I've noticed that too—smaller insurers sometimes pay more attention to details like OEM parts. But realistically, does going OEM always justify the extra cost, especially for older cars? Curious if anyone's crunched the numbers on this...
Had an older Civic a few years back, went OEM on a bumper replacement—honestly, couldn't tell the difference after a month of road grime. Maybe for critical parts it's worth it, but cosmetic stuff... probably not?
Had a similar experience with my old Mustang. Went aftermarket on a side mirror replacement—looked perfect at first, but after a year or two, the plastic started fading differently than the OEM parts. Wasn't a huge deal, but noticeable if you knew what to look for. I'd say cosmetic stuff's usually fine aftermarket, especially if you're not keeping the car forever. But if you're into long-term ownership or resale value matters, OEM can sometimes hold up better in terms of fit and finish. For critical mechanical parts though, OEM or high-quality aftermarket is definitely worth the extra bucks... learned that lesson the hard way with brake components once.
Interesting perspective on aftermarket parts. I've noticed similar issues with my BMW—went aftermarket on a grille replacement once, and the chrome finish started peeling after about 18 months. OEM definitely seems superior in terms of longevity and consistency. Curious though, has anyone experienced insurance pushback when insisting on OEM replacements after minor accidents? Wondering if insurers typically accommodate that or if it's usually a battle...
Had a similar run-in with my Civic last year—insurance was pretty pushy about aftermarket parts to keep costs down. Honestly, the bumper fit fine, but paint faded quicker than expected. Wonder if it's more brand-specific or just luck of the draw...
