Just 15 years ago, walking through any production facility or repair workshop, one could be pretty sure that, in most cases, the parts, tools, and components in use were manufactured in large-scale factories overseas. Supply chains were globalized, standardized, and centralized, meaning that the same spare part could be found in similar businesses worldwide.
Today, while the situation hasn’t changed dramatically, we increasingly encounter custom products and representatives of local small-scale production. This shift is greatly influenced by 3D printing, particularly the accessible and versatile FFF technology.
This article addresses essential questions:
- Why is 3D printing even relevant today, given that global manufacturing functioned efficiently without it last century?
- What are the specific advantages and disadvantages of additive manufacturing?
- Why is the 3D printing market destined for growth?
What Is Traditional Manufacturing?
“Traditional manufacturing” is an umbrella term that includes subtractive manufacturing (such as CNC machining, where material is removed from a solid block), as well as casting and molding processes. Key traditional methods include:
- CNC machining – precise removal of excess material from a blank.
- Injection molding – injecting molten material into molds.
- Stamping and pressing – shaping materials under pressure.
- Injection forming – mass production of plastic parts.
Typical characteristics of traditional manufacturing:
- High initial setup costs, but low unit costs in mass production.
- Lengthy preparation time (lead time for molds, equipment setup).
- Limited design flexibility – changes often require a complete overhaul.
- High precision and repeatability, ideal for mass production with consistent quality.
Traditional methods remain prevalent in automotive, aerospace, household appliances, and packaging industries.
What Is Additive Manufacturing and Why Is FFF Popular?
3D printing involves building objects layer by layer. Instead of cutting or molding, a 3D printer deposits material in sequential layers.
The four main 3D printing technologies are:
- SLA (photopolymer resin);
- SLS (laser sintering of powder);
- SLM (metal 3D printing);
- FFF (Fused Filament Fabrication).
FFF remains the most widespread due to its:
- Low entry barrier – affordable 3D printers and low cost of mistakes
- Simplicity and versatility – ideal for prototyping, education, and functional items;
- Wide material selection – basic plastics like PLA on simpler devices, engineering-grade plastics on professional machines;
- Rapid iterations and easy design updates.
FFF technology is perfect for:
- Single-piece products;
- Small-scale production up to 1,000 units and more in some cases;
- Rapid prototyping;
- On-demand printing without extensive planning;
- Product customization tailored to customer needs;
- Development and testing of functional models.
While FFF has limitations in precision and strength compared to industrial molding, its flexibility, quick start, and affordability make it highly attractive, particularly for low-budget projects and early-stage developments.
Comparing 3D Printing and Traditional Manufacturing: Key Criteria
1. Lead Time
- FFF 3D printing: Near-instant, from model to product within one to two business days.
- Traditional manufacturing: Setup, tooling creation, mold manufacturing, and equipment calibration can take several months.
2. Cost Analysis
- FFF 3D printing: It is suitable for single or small-scale productions.
- Traditional manufacturing: Cost-effective only at high volumes, typically tens or hundreds of thousands of units.
3. Design Flexibility and Customization
- FFF: Easy to modify models throughout the process and create unique parts.
- Traditional manufacturing: New designs necessitate costly changes in processes and tooling.
4. Part Complexity
- FFF: Can produce highly complex geometries with internal cavities.
- Traditional: Limited by molding and shaping rules.
5. Material Selection
- FFF: Broad but limited range of plastics (PLA, PETG, ABS, TPU, composites). Metal printing is available but expensive.
- Traditional manufacturing: Virtually unlimited materials, including plastics, metals, ceramics, and glass.
6. Personnel and Equipment Requirements
- FFF: Easy to learn, compact machines suitable for office or home use with good ventilation.
- Traditional manufacturing: Requires skilled operators, industrial equipment, and production facilities.
7. Sustainability and Waste
- FFF: Minimal waste, especially with advanced printers. Technologies like JetSmart from Epitum further minimize waste. Eliminates overproduction.
- Traditional: High waste from machining, defective molds, and resource-intensive operations, often leading to overproduction.
8. Time to Market
- FFF: Rapid idea-to-prototype cycle, ideal for startups and hypothesis testing.
- Traditional manufacturing: Preparation cycle up to six months, substantial investment required.
When to Use FFF 3D Printing vs Traditional Manufacturing
Optimal Scenarios for FFF:
- Rapid prototyping and new product development;
- Custom or small-scale orders, valuable in medicine, design, architecture, and education;
- High customization requirements (unique parts or cases);
- Auxiliary elements (fixtures, tools, plugs) rapidly made on demand.
Optimal Scenarios for Traditional Manufacturing:
- Large-scale serial production, offering minimal per-unit cost and high output;
- High-precision parts requiring superior strength, heat resistance, or precise tolerances;
- Complex materials (metals, ceramics, composites);
- Established supply chains and infrastructures.
Advantages and Disadvantages of FFF 3D Printing and Traditional Manufacturing
Traditional Manufacturing: proven methods for high-volume and precise manufacturing.
Advantages:
- Efficiency in mass production;
- Low cost per unit at a large scale.
- Material compatibility;
- High precision, repeatability, and mechanical properties;
- Mature technologies and infrastructure.
Considerations:
- Very expensive and requires upfront investment in tooling and setup;
- Not flexible when it comes to frequent design changes;
- Producing a small batch is often impossible;
- Longer lead times before starting production, requiring months of work and investment prior to the first prototype;
- Generates more waste and typically has a higher environmental impact;
- Demands specialized equipment and a warehouse.
FFF 3D Printing: additive manufacturing for flexibility and on-demand production.
Advantages:
- Fast production starts without the need for tooling;
- Perfect for prototypes, single items, and small batches;
- Easy customization and design iteration;
- The first and hundredth items cost the same: the size of the batch doesn't matter;
- Low material waste, more environmentally friendly;
- Accessible and suitable for both professionals and enthusiasts.
Considerations:
- More limited material options compared to traditional methods;
- Surface finish and dimensional accuracy may require post-processing;
- Print time increases with part size and complexity;
- It may not be ideal for high-temperature or heavy-load applications, but it is still good for most use cases.
Hybrid Approach: Combining Traditional Manufacturing and 3D Printing
Modern manufacturing increasingly employs a hybrid approach, blending additive manufacturing and traditional methods. Such integration leverages each technology’s strengths, improving overall effectiveness.
Examples of hybrid solutions:
- Manufacturing tools and fixtures with 3D printers to expedite setup and reduce costs;
- Prototyping with FFF to validate designs before expensive traditional production;
- Personalizing mass-produced items, especially in medicine, automotive, and design.
Role of FFF in Future Manufacturing
FFF 3D printing is firmly established in engineering, education, medicine, and business environments. Increasingly, companies offer customization opportunities, adapting processes to market demands.
The hybrid approach promises adaptive, cost-efficient, and sustainable manufacturing. It opens the door to local additive manufacturing hubs that produce directly for consumers. Over time, this could significantly reduce reliance on mass production.
Conclusion
No single technology is universally ideal; each has specific strengths. Traditional manufacturing vs 3D printing depends on context—volume, timing, quality requirements, and budget. Selecting the appropriate method provides strategic market advantages through resource efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
