For the first time, users rated the quality of small injection molding machines and their suppliers-by brand name.
If you want to know the performance of a machine in the real world, the most practical advice is \"ask the person who owns a Machine \".
\"We laughed at doing better: we asked 10,338 injection molding machines at 4729 factories and told us about the small machines they had and the pliers that made them.
We mailed a questionnaire to all injection readers with a 0-machine
We manufacture 99 tons of clamping force by plastic technology census.
In the past five years, we have limited the problem to buying new machines (1988 to1993)
In order to obtain opinions related to the technical level of machines in today\'s market.
We received 1644 responses, 714 of which came from at 1988-93 time period.
The latter group is used to evaluate the performance of these machines.
As a result, we were given a form by the external market. research firm.
In some cases, the same factory replied more than once.
However, statistics on the different postal codes from which the response came indicate that at least 72% are from different plants.
Due to more than one injection molding plant in some zip codes, truepercentage may be higher.
On this basis, it can be said that these reactions came from at least 7 species of surveyed, accounting for 25% of the total number of investigations.
These factories account for 15% of all injection molding equipment in the United States. S. and Canada.
Through several measures, these responses are highly representative of the population surveyed.
Compared with 11 machines, the average number of machines per plant is 12.
5 for all plants in the United StatesS. and Canada.
In the factory where custom molding was carried out, the proportion of respondents was slightly higher than 65%, compared with 67% of the table data for all injection molding plants.
The Geographical Distribution of Respondents is also very close to the national distribution of the molding plant. Eighty-
1% of respondents came from two major work sectors: production or manufacturing engineering (49%)
And general company management (32%).
14% of respondents came from R & D, quality assurance and design or design engineering.
These proportions match the total number of our injection readers.
Similarly, the distribution of working rifles is very consistent with the situation of the reader being investigated.
Of the 714 respondents who provided machine and supplier quality ratings, 92 were.
5% said they were \"closely involved\" in the operation of injection molding machines (
Generally 74% and 18. 5% occasionally).
And 81% closely participate in the maintenance of injection molding machines (
50% in general, 31% occasionally.
Only 7% of respondents said they had little or never participated in the two events.
Of the 714 respondents, 81% said they had been involved in the purchase of injection molding machines in the past five years: 60% had been involved in determining the demand for new machines;
58% select the type of machine;
57% recommend or select suppliers;
41% refused to buy.
What is the most important thing?
Before being asked to provide quality ratings to their machines and suppliers, respondents were asked to state the first, second and third most important criteria for their choice of small injection molding machines.
In each case, certain reactions are clear favorites.
* \"Most important\": two reactions are closely linked --
Reliability of normal operating time (
Reliability, durability and low maintenance included)
And machine accuracy/repeatability.
* \"Second most important\": this time, there is a close connection between uptime reliability and the quality/availability of spare parts, services, after-sales servicessale support.
* \"The third most important\": the price is a resounding winner here.
To sum up, which criteria are most common among the \"three most important\" list of respondents?
* 42% of respondents cited uptime reliability and price in key criteria, respectively.
* Spare parts/services/support appear in the first three criteria of 30% of respondents, as are machine accuracy/repeatability.
* 13% of respondents said that ease of use/mold setup/mold replacement came third.
* Match basic machine capabilities to work in the fourth place (
14% of respondents).
* Control quality/ease of use ranked fifth (13.
5% of respondents).
Evaluation RATINGSTable 2 lists 59 brands of small injection molding machines that are new from 1988 to 1993.
Respondents were asked to rate 31 quality features of machine performance and supplier service as excellent, good, acceptable/no special circumstances, a little dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.
These are reduced to numerical averages by calculating each outstanding equals 5 and very unsatisfactory equals 1.
These results are shown in tables I and 3.
Table 1 includes the results of all machine brands that receive 10 or more customer ratings.
Table 3 contains machine brands that accept three to three countries.
These results are listed separately because the fewer responses, the indication that these results should be explained more carefully.
Due to such a small response, only one or more or none will significantly affect the rating average.
If a brand is rated only by one or two molds, we think the results are too unreliable to be reported at all.
To facilitate the understanding of the large amount of data in Table 1, we plot the results of eight quality features corresponding to the machine
The most important criteria for choice are Molders.
In most categories, the average rating of all machine brands is \"acceptable\" or better.
The rating of machine energy efficiency should probably be measured by salt, as only 36% of respondents said their factory had measured or analyzed the energy consumption of the injection molding machine.
In contrast, 86% said that their factory performed routine regular maintenance of their machines, which made the answer to maintenance and uptime more credible.
Ratings usually confirm more general injection results
The machine quality survey we released last year (see PT, Nov. \'92, p. 40).
Of these respondents, 265 were using small machines.
Both surveys found Japan\'s top rating for small machinery manufacturers, followed
The highest rating of the German/Austrian/Swiss model, the best quality features.
However, the latest survey shows a significant difference between machines of different brands in Japan, Germany or North America. In fact, U. S. -
Built-in press often appears on toprated models.
It can be noted that hydraulic-
The flip machine is only 13% higher than the flip machine.
For both fixture types, ratingsin is almost the same for all machine performance categories.
When asked what improvements they would most like to see in the small machines they use, the respondents overwhelmingly replied that they would like improvements in control --
Whether it\'s a more efficient, easier to use, more convenient location, or added features.
The second area of improvement that is often mentioned is supplier technical services, spare parts, repairs and support. Clamp-
Third, the system is improved, followed by the hydraulic system.
System Improvement (
Oil leakage in particular)and injection-
System improvement.
Top 10 are ease of use/installation/mold change, security and noise (
Including mold safety)
System improvements, as well as better manuals or documentation (inEnglish! ).
Finally, when asked if a small machine would be purchased from the supplier again, the respondents gave the highest percentage of positive answers to the Japanese machine as a group.
The second place is the machines in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
However, in individual brands, the United StatesS.
The nameplate is one of the most popular brands.
Please note that in these tables some brands are more than the respondents mentioned, as the hydraulic and toggle machines from the same supplier are rated separately.