Timing belt tensioner cost

I'm just putting together my list of parts to do a 300,000 mile tune up on my wife's Volvo. As I was going through the parts and costs I noticed that the belt tensioner is only $35 vs. the $85 I paid a few years back for my 308's. I'd rather not get into the "cheap" argument but I am wondering what the technical difference is between these bearings. I haven't done a physical comparison yet but was curious as to why the better then 2X cost. The Volvo is the typical in line OVC 4 with interference head. I can't imagine the difference in RPM being significant and would think the bearings could take it. It would be interesting if at the time of the development of the 308 motor if they just used a bearing considered off the shelf and used by other OHC engines. Just thinking out loud here.

 

The main difference is the Ferrari logo on the box.

 

No logo on the box for $85.


How many Volvos made that take that tensioner bearing? How many other cars made that take that bearing?

How about the 308 bearing?


It's called "Economy of scale". Business 101.


You want cheap parts? Find the car built in the biggest numbers. It really is that simple.

 

Brian I was just wondering if the Fcar bearing was unique to the 308 and not an off the shelf unit. I can understand the economy of scale if it was. Just curious as to how they were both spec'ed out. I've got 3 sets of used 308 bearing in my used parts box and they all feel the same as the new ones I put on. I was wondering if I could use one of these on the Volvo, LOL.

 

I don't know what else it might fit. If it fits I see no reason not to use it.

While some parts on Ferrari are off the shelf a surprising number are not. Of the off the shelf parts it seems many are from obscure cars that were either built in small numbers or not imported to the US.

 

Thanks

 

The logical question is though, why SpA didn't design the car with a commonly available tensioner bearing, rotor/ditributor cao etc. There are plenty of these that were produced in very large numbers that could have done the job just as well as the SpA item.

There is no point whatsoever for SpA to not use the cap and rotor of a Fiat 127 or Uno, instead they make their own design and it costs a relative fortune. Mechanically it does not perform better or worse.

Economy of scale is a good excuse for a fender or a windshield. Not a dizzy cap or tensioner bearing.

 

Car manufacturers are no dummies - they look at the total life span of the vehicles they produce for profit opportunities, not just the initial sale. In other words, if they produce a proprietary cap and rotor then guess what, you've got to buy it from them, pay their price for it and contribute to their bottom line in so doing. Parts that are common service items (like a cap and rotor) are perfect parts to make proprietary as doing so helps to ensure a steady stream of parts sales with nice profit margins.

If you peel back a layer or two of the onion you'll see that it always boils down to the underlying economics. Rarely are corporate decisions made to convenience the customer, but rather always made to contribute sales and profit margin.

 

As a person who has worked with many multinational corporations in marketing and sales, you're kidding, right?

Ferrari and Lamborghini may think this way, but I don't believe any car mfg which is in an extremly competitive market will have much success with this model. Their loss of sales will far exceed their profit from parts, the law of diminishing returns.

Let's look at the Goodwill component of Toyota's balance sheet in 3 months and the see what the downside risk is to being percieved as indifference to your customers.

Why do new cars not need a tune up for 100,000 miles? Car mfgs want to sell cars and the competition is fierce, they are not interested in selling parts or they would mgf them themselves, which most do not.

 

Hi there,

No, I'm not kidding. As a person who is a 20+ year CFO of large multi-national corporations, I've seen this corporate behavior in action and it's standard process in my experience.

Have you seen Ferrari's revenue streams from new cars sales v. part sales? Last time I saw some data on this the parts sales component was significant, and with materially higher margins than new car sales.

There are consistent parallels in most other industries involving production of transportation products. Boeing for example derives substantial revenues from parts sales, and with much higher margins.

And, finally, you don't have to actually manufacture the part to distribut it with high margins, and this is indeed what most auto manufacturers do.

 

I completely agree. Boeing is used as an example but it is standard practice throughout the aviation industry...and others. Very similar to selling a product at a loss to derive revenue from the follow on sales....think printer Ink Cartridges.

 

So why is it that a clutch job on a 2001 Volkswagen Passat costs 1,425 euros at the dealer???? I could have a clutch job done on my 328 for that price! I could give you a few other examples regarding my VW, but they still sell a LOT of them!
The only reason I can imagine is to make money after you've bought the car ...

 

One reason in the Passat example is that Volkswagen/Audi used a dual mass flywheel assembly, meaning that the flywheel assembly must be replaced rather than resurfaced as in an older type vehicle. More parts replaced at time of service equals higher cost. If you don't like it, stick to older, simpler vehicles, as this is the way of things and service isn't getting cheaper on any of the newer vehicles, not even the cheap stuff. Trickle down technology and all that.

 

Parts and service is what keeps dealer ships alive, in most instances.

Typical consumer cars, anyway.

Dealer makes perhaps 5% to maybe, if he is lucky, 20% selling a car.

Parts on the other hand, have 100% markup at retail.

Dealer pays $50 for a part from the factory, and sells it retail for $100, if you are a jobber you pay $75-$85 for it. (If you know the parts guy, he sells it to you for $50.) .

Now, that $50 part that the factory sold to the dealer, should have a 30% gross margin to the factory, if not more, to be viable for the factory to offer it, so their cost to sell it should be no higher than $35, and preferably, $30, and of course who ever made the part needs to make their 35% gross margin, so that $100 part really only cost about $20 to make.

Unless you are cherry picking, and have a captive market with customers who have money, then you buy Volvo parts for $1.50,and repackage them in yellow boxes and sell them for $5 to the dealer, who charges you $10.

Doug

 

Are you buying another VW or are you under the perception that VW is being greedy and you may look at another mfg when you purchase your next car?

 

Back in the mid 80's I think it was Road & Track that did a parts vs. whole car analysis. If I remember correctly, the subject car was a new Camaro and it had price tag under $12K. They tallied the cost of all the available dealer parts and it exceeded $100k and that did not include the core unibody as it was not available separately.

Right now, good service departments are keeping many car dealers afloat.

Rick

 

This is why you can bring your cartridges to Walgreen’s and they will refill for $10. When the customer feels there is problem with perceived value the market responds.

That is why many alternate companies make non OEM parts for all brands. Why are so many here always asking for alternate parts for their 308s. Don't worry it’s a rhetorical question.

 

I like the car, and it's been fairly reliable, but I had a (bullet proof) Honda before
Yes, I will seriously look at another manufacturer when the time comes! Paying that much for a clutch that lasts 90.000Km is not reasonable ...

 

We have the best aftermarket parts manufacturers in the world (or at least had). I remember that there was a big trade dispute in the early 90's, I think, with Japan about not allowing our aftermarket manufacturers sell parts (and rice) in Japan because it would ruin the car makers after sale parts market and almost came to imposing tariffs on their imports (but of course, it didn't).
When it's new AND rare, they have you by the short hairs. But new technology is making the lag time shorter and shorter. Good, bad? Better for the end user but tougher for local manufacturing unless they're on the cutting edge.