I run the procurement for a mid‑sized mineral processing plant outside Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Over the past six years, I’ve documented every dollar that went into our crushing and grinding lines—roughly $2.3 million in capital equipment, plus another $400 k in annual maintenance. When our VP of operations, Thomas, asked me to evaluate FLSmidth & Co. A/S (the company founded by Frederik Læssøe Smith) against two lower‑priced suppliers, I knew the fastest way to get an answer was a head‑to‑head comparison built on real data—not vendor brochures.
The question isn’t “Which one is cheaper?” It’s “Which one costs less over its entire life?” Here’s what I found.
Let’s start with the number everyone sees first. The FLSmidth cone crusher we were considering carried a list price of $245,000. Supplier B quoted $187,000; Supplier C came in at $169,000. On paper, FLSmidth was 31 % more expensive than the cheapest option. Easy choice, right?
Not so fast. In my experience (three major equipment buys over six years), the lowest upfront price has cost us more in 60 % of cases. Why? Because the purchase price is just the entry fee.
I built a spreadsheet with five line items: acquisition cost, installation, annual power consumption, wear parts (liners, concaves, mantles), and scheduled maintenance labor. I used our own electricity rates ($0.09/kWh) and OEM‑provided wear rates, then validated them with references.
Over a 5‑year operating period (6,500 hours per year), here’s what the numbers showed:
The surprise? FLSmidth’s total was actually lower than both budget options over five years. The cheaper machines consumed more electricity—their less efficient drivetrains and thicker liners added $24,000–$43,000 in power alone. Wear parts for Supplier C cost 59 % more than the FLSmidth equivalents, and that labor line reflected more frequent rebuilds.
Here’s the kicker: downtime. Those TCO figures assume production runs without interruption. Real‑world, budget crushers tend to fail more often. I called three operations that ran Supplier B’s machine; two reported unplanned stops averaging 3 % of annual hours—that’s 195 hours per year. At $1,200 an hour for lost throughput, that’s an extra $234,000 per year in hidden costs.
FLSmidth? One reference said they lost maybe 0.7 % availability to unscheduled maintenance. That translates to roughly $54,600 per year. Over five years, the difference is nearly $897,000—far more than the initial price gap.
“Thomas, are you tracking this?” I asked him after pulling the numbers. He nodded. The sentiment around FLSmidth’s stock might be mixed this quarter (I don’t follow it closely), but on our plant floor, the reliability advantage is measurable.
When a crusher goes down, I need parts within 24 hours—not 72. FLSmidth’s service team in Bethlehem stocks the most common consumables locally. Supplier B’s regional depot was three states away, and Supplier C doesn’t have a U.S. warehouse (parts come from overseas, adding 4–6 days).
Also noteworthy: FLSmidth’s technicians actually understand tires on our mobile crushing units. Yes, we run rubber‑tired machines, and tire wear is a major cost line. Supplier C’s crusher had a heavier frame that accelerated tire scuffing. FLSmidth’s lighter design cut tire replacement frequency by about 15 %. Another $5,000 per year saved.
Go with FLSmidth if:
Consider a budget alternative if:
On our site, we ordered the FLSmidth crusher. After three months of operation, Thomas told me “it’s the quietest decision I’ve made all year.” I took that as a win. In procurement, the cheapest quote rarely is.
Discuss This Topic
If this article connects to an active wear issue at your plant, use the inquiry form to continue the conversation with our advisory team.
Tell Us What Is Wearing Fastest
Share plant stage, maintenance window, and the result you want to improve so our team can respond with a practical next step.