language
English
العربية
বাংলাদেশ
Български
Hrvatski
Česky
Dansk
Nederland

Slovenski
Filipino
Suomi
Français
Maori

Georgian

Deutsch
Ελλάδα
ישראל
इंडिया
Magyarország
Ísland
Indonesia
Irlanda
Italia
日本語
Sovensko
Հայաստան
한국
Kyrgyz
ປະເທດລາວ

Latvian
Lithuanian
Luxembourgish

Macedonian
Малайская
Maltese
Монгол улс

ဗမာ

नेपाल
Norge
ایران
Polska
Portugal
România
Российская
Србија

Србија

Bosanski
Slovenian
Беларус
España
Sverige
Точик
ประเทศไทย
Türk
Azərbaycan
Uzbek

Việt Nam
language
04
2025
-
10
Small Batch Injection Molding Too Expensive? Save 30% This Way
The core of cost reduction in small-batch injection molding is rejecting over-engineering: choose aluminum/simplified steel molds by output level, saving 30%-50% on mold costs; prioritize cold runners and limit prototype tests to 3 times to reduce production loss; precisely match suppliers, adopt phased payment and mold custody for lifecycle cost control. Combining the three strategies achieves 30% cost savings.
- Ultra-small batches (<1,000 units):Abandon steel molds and adopt aluminum or silicone molds, which cost only 1/5 to 1/3 of traditional steel molds and double processing speed. For example, for a 500-unit trial order, the mold cost can be reduced from $11,200 to less than $2,800.
- Medium batches (1,000-5,000 units):Simplify structural design by eliminating "luxury configurations" such as complex core-pulling and automatic thread stripping, replacing them with manual demolding to cut processing costs by 40%. Merge parting surfaces and use straight cooling channels to reduce CNC processing time by over 30%.
- Near-mass production (5,000-10,000 units):Choose standard mold bases like LKM, which cost 50% less than custom ones. Use P20 pre-hardened steel (service life up to 100,000 cycles) for cores and cavities instead of high-priced H13 steel, saving 1/3 of material costs.
2. Process Aspect: Reject "One-Size-Fits-All" and Optimize the Entire Production Process
- Runner system adaptation:Prioritize cold runners in most scenarios, which cost 60% less than hot runners and have modification costs only 50% of hot runners. Hot runners are only cautiously used for thin-walled parts (wall thickness <1.5mm) or transparent parts to avoid insufficient filling.
- Prototype testing cost control:Strictly limit prototype testing to 3 times or less: the first test verifies basic functions (allowing 10% dimensional deviation), the second adjusts the cooling system (deformation <0.3%), and the third confirms surface quality (Ra≤1.6μm), reducing prototype loss by 40%.
- Material and parameter optimization:Control regrind ratio at 10%-30% (≤10% for precision parts), use infrared moisture meters to strictly control drying parameters, and reduce scrap rates. Shortening cooling time by 10 seconds per cycle can increase annual output by 15% and amortize unit costs.
3. Supply Chain Aspect: Choose the Right Partners and Control Lifecycle Costs
- Precise supplier matching:For ultra-small batches, select rapid prototyping factories with strong aluminum mold processing capabilities (10-day delivery); for medium batches, choose regional integrated factories that can reuse inventory standard parts; for high-precision needs, cooperate with professional factories that prioritize small-batch orders.
- Contract and custody design:Adopt phased payment of "30% deposit + 50% after qualified prototyping + 20% after delivery" to reduce financial pressure. Sign mold custody agreements for free storage by suppliers for 6 months, saving 80% of storage costs compared to building in-house warehouses.
- Avoid low-price traps:Be wary of suppliers quoting 40% below market average (likely using inferior steel) and reject "zero-modification" promises (minor adjustments in the first test are normal). Prioritize partners who can provide DFM optimization suggestions.
Key words:
Small batch injection molding cost,low-cost aluminum mold,cold runner vs hot runner,DFM optimization,P20 mold steel,prototype testing cost control,mold custody service,injection molding supplier matching
Related news
undefined