Single use parts

[Gerry Laughlin]

In the manufacturers' quest to bounce warranty claims they have found a new tool, SINGLE USE PARTS. We recently had a repair bounced at our Mazda store, here is the scenario.
Tech asks for "everything I need to do a front cover reseal" (directly from parts request sheet). We have done dozens of these, parts guys hands out the normal selection of parts that he has handed out every time before. Myself I don't do the "i need everything" requests, I require a list of parts, but the parts manager at this store has not been burned enough times, so he allows the "everything" requests. Back to this particular case, tech completes the repair, repair is submitted to Mazda, claim is bounced. Apparently a bulletin was released for this repair, and in the bulletin it outlines the repair as it has always been performed, but in the bulletin repair procedure's it states to replace a "Single Use" washer. Since no washer was charged out they bounce the $574 claim. No washer was asked for, yet the GM charged half of the bounced claim to the Parts department. This month marks my 50th year working in parts departments, and during all of that time it has always been understood that it is the techs responsibility to follow proper repair procedures. During my time in the business I have shared the expense when parts gives out the wrong parts, forgets to order a part, etc. but being TOLD to share in the expense when a part that was not asked for is not replaced goes beyond the norm. Suddenly I had two similar situations at my Nissan store yesterday where I am being asked to share in the expense of 2 claims that were bounced because single use parts were not used. Would you guys mind sharing your opinion of the situation?
Thanks,
Gerry

[MIKE1010]

It is the techs responsibility to ask for all the parts needed for repair. It is spelled out in service information what the repair procedure is and what are single use parts are. For GM it is not spelled out in the parts catalog what are single use parts. They have started to but it is so inconsistent that I don’t trust it. If it is in a bulletin it will differ from the normal service information procedure and may even have different part numbers than my catalog. Had a tech request a cat converter for a vehicle under warranty and I gave him the one listed in catalog. It rejected because of a special policy bulletin that required a different part number converter. Parts dept doesn’t look up and decide if service bulletins,special warranty policy’s or procedures require different parts. That is the service department’s responsibility. The other problem is 2 different techs can do the same job and won’t use all the parts given because they shortcut. After taking off RO there is no record and service will claim it’s parts fault. Bottom line that’s why you have different departments. If the procedure changes from the manufacture that requires more or less parts it is service responsibility to let parts know.

[Whiner]

A little over two years ago we were charged back by GM for a warranty claim (timing chains) because we failed to replace one of the single use bolts. They had changed the procedure and tech didn't see the added part to the list. This was $1500 mistake. Service ate the whole thing, parts were not involved.

In my opinion parts can ask or remind about the single use parts but it is not their job to determine what they are or when they should be used. This is one reason why technicians and service people generally are paid more than parts people.

[bsnyder723]

A little over two years ago we were charged back by GM for a warranty claim (timing chains) because we failed to replace one of the single use bolts. They had changed the procedure and tech didn't see the added part to the list. This was $1500 mistake. Service ate the whole thing, parts were not involved.

In my opinion parts can ask or remind about the single use parts but it is not their job to determine what they are or when they should be used. This is one reason why technicians and service people generally are paid more than parts people.

Parts catalog now notes single use parts, which I like cause it boosts parts sales. I encourage my guys to look for them and sell them, even if tech, or outside shop, doesn't ask for them.

[westside]

A little over two years ago we were charged back by GM for a warranty claim (timing chains) because we failed to replace one of the single use bolts. They had changed the procedure and tech didn't see the added part to the list. This was $1500 mistake. Service ate the whole thing, parts were not involved.

In my opinion parts can ask or remind about the single use parts but it is not their job to determine what they are or when they should be used. This is one reason why technicians and service people generally are paid more than parts people.

Parts catalog now notes single use parts, which I like cause it boosts parts sales. I encourage my guys to look for them and sell them, even if tech, or outside shop, doesn't ask for them.

The parts catalog does not show all single use parts, I found where SI says replace (discard) bolts and in the catalog it's not noted (circled) as a single use bolt.. Example, 2016 pick-up drive shaft SI says the yoke retainers and bolts needs to be replaced, The catalog does not note it (not circled).. It's getting tp the point where GM will make us replace all nut's, bolts, washers.. they make them one use or Torq to yeld.

[camaroman]

I do not have a problem if they want us to replace fasteners as long as it is properly noted with the part, but at the same time if they want us to do that then they should stock them in our local warehouse. This ship direct deal is not working the way it would need to if we have to replace fasteners all the time. I still have not received an explanation as to why some ACDelco rotors are stocked in our local PDC but others are not. One of our previous DMAs was going to research it, to my surprise he never did it. LOL Gotta love that great GM feeling!!!!!

[Denise Trimble]

If their franchise is like GM, Service should keep their entire portion of the loss. They keep their portion (in most dealerships) of SFE monies and half the customer pay gross profit (GM stores mainly). Splitting the loss may help their coverage look better and that means $$$ for Advisor/Manager commissions. Has someone attended a recent meeting, like the old 20 Group, where this idea has been suggested? I would be interested to find the logic behind the split.