But clearly, some level of normalization relative to our ’22 performance into the second half should be anticipated at this point. But I think our – frankly, our bigger concerns of any are the entire industry being able to produce at higher levels. And as I said, the constraints have not been all resolved and you would assume given the carryover into this year with very strong demand, some of that is expected to move into ’24 as well. Having said that, backlogs, as you well know, have been burn down a bit. So, I think some of that will get further focus and frankly, clarity as order books are opened by a number of OEMs yet this year, certainly by the end of this quarter. So that’s the next thing for us to be focused on. In the meantime, we’re prepared to supply to whatever demand is required.
Tim Thein: Very good. Thank you, Dave.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Larry De Maria with William Blair. Please proceed with your question.
Larry De Maria: Hi, thanks. Good afternoon, everybody. I wanted to talk about the big 31% increase in service parts. I’m seeing this nice growth, and you’ve had a strong year overall, even on some, not even nationally, easy comps. But can you – I don’t know, maybe deconstructed price volume and talk about the sustainability of service parts growth? And what’s going on specifically? Is it catch-up from supply chain challenges? Is it mostly price? Can you just kind of deconstruct what’s going on there for us and the sustainability, please?
Fred Bohley: Sure, Larry. This is Fred. There’s – when you break it down, there’s certainly an element of everything you mentioned. We’re the North American service business – very strong for the quarter, on a year-over-year basis, driving about half of the uplift. But outside North America – up support equipment sold to our OEMs with the higher volumes up, our business coming out of Walker Die Cast is up and then relative to pricing. I mean, in the quarter, we had significant price in total $45 million in price, over 600 basis points and that’s also providing a lift in the parts category as well, but we are getting price across all of our end markets.
Larry De Maria: Okay. That’s helpful. Thank you very much.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Tami Zakaria with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.
Tami Zakaria: Hi, thank you so much. I was hoping to ask two questions. So my first question is, I think you mentioned pricing was $45 million so it’s more than 6%. What was the cost headwind? Like I’m trying to get a sense of the price cost? And then what’s your pricing outlook for the back half?
Fred Bohley: Sure, Tami. This is Fred. Yes, $45 million in price on a year-over-year basis, over 600 basis points in the quarter, that was off of 800 basis points of price in Q1. As you’re aware, we did multiple inter-year pricing last year. So, the comps from a price in total do get more difficult as you move into Q3 and Q4. Initially, when we provided a guide back in February, we’re expecting to get about 400 basis points of price on a year-over-year basis. At this point, we should be closer to 500 basis points of price. In the quarter, material costs benefited from commodity prices coming off. So our total material cost on a year-over-year basis was basically neutral. We did incur about $17 million of additional manufacturing costs.
Obviously, some of that associated with getting more volume out the door based on our initial guide increase in guide in Q1 and then again, increasing guide in Q2. We are accruing higher incentive comp expenses as well, which is driving some of that manufacturing expense up.
