The scandalous price of spare parts

[iangrant]

Volvo Parts - ouch

now with two ford sabres I can change the oil and filters on both engines for less than the price of the volvo service, let alone the other bits, water pump etc....

And these guys: http://www.inlinefilters.co.uk/ ship out same day.

Fuel filters "discounted" from the marine engineer shop £6.00 each, from inlinefilters £1.23 each, so I ordered 24, Oild filters, the big fella's £9.00 ish, or £24.00 from motor factors.

Ian

 

[Latestarter1]

we are talking 1970's technology here, both mermaid and sabre have moved on from the tractor engines mores the pity, and now do "toy" engines.

Plenty of Fairey boats with planing hulls which have the ability to embarrass more modern planing hulls have Ford based engines.

However what does amaze me is the affection people still hold for this old Ford stuff. The retired engineers from Essex will be saying ‘your aving a larf’ if they read this. Having worked on the Dover project we did everything we could starved of funding by the US to make the lousy Dorset motor into something acceptable, and when we were done the Dover still could not hold a candle to European rivals from Iveco, Mercedes and Volvo when we were doing final sign off testing. Engine needed a far more capable fuel pump which would have required radical tear up of front end, but there was no cash in the pot for us. Ford Brazil got the big $$ and their engine was utter rubbish.

Sabre switched to Perkins when they saw writing on the wall and Mermaid now just marinising JCB and selling IVECO engines, nothing ‘toy’ about Perkins, JCB or IVECO engines, in fact the IVECO Tector of similar displacement to the Ford has crankshaft dimensions which make those of the Dover look like a bent hair pin!

Other than being sociably unacceptable Ford Dover engines at up to 212 Hp are ok. However once you go beyond 250 Hp Ford engines from Mermaid or Sabre put the kiss of death on the value of a boat as critical parts support is now non existent for the higher ratings, and who knows how long Mermaid will continue their good work under new ownership.

Like it or lump it Volvo parts support for old engines is first class, which reflects in the ultimate value of the vessel they are fitted into

 

[GrahamHR]

Volvo Penta actually have a US website where our American cousins can buy parts directly; this site is of course only accessible from the US, as they don't want the rest of the world to know the full list US prices, let alone the discount prices (and US boaters still bitch about those prices!); ! I have accessed this site when in the US, the full list price ( both excluding tax, which is not VP's fault) is very often significantly less than half the price in Europe.

Graham

 

[omega2]

Plenty of Fairey boats with planing hulls which have the ability to embarrass more modern planing hulls have Ford based engines.

However what does amaze me is the affection people still hold for this old Ford stuff. The retired engineers from Essex will be saying ‘your aving a larf’ if they read this. Having worked on the Dover project we did everything we could starved of funding by the US to make the lousy Dorset motor into something acceptable, and when we were done the Dover still could not hold a candle to European rivals from Iveco, Mercedes and Volvo when we were doing final sign off testing. Engine needed a far more capable fuel pump which would have required radical tear up of front end, but there was no cash in the pot for us. Ford Brazil got the big $$ and their engine was utter rubbish.

Sabre switched to Perkins when they saw writing on the wall and Mermaid now just marinising JCB and selling IVECO engines, nothing ‘toy’ about Perkins, JCB or IVECO engines, in fact the IVECO Tector of similar displacement to the Ford has crankshaft dimensions which make those of the Dover look like a bent hair pin!

Other than being sociably unacceptable Ford Dover engines at up to 212 Hp are ok. However once you go beyond 250 Hp Ford engines from Mermaid or Sabre put the kiss of death on the value of a boat as critical parts support is now non existent for the higher ratings, and who knows how long Mermaid will continue their good work under new ownership.

Like it or lump it Volvo parts support for old engines is first class, which reflects in the ultimate value of the vessel they are fitted into

but would you throw them away, in the hope enhancing a 1986 Aquabell which has the eariler Dorsets fitted. I think not.

 

[AndieMac]

I just had my stainless duo props rebushed locally as they were spinning on the bushes..£170
I asked Volvo penta.Cant be done! New set £1400.

I boat in Sicilia with this boat and over there,It is volvo or nothing.I have a cousin that needs a replacement V8 engine.The boatyard [not a dealer,just engineers]laughed when I told them how much I brought an 5.7 block for.They just did not believe me.My cousin offered me near £2000 for my 20year old block and heads.I refused , I was embarassed to accept that..

With the sliding Greenback currently, its a great time to go shopping in the USA!

 

[Latestarter1]

we are talking 1970's technology here, both mermaid and sabre have moved on from the tractor engines mores the pity, and now do "toy" engines.

Just thinking about it continued reference to Dover as a 'tractor engine' leaves me walking wounded. Dover was automotive/industrial engine done primarily for the Ford Cargo. Ford tractor engines done by Basildon engineering team with nutty new age engineering input from U.S. were gutless short stroke 4.2 X 2.68 engines. Automotive engines were sensible long stroke 4.125 X 4.524.

Getting back on the parts cost track, intreagued by Iangrant's comments on filters, purchased on line. Just a while back singing the praises of Mermaid for having reasonably priced lift pumps on the shelf, Mermaid also have sensibly priced filters on the shelf, why not go back to the outfit who gave outstanding service? Lack of customer loyalty will eventually lead fall in parts turn, with vital parts no longer on the shelf.

There is little profit in selling engines, barely 22% once warranty and R&D costs are amortised, sensible margins exist in the ongoing parts revenue, if you can hold on to it!

 

[omega2]

Latestarter, If you have any of your ultimate marine diesels in your possesion, around 212 hp, that will last for 30 years, and can be purchased for £500 each I will have two please.

 

[iangrant]

Customer loyality and sanity!!!

Getting back on the parts cost track, intreagued by Iangrant's comments on filters, purchased on line. Just a while back singing the praises of Mermaid for having reasonably priced lift pumps on the shelf, Mermaid also have sensibly priced filters on the shelf, why not go back to the outfit who gave outstanding service? Lack of customer loyalty will eventually lead fall in parts turn, with vital parts no longer on the shelf.

I agree and I support our local services wherever I can but I do object to someone offering me a "discount" to sell the item to me for £6.00 when I know they bought it for a pound! That is a mark up that is taking the p1ss I'm afraid, If they marked it up by 100% I'd still buy from them but 600 na..

 

[Latestarter1]

Latestarter, If you have any of your ultimate marine diesels in your possesion, around 212 hp, that will last for 30 years, and can be purchased for £500 each I will have two please.

Cummins B210, In continious production for over 25 years and still available. Cheap consumeables, inexpensive and readily available major components, not smokey, IMO Certified.

However you are correct, even the very oldest ones still fetch more than your target price, probably because of all the above facts.

Re: Delpi 296 fuel filters, Mermaid is taking the Pi55 at £6. Going rate is £2 to £3 each so you did well at £1.23. Perhaps this is sign of Mermaid's new owners Power Torque Engineering wanting a return on their investment.

 

[Andrew38]

I've just been scared reading this thread as I've just ordered a new boat with twin Volvo D6-370's on sterndrives. A quick look at the cost of VP filters and belts on the internet makes them look reasonable, certainly when compared to the Yanmar filters for 6LY2A's in my old boat. Yanmar were 4 times the price of cross referenced Fleetguard filters (which having spent a lifetime selling large diesel engines around the world) I know are a quality product. On this basis I would, certainly for the first couple of years, use genuine VP products. Am I missing something here?

 

[tinkicker0]

Cummins B210, In continious production for over 25 years and still available. Cheap consumeables, inexpensive and readily available major components, not smokey, IMO Certified.

However you are correct, even the very oldest ones still fetch more than your target price, probably because of all the above facts.

Re: Delpi 296 fuel filters, Mermaid is taking the Pi55 at £6. Going rate is £2 to £3 each so you did well at £1.23. Perhaps this is sign of Mermaid's new owners Power Torque Engineering wanting a return on their investment.

That the one in the Daf 75 with the separate rocker covers? Loads in the scrappers if so.

 

[Adrianwool]

I think the dialogue held so far on this matter has been of interest. Refocussing on the point I made initially and in an effort to clarify the issue.

1). It is not unreasonable for any company to make a profit, but should that profit be in the order of 500 - 600% to have a Bosch part in a VOLVO PENTA box.

2). How can a Bosch part be described as an original Volvo Penta part for the purposes of a warranty and its validity, when the part is manufactured by Bosch?.

3). The argument about small turnover volumes holds no water, Bosch make these things by the thousand. So any order goes via VP head office to Bosch, and thence to the dealer. I bet Bosch even stick it into the VP box!. Therefore Bosch are holding the stock and VP the order and VP part number. I bet VP do not pay for these stock items to be on Bosch's shelves.

I can only reiterate that I am all for companies making a profit, but am not for companies profiteering.

 

[Latestarter1]

I think the dialogue held so far on this matter has been of interest. Refocussing on the point I made initially and in an effort to clarify the issue.

1). It is not unreasonable for any company to make a profit, but should that profit be in the order of 500 - 600% to have a Bosch part in a VOLVO PENTA box.

2). How can a Bosch part be described as an original Volvo Penta part for the purposes of a warranty and its validity, when the part is manufactured by Bosch?.

3). The argument about small turnover volumes holds no water, Bosch make these things by the thousand. So any order goes via VP head office to Bosch, and thence to the dealer. I bet Bosch even stick it into the VP box!. Therefore Bosch are holding the stock and VP the order and VP part number. I bet VP do not pay for these stock items to be on Bosch's shelves.

I can only reiterate that I am all for companies making a profit, but am not for companies profiteering.

I agree with your comments regarding keeping thread on track, however as I mentioned in earlier post if you hand a manufacturer a dominant positon they would be nuts not to capitalise on it. Is there any value in getting stressed on the subject? None at all.

Volvo have got real on prices of consumeables on D4/6 and been very succesful keeping likes of Fleetguard/Mann & Hummel out, highly likely that Volvo purchase their branded filters from them and have a clause preventing their suppliers from playing in their aftermarket, so have sown that up pretty well.

Volvo Penta warranty terms and conditions, as I view it, runs pretty close to contravening EU law. Does it put people off purchasing their engines, apparently not.

Only worth fighting battles where you stand chance of winning.

If you think VP are lifting boaters legs try Yanmar for a reality check they have developed parts pricing torture into a fine art.

What does disturb me are worrying trends which I mentioned earlier post when some of these modern motors particularly when the vessels they are fitted into fall in value.

Yanmar LYA was brilliant motor at 370 hp, expensive on parts but ultimately repairable. When the 420 hp version came along competition was stuffed, a smooth compact powerhouse, forget 440 just a silly numbers game with test fuel density and metricating hosepower. However to get to 420 displacement went up from 5.18 litres to 5.8 litres. How did they do it they changed cylinder design, took it out 6mm and gave it a chemical hard coating. Result 5.8 litre displacement engine is no longer repairable. Scuff the bores on your 420/440 and you are into a $14k new block, I expect this will translate neatly to equivalent Sterling price, always does. Then there is a bunch of labour, not to mention pistons at over $600 each.

Then when you think matters could not get any worse LYA3 came along, quasi electronic engine with home brewed fuel pump, only available from Yanmar agent and over $4k exchange. No going down to the local injection shop to fix this one.

I have a real liking for the Volvo D Series, Bosch CP3 common rail pumps and injectors coming down in price all the time and reconditioned units and components available from most pump shops, however I have one reservation. Volvo have gone down the same route as Yanmar, it is a new block if you scuff a piston, Volvo go some way to mitigating the issue with service exchange block (new) at about 12K Euros.

What is going to happen when boats with these engines get to about ten years old which many are now fast approaching, with potential liability of £20k per engine rumbling away under the boards. Relative cost of a shutdown solenoid which may only need replacing once in ten years pales into insignificance.

 

[Adrianwool]

Latestater, if what you say about Yanmar is true (& I dont doubt that it is), then this is not only fiscally scandalous, but gives on the impression that 'built in obselesence' is being deliberately engineered. Also, does not say much for Yanmars green credencials where the cost of remanufacturing something extends is useful life and saves on energy input.

How can anyone charge 14k dollars for a block!, or six hundred dollars for a piston. You can almost hear the agents voice in the back of your head, 'Uneconomic repair old boy, chuck it away, now I just happen to have something in stock which I can do you a special price on'.

 

[Jim@sea]

Its a shame that nobody imports Zetor engines for boats. They are brilliant. And they do all sizes from similar to a Perkins 4236 and upwards. I was once buying a Fork Lift and asked what engine it was and when I was told a Zetor I was put off as I assumed they were rubbish, It was then explained to me that they were the best engines in the world as they went in the Russian T2 Tiger Tank and they and the tractors had to work in the artic circle. So anyway when I wanted a new tractor I went to have a look at a Zetor tractor and when they started it up I knew that it was the tractor for me, (I have since had 3) the engine sound blew me away (I listened to engines as part of my job for 25 years) anyway they have a long stroke engine. I understand that the engines are a copy of a CUMMINS as they also have wet liners etc. And wasent CUMMINS copied from Perkins.
Anyway dont they make boats in Russia with these engines fitted. If I had money I would go and buy one. Parts. At a Zetor Tractor dealer near you. AND CHEAP AS CHIPS. Servicing ask any Mobile Agriculural Mechanic.

 

[Latestarter1]

Just quoted Yanmar as example, very difficult to get infomation out of manufacturers in Europe, actually Volvo are very open about list parts prices, others not so, they will require engine serial # before taking conversation any further. Good old USA has Freedom Of Infomation where you can insist on having infomation in order to make informed buying decision.

In reality there are quite a few out there with noses in the trough. MOD Rigid Raider boats have little 3.6 Steyr motors which get fair amount of hammer, with fair few being re-blocked at any one time, and not 100% apples for apples comparison as it is a combined head/block assembly. Cannot for various reasons quote the exact figure, however I can say MOD paying well over £13,000 this single component as just a part of engine repair cost.

 

[Latestarter1]

And wasent CUMMINS copied from Perkins.
Anyway dont they make boats in Russia with these engines fitted. If I had money I would go and buy one. Parts. At a Zetor Tractor dealer near you. AND CHEAP AS CHIPS. Servicing ask any Mobile Agriculural Mechanic.

Only connection between Cummins and Perkins was brilliant British engine designer Phillip E Jones whom Cummins hired away from Perkins in the 70's.

Jones was arrogant firebrand regarding engine design, the only thing Jones disliked more than V engines was short stroke diesel engines. Folklore is that at his interview with the main Cummins Board Jones was asked what he thought of Cummins short stroke V engines, he replied 'when I was first told this I didn't stop laughing until I got home in the evening'.

The board member who asked the question Nev Reiners father of 1950's Cummins V engines. Despite his comments Jones got the job and went on to design K6, L10, B and C engines, he never copied anybody elses designs, he shut himself away in his development lab with many top drawer Brit engineers from aerospace industry who had gone to US during brain drain years.

Prototype engine projects were named by colour, red, blue, yellow, green. Once again possibly a piece of folklore, but when Jones was presenting his latest colour engine project to the Board somebody was critical of certain aspects of the design, arrogant as usual he said 'The only thing which will please you lot is a bloody rainbow engine' he then actually called his next project the rainbow programme.

 

[Assassin]

Everyone appears to be ignoring how the supply chain works, a manufacturer will source from at least three suppliers, the one with the best price wins, but they keep the second lowest bidder supplying a smaller proportion of parts. Bosch may win the supply contract, but will only supply around 75-80% of the quantities required, the second lowest bidder will supply the remaining quantity, so why? simply it is to facilitate the best price for them at all times through competition. If Bosch manufacturing costs go up and supplier two costs go down due to fluctuation economies and differing manufacturing countries, they will switch to supplier two as they are cheaper.

To a degree Volvo will have to price their parts slightly higher to cover the 20-25% of the components at a slightly higher price, but their mark up is excessive. They factor in supply price, transportation costs, retailer mark up, and totally dictate to ensure their profits.

There are no issues buying direct from either manufacturer directly as these components have to, and will meet OE standards, so there are no real issues other than Volvo protecting their huge profits through exploiting the "warranty" system to exploit people. In many other countries they have legislated against this profiteering, and they have done the same in the UK with cars, even though the law is there, many do not know it and are exploited by car manufacturers. They use the same rhetoric, "warranty, warranty, warranty", but they are breaking the law; so why is the same situation arising with marine and other items of equipment.

If a component is made by an OE supplier it makes no difference who supplies it, Volvo or Bosch, as it meets the OE standards and is the same component, irrespective of where it is purchased from.

With the free market legislation currently in force in Europe, perhaps it is time to force the authorities to look at this scaremongering for profiteering, and employ or enforce the legislation, and make people aware of it. This way we can all stop being ripped off, and it is the same reason i like my Detroit Diesels, same price for parts everywhere except for slight variations due to transportation, they even ship directly from America, so no rip off. If they can do it so can everyone else.

 

[Latestarter1]

Everyone appears to be ignoring how the supply chain works, a manufacturer will source from at least three suppliers, the one with the best price wins, but they keep the second lowest bidder supplying a smaller proportion of parts. Bosch may win the supply contract, but will only supply around 75-80% of the quantities required, the second lowest bidder will supply the remaining quantity, so why? simply it is to facilitate the best price for them at all times through competition. If Bosch manufacturing costs go up and supplier two costs go down due to fluctuation economies and differing manufacturing countries, they will switch to supplier two as they are cheaper.

To a degree Volvo will have to price their parts slightly higher to cover the 20-25% of the components at a slightly higher price, but their mark up is excessive. They factor in supply price, transportation costs, retailer mark up, and totally dictate to ensure their profits.

There are no issues buying direct from either manufacturer directly as these components have to, and will meet OE standards, so there are no real issues other than Volvo protecting their huge profits through exploiting the "warranty" system to exploit people. In many other countries they have legislated against this profiteering, and they have done the same in the UK with cars, even though the law is there, many do not know it and are exploited by car manufacturers. They use the same rhetoric, "warranty, warranty, warranty", but they are breaking the law; so why is the same situation arising with marine and other items of equipment.

If a component is made by an OE supplier it makes no difference who supplies it, Volvo or Bosch, as it meets the OE standards and is the same component, irrespective of where it is purchased from.

With the free market legislation currently in force in Europe, perhaps it is time to force the authorities to look at this scaremongering for profiteering, and employ or enforce the legislation, and make people aware of it. This way we can all stop being ripped off, and it is the same reason i like my Detroit Diesels, same price for parts everywhere except for slight variations due to transportation, they even ship directly from America, so no rip off. If they can do it so can everyone else.

Whilst I agree with you on the legal side, having worked for two major manufacturers I cannot recognise your 'model' of supplier sourcing. Lean manufacturing which was learned from Toyota back in the 70's is all about supplier loyalty. If you work with supplier closely enough and give them ALL your buisiness, you get total commitment from them, price delivery, quality. Cuts down on your administration overhead as well well as improving quality by getting your 'sole' suppier to adopt your your quality systems into their manufacturing process, you have eliminated yet another overhead.

This thread I belive started about what is equitable parts margin. No point in drifting off on to Detroit, all history, other than to say that the model you describe was exactly the poison pill which contributed to sale of Detroit Diesel to Mercedes. I know Detroit discussions often end up all emotional, lets not hijack this one.

I am old, but I hope not too old to believe in progress, just certain aspects of cause me concern.

No point in considering Detroit engines in this discussion, they were a beautifully made and well designed World War II icon, however life has moved on.

Detroits make upwards of 800 lbs of Nox per 1000 gallons of diesel they burn (12+ g/bhp-hr). Many of tests over the years have put them at 1200+ lbs of Nox per 1000 gallons of diesel fuel burned. To compare that with an EPA Tier II marine engine, the MAXIMUM they can produce per 1000 gallon of fuel consumed is about 200 Lbs Nox (under 5.3 g/bhp-hr) or they could not be certified EPA Tier II. Besides Nox, you have PM to deal with. Two stokes are filthy as to MEASURED pollutants when compared with modern 4-strokes. If you look at typical EPA test cell data (Freedon of Infomation), most electronic engines pass EPA set limits by a significant margin as to Nox and other pollutants.

Fuel efficiency measured in BSFC, no other acceptable measurement comparison. Take a look at a Detroit spec sheet and compare with any other color of modern 4-stroke at 200, 400 and 600 HP levels and you will see where I am coming from. BIG difference, with about 15-20% worse at rated HP levels with 30-35% worse at part load HP levels.

As to power density and general socialability electronic engines offer real benefits, just go for a ride and compare. So to put it all in a nutshell, it not just how much fuel you burn, it’s how it’s burned, pollution, and work produced per gallon used, and the social aspects of being around a modern electronic engine. Not hearsay but fact, California has grant system (Carl Moyer) to rid the State of dirty polluting inefficient engines aimed primarily at Detroits.

Revisiting the "Detroit" mystique again, its longevity was built on engines rated to run at 1900-2100 RPM and above, but could only last for 30+ yrs when operated continuously at 1100-1600 RPM (again, well under 50% of rated HP).

These same engines when used in say a crew boat in the off-shore oil industry would go through "top-ends" (or worse) just about yearly when called upon to deliver the same duty cycle as a 4 stroke diesel.

 

[Assassin]

The issue of supply is simple, it is the reason a manufacturer of anything has a list of "preferred suppliers", and will not stick with one manufacturer. Lean manufacturing has a simple principle, supply the right quantity at exactly the right time, and at the lowest possible cost, in reality manufacturers have little loyalty towards any supplier. They care little where components are made, and who makes them as long as they meet the specifications of the manufacturer, who will set these specifications.

Lean manufacturing has another principle, this is always have a back up plan, and is the sole reason they always have two or more suppliers, and all the main or secondary suppliers are locked into watertight contracts with manufacturers. The main contractual condition of the secondary supplier is that of having the capability to ramp up production to thet of themselves and the main supplier, usually within 24 hours of notification. If you consider the number of suppliers an engine manufacturer will have you will see the billing is not an issue as they usually pay monthly for lower volumes, or bi-annually for larger suppliers.

They only have relationships with their preferred suppliers, and these are the only suppliers allowed to tender for component supply, there is no real relationship, just the ability for them all to supply on time and to price. By confining themselves to preferred suppliers, they are automatically limiting themselves to a small number of trusted companies.

This was highlighted recently when a filter company called Coopers were a main supplier of filters to a Japanese manufacturer in the UK, their main factory caught fire and was severely damaged. Their secondary supplier was Fram, another American company who manufacture predominantly in Asia, they suddenly ramped up production from batch production to full time production, and had a windfall.
Fram operated a batch and buffering system, basically they manufacture the entire quarters filters (3 months) in one week, then store them in a warehouse in the UK until their allocation is needed, then supply. Having a batch and buffer system meant they had a full quarters (3 months) worth of filters ready to be transported on demand.