Why are replacement parts so incredibly expensive?

[Hay Dude]

I bought a used Bush Hog 3008 this year to speed up my mowing. It was a well used unit with some hard use. I got what around here was a decent price. I figured I would have to put a little money into it to keep it going. So I have been looking at replacing some components and just can’t believe the price of stuff. Clutch Friction rings, it takes 4, are ~$40 a piece, springs, needs 8, for the clutch are ~$9 each. Stump jumpers are over $500 each, takes 2!

Does anyone buy that stuff? Or just start laying on the welds? I thought I would rebuild the rusted out clutch. Not anymore. I Will pull my shear pin pto off my snow blower if I can’t get the clutch serviceable. I guess. Seems like parts are a lot since a complete new 3308 is about $12k….

Any driveline parts you need call Maugansville. They are VERY reasonable and will ship anywhere. GREAT people.

 

[stumblinhorse]

Did you price them at ASC or Shoup?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06XQ8MYHX

 

[jyoutz]

same with mortgages. As soon as the idiots in DC created a mortgage tax deduction the bankers and realtors started gobbling up all that free money.

When was there ever not a mortgage tax deduction? That has been the case for the past 40 years that I’m familiar with. In fact, the 2017 tax bill removed the deduction for HELOC mortgage loans after being in place for decades.

 

[Raul-02]

9958When was there ever not a mortgage tax deduction? That has been the case for the past 40 years that I’m familiar with. In fact, the 2017 tax bill removed the deduction for HELOC mortgage loans after being in place for decades.

The first income tax (that was stricken by SCOTUS) was passed into law in 1894. At the time no one borrowed money for housing. There were no mortgages. There were business loans and interest was deductible.
After Scotus scuttled that law they tried again (greedy sobs ) in 1913. Again interest was deductible. Farmers did borrow money to buy their plots of land but most folks still paid cash and there is no historical record showing the intent of congress was to cover home mortgages.
In the '30s home mortgages had caught on and the Congress created the FHA. Bankers could sell the obligations to Fannie Mae and turn around and loan more money out all over again and again and again and this the mortgage industry was born.
This author calls the tax deduction a "rich-get-richer" law. Who Needs the Mortgage-Interest Deduction? (Published 2006)

This law professor calls the deduction "accidental." The Accidental Deduction: A History and Critique of the Tax Subsidy for Mortgage Interest
On page 105 he speaks to the possibility of no recorded history of congressional consideration to distinguish between business and personal loans as being founded in their inability to tell which was which.

He also says :
"Congress did not see it [the mortgage interest deduction] as a way of promoting
homeownership. Rates of owner-occupied housing were low—
less than 50% until after World War II—and Congress had
yet to embrace taxation as a vehicle for rewarding or
encouraging certain kinds of behavior. "

So you are right, it was sort of, kind of, mostly always there but mortgages were not always a thing among the public. It really happened when the FHA and Fannie Mae were created. That's when Congress saw some reason to do it - - or at least to do nothing about the fact that homeowners were, in fact, deducting.

 

[Blui]

You should be able to match-up a friction plate & springs, bareco parts are reasonable price. or the whole assy.
If plate is not quite the size, you could don some PPE & grind.
I have an old slasher from early 1980's, replacement beam had too many zeros after the $, so adapted generic one from a newer model, had to re-drill holes using HSS-CO & plug the old holes with 6140 alloy.

 

[IndyJay]

One word INFLATION. No bargains today. Like the automakers, they got wind of the 5K rebates on EV's and immediately raise the price by 5000. It's 'Biness'....and you always loose.

Henry Ford was once attributed as saying that he could give away the cars and still make a fortune selling parts.
(Obviously not literally since some ungrateful people would just take another free car rather than buy parts to fix the old one)

 

[Jims1025R]

The parts used to manufacture the original whole item do not require estimating how many extra should be stocked - they count for what they build, and no more. They do not require stocking, perhaps for decades (with no return on storage costs until sale). They do not require being listed in illustrated parts catalogs, nor being "picked" to fill a later parts order. They don't have be put in their own box, with a packing slip, and they don't have to be restocked when the parts purchaser finds it was the wrong part anyway. It's not the cost of the part, it's all the overhead and labour to make it available to you.

So, yes, the original part can be a much lower cost than a replacement part!

 

[IndyJay]

The parts used to manufacture the original whole item do not require estimating how many extra should be stocked - they count for what they build, and no more. They do not require stocking, perhaps for decades (with no return on storage costs until sale). They do not require being listed in illustrated parts catalogs, nor being "picked" to fill a later parts order. They don't have be put in their own box, with a packing slip, and they don't have to be restocked when the parts purchaser finds it was the wrong part anyway. It's not the cost of the part, it's all the overhead and labour to make it available to you.

So, yes, the original part can be a much lower cost than a replacement part!

The R&D and tooling for the manufacturing part was already completed. The inflated cost for replacement parts is gouging.

 

[Rich B1]

Having worked in the whole goods industry (construction equipment) in a variety of functions, product support the longest, I can assure you selling OEM replacement parts is not “gouging”. There is significant overhead in the service parts business along with different pricing classes of service parts.

Proprietary parts are going to be the most expensive. Those are typically parts that are designed by and unique to the product (Think transmission housing casting on a Kioti). Then pricing tends to go down from there to commodity items like nuts and bolts.

Some OEM’s price commodity items high as they simply don’t want to bother with selling 1 bolt. Others are competitive on pricing of those items. It will vary by the company policies.

Regardless of the pricing strategy used, OEM’s use service parts as a significant revenue stream. If the revenue stream from service parts didn’t exist, machine cost would rise significantly.

You may not like the price, but reality is, it is the cost of having equipment.

 

[IndyJay]

Having worked in the whole goods industry (construction equipment) in a variety of functions, product support the longest, I can assure you selling OEM replacement parts is not “gouging”. There is significant overhead in the service parts business along with different pricing classes of service parts.

Proprietary parts are going to be the most expensive. Those are typically parts that are designed by and unique to the product (Think transmission housing casting on a Kioti). Then pricing tends to go down from there to commodity items like nuts and bolts.

Some OEM’s price commodity items high as they simply don’t want to bother with selling 1 bolt. Others are competitive on pricing of those items. It will vary by the company policies.

Regardless of the pricing strategy used, OEM’s use service parts as a significant revenue stream. If the revenue stream from service parts didn’t exist, machine cost would rise significantly.

You may not like the price, but reality is, it is the cost of having equipment.

YEah, I didn't say selling OEM replacement parts is "gouging". I said overcharging for replacement parts is gouging. A 205KDD Fafnir bearing should not cost 5x as much just because someone lists it as an OEM part.