How Pensa Uses Small Batch Production 3D Printing to Replace Injection Moulding

Injection moulding needs a minimum of 10,000 units to cover tooling costs. Pensa Labs ships far fewer. This New York design firm turned to small batch production 3D printing with the MakerBot Method XL to produce parts for their C64 wire-forming machine, skipping the mould entirely. Here is how a desktop printer replaced an industrial production line.

The Challenge: Low-Volume Parts Without Injection Moulding

Pensa is a design, strategy, and engineering consultancy. Its sister company, Pensa Labs, builds wire formers and cutters used in medical, dental, aerospace, and automotive fields. Their newest machine, the C64, bends and cuts in 3D across seven axes. It handles stainless steel, titanium, cobalt-chrome, copper, and aluminium down to 1/10th of an inch.

The C64 needs dozens of custom parts: tooling, guides, harness channels, and housings. Each one must be precise. Injection moulding would deliver the precision, but the economics do not work. Hardened steel moulds cost thousands, take weeks to machine, and lock in a design. If a part needs a change, the mould is scrap. For runs under 10,000 units, the cost per part is too high.

Before the Method platform, Pensa relied on large printers with high ownership and upkeep costs. 3D printing prototyping was already part of the workflow, but the team needed a way to scale into production without losing quality or speed.

---

The Solution: MakerBot Method XL

Pensa added the MakerBot Method XL alongside the Method and Method X printers already in their workshop. The switch was smooth.

Marco Perry, co-founder of Pensa and Pensa Labs, explains: \"From prep to print to clean up and finish, the whole process is the same across all machines, so we can print the same part on each machine and get the same results.\"

The Method XL's 305 x 305 x 320 mm build volume fits an entire project batch on one plate. The team slices the file, loads the tray, and walks away. The printer runs overnight and over weekends, turning out parts while the workshop sits empty.

ABS is the go-to material. Perry is firm on why: \"It's important to make sure you work with the same materials that you're going to use in production. That's why we use ABS\u2014because we know we can match that performance and finish in production. We like the stability of ABS. The predictability, the surface quality, and the durability is everything that we need.\"

For parts with tight details, the team uses RapidRinse. This water-soluble support dissolves in tap water, replacing a caustic chemical bath that was hard to maintain and risked damage to finished parts.

---

The Results: Short-Run Production from a Desktop Printer

Perry describes the shift: \"What's good about Method XL is that we slice it once, we get all the parts, and we run them in batches and it basically becomes short run production runs. Because of the low volume of the parts that we make, it doesn't justify the cost of cutting injection moulding tools\u2014which typically require a minimum of 10,000 units. Plus, a lot of the parts might be more complex than what injection moulding can do. The printer is configurable. We can make changes on the fly and 3D print the way we need and when we need.\"

Pensa's 3D printing and prototyping workflow now covers the full path from concept to production part. Every prototype prints in the same ABS used in production, so test results translate directly.

Perry confirms: \"We've been very happy with the parts in terms of surface finish, tolerance, accuracy, and repeatability. The repeatability of the parts is super important to us. If it's a prototype, I want to know that when I come back, I've got a prototype that acts the same way, and we know what we're getting. When it comes to production, we need to have every part be the same inside the C64. That way, we know that no matter what machine we have, they have the same part.\"

When volumes do scale, the move to injection moulding is seamless. Pensa already prints in ABS, the same material family used in moulded production parts. For Australian businesses weighing up 3D printing costs, see our 2026 cost guide.

---

Frequently Asked Questions: Small Batch Production with 3D Printing

When is 3D printing a better option than injection moulding?

3D printing suits production runs under 10,000 units, parts with shapes moulds struggle to form, and products still in active development. Injection moulding locks in a design. 3D printing lets you revise between batches. For businesses producing custom parts in low volumes, a printer like the MakerBot Method XL removes the tooling cost entirely.

What materials does the Method XL use for production parts?

The Method XL prints with ABS, ABS Carbon Fibre, ABS-R, Nylon, Nylon Carbon Fibre, and support materials including RapidRinse (water-soluble) and SR-30. Pensa uses ABS because it matches the properties of injection moulded parts: consistent surface finish, tolerance, and durability across every print.

How does prototype fidelity affect production outcomes?

Prototype fidelity means the test part behaves the same as the final part. If materials differ between prototype and production, test results become unreliable. By printing prototypes in ABS on the Method XL, Pensa confirms fit, function, and performance before locking in any production method. This removes the risk of problems surfacing after tooling is cut.

---

Ready to explore small batch production 3D printing for your workshop? View the MakerBot Method XL or request a quote to discuss your setup. Browse the full MakerBot range.

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Name*

Email*

Comment*

Send

• Share on:
• WhatsApp
• Deel
• X
• Pin it
• Messenger
• Email

---

Tags

3D Printer 3D Printers ABS Design Engineering Injection Moulding Alternative MakerBot MakerBot Method XL Prototyping Rapid Prototyping RapidRinse Small Batch Production