I’m not assuming the repair process is being altered, I am confused by the blanket statement that structural components can’t be reused even if they are installed according to the procedure outlined by the OEM for maintaining structural integrity.
I know from experience that as recently as 20 years ago (yes it may have changed in the intervening years) that at least one i-car collision repair training program included how to section salvage parts into a wrecked vehicle during a collision repair.
I read the link presented as evidence that shops must follow procedure or be liable, but the process the shop in the link followed was wildly different from the required procedure. Although, the required process was not different from the procedure taught in the training program.
I also find it surprising the entire auto recycling industry would continue to exist if insurance companies required vehicles to be repaired using only new parts and refused to pay for repairs using recycled parts.
If I’m wrong about the whether recycled components can be used to repair a vehicle, neat I learned something new today and am better informed for the next time I need to have a shop repair a vehicle and can challenge their operational methodology if necessary. However, this discussion has intrigued me, so I read the
Toyota Techstream Collision Repair Guide For Our Cars and found absolutely no mention of part sourcing. Procedure for attaching parts during repair, yes, but no mention of whether the parts can be OEM recycled, OEM backstock/overstock, or aftermarket reproductions.
I’m also just having the “philosophical” thought: Is rebuilding a salvage vehicle in opposition to OEM procedures?
An undamaged and reused portion of a salvage rebuild is technically equivalent to an undamaged and reused component used to repair a clean title car. Both are structures from vehicles that were previously salvaged. If it is unacceptable in one instance, logically it should be unacceptable in the other as well, but isn’t, is it?