Your feature 'As good as new' (PE, 27 January) quite rightly highlights the environmental as well as the cost benefits of remanufacturing. Refurbishment of manufactured components, typically castings and forgings, without them having to be literally melted down, makes eminent sense. New machining is usually involved, possibly with critical bored holes being re-sleeved It is widely practised in the auto industry, though till now the big-name vehicle and component manufacturers have tended to keep such operations at arm's length, so to speak, often processed by an outside contractors to standards laid down by the OEM, but nevertheless marketed and branded by the latter.
It is invariably claimed that an 'approved' remanufactured part comes fully up to 'brand new' standards of quality and durability. And though its price over the dealer parts counter might be lower, the remanufactured item often enjoys the same warranty coverage as its brand new equivalent.
So why should remanufactured components not be used in the production of new cars and trucks? They could bring down vehicle prices while, at the same time, conserving raw materials and the energy consumed in manufacturing 'from scratch', even where recycled raw materials are used.
It is a profound issue that borders on the philosophical, as far as many customers for engineering products are concerned. It is surely time to challenge buyers' deeply-ingrained expectations that new must mean new through and through.
In the vehicle sector it has been suggested that some fleet buyers, notably
contract hire and rental companies, could be ready to accept new cars, vans or trucks built using selected remanufactured parts - in return for some additional price discounting. The argument goes that when such vehicles are sold on, when they are three or five years old, their residual value will be unaffected; buyers of second hand vehicles have no retrospective interest in the finer definition of 'new'.
Alan Bunting, Harpenden, Herts
© PE Publishing, February 2010
