When it comes to castings, unit price is an important figure, but it’s far from the complete financial picture. Instead, customers should consider all the factors that go into that price tag. Total cost of ownership (TCO) reveals the full financial picture, factoring in not only upfront costs but also long-term expenses. 

For teams making high-stakes decisions, especially in fast-moving or regulated industries, understanding TCO isn’t just smart, it’s essential. 

Manufacturers are bracing for input costs to continue rising and economic uncertainty to remain, making the pressure to reduce expenses without compromising quality more urgent. According to recent data from the New York Federal Reserve, inflation expectations among U.S. manufacturing firms are moving upward this year, with anticipated cost increases climbing from 3.7% last year to 4.8% this year. 

Meanwhile, persistent supply chain disruptions and policy shifts—such as the rollback of green energy subsidies and the reintroduction of tariff—have stalled growth across the sector. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to address the issues head on.

During the Casting Source Theater at the 2025 CastExpo & Metalcasting Congress, Tom Kayser, sales and marketing manager for AFS Corporate Member Osco Industries, shared tips for small changes to production that can have a big impact on price.

Looking Past the Quote

The first challenge, according to Kayser, is to stop focusing on the unit price and embrace a total cost of ownership assessment. The idea may seem complex, but with the right tools—such as the Reshoring Initiative’s free TCO calculator—identifying hidden costs can be simple. That program takes you through every step of your process to identify the true cost of production and delivery.

Freight, inventory, packaging, scrap rates, and administrative overhead all contribute to the actual cost of a part, even if they’re buried in separate accounting categories. For example, a slightly more expensive domestic casting might eliminate freight delays, reduce inventory needs, and simplify communication, ultimately saving more than a cheaper offshore option. 
“If you’re not looking at all costs, then in my opinion, you’re wasting your time,” Kayser said. “This shows the true cost.”

Buyers who embrace this broader view can make sourcing decisions that are smarter, not just cheaper.

Design Decisions That Drive Cost

Another element ripe for potential adjustment comes into play even before production begins: the design. Buyers may not be engineers, but they have more influence over design than they realize. 

“Talk to your design engineers and your production people to see where you might be able to reduce costs,” Kayser said. “If you can pull out some material on your casting that’s not necessary—so it doesn’t impact the form or function—then let’s look to see what that can do from a cost standpoint.”

In one example Kayser shared, a company redesigned a 13-lb. casting to use less material and reduce its weight to 11.5 lbs. But this change doesn’t just lower raw material usage; it cuts grinding time, simplifies inspection, and reduces packaging volume, resulting in a cost reduction of 6%.

Don’t stop at just material reduction, though, Kayser advised. Even small design tweaks—such as rounding sharp corners, simplifying parting lines, or consolidating features—can reduce machining time and improve mold longevity. Buyers who ask early questions about these elements often uncover savings that aren’t visible in the initial quote. Why is this part annealed? Why does it require grinding? Why are we using a core here? 

These aren’t just technical inquiries, they’re strategic levers that buyers can pull to reduce cost and improve efficiency.

The Hidden Burden of Grinding

Grinding is one of the most labor-intensive and costly steps in casting production, yet it’s often overlooked in sourcing conversations. If labor costs you $85 per hour, each minute you can cut off the grinding process cuts $1.42 off the cost.
“Anytime you see grind marks on the casting, you’re looking at dollars. The more grinding you do, the more it costs to make the casting,” Kayser said.

It can also significantly increase the per-hour output. In one scenario, a casting that required profile grinding yielded just 60 pieces per hour. By redesigning the gating system to eliminate grinding, output more than doubled to 200 pieces per hour.
If a supplier flags grinding as a cost driver, it’s worth exploring whether a design change could reduce it. For example, assess whether a gate can be placed in an area that will be snapped off the cast piece, which would eliminate the need to grind it.
“Often the foundry, the machine shop, and the designers aren’t working together. How many times have you seen someone that built a fixture right on a parting line or right on a gate contact?” Kayser said. “Working up front with machining and the design is key.”

These conversations can lead to significant savings without compromising quality.

‘Stop Annealing’

Originally used to soften castings for easier machining, Kayser said annealing just adds time and cost. It’s a process that often persists out of habit rather than necessity.  

“I’m telling you: Stop annealing,” he asserted.

Old castings, ones that have been around for 40 years or more, were often milled on old Bridgeport machines that required softer materials for the process. But technological advances have changed the process. Modern CNC machines are capable of handling harder materials, making annealing redundant. Worse, annealing can introduce problems, like “gumming up the tools” because the material is too soft. 

But the step persists because it’s almost habitual, Kayser said. “Terrible words: ‘That’s the way it’s always been.’”

 Kayser shared an example where removing this step dropped the casting cost from $16.73 to $14.82. Buyers can also challenge other legacy specifications to unlock savings and streamline production.

Eliminating Cores

Another design element that can add complexity, cost, and potential for defects is cores. While eliminating cores is not practical in every scenario, Kayser noted there are several parts, such as small sleeves, that could be molded without them.

There is a tradeoff, however. To eliminate the core, the casting may need to be heavier. But even in that situation, the overall cost could be reduced. Kayser presented an example in which eliminating the core saved $2 per part in the casting process. Labor and overhead also dropped.

Buyers who understand the trade-offs between coring and machining can advocate for designs that reduce complexity. This requires collaboration with engineering and supplier teams, but the payoff could be worth it.

Converting Weldments to Castings

Kayser noted that there is another opportunity that is often overlooked by buyers simply because they don’t know where or how to look for it: converting weldments to castings. Weldments are labor-intensive and expensive, while castings can be produced more efficiently and with greater consistency.

“This is the home run right here,” Kayser said. “If you can take a casting that’s got all these welds and convert it, that’s a tremendous amount of cost savings.” By working with engineers and suppliers to identify weldments that could be redesigned as castings, buyers can do more than just save money. They can also improve consistency, reduce lead times, and simplify logistics. It’s a strategic win hiding in plain sight.

Packaging as a Strategic Cost Center

Packaging may seem like a minor detail, but it adds up, especially for high-volume parts. Cardboard boxes, while convenient, are usually single-use items, meaning the investment must be made every time an item has to be shipped. If the box costs 52 cents per part, that’s an additional $104 for a 200-piece order. If it’s an order that’s repeated every month, that adds up to an annual cost of $1,248.

“We spend a lot of money on cardboard, and the only person who likes the cardboard is the guy selling it,” Kayser said.

He noted that alternatives are readily available and advocates for returnable containers and dunnage. Taking this route does require more upfront investment, but it also pays off quickly. 

To demonstrate the potential savings, Kayser analyzed the cost of shipping 90 tubs between Atlanta, Georgia, and Greenville, South Carolina, via freight. The move reduced the packaging costs to just 11 cents per part. 

Buyers who negotiate packaging terms with suppliers can drive long-term savings, reduce waste, and improve sustainability. It’s a small change with a big impact.

“If the customer has the ability to buy returnables, then it could be a win-win for everyone,” he said.

Beyond cost, switching to returnable packaging can support sustainability goals and strengthen supplier relationships. Buyers might also be able to negotiate shared container programs, reducing waste and improving turnaround times—especially for recurring orders.

Choosing the Right Molding Line

High-volume molding lines, such as Disamatic, offer lower per-part costs but require large minimum orders. Low-volume lines, like Hunter, are more expensive per unit but allow smaller batches. Which option is better? It depends on a buyer’s priorities.

Kayser noted that buyers must weigh unit cost against inventory risk. For companies with variable demand or tight cash flow, smaller batches may offer better overall value even at a higher per-part price. Understanding these trade-offs is key to making informed sourcing decisions.

At CastExpo, Kayser compared the cost differences between the two molding lines at Osco. For the Disamatic, the company generally requires a 500-mold minimum, which translates to 1,500 parts, or $22,000 per order. On the Hunter machine, the minimum order falls to 100 molds. While the per-part cost rises, the inventory investment falls to $3,800.

“We don’t have to carry the inventory, so that is a cost-reduction opportunity as far as cash on hand,” Kayser said.

A New Mindset for Buyers: Challenge Everything

In an uncertain economic climate, everyone is focused on where they can reduce costs in their own operations. But it’s easy to get stuck in just returning to the same wells where savings have been found before, even if those wells are running dry. 
By fostering a culture of curiosity and open dialogue, Kayser suggested that buyers can become strategic partners, not just price negotiators. They can influence design, reduce waste, and drive innovation across the supply chain.

It’s not enough to chase the lowest quote. True value comes from understanding the full cost picture, asking the right questions, and collaborating with suppliers and engineers. Whether it’s eliminating grinding, rethinking packaging, or converting weldments, buyers may have more influence than they realize.

This means questioning assumptions, specifications, and legacy practices. Ask: “Why are we doing it this way? Is there a better option? Can we collaborate earlier in the design process?”

Kayser closed his presentation with a quote from Notre Dame football coach Marcus Freeman: “Challenge everything.” 

Think beyond the quote. And remember: the smartest savings often come from the most unexpected place