I'm a procurement manager at a mid-sized mining operation. For the last 6 years, I've managed our wear parts budget—roughly $180,000 in cumulative spending across jaw crushers, cone crushers, and slurry pumps. I've negotiated with a dozen vendors, tracked every invoice, and documented every failure.
And here's what I've learned: the cheapest quote is almost never the cheapest option.
But I didn't start out knowing that. I learned it the hard way—by making the exact mistake most procurement people make when they first start buying crusher wear parts.
When I first took over our parts procurement in 2019, I did what any good procurement manager would do. I got quotes from 5 vendors for a set of jaw dies for our C106 jaw crusher. The prices ranged from $4,200 to $6,800 per set.
With a budget that tight, the choice seemed obvious. I went with the $4,200 vendor. Saved $2,600 on that order. Felt great.
Three months later, those jaw dies were worn out. We got 45,000 tons of throughput instead of the expected 70,000-80,000 tons. I had to reorder—and pay for replacement installation. That $2,600 "savings" turned into a $4,100 loss when you factor in the extra downtime and the second set of dies.
That's the surface problem. Most procurement managers think the problem is "finding the best price." It's not. The problem is that price is a terrible proxy for cost.
The real question isn't "which vendor has the lowest price?" It's "why are some wear parts so much cheaper?"
Over my 6 years of tracking every order, I've identified three consistent reasons:
1. Material quality. Genuine Metso parts use specific manganese steel alloys (typically 12-14% manganese for jaw dies, 18-22% for cone liners). Cheaper alternatives often use lower-grade steel with less manganese content. This means they wear faster—sometimes 30-40% faster based on my data.
2. Manufacturing tolerances. I compared 8 sets of aftermarket jaw dies over 3 years. The cheaper ones had tolerances of ±2-3mm. Genuine Metso parts were within ±0.5mm. That might sound like a small difference, but in a crusher, a 2mm gap can mean uneven wear, reduced throughput, and more frequent adjustments.
3. Design optimization. Metso's GP and HP cone crusher liners are designed with specific chamber profiles for different applications. A cheap knockoff might have the same dimensions but lack the engineered profile that optimizes crushing efficiency. I saw this firsthand when we tested a "compatible" set of GP300 cone liners—output dropped by 15% and we had to re-jig our entire screening circuit to compensate.
I'm not saying all aftermarket parts are bad. (Should mention: I've had good experiences with some aftermarket alternatives for certain wear parts.) But the cheap ones? I've yet to find a case where they beat the TCO of genuine parts.
After analyzing our 2023 spending, I found that 68% of our "budget overruns" came from just one cause: premature wear of non-genuine parts.
Let me walk you through the math on a typical scenario. Say you're buying a set of HP200 cone crusher liners. Here's what a TCO analysis looks like:
Scenario A: Genuine Metso HP200 liners
- Unit price: $6,500
- Expected life: 120,000 tons
- Installation cost: $1,200
- Cost per ton: $0.064
Scenario B: Cheap aftermarket liners
- Unit price: $3,800
- Expected life: 72,000 tons (based on our data)
- Installation cost: $1,200
- Cost per ton: $0.069
The cheap liners are more expensive per ton. Plus, you're changing them more frequently—more downtime, more labor costs, more production lost.
Oh, and I should add: the cheap liners also increased our power draw because they wore unevenly, which meant higher electricity costs for the same output. I didn't track that precisely, but our site engineer estimated it added about 5% to our crusher circuit energy costs during those periods.
Now, I don't want to say that genuine Metso parts are always the right choice. (Honestly, anyone who tells you "always" is probably trying to sell you something.)
Based on my experience across 200+ orders, here's when cheap parts might work:
Short-term projects. If you need to get through a 3-month campaign and the crusher is being replaced afterward, cheap parts can be a reasonable trade-off.
Secondary crushers. For cone crushers in secondary or tertiary roles where wear rates are lower, the cost difference per ton narrows significantly. In those cases, I've sometimes opted for mid-range aftermarket parts.
Emergency replacements. When you're down and the genuine parts are 4 weeks out, a temporary cheap set can keep you running—as long as you've factored in the replacement cost.
But for primary jaw crushers and primary cone crushers? I've only worked with medium-to-high tonnage operations (300-800 tph). If you're running a small quarry at 50 tph, your experience might differ—the cost per ton savings might not justify the premium for genuine parts.
After getting burned twice on cheap parts—once on jaw dies, once on cone liners—I changed our approach. Here's what I now do:
1. Calculate TCO before buying. I built a simple spreadsheet that factors in unit price, expected life (based on our own data, not vendor claims), installation cost, and estimated downtime cost. I run this for every major purchase.
2. Track actual performance. Every set of wear parts gets logged—installation date, tons processed, removal date, condition notes. After 6 years, I have a database of what actually works.
3. Build relationships, not transactions. I've worked with the same Metso distributor for 4 years now. They know our equipment, our ore type, our throughput patterns. I get better pricing than spot buyers, and I get priority when there's a shortage. (Should mention: I still get quotes from 2-3 vendors annually to keep them honest.)
4. Budget for the long game. Instead of trying to save 20% on parts and hoping for the best, I budget based on realistic wear rates. If genuine parts deliver 120,000 tons and cost $6,500, I budget $0.054 per ton—not the $0.032 the cheap vendor promised.
The result? Since 2022, our annual wear parts budget has been within 5% of forecast for 3 consecutive years. Before that, we were blowing the budget by 20-30% regularly. Switching to a TCO-based procurement strategy saved us about $8,400 annually—roughly 17% of our budget, if I'm calculating correctly.
I want to say the formula is simple, but it's not. It takes discipline to say no to the low quote, to track the data, to wait for genuine parts when you could have cheap ones tomorrow. But if you're managing a parts budget in mining or crushing, it's worth the effort.
Simple.
Our application engineers answer crusher and screen selection questions at no charge.
Ask an Expert