice
someone to
> > make their own replacement part. I paid $20.+ for a PCV valve which was
no
> > available at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart had a shelf full of other car makes for
> > under $5.
> > Bottom line, it's the way capitalism works, if you need prescription
drugs
> > it's gonna cost you. If you want a infrequently replaced part it's gonna
> > cost you. If you shoot all of the "gougers" you will be living alone.
> >
> > "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> > news:300720032225491946%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> > > In article <3F289927.86AF51C6@spam.now>, Eric <say.no@spam.now> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Had you shopped around, you would have had other choices. The
ignitor
> > can be
> > > > obtained new from Honda for $150, http://tinyurl.com/il7p. Other
> > options
> > > > might
> > > > have included buying one from a wrecking yard or from someone
parting
> > out
> > > > their
> > > > wrecked car. Why, you probably could've picked up an entire used
> > distributor
> > > > for one of those units for $20.
> > >
> > > It's been several years since I saw an '81 Honda in a wrecking yard.
> > > They've all been crushed, melted down, and have gone to meet their
> > > maker (or some other car maker).
> > >
> > > I don't have time to shop the Internet for parts when the car is
> > > broken. Besides, I have a long-term relationship with my mechanic and
> > > would not think to save $50 off him. It's a pay me now pay me later
> > > thing, if you know what I mean.
> > >
> > > > It is unfortunate that the sales manager laughed. That's no way to
> > treat
> > > people
> > > > who are their bread and butter.
> > >
> > > Honda will pay for that. Not in terms of the billions they rake in,
> > > but in my terms -- one car at a time over the long haul. Obviously
the
> > > guy did not consider me to be a future prospect. He will never know
> > > it, but I will undo a few sales for him before he ever gets a whiff of
> > > them. I am reminded of the dealer arrogance of the 1960's when the
> > > American manufacturers thought they could pawn anything off on the
> > > public. It's no coincidence that that was the time when I my first
> > > import and said goodbye to Detroit forever.
1) I just bought a 2003 Ford and now I am thinking I should have bought a
Honda, considering yours lasted 22 years and you are whining about $193!!!
If anything, your intended aim (to convince prospective buyers not to choose
Honda) has only made me realize that the cliche that Hondas are reliable,
is, in fact, pretty darn true.
2) If you told the salesperson that you were outraged to have to pay $193
for a "$27 part," I can see how he might have thought that was humorous,
although nonetheless it was rude for him to laugh at you. He should have
saved it for his buddies. The part is not $27 or $19.30. The price is
dictated by the market. Were you speaking to a new car salesperson or a
parts salesperson (neither of whom has any control over changing the price
of your so-called overpriced part.) Did you try speaking to the manager?
The part was obviously worth the $193 price tag, because you paid it. You
were not forced at gunpoint to purchase the part, but merely opted to do so
after considering the prospects of not having a car (that apparently you use
infrequently anyway).
3) I understand being constrained by a fixed income and limited
discretionary spending. Save $2000 and buy one of those new-fangled
IBM-compatible (!) computers at Wal-mart instead of your fancy Apple
notebook.
4) When my last car (1997 Hyundai) kept breaking down, I got savvy and
started calling parts places to find the cheapest part possible, rather than
have to pay the dealership price. Perhaps you do not have a telephone, but
it might be a wise investment. It could save you money in parts long-term.
You quite clearly have access to the internet, and could have used your time
to search for an available 1981 igniter on the internet. But you only use
the internet to complain, rather than for productive, money-saving
activities.
5) For all the time that you have wasted posting, you could have already
made back the $193 you spent on the part through work at a minimum wage
part-time job.
6) Public transportation adds up. A monthly metro pass in NYC is $70. Add
that up, and you will realize that your average expenditure on your '81
Honda is a damn good deal.
Ed
#145
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720031238362523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
> Now, that's the kind of analysis I can understand. Thank you.
>
>
>
> In article <vU3Wa.621$GN6.355@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>, Den and Barb
> <dj1732spam@alltel.net> wrote:
>
> > I have tried to follow this thread and have yet to read "WHY" a $28.
part
> > retails for $193.
> > You see, the "parts business" is one of the most lucrative businesses
> > around. ALL auto parts are subject to the rule of "doubling". The
> > manufacturer of the part (a Honda subcontractor) charges his normal
selling
> > price plus at least 100% since this is a "spare" part. (This is true of
ALL
> > auto parts suppliers.) Then add another 100% for the factory markup;
then
> > another 100% for the dealer markup.
> > Therefore $193. /2 /2 /2 = $24.+ which is the price of the part that the
> > manufacturer paid on the assembly line. The only modifier to this
universal
> > gouging is when some independent manufacturer begins making similar
> > replacement parts because there's money to be made e.g. brake pads,
air/oil
> > filters, etc. This forces everyone on the gravy train to restructure
their
> > pricing to be competitive.
> > Obviously, the Honda rotor is not replaced often enough to entice
someone to
> > make their own replacement part. I paid $20.+ for a PCV valve which was
no
> > available at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart had a shelf full of other car makes for
> > under $5.
> > Bottom line, it's the way capitalism works, if you need prescription
drugs
> > it's gonna cost you. If you want a infrequently replaced part it's gonna
> > cost you. If you shoot all of the "gougers" you will be living alone.
> >
> > "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> > news:300720032225491946%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> > > In article <3F289927.86AF51C6@spam.now>, Eric <say.no@spam.now> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Had you shopped around, you would have had other choices. The
ignitor
> > can be
> > > > obtained new from Honda for $150, http://tinyurl.com/il7p. Other
> > options
> > > > might
> > > > have included buying one from a wrecking yard or from someone
parting
> > out
> > > > their
> > > > wrecked car. Why, you probably could've picked up an entire used
> > distributor
> > > > for one of those units for $20.
> > >
> > > It's been several years since I saw an '81 Honda in a wrecking yard.
> > > They've all been crushed, melted down, and have gone to meet their
> > > maker (or some other car maker).
> > >
> > > I don't have time to shop the Internet for parts when the car is
> > > broken. Besides, I have a long-term relationship with my mechanic and
> > > would not think to save $50 off him. It's a pay me now pay me later
> > > thing, if you know what I mean.
> > >
> > > > It is unfortunate that the sales manager laughed. That's no way to
> > treat
> > > people
> > > > who are their bread and butter.
> > >
> > > Honda will pay for that. Not in terms of the billions they rake in,
> > > but in my terms -- one car at a time over the long haul. Obviously
the
> > > guy did not consider me to be a future prospect. He will never know
> > > it, but I will undo a few sales for him before he ever gets a whiff of
> > > them. I am reminded of the dealer arrogance of the 1960's when the
> > > American manufacturers thought they could pawn anything off on the
> > > public. It's no coincidence that that was the time when I my first
> > > import and said goodbye to Detroit forever.
1) I just bought a 2003 Ford and now I am thinking I should have bought a
Honda, considering yours lasted 22 years and you are whining about $193!!!
If anything, your intended aim (to convince prospective buyers not to choose
Honda) has only made me realize that the cliche that Hondas are reliable,
is, in fact, pretty darn true.
2) If you told the salesperson that you were outraged to have to pay $193
for a "$27 part," I can see how he might have thought that was humorous,
although nonetheless it was rude for him to laugh at you. He should have
saved it for his buddies. The part is not $27 or $19.30. The price is
dictated by the market. Were you speaking to a new car salesperson or a
parts salesperson (neither of whom has any control over changing the price
of your so-called overpriced part.) Did you try speaking to the manager?
The part was obviously worth the $193 price tag, because you paid it. You
were not forced at gunpoint to purchase the part, but merely opted to do so
after considering the prospects of not having a car (that apparently you use
infrequently anyway).
3) I understand being constrained by a fixed income and limited
discretionary spending. Save $2000 and buy one of those new-fangled
IBM-compatible (!) computers at Wal-mart instead of your fancy Apple
notebook.
4) When my last car (1997 Hyundai) kept breaking down, I got savvy and
started calling parts places to find the cheapest part possible, rather than
have to pay the dealership price. Perhaps you do not have a telephone, but
it might be a wise investment. It could save you money in parts long-term.
You quite clearly have access to the internet, and could have used your time
to search for an available 1981 igniter on the internet. But you only use
the internet to complain, rather than for productive, money-saving
activities.
5) For all the time that you have wasted posting, you could have already
made back the $193 you spent on the part through work at a minimum wage
part-time job.
6) Public transportation adds up. A monthly metro pass in NYC is $70. Add
that up, and you will realize that your average expenditure on your '81
Honda is a damn good deal.
Ed
#146
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Stephen Bigelow wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:310720031529361713%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
>>In article <cCfWa.293$9Q3.26194184@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
>><zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have to get a good laugh out of this. This discussion wouldn't have
>>
> been
>
>>>brought up had this been a Chev Chevette or Ford Escort that were both
>>
> made
>
>>>in 1981.....those cars would have been long since dead as you see very
>>
> very
>
>>>few of them on the road anymore, regardless of mileage. And don't
>>
> confuse
>
>>>mileage with parts longevity as cars that are not driven much, usually
>>
> have
>
>>>more things go wrong as time progresses. Low mileage cars usually live a
>>>harder life than a car driven higher miles
>>>Your decision to refuse to buy another Honda in this case, or any brand
>>
> for
>
>>>that matter, because of this part is also very shortsighted. Get real,
>>
> this
>
>>>is a 22 year old car! It is very difficult to get any car repaired for
>>
> less
>
>>>than $200 anymore, given the cost of labor to install this $27 part
>>
> ($80/hr
>
>>>here). Have you even considered the Liability insurance, the Workers
>>>Compensation insurance, the Group Medical, the local, state, and federal
>>>taxes that the dealer and a manufacturer have to pay. It is extremely
>>
> high
>
>>>these days.
>>>Back in 1981, $193 went a long way towards a repair....it sure as hell
>>>doesn't in 2003.
>>
>>But we're not talking about a repair. We're talking about a part. And
>>all of the costs beyond manufacturing, even distribution, are
>>across mamny, many parts in an inventory. There is nothing that
>>justifies charging $193 for this part except for mistake or greed.
>>Right now I'm sniffing greed. Greed and the arrogance of a dealer who
>>would laugh in your face for having given him some consumer feedback.
>>And they expect you to do what Rusty Warren sang about... "Roll me
>>over, in the clover, roll me over, lay me down, and do it again).
>>
>>Well, I ain't doin' it again with Honda. And it's gonna cost 'em by
>>word of mouth. See, I have the part and I can hand it to anyone and
>>say, "How'd yuh like to hear the story behind this little gizmo?" If I
>>keep this local dealer from selling one car, I'll be happy. I know I
>>can do it. I'll be the Honda un-salesman. The non-Honda
>>transportation consultant. I'll be the guy with a heart, not the guy
>>without a heart.
>>
>>I have the part. The part screams "tell me the story." Guess how much
>>I cost.
>
> You're priceless.
<snort>
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:310720031529361713%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
>>In article <cCfWa.293$9Q3.26194184@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
>><zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have to get a good laugh out of this. This discussion wouldn't have
>>
> been
>
>>>brought up had this been a Chev Chevette or Ford Escort that were both
>>
> made
>
>>>in 1981.....those cars would have been long since dead as you see very
>>
> very
>
>>>few of them on the road anymore, regardless of mileage. And don't
>>
> confuse
>
>>>mileage with parts longevity as cars that are not driven much, usually
>>
> have
>
>>>more things go wrong as time progresses. Low mileage cars usually live a
>>>harder life than a car driven higher miles
>>>Your decision to refuse to buy another Honda in this case, or any brand
>>
> for
>
>>>that matter, because of this part is also very shortsighted. Get real,
>>
> this
>
>>>is a 22 year old car! It is very difficult to get any car repaired for
>>
> less
>
>>>than $200 anymore, given the cost of labor to install this $27 part
>>
> ($80/hr
>
>>>here). Have you even considered the Liability insurance, the Workers
>>>Compensation insurance, the Group Medical, the local, state, and federal
>>>taxes that the dealer and a manufacturer have to pay. It is extremely
>>
> high
>
>>>these days.
>>>Back in 1981, $193 went a long way towards a repair....it sure as hell
>>>doesn't in 2003.
>>
>>But we're not talking about a repair. We're talking about a part. And
>>all of the costs beyond manufacturing, even distribution, are
>>across mamny, many parts in an inventory. There is nothing that
>>justifies charging $193 for this part except for mistake or greed.
>>Right now I'm sniffing greed. Greed and the arrogance of a dealer who
>>would laugh in your face for having given him some consumer feedback.
>>And they expect you to do what Rusty Warren sang about... "Roll me
>>over, in the clover, roll me over, lay me down, and do it again).
>>
>>Well, I ain't doin' it again with Honda. And it's gonna cost 'em by
>>word of mouth. See, I have the part and I can hand it to anyone and
>>say, "How'd yuh like to hear the story behind this little gizmo?" If I
>>keep this local dealer from selling one car, I'll be happy. I know I
>>can do it. I'll be the Honda un-salesman. The non-Honda
>>transportation consultant. I'll be the guy with a heart, not the guy
>>without a heart.
>>
>>I have the part. The part screams "tell me the story." Guess how much
>>I cost.
>
> You're priceless.
<snort>
#147
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Stephen Bigelow wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:310720031529361713%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
>>In article <cCfWa.293$9Q3.26194184@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
>><zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have to get a good laugh out of this. This discussion wouldn't have
>>
> been
>
>>>brought up had this been a Chev Chevette or Ford Escort that were both
>>
> made
>
>>>in 1981.....those cars would have been long since dead as you see very
>>
> very
>
>>>few of them on the road anymore, regardless of mileage. And don't
>>
> confuse
>
>>>mileage with parts longevity as cars that are not driven much, usually
>>
> have
>
>>>more things go wrong as time progresses. Low mileage cars usually live a
>>>harder life than a car driven higher miles
>>>Your decision to refuse to buy another Honda in this case, or any brand
>>
> for
>
>>>that matter, because of this part is also very shortsighted. Get real,
>>
> this
>
>>>is a 22 year old car! It is very difficult to get any car repaired for
>>
> less
>
>>>than $200 anymore, given the cost of labor to install this $27 part
>>
> ($80/hr
>
>>>here). Have you even considered the Liability insurance, the Workers
>>>Compensation insurance, the Group Medical, the local, state, and federal
>>>taxes that the dealer and a manufacturer have to pay. It is extremely
>>
> high
>
>>>these days.
>>>Back in 1981, $193 went a long way towards a repair....it sure as hell
>>>doesn't in 2003.
>>
>>But we're not talking about a repair. We're talking about a part. And
>>all of the costs beyond manufacturing, even distribution, are
>>across mamny, many parts in an inventory. There is nothing that
>>justifies charging $193 for this part except for mistake or greed.
>>Right now I'm sniffing greed. Greed and the arrogance of a dealer who
>>would laugh in your face for having given him some consumer feedback.
>>And they expect you to do what Rusty Warren sang about... "Roll me
>>over, in the clover, roll me over, lay me down, and do it again).
>>
>>Well, I ain't doin' it again with Honda. And it's gonna cost 'em by
>>word of mouth. See, I have the part and I can hand it to anyone and
>>say, "How'd yuh like to hear the story behind this little gizmo?" If I
>>keep this local dealer from selling one car, I'll be happy. I know I
>>can do it. I'll be the Honda un-salesman. The non-Honda
>>transportation consultant. I'll be the guy with a heart, not the guy
>>without a heart.
>>
>>I have the part. The part screams "tell me the story." Guess how much
>>I cost.
>
> You're priceless.
<snort>
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:310720031529361713%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
>>In article <cCfWa.293$9Q3.26194184@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, Larry
>><zieglerl@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have to get a good laugh out of this. This discussion wouldn't have
>>
> been
>
>>>brought up had this been a Chev Chevette or Ford Escort that were both
>>
> made
>
>>>in 1981.....those cars would have been long since dead as you see very
>>
> very
>
>>>few of them on the road anymore, regardless of mileage. And don't
>>
> confuse
>
>>>mileage with parts longevity as cars that are not driven much, usually
>>
> have
>
>>>more things go wrong as time progresses. Low mileage cars usually live a
>>>harder life than a car driven higher miles
>>>Your decision to refuse to buy another Honda in this case, or any brand
>>
> for
>
>>>that matter, because of this part is also very shortsighted. Get real,
>>
> this
>
>>>is a 22 year old car! It is very difficult to get any car repaired for
>>
> less
>
>>>than $200 anymore, given the cost of labor to install this $27 part
>>
> ($80/hr
>
>>>here). Have you even considered the Liability insurance, the Workers
>>>Compensation insurance, the Group Medical, the local, state, and federal
>>>taxes that the dealer and a manufacturer have to pay. It is extremely
>>
> high
>
>>>these days.
>>>Back in 1981, $193 went a long way towards a repair....it sure as hell
>>>doesn't in 2003.
>>
>>But we're not talking about a repair. We're talking about a part. And
>>all of the costs beyond manufacturing, even distribution, are
>>across mamny, many parts in an inventory. There is nothing that
>>justifies charging $193 for this part except for mistake or greed.
>>Right now I'm sniffing greed. Greed and the arrogance of a dealer who
>>would laugh in your face for having given him some consumer feedback.
>>And they expect you to do what Rusty Warren sang about... "Roll me
>>over, in the clover, roll me over, lay me down, and do it again).
>>
>>Well, I ain't doin' it again with Honda. And it's gonna cost 'em by
>>word of mouth. See, I have the part and I can hand it to anyone and
>>say, "How'd yuh like to hear the story behind this little gizmo?" If I
>>keep this local dealer from selling one car, I'll be happy. I know I
>>can do it. I'll be the Honda un-salesman. The non-Honda
>>transportation consultant. I'll be the guy with a heart, not the guy
>>without a heart.
>>
>>I have the part. The part screams "tell me the story." Guess how much
>>I cost.
>
> You're priceless.
<snort>
#148
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <gEkWa.15114$Vx2.7497551@newssvr28.news.prodigy.co m>,
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1) I just bought a 2003 Ford and now I am thinking I should have bought a
> Honda, considering yours lasted 22 years and you are whining about $193!!!
> If anything, your intended aim (to convince prospective buyers not to choose
> Honda) has only made me realize that the cliche that Hondas are reliable,
> is, in fact, pretty darn true.
Oh, geeze, my strategy backfired. I hope your dealer sends me a
bird-dog fee when he sells you the car.
But, you know, you have it boiled down to the positive of having lasted
22 years and the negative of having to pay $193. Looks good on paper,
but it ain't that simple. This is not something I had planned for.
Once it happened a series of events took place and one of them was
being jacked up for $193 for what appeared to be a part that should
have been priced far less, IMO. I was faced with paying the $193 or
walking away from a car that I needed. naturally, I did the only thing
I could given the fact that I live alone - I paid their extortion, but
not without deciding to give them some bad PR.
> 2) If you told the salesperson that you were outraged to have to pay $193
> for a "$27 part,"
No, I just beefed about the $193. I hadn't by then worked up any
elaborate beef. $27 came along later on after some analysis.
> I can see how he might have thought that was humorous,
> although nonetheless it was rude for him to laugh at you. He should have
> saved it for his buddies. The part is not $27 or $19.30. The price is
> dictated by the market.
I doubt if market forces have much to do with the price of this part.
If that were the case, then they would have realized that someone like
me would come along and try to cost them customers over time. The part
is there on my dashboard waiting to be the center of a Honda-bashing
discussion. The price does not take that into consideration.
Otherwise it would be priced far less than it is, perhaps something
closer to manufacturing costs and reasonable markups.
> Were you speaking to a new car salesperson or a
> parts salesperson (neither of whom has any control over changing the price
> of your so-called overpriced part.) Did you try speaking to the manager?
I was speaking to the sales manager for a GM/Honda dealership.
> The part was obviously worth the $193 price tag, because you paid it. You
> were not forced at gunpoint to purchase the part, but merely opted to do so
> after considering the prospects of not having a car (that apparently you use
> infrequently anyway).
Sorry, but walking away from the car is not an option. It's
unreasonable for you to say that I could or should. I paid it because
I had to, and I felt that it was extortion while it happened. That
does not make the part worth $193. I think if it was twice that I
would have had to pay it.
> 3) I understand being constrained by a fixed income and limited
> discretionary spending. Save $2000 and buy one of those new-fangled
> IBM-compatible (!) computers at Wal-mart instead of your fancy Apple
> notebook.
The notebook was purchased for a job. When the job ended, I kept it
for personal use. All on the up-and-up because it was my dot-com we're
talking about. Otherwise, I would likely still be using an older Mac
since I'm not really a power user for email and news. With all of the
problems I've seen my friends have who use stuff from the Evil Empire,
I would stop computing before buying of it. I could give up computing
same as I gave up the telephone.
> 4) When my last car (1997 Hyundai) kept breaking down, I got savvy and
> started calling parts places to find the cheapest part possible, rather than
> have to pay the dealership price. Perhaps you do not have a telephone, but
> it might be a wise investment. It could save you money in parts long-term.
> You quite clearly have access to the internet, and could have used your time
> to search for an available 1981 igniter on the internet. But you only use
> the internet to complain, rather than for productive, money-saving
> activities.
I think that I have answered that many times during this thread. I was
stuck, just off the hook, needing my car, so I hadda yield to the
dealer's extortion.
> 5) For all the time that you have wasted posting, you could have already
> made back the $193 you spent on the part through work at a minimum wage
> part-time job.
But getting back at Honda is a labor of love (hate). There's no wage
analysis that accounts for that. Just think of what the Jews and Arabs
could have done had they applied all of their troublemaking to positive
things since the sons of Abraham quarreled.
> 6) Public transportation adds up. A monthly metro pass in NYC is $70. Add
> that up, and you will realize that your average expenditure on your '81
> Honda is a damn good deal.
I have thought of this extensively. My analysis tells me that I can
live for less without a car while using public transportation. Right
now,because of where I live, the Honda makes sense. I just hope that I
can get into a situation where I don't need a car before the Honda
needs to be replaced.
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1) I just bought a 2003 Ford and now I am thinking I should have bought a
> Honda, considering yours lasted 22 years and you are whining about $193!!!
> If anything, your intended aim (to convince prospective buyers not to choose
> Honda) has only made me realize that the cliche that Hondas are reliable,
> is, in fact, pretty darn true.
Oh, geeze, my strategy backfired. I hope your dealer sends me a
bird-dog fee when he sells you the car.
But, you know, you have it boiled down to the positive of having lasted
22 years and the negative of having to pay $193. Looks good on paper,
but it ain't that simple. This is not something I had planned for.
Once it happened a series of events took place and one of them was
being jacked up for $193 for what appeared to be a part that should
have been priced far less, IMO. I was faced with paying the $193 or
walking away from a car that I needed. naturally, I did the only thing
I could given the fact that I live alone - I paid their extortion, but
not without deciding to give them some bad PR.
> 2) If you told the salesperson that you were outraged to have to pay $193
> for a "$27 part,"
No, I just beefed about the $193. I hadn't by then worked up any
elaborate beef. $27 came along later on after some analysis.
> I can see how he might have thought that was humorous,
> although nonetheless it was rude for him to laugh at you. He should have
> saved it for his buddies. The part is not $27 or $19.30. The price is
> dictated by the market.
I doubt if market forces have much to do with the price of this part.
If that were the case, then they would have realized that someone like
me would come along and try to cost them customers over time. The part
is there on my dashboard waiting to be the center of a Honda-bashing
discussion. The price does not take that into consideration.
Otherwise it would be priced far less than it is, perhaps something
closer to manufacturing costs and reasonable markups.
> Were you speaking to a new car salesperson or a
> parts salesperson (neither of whom has any control over changing the price
> of your so-called overpriced part.) Did you try speaking to the manager?
I was speaking to the sales manager for a GM/Honda dealership.
> The part was obviously worth the $193 price tag, because you paid it. You
> were not forced at gunpoint to purchase the part, but merely opted to do so
> after considering the prospects of not having a car (that apparently you use
> infrequently anyway).
Sorry, but walking away from the car is not an option. It's
unreasonable for you to say that I could or should. I paid it because
I had to, and I felt that it was extortion while it happened. That
does not make the part worth $193. I think if it was twice that I
would have had to pay it.
> 3) I understand being constrained by a fixed income and limited
> discretionary spending. Save $2000 and buy one of those new-fangled
> IBM-compatible (!) computers at Wal-mart instead of your fancy Apple
> notebook.
The notebook was purchased for a job. When the job ended, I kept it
for personal use. All on the up-and-up because it was my dot-com we're
talking about. Otherwise, I would likely still be using an older Mac
since I'm not really a power user for email and news. With all of the
problems I've seen my friends have who use stuff from the Evil Empire,
I would stop computing before buying of it. I could give up computing
same as I gave up the telephone.
> 4) When my last car (1997 Hyundai) kept breaking down, I got savvy and
> started calling parts places to find the cheapest part possible, rather than
> have to pay the dealership price. Perhaps you do not have a telephone, but
> it might be a wise investment. It could save you money in parts long-term.
> You quite clearly have access to the internet, and could have used your time
> to search for an available 1981 igniter on the internet. But you only use
> the internet to complain, rather than for productive, money-saving
> activities.
I think that I have answered that many times during this thread. I was
stuck, just off the hook, needing my car, so I hadda yield to the
dealer's extortion.
> 5) For all the time that you have wasted posting, you could have already
> made back the $193 you spent on the part through work at a minimum wage
> part-time job.
But getting back at Honda is a labor of love (hate). There's no wage
analysis that accounts for that. Just think of what the Jews and Arabs
could have done had they applied all of their troublemaking to positive
things since the sons of Abraham quarreled.
> 6) Public transportation adds up. A monthly metro pass in NYC is $70. Add
> that up, and you will realize that your average expenditure on your '81
> Honda is a damn good deal.
I have thought of this extensively. My analysis tells me that I can
live for less without a car while using public transportation. Right
now,because of where I live, the Honda makes sense. I just hope that I
can get into a situation where I don't need a car before the Honda
needs to be replaced.
#149
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <gEkWa.15114$Vx2.7497551@newssvr28.news.prodigy.co m>,
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1) I just bought a 2003 Ford and now I am thinking I should have bought a
> Honda, considering yours lasted 22 years and you are whining about $193!!!
> If anything, your intended aim (to convince prospective buyers not to choose
> Honda) has only made me realize that the cliche that Hondas are reliable,
> is, in fact, pretty darn true.
Oh, geeze, my strategy backfired. I hope your dealer sends me a
bird-dog fee when he sells you the car.
But, you know, you have it boiled down to the positive of having lasted
22 years and the negative of having to pay $193. Looks good on paper,
but it ain't that simple. This is not something I had planned for.
Once it happened a series of events took place and one of them was
being jacked up for $193 for what appeared to be a part that should
have been priced far less, IMO. I was faced with paying the $193 or
walking away from a car that I needed. naturally, I did the only thing
I could given the fact that I live alone - I paid their extortion, but
not without deciding to give them some bad PR.
> 2) If you told the salesperson that you were outraged to have to pay $193
> for a "$27 part,"
No, I just beefed about the $193. I hadn't by then worked up any
elaborate beef. $27 came along later on after some analysis.
> I can see how he might have thought that was humorous,
> although nonetheless it was rude for him to laugh at you. He should have
> saved it for his buddies. The part is not $27 or $19.30. The price is
> dictated by the market.
I doubt if market forces have much to do with the price of this part.
If that were the case, then they would have realized that someone like
me would come along and try to cost them customers over time. The part
is there on my dashboard waiting to be the center of a Honda-bashing
discussion. The price does not take that into consideration.
Otherwise it would be priced far less than it is, perhaps something
closer to manufacturing costs and reasonable markups.
> Were you speaking to a new car salesperson or a
> parts salesperson (neither of whom has any control over changing the price
> of your so-called overpriced part.) Did you try speaking to the manager?
I was speaking to the sales manager for a GM/Honda dealership.
> The part was obviously worth the $193 price tag, because you paid it. You
> were not forced at gunpoint to purchase the part, but merely opted to do so
> after considering the prospects of not having a car (that apparently you use
> infrequently anyway).
Sorry, but walking away from the car is not an option. It's
unreasonable for you to say that I could or should. I paid it because
I had to, and I felt that it was extortion while it happened. That
does not make the part worth $193. I think if it was twice that I
would have had to pay it.
> 3) I understand being constrained by a fixed income and limited
> discretionary spending. Save $2000 and buy one of those new-fangled
> IBM-compatible (!) computers at Wal-mart instead of your fancy Apple
> notebook.
The notebook was purchased for a job. When the job ended, I kept it
for personal use. All on the up-and-up because it was my dot-com we're
talking about. Otherwise, I would likely still be using an older Mac
since I'm not really a power user for email and news. With all of the
problems I've seen my friends have who use stuff from the Evil Empire,
I would stop computing before buying of it. I could give up computing
same as I gave up the telephone.
> 4) When my last car (1997 Hyundai) kept breaking down, I got savvy and
> started calling parts places to find the cheapest part possible, rather than
> have to pay the dealership price. Perhaps you do not have a telephone, but
> it might be a wise investment. It could save you money in parts long-term.
> You quite clearly have access to the internet, and could have used your time
> to search for an available 1981 igniter on the internet. But you only use
> the internet to complain, rather than for productive, money-saving
> activities.
I think that I have answered that many times during this thread. I was
stuck, just off the hook, needing my car, so I hadda yield to the
dealer's extortion.
> 5) For all the time that you have wasted posting, you could have already
> made back the $193 you spent on the part through work at a minimum wage
> part-time job.
But getting back at Honda is a labor of love (hate). There's no wage
analysis that accounts for that. Just think of what the Jews and Arabs
could have done had they applied all of their troublemaking to positive
things since the sons of Abraham quarreled.
> 6) Public transportation adds up. A monthly metro pass in NYC is $70. Add
> that up, and you will realize that your average expenditure on your '81
> Honda is a damn good deal.
I have thought of this extensively. My analysis tells me that I can
live for less without a car while using public transportation. Right
now,because of where I live, the Honda makes sense. I just hope that I
can get into a situation where I don't need a car before the Honda
needs to be replaced.
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1) I just bought a 2003 Ford and now I am thinking I should have bought a
> Honda, considering yours lasted 22 years and you are whining about $193!!!
> If anything, your intended aim (to convince prospective buyers not to choose
> Honda) has only made me realize that the cliche that Hondas are reliable,
> is, in fact, pretty darn true.
Oh, geeze, my strategy backfired. I hope your dealer sends me a
bird-dog fee when he sells you the car.
But, you know, you have it boiled down to the positive of having lasted
22 years and the negative of having to pay $193. Looks good on paper,
but it ain't that simple. This is not something I had planned for.
Once it happened a series of events took place and one of them was
being jacked up for $193 for what appeared to be a part that should
have been priced far less, IMO. I was faced with paying the $193 or
walking away from a car that I needed. naturally, I did the only thing
I could given the fact that I live alone - I paid their extortion, but
not without deciding to give them some bad PR.
> 2) If you told the salesperson that you were outraged to have to pay $193
> for a "$27 part,"
No, I just beefed about the $193. I hadn't by then worked up any
elaborate beef. $27 came along later on after some analysis.
> I can see how he might have thought that was humorous,
> although nonetheless it was rude for him to laugh at you. He should have
> saved it for his buddies. The part is not $27 or $19.30. The price is
> dictated by the market.
I doubt if market forces have much to do with the price of this part.
If that were the case, then they would have realized that someone like
me would come along and try to cost them customers over time. The part
is there on my dashboard waiting to be the center of a Honda-bashing
discussion. The price does not take that into consideration.
Otherwise it would be priced far less than it is, perhaps something
closer to manufacturing costs and reasonable markups.
> Were you speaking to a new car salesperson or a
> parts salesperson (neither of whom has any control over changing the price
> of your so-called overpriced part.) Did you try speaking to the manager?
I was speaking to the sales manager for a GM/Honda dealership.
> The part was obviously worth the $193 price tag, because you paid it. You
> were not forced at gunpoint to purchase the part, but merely opted to do so
> after considering the prospects of not having a car (that apparently you use
> infrequently anyway).
Sorry, but walking away from the car is not an option. It's
unreasonable for you to say that I could or should. I paid it because
I had to, and I felt that it was extortion while it happened. That
does not make the part worth $193. I think if it was twice that I
would have had to pay it.
> 3) I understand being constrained by a fixed income and limited
> discretionary spending. Save $2000 and buy one of those new-fangled
> IBM-compatible (!) computers at Wal-mart instead of your fancy Apple
> notebook.
The notebook was purchased for a job. When the job ended, I kept it
for personal use. All on the up-and-up because it was my dot-com we're
talking about. Otherwise, I would likely still be using an older Mac
since I'm not really a power user for email and news. With all of the
problems I've seen my friends have who use stuff from the Evil Empire,
I would stop computing before buying of it. I could give up computing
same as I gave up the telephone.
> 4) When my last car (1997 Hyundai) kept breaking down, I got savvy and
> started calling parts places to find the cheapest part possible, rather than
> have to pay the dealership price. Perhaps you do not have a telephone, but
> it might be a wise investment. It could save you money in parts long-term.
> You quite clearly have access to the internet, and could have used your time
> to search for an available 1981 igniter on the internet. But you only use
> the internet to complain, rather than for productive, money-saving
> activities.
I think that I have answered that many times during this thread. I was
stuck, just off the hook, needing my car, so I hadda yield to the
dealer's extortion.
> 5) For all the time that you have wasted posting, you could have already
> made back the $193 you spent on the part through work at a minimum wage
> part-time job.
But getting back at Honda is a labor of love (hate). There's no wage
analysis that accounts for that. Just think of what the Jews and Arabs
could have done had they applied all of their troublemaking to positive
things since the sons of Abraham quarreled.
> 6) Public transportation adds up. A monthly metro pass in NYC is $70. Add
> that up, and you will realize that your average expenditure on your '81
> Honda is a damn good deal.
I have thought of this extensively. My analysis tells me that I can
live for less without a car while using public transportation. Right
now,because of where I live, the Honda makes sense. I just hope that I
can get into a situation where I don't need a car before the Honda
needs to be replaced.
#150
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
You just continue to amuse me.
You'd rather invent major conspiracy theories rather than accept reality.
You made choices, and now you are pretending it was all decided for you and
you are a poor victim. You enjoy that, being a "victim". I can understand
that, you need someone to blame.
You have choices. You did not have to buy the part,you did, you could have
taken it to another mechanic, you did not, you could have just not repaired
it and got rid of the car, you did not, you could have done many things, but
you did not, you CHOSE to buy the part, you CHOSE to "not to tick off the
mechanic", because to you it was WORTH IT to you to have your car fixed
there and then. This is how economy works and you just JUSTIFIED the cost of
the part buy BUYING it. You can say anything you want, but that WAS YOUR
CHOICE and you took it. If it was too expensive, you would have chosen
otherwise. You are not a baby, take some responsibility for your actions.
Your only justification for the this "outragious" cost was an "analysis"
(your word, not mine) that was so absurd, I had to forward it to my friends
to share the laugh. And now you keep blatantly ignoring your own facts and
keep clinging to this "victimhood" It's your business, but it sounds like a
crappy way to live your life.
Now you say that the part is not available any cheaper - well ask yourself
why? Think hard. If someone can really make it for $27, as you claim, why
aren't they? Why not start a business and sell them for $60 and make a 50%+
profit??? Hell, you can sell it for $100 and still be at 1/2 the price of
the dealer? Maybe you won't have to drive a 22 year old car anymore?
And that "companies just write that off"??? What exactly does "writing it
off" means? Just because you "write it off" does not mean money magically
re-appears in your pocket. You still need to keep a margin high enough to
stay in business and recoup the costs of operation??
You still refuse to see that had it be any other maker, it would have been
just the same (except much less likeley that it would have made it to 22
years in the first place, but that is irrelevant)
In short:
Your analysis of the cost - bullshit
You say you had no choice - bullshit
You say honda ripped you off - bullshit
You say age of a component does not affect it's probability of failure -
well that's basic probability they teach in school - again bullshit.
You say you just do not accept what anyone else say, well that's bullshit of
a whole new veriety. You have no credibility for anything you say and
whether you accept it or not, it won't change the facts
Believe what you will. Whatever delusion makes you happy.
-M
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720031150519186%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
> Max:
>
> You're right, I don't have towing coverage. I drive an old car and I
> know that I will have to be towed every now and again, maybe once every
> decade. I keep $100 in a strategic place in the car just for that
> purpose. But, remember, I have the work done that needs to be done.
> The car is in perfect mechanical condition, at last as perfect as it
> can be for it's mileage. My insurance is to tell the mechanic at oil
> change time to sniff out anything that detracts from safety and
> reliability. This time, I remember sitting in the car waiting for the
> tow truck thinking that this was the first time that this car had been
> on the hook, so my strategy works.
>
> Your statement that "things are worth what people are willing to pay
> for them" is good for discretionary purchases. But an igniter is not a
> discretionary purchase. The car doesn't work without it and I needed
> one now, not after trying to beat my mechanic's price and ticking him
> off. It's a bit like the television ad where the tow truck drives up
> and the stranded motorist asks the tow truck driver for his
> competitor's rates. It just doesn't happen.
>
> For your information, after the car was repaired, I drove to an auto
> parts store and asked their price. $266. The dealer part actually had
> a lower price! Go figure. My mechanic said that the same part for
> later models was half or less than the one I hadda have.
>
> I reject the notion that "You are just bitter you had something break
> on you, even though it happened after 22 years of use (and all things
> considered, did not cost that much.)." As I said before, it has
> 110,000 miles on it, not 22 years. If a car is used every few days and
> is maintained properly, then time is irrelevant except for paint and
> upholstery and other things that succumb to UV degradation and rust.
>
> You say that "the cost of that part is not the just the cost of the
> materials and manufacturing - it's the millions of dollars that went
> into the design." Sorry, I don't agree with you. Companies write off
> the expenses you refer to in the year of manufacture. The subsequent
> cost of parts for replacement purposes is more in line with the actual
> cost of producing the part and putting it through the distribution
> chain.
>
> If there is any residual cost like the one to which you refer, then it
> is the "designing" (meaning scheming) costs of management trying to
> figure out how to take advantage of their customers who break down and
> have to get the part. This is not a part that the dealer mechanic
> looks at during routine maintenance and tells you that it looks worn
> out or is in jeopardy of failing and needs to be replaced. It ain't
> that kinda animal. The only reason anyone needs the $193 (for a $27)
> part is because of a breakdown. They have their customers over a
> barrel on this one. And they really stick it to them. There IS no $60
> aftermarket part.
>
> -
>
> In article <yg2Wa.6852$dk4.317025@typhoon.sonic.net>, Max
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > I reject your analysis. It's a derivative of my comparison, which
> > > doubles any error. As a matter of fact, the part has a steel plate on
> > > the bottom, steel sleeves, and several metal electrodes and
connectors,
> > > not to mention having been filled/sealed with some sort of resin. My
> > > comparison is just fine, thank you. Even a 50% error still makes the
> > > part outrageously expensive.
> >
> > LOL. You REALLY missed the point. Sense of humor and sarcasm are clearly
too
> > expensive for your taste as well. :-)
> >
> > > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > > thanks.
> >
> > So it is ok for Apple to "rip you off" because you like them? How
> > hypocritical of you.
> >
> > Look, in all seriousness, things are worth what people are willing to
pay
> > for them. You are willing to pay $2400 for a computer even though a
> > comprable machine can be bought for half the cost, because you like it
> > better. It has nothing to do with size or weight. My company produces
> > software that weighs nothing (ok, you can count weight of the CD we
could
> > theoretically put it on) and we sell it for millions of dollars - and we
> > have buyers because they believe it is worth it. If $200 part was not
worth
> > it to you, you should have bought the $60 aftermarket part and installed
it
> > yourself. You had a choice, but you paid for it, which means it was
worth it
> > to you at the time. Do not kid yourself, this has NOTHING to do with
Honda
> > or any other car maker. You are just bitter you had something break on
you,
> > even though it happened after 22 years of use (and all things
considered,
> > did not cost that much.) You are bitter you did not have towing
coverage.
> > But get over yourself, cuz happens. The bottom line is that if your
car
> > was of any other make, it would have been a similar price. This has
nothing
> > to do with Honda. I am sure Honda's prices are not any different that
any
> > other maker. And yes, the dealer parts will always cost more than
> > aftermarket parts, because for them the cost of that part is not the
just
> > the cost of the materials and manufacturing - it's the millions of
dollars
> > that went into the design. Grow up and take some responsibility.
> >
> > -M
You'd rather invent major conspiracy theories rather than accept reality.
You made choices, and now you are pretending it was all decided for you and
you are a poor victim. You enjoy that, being a "victim". I can understand
that, you need someone to blame.
You have choices. You did not have to buy the part,you did, you could have
taken it to another mechanic, you did not, you could have just not repaired
it and got rid of the car, you did not, you could have done many things, but
you did not, you CHOSE to buy the part, you CHOSE to "not to tick off the
mechanic", because to you it was WORTH IT to you to have your car fixed
there and then. This is how economy works and you just JUSTIFIED the cost of
the part buy BUYING it. You can say anything you want, but that WAS YOUR
CHOICE and you took it. If it was too expensive, you would have chosen
otherwise. You are not a baby, take some responsibility for your actions.
Your only justification for the this "outragious" cost was an "analysis"
(your word, not mine) that was so absurd, I had to forward it to my friends
to share the laugh. And now you keep blatantly ignoring your own facts and
keep clinging to this "victimhood" It's your business, but it sounds like a
crappy way to live your life.
Now you say that the part is not available any cheaper - well ask yourself
why? Think hard. If someone can really make it for $27, as you claim, why
aren't they? Why not start a business and sell them for $60 and make a 50%+
profit??? Hell, you can sell it for $100 and still be at 1/2 the price of
the dealer? Maybe you won't have to drive a 22 year old car anymore?
And that "companies just write that off"??? What exactly does "writing it
off" means? Just because you "write it off" does not mean money magically
re-appears in your pocket. You still need to keep a margin high enough to
stay in business and recoup the costs of operation??
You still refuse to see that had it be any other maker, it would have been
just the same (except much less likeley that it would have made it to 22
years in the first place, but that is irrelevant)
In short:
Your analysis of the cost - bullshit
You say you had no choice - bullshit
You say honda ripped you off - bullshit
You say age of a component does not affect it's probability of failure -
well that's basic probability they teach in school - again bullshit.
You say you just do not accept what anyone else say, well that's bullshit of
a whole new veriety. You have no credibility for anything you say and
whether you accept it or not, it won't change the facts
Believe what you will. Whatever delusion makes you happy.
-M
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720031150519186%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
> Max:
>
> You're right, I don't have towing coverage. I drive an old car and I
> know that I will have to be towed every now and again, maybe once every
> decade. I keep $100 in a strategic place in the car just for that
> purpose. But, remember, I have the work done that needs to be done.
> The car is in perfect mechanical condition, at last as perfect as it
> can be for it's mileage. My insurance is to tell the mechanic at oil
> change time to sniff out anything that detracts from safety and
> reliability. This time, I remember sitting in the car waiting for the
> tow truck thinking that this was the first time that this car had been
> on the hook, so my strategy works.
>
> Your statement that "things are worth what people are willing to pay
> for them" is good for discretionary purchases. But an igniter is not a
> discretionary purchase. The car doesn't work without it and I needed
> one now, not after trying to beat my mechanic's price and ticking him
> off. It's a bit like the television ad where the tow truck drives up
> and the stranded motorist asks the tow truck driver for his
> competitor's rates. It just doesn't happen.
>
> For your information, after the car was repaired, I drove to an auto
> parts store and asked their price. $266. The dealer part actually had
> a lower price! Go figure. My mechanic said that the same part for
> later models was half or less than the one I hadda have.
>
> I reject the notion that "You are just bitter you had something break
> on you, even though it happened after 22 years of use (and all things
> considered, did not cost that much.)." As I said before, it has
> 110,000 miles on it, not 22 years. If a car is used every few days and
> is maintained properly, then time is irrelevant except for paint and
> upholstery and other things that succumb to UV degradation and rust.
>
> You say that "the cost of that part is not the just the cost of the
> materials and manufacturing - it's the millions of dollars that went
> into the design." Sorry, I don't agree with you. Companies write off
> the expenses you refer to in the year of manufacture. The subsequent
> cost of parts for replacement purposes is more in line with the actual
> cost of producing the part and putting it through the distribution
> chain.
>
> If there is any residual cost like the one to which you refer, then it
> is the "designing" (meaning scheming) costs of management trying to
> figure out how to take advantage of their customers who break down and
> have to get the part. This is not a part that the dealer mechanic
> looks at during routine maintenance and tells you that it looks worn
> out or is in jeopardy of failing and needs to be replaced. It ain't
> that kinda animal. The only reason anyone needs the $193 (for a $27)
> part is because of a breakdown. They have their customers over a
> barrel on this one. And they really stick it to them. There IS no $60
> aftermarket part.
>
> -
>
> In article <yg2Wa.6852$dk4.317025@typhoon.sonic.net>, Max
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > I reject your analysis. It's a derivative of my comparison, which
> > > doubles any error. As a matter of fact, the part has a steel plate on
> > > the bottom, steel sleeves, and several metal electrodes and
connectors,
> > > not to mention having been filled/sealed with some sort of resin. My
> > > comparison is just fine, thank you. Even a 50% error still makes the
> > > part outrageously expensive.
> >
> > LOL. You REALLY missed the point. Sense of humor and sarcasm are clearly
too
> > expensive for your taste as well. :-)
> >
> > > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > > thanks.
> >
> > So it is ok for Apple to "rip you off" because you like them? How
> > hypocritical of you.
> >
> > Look, in all seriousness, things are worth what people are willing to
pay
> > for them. You are willing to pay $2400 for a computer even though a
> > comprable machine can be bought for half the cost, because you like it
> > better. It has nothing to do with size or weight. My company produces
> > software that weighs nothing (ok, you can count weight of the CD we
could
> > theoretically put it on) and we sell it for millions of dollars - and we
> > have buyers because they believe it is worth it. If $200 part was not
worth
> > it to you, you should have bought the $60 aftermarket part and installed
it
> > yourself. You had a choice, but you paid for it, which means it was
worth it
> > to you at the time. Do not kid yourself, this has NOTHING to do with
Honda
> > or any other car maker. You are just bitter you had something break on
you,
> > even though it happened after 22 years of use (and all things
considered,
> > did not cost that much.) You are bitter you did not have towing
coverage.
> > But get over yourself, cuz happens. The bottom line is that if your
car
> > was of any other make, it would have been a similar price. This has
nothing
> > to do with Honda. I am sure Honda's prices are not any different that
any
> > other maker. And yes, the dealer parts will always cost more than
> > aftermarket parts, because for them the cost of that part is not the
just
> > the cost of the materials and manufacturing - it's the millions of
dollars
> > that went into the design. Grow up and take some responsibility.
> >
> > -M