When selecting materials for manufacturing, cost is a crucial factor that can make or break product profitability. Two of the most commonly used thermoplastics, POM (polyoxymethylene) and nylon, have different cost profiles that impact material selection. This article provides an in-depth cost analysis and comparison of POM vs. nylon for US manufacturers.
Raw Material Cost Comparison
The base resin price represents a significant portion of total costs for plastic parts. Currently, POM resin pellets range from $2.50-3.50 per pound while nylon pellets are $1.50-2.50 per pound. With nylon's lower density, the material cost per cubic inch of nylon is actually higher than POM.
When weighing POM vs. nylon, POM maintains a noticeable cost advantage in raw material pricing. For 1,000 lbs of materials, POM would be $250-350 cheaper than nylon based on current market rates. This advantage can make POM the more appealing choice strictly from a material cost perspective.
Manufacturing and Processing Cost Differences
Converting raw plastics into finished parts involves additional expenses. POM holds some manufacturing cost benefits over nylon. POM melts at lower temperatures, enabling faster cycle times in high-volume injection molding. POM processing also causes less tool wear over time.
Faster cycles and lower tooling costs contribute to POM's economic advantage. Analysis of overall plastic part production shows POM with 5-15% lower processing costs compared to nylon. Waste rates due to rejects and quality issues are also lower with POM.
Cost Per Unit Analysis
The above factors point to POM having a lower cost profile. However, when analyzing cost per finished part, the picture changes. While POM has material and manufacturing cost benefits, nylon parts often require less secondary machining and finishing.
For a simple plastic bracket, the nylon part may be ready after molding. The POM bracket may require drilling holes and CNC work to achieve the tight tolerances in the design. This erodes some of POM's cost savings, especially in high volumes.
As part complexity increases, however, POM's cost-effectiveness improves. The extra machining provides necessary dimensional precision and surface finishes that maximize POM's performance advantages. Lifetime part costs can be lower even if upfront part price is slightly higher.
Key Applications Where POM Delivers Cost Efficiencies
While nylon has advantages for high volume, basic components, there are certain applications where POM is clearly the more cost-efficient choice:
- Parts requiring very tight dimensional tolerances and stability under load, temperature changes, and moisture. The extra machining of POM is worthwhile to achieve precision.
- Components with critical wear surfaces or friction points. POM's durability leads to longer part lifespan and less frequent replacement.
- Production equipment parts enduring constant motion and loads. POM's lubricity enables smoother operation and higher uptime.
- Applications where nylon would require expensive additives to improve wear or reduce friction. Base POM plastic already includes these traits.
Both POM and nylon offer favorable economics that make them viable for mass production. POM can provide raw material and processing cost benefits, while nylon may be cheaper for simple, high volume parts needing little secondary work. When performance requirements call for tight dimensional tolerances, wear resistance and low friction, POM's advantages outweigh slightly higher part costs. Considering the unique cost structure and performance of each material leads to optimal selections.
