Technology Comparisons

There is a place for each of the traditional metal-forming processes: each has its own strong suits as well as its limitations. But wherever a component fabrication choice exists between MIM and one or more of the other processes, it pays to see how they stack up in a head-to-head comparison.

The following table shows how the four major processes fare in some of the more important parameters to consider.

Parameter	MIM	CONVENTIONAL PM	MACHINING	INVESTMENT CASTING
Density	98%	88%	100%	98%
Tensile Strength	High	Low	High	High
Elongation	High	Low	High	High
Hardness	High	Low	High	High
Complexity	High	Low	High	Medium
Surface Finish	High	Medium	High	Medium
Production Volumes	High	High	Low	Medium
Range of Materials	High	High	High	Medium-High
Cost	Medium	Low	High	Medium

MIM vs. Conventional PM

MIM can produce geometries that eliminate secondary operations
MIM offers superior density, corrosion performance, strength, ductility
MIM can combine two or more PM components into one, reducing part count
MIM parts offer superior magnetic performance

MIM vs. Machining

MIM designs save material and weight MIM provides cost savings through better material utilization—sprues and runners can be reground and reused as feedstock with no compromise to final properties Molding from a single tool eliminates multiple set-up operations Difficult-to-machine materials can be molded into a net shape

MIM vs. Investment Casting

MIM can produce thinner wall sections, sharper cutting points MIM produces better surface finish MIM is better for small-diameter blind and through holes MIM greatly reduces requirements for finish machining MIM produces high volumes of small components at a lower cost, faster lead times