This is true but the quality of the chrome is not always good, it
doesn't look good and it doesn't last. I admit though I always buy new
because it is the cheaper route. If you have a show car then you are
better off going the more expensive route.
...Art
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jason F. Dutt wrote:
> I've found that it's almost always cheaper, on our cars at least, to just
> buy a new part. The only time I've ever known anyone to chrome their parts
> was one of three situations:
> 1. The part is no longer available.
> 2. The part was never originally chromed.
> 3. The exception: The new part is more expensive than a re-chromed part.
>
> Regards,
>
> J
>
> ----------
> > From: Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca>
> > To: Robert J. Donahue <rdonahue@holli.com>; mgs@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Chroming Prices
> > Date: Thursday, July 24, 1997 4:10 AM
> >
> > Robert J. Donahue wrote:
> > > This is costing $180. Is this reasonable? Was chrome plating always
> this
> > > expensive, or is this the doing of our arch enemy the EPA?
> >
> > It was always expensive. The actual chroming is quick, it's
> > the polishing that is a lot of skilled manual labour.
> >
> > Practical Classics had a good article on this the other month. It
> > was something like 12 steps to chroming, and the actual chrome was
> > something like step 11.
> >
> > > BTW, where has the chrome gone on new cars? Nary a glimmer to be seen.
> Is this
> > > a styling thing or a cost thing?
> >
> > Probably both. Cost and legislation made chrome a thing of
> > the past, and being a thing of the past, nobody wants to
> > try and market a new car with it.
> >
> > --
> > Trevor Boicey
> > Ottawa, Canada
> > tboicey@brit.ca
> > http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
>
|