What fails by brand: which part breaks, from 18,670 repairs

The methodological point matters more than any single figure. Each percentage below is a share of that brand and appliance combination's own completed repairs — not a share of all calls. Brand popularity therefore does not distort the numbers, which is exactly the trap that makes most published reliability rankings useless: a brand with twice the installed base produces twice the service calls while being no more likely to fail. The same publisher runs that calculation too, and labels it as what it is. A dash in a table is its own marker for a cell it does not report.

Refrigerators: one number stands away from the rest

Share of that brand's completed refrigerator repairs. The dash is the publisher's marker for a cell it does not report.

The LG compressor figure is the outlier in the whole dataset. Compressor work sits between 2.3% and 3.1% of refrigerator calls for Samsung, GE, Whirlpool and Frigidaire — a spread of less than one point across four brands with nearly five thousand jobs between them. LG is at 9.8%, more than three times the top of that band, and Kenmore at 6.6% is the only other brand above it. The publisher's own reading of that number is the sentence worth keeping: nothing an owner does meaningfully changes whether a sealed system fails, so it is the one figure on this page you cannot maintain your way out of — which is why it matters more than the rest. If a compressor is on the table, the test that separates it from a $372 relay and the age rule for the call are in refrigerator compressor failure, and the diagnosis that leads there is in refrigerator not cooling.

Ice makers split the field in half. They are 21.7% of Samsung refrigerator repairs and 21.1% of Whirlpool's, with KitchenAid at 19.2% and Kenmore at 15.0% — against 11.3% for GE and 12.4% for Frigidaire, roughly half the rate. That is a maintenance story rather than a build story: the ice path is water, filter and airflow, and it is the one refrigerator failure that responds to what an owner does. The evaporator fan column is flat across every brand that reports it, between 0.9% and 3.1%, which is the profile of a wear part rather than a design difference.

Washing machines: the control board divides them

Share of that brand's completed washing machine repairs.

GE and Whirlpool send their largest share of work to the control board, at 5.5% and 4.3%, while the same part is 1.5% of Samsung washer repairs. Read the other way, LG's two reported columns are a drain pump at 5.7% and a door seal at 4.3%, and those are the two failures on a front loader that an owner can actually influence: what goes into the drum and whether the door and its boot are cleaned and dried. This is the table to hold against a quote. If a board is named on a Samsung washer it is the rare finding in that brand's records, and the reasonable question is what was tested before it was named; on a GE washer it is the ordinary one. The faults behind those columns are on a washer that will not start and a washer that will not drain.

Dishwashers: the pump is the brand tell

Share of that brand's completed dishwasher repairs.

Whirlpool's wash pump at 7.0% is the highest single share in the dishwasher set and more than three times Samsung's 2.1%, while Samsung's drain pump at 5.0% is the highest drain figure there. Two different pumps on two different brands is a design difference, not a user one — and it is the kind of thing a page ranking brands by survey cannot see. GE is the control board outlier here too, at 4.3% against Bosch's 1.2%.

Dryers and ovens: the heating element splits, the igniter does not

Share of that brand's completed dryer repairs.

Share of that brand's completed oven and range repairs.

Heating elements run from 1.6% on LG dryers to 8.5% on Samsung's, a fivefold spread on a part that costs about the same everywhere — and a heating element is the classic victim of a restricted vent, which is the maintenance case made in the dryer fire data. Whirlpool's drive belt at 6.3% against Samsung's 3.0% is the same kind of gap on a mechanical wear part.

The gas igniter is the exception, and it is the most useful number on this page. It accounts for 9.9% to 11.2% of oven and range calls across Samsung, Whirlpool and GE, with only Frigidaire lower at 7.3% — the most brand-independent failure in the publisher's records, and an unusually tight band for a part that is replaced in three different manufacturers' ovens at nearly the same rate. A gas oven that will not light is therefore the one diagnosis where the brand tells you almost nothing, and the fault guide is the whole answer: oven not heating, and where the igniter is the confirmed cause, a burner that will not light. Control boards behave the other way in ovens, at 5.7% for both Whirlpool and Frigidaire against 3.1% and 3.9% for Samsung and GE.

The ranking you should not use

The same publisher runs the calculation that most "most reliable brands" articles are actually built on: which brands generate the most service calls. Across 64,973 repairs the order is Samsung 21.8%, Whirlpool 21.1%, GE 18.9%, Frigidaire 10.2%, Maytag 8.0%, LG 7.3% of branded repair calls. That is a market-share table. It says how many of each machine are out there and how many were sold, and it warns against itself in as many words — the publisher labels the figure "do not confuse this with reliability". Its own records also show the five most common brands landing within $32 of each other at the median repair, so the badge moves the bill less than the fault does.

What the two tables together do give an owner is a way to evaluate a quote rather than a brand. Hold the named part against the brand's own column. A control board quoted on a Samsung washer, a compressor on a Whirlpool refrigerator, or a heating element on an LG dryer are each the uncommon finding within that brand's own repairs — not impossible, but worth one question about what was tested before the part was named. A compressor on an LG or a Kenmore, an ice maker on a Samsung or a Whirlpool, or an igniter on any gas oven are the ordinary finding, and the quote should look ordinary too. the appliance-level medians to compare against are on what a typical repair costs by appliance, the fault-level bands are on the guide for the symptom, and the question of how often a brand fails at all — which needs a denominator this dataset does not have — is on what three brand datasets actually measure.

Brands the tables do not list, and the government records that name them

The tables above come from one repair company's completed jobs, and that company states its own publishing limits on the pages it publishes them on. Its failure-mix page says: “A brand and appliance combination is published only with at least 200 matched jobs. Twenty-six combinations qualify.” Its cost page says: “a brand is reported only where at least sixty qualifying repairs support it; brand and appliance combinations require at least forty” The brand names those two pages do publish are Samsung, GE, Whirlpool, Frigidaire, LG, Kenmore, KitchenAid, Maytag, Bosch.

The names in the table below do not appear in those lists. For them, the published records below are government recall notices, reproduced with their own figures.

The records, as published

• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 22028, 2021-12-08 — GE Appliances, a Haier Company, Recalls to Repair Free-Standing and Slide-In Ranges Due to Tip-Over Hazard. Brands named in the record: GE, GE Profile, Cafe, Haier, Hotpoint, Crosley, Conservator. “About 132,000 (In addition, about 12,960 in Canada)” Importer or distributor: GE Appliances, a Haier company, of Louisville, Kentucky. Remedy: free in-home service call.
• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 22093, 2022-03-09 — Danby Products Recalls Free-Standing and Slide-in Electric and Gas Ranges Due to Tip-Over Hazard and Risk of Burn Injuries. Brands named in the record: Danby. “About 1,700” Importer or distributor: Danby Products Inc., of Findlay, Ohio. Remedy: free in-home service call.
• Health Canada RA-63688, 2021-12-08 — GE, Moffat, GE Profile, Insignia, and Haier brand free-standing and slide-in gas and electric ranges recalled due to tip-over hazard. Brands named in the record: GE, Moffat, GE Profile, Insignia, Haier. “approximately 12,960 units of the affected product were sold in Canada and 132,000 units were sold in the United States” Manufacturer: Controladora Mabe SA de CV, San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Importer or distributor: MC Commercial Inc. (Mabe), Burlington, Ontario. Remedy: free inspection and repair.
• Health Canada RA-63765, 2021-12-29 — Danby brand free-standing and slide-in electric ranges recalled due to tip-over hazard. Brands named in the record: Danby. “The company reported that 140 units of the affected product were sold in Canada.” Manufacturer: Mabe SA de CV, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico. Importer or distributor: Danby Products Limited, Guelph, Ontario. Remedy: free inspection and repair.
• Health Canada RA-82273, 2026-07-09 — Insignia® Gas Ranges recalled due to fire hazard. Brands named in the record: Insignia. “The company reported that 702 units of the affected products were sold in Canada and 3,821 were sold in the United States.” Importer or distributor: Best Buy Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia. Remedy: a free set of knob covers.
• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 26606, 2026-07-09 — Best Buy Recalls Insignia® Gas Ranges Due to Risk of Serious Injury from a Fire Hazard. Brands named in the record: Insignia. “About 3,820 (in addition, about 700 were sold in Canada)” Importer or distributor: Best Buy Purchasing LLC, of Richfield, Minnesota. Remedy: free set of knob covers.
• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 12244, 2012-08-09 — GE Recalls Dishwashers Due to Fire Hazard. Brands named in the record: GE, GE Adora, GE Eterna, GE Profile, Hotpoint. “About 1.3 million in the United States” Manufacturer: GE Appliances, of Louisville, Ky.. Remedy: a free in-home repair.
• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 19015, 2018-10-25 — Haier America Recalls Top-Mount Refrigerators Due to Fire Hazard. Brands named in the record: Haier. “About 137,000” Importer or distributor: Haier America, of Wayne, N.J.. Remedy: a free in-home repair.
• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 01145, 2001-05-09 — CPSC, Maytag Announce Recall of Electric Ranges. Brands named in the record: Crosley, Magic Chef. “About 13,000” Manufacturer: Maytag Corp., of Newton, Iowa. Remedy: a free in-home repair.
• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 26756, 2026-09-10 — Dual Fuel Ranges Recalled Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Fire or Explosion Hazards; Manufactured by AGA Rangemaster. Brands named in the record: AGA, La Cornue. “About 3,992 (In addition, about 336 were sold in Canada)” Manufacturer: AGA Rangemaster Limited, of United Kingdom. Remedy: free inspection and repair by a certified technician.

The two publisher statements above are quoted from the same pages the tables on this page come from. The listings after them are Health Canada and U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recall notices, reproduced with their own figures, dates and companies; those figures are units sold and the remedy offered, and they are not service-call statistics. A search returning no record is a search result, not a finding by either agency about the product.

The same publisher also writes, on its cost page: “If you need a cut we have not published, such as a brand and appliance combination below our reporting threshold, write to us and we will run it.” Until such a cut is published, this page has no repair figure for these names, and it prints none.

Repair indicators, as published

What the government publishes for this trade

The labour figure is the one the U.S. Department of Labor publishes for this trade, quoted as that page states it. It is a wage, not a repair price.

U.S. Department of Labor, O*NET OnLine — home appliance repairers (SOC 49-9031.00). “Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2025 wage data”

What the manufacturer’s own store publishes for the recalled model

For the model named in the recall notice, the manufacturer’s own U.S. parts store publishes a part list with prices in U.S. dollars and a stock line for each part. The rows below are reproduced as that page publishes them.

Danby Appliance Parts (the manufacturer’s own store) — DER202W: DANBY 20" ELECTRIC RANGE WHITE. Parts the store lists for this model: 40 — DER202W (40) — the store’s own count of listed parts for this model.

The store publishes its part lists, stock lines and prices in English only; they are quoted as published.

A search of the same store: anti-tip — 13 products for the term the recall notice itself uses for the bracket (“anti-tip-over bracket”), checked 2026-09-20.

How fast the company itself books the work

The rows below are the ones a repair company publishes from its own dispatch records: how often a request got an appointment on the day it came in, and how many jobs sit behind each share. Waiting for a visit and the repair itself are two different things, and this page does not turn either into a price.

Bozmanfix (a repair company) — how quickly its own appointments were booked. “57.4% were booked same day or the next business day.”

The same page states the scope of the study: “63,970 actual appointments in a live dispatch system between January 2023 and August 2026 across Florida, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Pennsylvania. Business days exclude Sundays only, because Saturday is a normal service day for our crews.” It adds that a third of Saturday requests get same-day service, and that “These jobs are a subset of the 64,973 repairs behind our wider appliance repair statistics report — specifically the ones carrying both a request date and a scheduled appointment date.”

This is the company’s own dispatch record, not an industry figure: the shares are of those 63,970 requests, each row carries its own job count, and the rows are cumulative (a job booked within five days is also inside the two-day row), so they are not added together here. The page publishes no repair price sample for these requests.

What each of the two states actually calls about

The rows below are the ones the company publishes for the two states it services, taken from its own completed repairs: each appliance as a share of that state’s work where a single appliance type was recorded. The two shares are printed side by side, as that page prints them, and neither column is combined with the other here.

Bozmanfix Repair Index (a repair company, Florida and Georgia) — which appliance each of its two states calls about. “Florida is a refrigeration state and Georgia is a dishwasher state, by roughly five points each way.”

The page states the denominator of that table, and the scope of the whole dataset: “Shares are of 9,724 Florida and 8,726 Georgia completed repairs where a single appliance type was recorded.” “Completed service records from Bozmanfix operations, 22,583 completed repairs in Florida and 21,002 in Georgia, drawn from a total book of 65,924.”

These are the two states the company works in, not the United States, and the shares are of its own completed repairs. The page states the limit itself: “They are shares of service calls, not failure rates per unit installed. We do not know how many appliances of each type sit in each state, so nothing here says one state’s appliances are less reliable.”

The same three appliance groups, state by state

The rows below are that page’s own component tables for the two states the company services, reproduced with the job count the page prints beside each row. Each group carries its own shares: the percentages are of completed repairs for that appliance in that state, and the “median with a part replaced” rows are invoice medians the page publishes, in US dollars, each with its own job count.

Bozmanfix Repair Index (a repair company, Florida and Georgia) — which part fails in each of its two states, with the jobs behind each share. “The bill does not move across the state line. Six of eight appliance categories sit within $20 of each other, and the two state medians are $10 apart.”

The denominators are the page’s own: “Shares are of 924 Florida and 940 Georgia completed oven and range repairs.” “Shares are of 4,041 Florida and 3,081 Georgia completed refrigerator repairs.” “Washer shares are of 2,161 Florida and 2,091 Georgia completed repairs; dryer shares are of 867 and 626.” On what the median rows are: “Every median is the full invoice — part, labor and the service call together — on jobs above $200, which is the floor where a component was actually replaced.”

These are the company’s own service records for the two states it works in — not an industry figure, and not a failure rate per appliance installed. The page states how a job is attributed: “A job counts toward an appliance only when exactly one appliance type was recorded on it.” and “Descriptions are not present on every job, so component shares are conservative by construction: they count confirmed cases against all completed repairs for that appliance in that state.” The rows of the three groups have different denominators, so they are not added together here.

Cost by brand, from the company’s own completed repairs

The rows below are that page’s own table: the median repair and the middle half of jobs for each brand, each printed with the number of repairs behind it. Every figure is the full ticket as the page defines it, and the brands shown are the ones its own reporting threshold admits.

Bozmanfix (a repair company, six states) — what its own invoices show per brand, with the jobs behind every row. “$325 to $471 is the full range of median repair costs across twelve brands — a 45% spread from cheapest to dearest.”

The page states what a row is, and the scope of the sample: “Every figure is the full ticket — part, labour and the service call together — for jobs where a component was actually replaced. Brands are shown only where we have at least sixty such repairs.” “The data set is 29,315 completed repairs from Bozmanfix’s own job records across Florida, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, through August 2026.”

These are the company’s own invoices, and the page states the limit itself: “These figures describe cost to repair, not frequency of repair and not reliability: our workload reflects which brands are installed in the homes we serve as much as how they perform, so a brand’s absence or a small sample here carries no meaning about its quality.” The brands have different job counts, and their medians are neither added together nor averaged here.

What happened after the quote, brand by brand

The rows below are that page’s own table: for each brand, how often the household approved the repair after a fault was diagnosed and quoted, printed beside the median repair and the page’s own cost rank. A high share here is approval of a quote, not a judgement about a brand.

Bozmanfix (a repair company, six states) — how often its own repair quotes were approved, brand by brand. “The brand whose repairs cost a hundred dollars more gets approved eleven percentage points more often.”

The page states what the table is, in its own words: “When we diagnose a fault and quote the repair, some households approve it and some replace the machine instead. If cost drove that decision, the expensive brands would be approved least. They are approved most.” The same page carries the cost table above, from the same sample, and its reporting threshold applies to both: “a brand is reported only where at least sixty qualifying repairs support it”.

This is the company’s own record of what households decided after a quote, not a measure of reliability or of how good a brand is: the share says how often a repair was approved at that price, and different job counts sit behind the brands. The shares are not added together here, and the cost rank is the page’s own column, not a calculation of ours.

The same records, market by market

The rows below are that page’s own table for its five core markets: the service calls it ran in each one, the repairs completed there, and the median repair, with the number of calls printed beside every figure. The page defines that median as the full ticket on a repair where a part was replaced.

Bozmanfix (a repair company, eight markets) — what its own records show market by market, with the calls behind every row. “Median repair including a replaced part, all markets: 364 dollars, covering part, labor and service call.”

The page states its own scope and its own definition: “Everything below comes from our own dispatch and invoicing records: 66,161 appliance service calls in 57,022 households across 1,471 ZIP codes between January 2023 and August 2026, 18,334 of them in the last twelve months.” “Median repair: completed visits where a replacement part was fitted. Totals include the part, the labor and the service call.” Its own geography note: “84 percent of this work sits in Florida and Georgia, so these figures describe our service area and should not be read as national averages.”

This is the company’s own dispatch and invoicing record, not an industry survey: every row carries its own number of service calls and of completed repairs, the five markets are neither added together nor averaged here, and none of these medians is a national figure. The page’s own same-day and within-24-hours columns are not reproduced here — the same company measures booking speed on a separate page from a different sample, so the two are not compared.

Which appliance households actually put right, market by market

The rows below are that page’s own second table: for each of its five core markets, the paid dryer visits it ran, the share of them that ended with a part fitted and the machine running again, and the median dryer repair. Each row carries its own number of visits; a high share here is a completed repair, not a judgement about a brand or a model.

Bozmanfix (a repair company, eight markets) — how often a paid dryer visit ended in a completed repair, market by market. “Dryers end in a completed repair 78 to 89 percent of the time in every market, the highest rate of any appliance, despite not being the cheapest to fix in four of the five.”

The page states what the table is and why it reads that way: “In four of those five markets a dryer repair costs more than a dishwasher repair, so this is not a price effect. It is a household one. A dead dryer stops the laundry that day and there is no substitute anywhere in the house, so people want it back immediately and they get it back on the first visit four or five times out of five.” And its own general statement over the whole file: “what decides whether a household repairs an appliance is not the size of the quote, it is how many days they can live without the machine.”

This is the share of paid dryer visits the company completed with a part fitted, taken from its own records, and not a measure of how good a dryer is: each row carries its own number of visits, the shares are neither added together nor averaged here, and the markets are compared with each other rather than with other appliances. The same page publishes further cuts of the same record — an appliance mix per market and a city-by-city index — and those are not merged into this table.

How long a repair takes, appliance by appliance

The rows below are the repair times a repair company in Central New Jersey publishes for the appliances it services, with the issues it names under each one. The page publishes no number of jobs, no median and no method, so these are the published figures themselves, reproduced as that page prints them.

Mr. Appliance of Central New Jersey (a repair company, Freehold, New Jersey) — how long a repair takes, appliance by appliance, as it publishes it. “More complex repairs, like compressor replacement, may take longer.”

The same page states what moves those figures, in its own words: “Repair duration varies based on:” — it then names appliance type, issue complexity, parts availability, and appliance age and condition. It adds: “Older units may require extra troubleshooting.” and “Most repairs are faster when parts are on hand.”

This is a repair company’s own published working range for the appliances it services, not a measured sample: the page publishes no number of jobs, no median and no method, so no row above is cited as a median, the three appliances are not added together, and no duration here is multiplied by a wage or turned into a price.

How long the visit itself takes

The rows below are the durations the company itself publishes for a repair visit: what the diagnosis takes, how long a no-heat dryer takes to confirm, and the total it gives for most visits. This is a different question from the repair times above — one measures the repair, the other the visit — and the two are not combined here.

Bozmanfix (a repair company, eight markets) — how long its own repair visits take. “Most visits run one to two hours — twenty to forty-five minutes to diagnose, then the repair itself — and someone over eighteen needs to be there to approve the estimate.”

The same page states the rest of it in its own words: “Diagnosis is normally twenty to forty-five minutes. A no-heat dryer can be confirmed in under twenty; a refrigerator that has to be pulled out, unloaded, and given time to cycle takes longer. Add the repair itself and most visits run one to two hours in total.” It also states what stretches a visit, and what ends one early: “Built-in and counter-depth appliances have to come out of cabinetry and go back in, which adds real time on both ends.” and “If the failed part is not on the van — sealed-system components, boards for premium or discontinued models — the visit ends with a confirmed diagnosis and a written estimate rather than a finished repair, and the work completes on a return trip.”

This is the company’s own description of how its visits run, not a measured sample: the page publishes no number of visits, no median and no method behind the durations, so the durations are reproduced as published, they are not added together, and no duration here is multiplied by a wage or turned into a price.

What an electric cooperative publishes for its own service work

The rows below are the service fees one member-owned electric cooperative in South Dakota publishes for its own work, in its own words. Its stated scope is consumer wiring, heating and cooling or appliance services, so this is a mixed member-services fee rather than a rate built for appliance repairs, and it is regional — the cooperative serves its members around Mitchell, South Dakota. It is the first US or Canadian publisher in this register to print its own hourly rate, and what it bills each employee at is not a national appliance-repair rate.

Central Electric Cooperative (member-owned electric cooperative, Mitchell, South Dakota) — service work billed to members by the hour, in its own stated scope of consumer wiring, heating and cooling or appliance services. “Let’s start with member services fees, which apply to consumer wiring, heating and cooling or appliance services.”

The same page states the rate in its own words: “Currently, we charge a $110 minimum fee for any service call we perform that takes less than one hour, and $110 per hour for any additional time.” It states how the rate multiplies: “Each employee on a job is billed out at $110 per hour. For example, if two employees are required, the rate is $220 per hour, and so on.” It states the after-hours rate and its floor: “Please note that our after-hours fees start at $145 per hour, with a minimum of two hours of billable time.” It states the billing increment: “Billable time may be charged in half-hour increments.” Its own reason for the one-hour minimum is printed too: “To be fair to all members from Chamberlain to Winfred, we charge $110 for the first hour to cover prep time, drive time and mileage. Most other contractors charge mileage both ways, and their clock starts when they leave the shop and runs until they return.” The same cooperative’s own appliance page says of its service: “Central Electric provides 24 hour service to all brands and types of appliances.”

This is one cooperative’s published price for its own service work, not a measured sample: the page publishes no number of jobs, no median and no method behind the rate, so no row above is cited here as a median, and the rows are not added together. The publisher is a member-owned electric cooperative rather than a for-profit repair company, and its own stated scope is consumer wiring, heating and cooling or appliance services together — a mixed member-services fee for one region of South Dakota, not a national appliance-repair hourly rate and not a rate quoted for appliance work alone. Nothing above is multiplied by the repair times or the visit times published elsewhere on this page, and no figure here is a repair price.

What the company charges to come out

The rows below are the service-call prices the same company publishes for its own visits, reproduced as its pricing page prints them. These are flat prices for a visit, not repair prices and not hourly rates: the page names two setups that cost more because they are two machines in one cabinet, and it publishes no hourly rate anywhere on it.

Bozmanfix (a repair company, eight markets) — the service-call prices it publishes for coming out. “These are average rates for service.”

The same page states its own footing: “These are average rates for service.” and “Pricing will be confirmed once a technician is assigned to your requested appointment.” Its own footnote on the table is: “* Estimates and pricing are based on a standard scope of work and can change once the technician is on-site to assess the issue. You will have a chance to review final pricing before the work begins.” It explains the two higher rows in its own words: “Two setups take $150 instead of $99: a stacked washer and dryer combo, and a double oven. Both are two machines in one cabinet, and both have to come apart before anything can be tested.” It states what the visit buys: “The $99 buys the trip out and a full set of tests with real equipment. It is not a guess from the doorway.” and “Approve the repair and that $99 comes off the total, so you pay for the work, not for the visit.” The page prints no hourly rate at all: measured on the page as served, the phrase per hour and the word hourly each return no match.

This is the company’s own published price list for its visits, not a measured sample: the page publishes no number of jobs, no median and no method behind these prices, so none of the rows above is cited here as a median. They are flat service-call prices rather than repair prices — the price of coming out, before any work — and the page publishes no hourly rate on any of its three tabs, so nothing here is turned into an hourly figure or multiplied by one. The same page also prices TV mounting and handyman work, which are not appliance service and are deliberately not reproduced here.

A part price and a wage are two different things, and neither of them is a repair price: this page does not add them together, multiply a wage by a number of hours, or present any figure as a quote. The duration tables are working ranges two separate companies publish for their own repairs and visits: they are reproduced as published, they are not averaged against each other, and no duration here is turned into a price. Every figure above is published by the source named beside it.