Matt:
142-260 is the plastic lens, with formed chrome cap and the turned alloy
bulbholder. The design is obsolete and the piece is only available as a
limited quantity reproduction with high tooling cost/unit. They used to
be $64.95 retail when purchased from a third party, but Moss Motors
tooled up for the part and was able to get the price down a bit.
The 142-265 being a later design was used in many vehicles and is still
a popular off the shelf item, and available from a major British parts
manufacturer at a low cost.
Hope this answers your question. Usually a large price difference is
due to real cost differences, either in actual purchase cost or
amortization of tooling and manufacturing overhead costs.
Kelvin Dodd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mgs@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-mgs@autox.team.net] On
Behalf
> Of Dan DiBiase
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:28 AM
> To: Matt Trebelhorn; MG List
> Subject: Re: Moss/parts question
>
> --- Matt Trebelhorn <matt.lists@trebelhorn.com> wrote:
> > I'm looking at replacing a few damaged bits on the dash.
> >
> > Moss part #142-260 lists for $49.95. It's a turn signal lens.
> >
> > Other years' turn signal lenses 142-265 list for $5.85.
> >
> > Now, I realize that they're different pieces. But an order of
> > magnitude difference? If I'm remembering correctly, the price for
> > 142-260 used to end in a zero ($49.50?), making me think it was just
a
> > misplaced keystroke.
> >
> > So, is $49.95 correct? If so, why is that little piece of plastic
so
> > expensive?
> >
> > I was a bit wary of replacing a broken piece with a shiny new one,
and
> > not having the patina to match the other side... and at that price,
I'm
> > sure not going to replace them as a pair!
>
> I'm sure that Kelvin will chime in here. I suspect it's a
> supply-and-demand thing, since the 72 and up cars use the same part
number
> (the second one you referenced). Hey, the comparable part for the
> metal-dash cars aren't even available, so count your blessings...! Re:
the
> patina issue - can you really tell with a part that small? You have
better
> eyes than me! ;-)
|