Molders rate quality of today's small machines.

For the first time in print, users rate the quality of small injection machines and their suppliers--by brand name.

If you want to know how a machine performs in the real world, the soundest practical advice is "Ask someone who owns one." We derided to go that one better: We asked 10,338 injection molders at 4729 plants to tell us about the small machines they own and about the suppliers that built them.

We mailed a questionnaire to all our injection molding readers at plants with machines of 0-99 tons clamp force that we identified through the PLASTICS TECHNOLOGY Manufacturing Census. We restricted our questions to machines purchased new in the last five years (1988 to 1993) in order to obtain opinions relevant to the technological level of machines on the market today.

We received 1644 replies, 714 of them from firms that had purchased new small presses in the 1988-93 time period. The latter group were asked to rate the performance of those machines. Results were tabulated for us by an outside market-research firm.

WHO ANSWERED THE SURVEY

In some cases, there was more than one reply from the same plant. However, a count of the different zip codes from which the responses came indicates that at least 72% came from different plants. The true percentage was probably higher because some zip codes have more than one injection molding plant.

On that basis, it can be said that the responses came from at least 1167 plants, or 25% of the total surveyed. Those plants represent about 15% of all injection molding facilities in the U.S. and Canada.

By several measures, the responses are highly representative of the population surveyed. The average number of machines per plant was 12, as compared with 11.5 for all plants in the U.S. and Canada. A little over 65% of respondents were at plants performing custom molding, compared TABULAR DATA OMITTED with 67% for all injection plants. Geographical distribution of respondents was also quite close to the national distribution of molding plants.

Eighty-one percent of respondents came from two primary job functions: production or manufacturing engineering (49%) and general or corporate management (32%). Mother 14% of respondents came from R&D, quality assurance, and design or design engineering. These proportions closely match those of our total injection molding readership. Likewise, the distribution of job rifles closely matches the profile of readers surveyed.

TABLE 2--SMALL INJECTION MACHINES (0-99 TONS) PURCHASED NEW IN 1988-93   714
RESPONSES

                      No. of                    No. of
Supplier              Mentions   Supplier       Mentions
Arburg                163        MCP            6
Autojectors           14         Meiki          5
Bata Engineering      1          Mitsubishi     2
Boston Matthews       2          Multipas       1
Boy                   96         Nan Rong       1
Bucher                3          Negri Bossi    5
Butler                1          Netstal        6
Cincinnati Milacron   110        Newbury        36
CLF                   1          Nigata         4
Continental           1          Nissei         57
Corval                1          Noble          1
Dong Shin             2          Orient         1
Elite                 1          PH Trueblood   8
Engel                 99         Plastak Eng.   2
Excel                 1          Plastimac      1
Fong Kee              2          Sadamel        1
Gluco                 6          Sandretto      7
Hatoge                1          Shinwa Seiki   9
HPM                   9          Simplomatic    1
Hunter                1          Sumitomo       6
Husky                 1          Tat Ming       2
Illinois Precision    4          TMC(a)         14
Jaco                  8          Toolex-Alpha   1
JSW                   5          Toshiba        22
Kawaguchi             16         Toyo           30
Klockner              5          Van Dorn       98
Krauss-Maffei         2          Vimm           2
Lucky-Goldstar        1          Welltec        1
Mannesmann Demag      6

a One was built for the Rochester label by TMC.

Of the 714 respondents who provided the machine and supplier quality ratings, 92.5% said they were "closely involved" in the operation of injection machines (74% commonly and 18.5% occasionally). And 81% were closely involved in maintenance of injection machines (50% commonly, 31% occasionally). Only 7% said they were "rarely or never" involved in either activity.

Of those 714 respondents, 81% said they were involved in the purchase of injection machines during the last five years: 60% were involved in determining the need for a new machine; 58% in selecting the type of machine; 57% in recommending or selecting a supplier; and 41% in approving the purchase.

WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT?

Before being asked to provide quality ratings on their machines and suppliers, respondents were asked to name their first, second and third most important criteria for choosing a small injection machine. In each case, certain responses were clear favorites.

* "Most important": Two responses were closely tied - uptime reliability (including dependability, durability and low maintenance) and machine precision/accuracy/repeatability.

* "Second most important": Again, there was a close tie, this time between uptime reliability and quality/availability of spare parts, service, after-sale support.

* "Third most important": Here, price was the resounding winner.

Taken all together, which criteria appeared most commonly anywhere in respondents' lists of 'Three Most Important"?

* Uptime reliability and price were each cited among the key criteria by 42% of respondents.

* Spare parts/service/support appeared in the top three criteria of 30% of respondents, as did machine precision/accuracy/repeatability.

* Ease of use/mold setup/mold change came third, cited by 13% of respondents.

* Matching basic machine capabilities to the job came fourth (14% of respondents).

* Controls quality/ease of use came fifth (13.5% of respondents).

EVALUATING THE RATINGS

Table 2 lists 59 brands of small injection machines that respondents purchased new from 1988 to 1993. Respondents were asked to rate 31 quality characteristics of machine performance and supplier service as Excellent, Good, Acceptable/Nothing Special, Somewhat Unsatisfactory, or Very Unsatisfactory. These were reduced to numerical averages by counting each Excellent equal to 5 and Very Unsatisfactory equal to 1.

TABULAR DATA OMITTED

TABLE--'WOULD YOU BUY ANOTHER SMALL MACHINE FROM THAT SUPPLIER?' (10 or More
Mentions)

                      No. of
Supplier              Mentions(a)  Yes    No
Arburg                170          88%    12%
Autojectors           17           100%
Battenfeld            35           63%    37%
Boy                   94           73%    27%
Cincinnati Milacron   107          87%    13%
Engel                 111          85%    15%
Kawaguchi             14           79%    21%
Newbury               33           70%    30%
Nissei                54           93%    7%
TMC                   14           50%    50%
Toshiba               21           86%    14%
Toyo                  28           89%    11%
Van Dorn              96           64%    36%
All Machines          918          80%    20%

a Does not include 5% No Answer.
TABLE 5--'WOULD YOU BUY ANOTHER SMALL MACHINE FROM THAT SUPPLIER?' (3 to 9
Mentions)

No. of
Supplier             Mentions(a)   Yes    No
Bucher               3             100%
FCS                  3             100%
Gluco                6             67%    33%
HPM                  7             71%    29%
Illinois Precision   4             75%    25%
Jaco                 7             57%    43%
JSW                  5             80%    20%
Klockner             5             80%    20%
Mannesmann Demag     5             100%
MCP                  6             67%    33%
Meiki                5             80%    20%
Mitsubishi           9             78%    22%
Negri Bossi          5             40%    60%
Netstal              6             83%    17%
Niigata              4             100%
PH Trueblood         7             100%
Sandretto            7             71%    29%
Shinwa Seiki         9             89%    11%
Sumitomo             6             100%

a Does not include 5% No Answer.
TABLE 6--JOB TITLES OF RESPONDENTS

                              % of
Title                  Respondents

Chief Exec.
(CEO, Pres., General Mgr.)    25.4
Miscellaneous V.P.             4.2
Head of Manufacturing
(Plant Mgr., Production)
or Manufacturing Mgr.)        18.2
Middle/Lower Mfg. Management
(Shift Supervisor, Foreman)    7.0
Head of Engineering            5.8
Manufacturing Engineer        16.8
Manufacturing Technician       2.2
Tooling                        4.0
Maintenance                    0.9
Technical Service              0.8
Quality Assurance              3.2
R&D                            5.4
Scheduling & Purchasing        1.1
Product Design & Devel.        3.1
Consultant                     0.4
Marketing, Sales               0.4
Other & No Answer              1.5

These results are presented in Tables i and 3. Table 1 includes results for all machine brands that received ratings from 10 or more respondents. Table 3 contains machine brands that received three to nine ratings. These are tabulated separately because the smaller number of responses indicates that these results should be interpreted with a greater degree of caution. With so few responses, only one more or one less could have significantly affected the ratings averages.

Where a brand was rated by only one or two molders, we judged the results to be too unreliable to report at all.

To ease comprehension of the mass of data in Table 1, we graphed the results for eight quality characteristics that correspond to the machine-selection criteria deemed most important by molders.

All machine brands received average ratings of'"Acceptable" or better in a majority of categories. The ratings on machine energy efficiency should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt, since only 36% of respondents said their plant had measured or analyzed the energy consumption of its injection machines. By contrast, 86% said their plants perform routine scheduled maintenance on their machines, lending greater credence to answers on maintainability and uptime.

The ratings generally corroborate the results of a more general injection-machine quality survey we published last year (see PT, Nov. '92, p. 40). Among those respondents were 265 users of small machines. Both surveys found highest ratings for Japanese small machines as a group, and second-highest ratings for German/Austrian/Swiss models, in most quality characteristics. However, the latest survey shows significant distinctions between different brands of Japanese, German or North American machines. In fact, U.S.-built presses often appear among the top-rated models.

It may be noted that the number of mentions of hydraulic-clamp machines exceeded those of toggle presses by only 13%. And the ratings in all machine performance categories were virtually identical for both clamp types.

When asked what they would most like to see improved in the small machines they use, respondents answered overwhelmingly that they desired improvements in controls-whether improved effectiveness, greater ease of use, a more convenient location, or added features. The second most frequently cited area for improvements was supplier technical service, spare parts, repairs, and support. Clamp-system improvements came a dose third, followed by hydraulic-system improvements (especially oil leaks) and injection-system improvements. Rounding out the top ten were ease of use/setup/mold change, safety and noise (including mold safety), ejector or knockout system improvements, and better manuals or documentation (in English!).

WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE

Finally, when asked if they would buy a small machine from their suppliers again, respondents gave the highest percentage of yes answers to Japanese machines as a group. German/Austrian/Swiss machines came in second. Among individual brands, however, a U.S. nameplate was number one among the most popular makes. Note that on these tables, some brands have more mentions than there were respondents because hydraulic and toggle machines from the same supplier were rated separately.