Skip to content
64

crankshaft position sensor

Worth a look

Shows a fragmented shelf (top 5 take 23% of clicks), but a failed launch gate (market size, growth, or returns) keeps it on the watch list.

Market size 75Growth 21Conversion 52Competition 92Returns 24Price range 85Avg price 91Brand share 74Review moat 92Quality gap 72

Competition

Great23%

top-5 click share — an open shelf

Review moat

Great150.4

avg incumbent reviews — the moat a new listing must climb

Avg price

Great$21.21

avg listing price — sweet spot $15–$100

Price range

Great$8.26–$60.65

cheapest to priciest tracked listing — scored on the share inside $15–$100

Market size

Good$839K

$839K/yr · 944K searches

Brand share

Good60%

top-5 brand share — brands hold most of the demand

Quality gap

Good4.3★

avg incumbent rating — lower means beatable quality

Conversion

Good4.2%

search→purchase rate — share of searches ending in a sale

Returns

Bad6.1%

return rate — above 6% kills the launch gate

Growth

Bad-9.0%

90-day search growth — must beat 0% to launch

Competition

Clicks spread well past the top 5 (23% combined) — an open shelf where new products get seen.

Brands

38 falling

Sellers

100

Top-5 brand share

60%

Open market

35%

  • A-Premium30%
  • Dorman11%
  • A-NAFTULY8%
  • Carbhub6%
  • Delphi5%
  • Hirificing4%

Product shelf

Each bubble is one product — market share against review moat; bubble size tracks estimated sales, color grades how beatable the incumbent looks.

0%2%$17K4%$34K6%$50K8%$67K1101001K10K Reviews — right = deep review moat Market share (90d) ≈ est. sales
Beatable (≤4.3★) Contested Strong incumbent (>4.7★)

All 96 tracked products in this niche — three views at once, no toggling.

Demand & seasonality

Weekly Amazon search volume, last 104 weeks — -9.0% search growth over the last 90 days.
23K18KSepDecMarJunAugNovMarMay

No pronounced peak months · busiest ÷ quietest = 1.3×

Reviews

What buyers praise and complain about, mined from review topics.

What buyers love

Size-Overall23%

“Fit good”

Quality-Overall17%

“Excellent product”

Value For Money12%

“Great value for the price”

Assembly/Installation12%

“Installed without any issues”

Efficiency10%

“did the trick”

Advertised Vs Actual Product9%

“As advertised”

Fuel Efficiency3%

“good fuel pump”

Functionality-Overall2%

“No complaints still working fine two years later”

Maintenance And Repair2%

“Easy fix”

Durability2%

“It's very durable”

What buyers complain about

Compatibility-Overall16%

“I dont know if they came not working or if they arent compatible even though it said they were”

Sensor16%

“Bad sensor”

Functionality-Overall11%

“The car that stalled”

Size-Overall10%

“Trash didnt fit”

Durability8%

“Only Laster a Year”

Defective Material/Parts8%

“Part those not work”

Quality-Overall6%

“This is just not very well made and based on the apparent quality and quality control, it is not surprising that it was DOA”

Advertised Vs Actual Product4%

“False advertisement”

Assembly/Installation3%

“Installation is no fun at all”

Ease Of Use2%

“this is a challenging piece to replace”

Top return reasons

Sensor38%
Size-Overall16%
Compatibility-Overall14%
Defective Material/Parts9%
Functionality-Overall7%
Advertised Vs Actual Product4%
Value For Money3%
Product Condition2%
Assembly/Installation2%
Socket/Port/Plug1%