• by MEOT
• visits
• 2026/6/30

32 Cavity vs 48 Cavity vs 64 Cavity: Meto Helps You Choose the Right Cap Mold Cavitation

Introduction: Cavitation Choice Is a Business Decision

Choosing the number of cavities for a cap mold is not just a technical decision. It is a business decision. The right cavitation balances output, investment, maintenance, and flexibility.

A 64 cavity mold produces more caps per hour than a 32 cavity mold. But it costs more. It requires a larger machine. It takes longer to maintain. A 32 cavity mold is less expensive and more flexible but may not meet high volume demand.

This article compares 32 cavity, 48 cavity, and 64 cavity cap molds. It shows the trade offs. It helps you choose the right cavitation for your production volume, machine size, and business goals.

---

Part 1: What Cavitation Means

Cavitation is the number of cavities in a mold. A 32 cavity mold produces 32 caps per cycle. A 64 cavity mold produces 64 caps per cycle. Higher cavitation means more caps per hour.

But cavitation is not just about output. Higher cavitation means more complex manifolds. More cooling channels. More moving parts. More potential failure points. Higher cavitation requires higher injection pressure and clamping force. It requires a larger machine.

The choice of cavitation affects every aspect of cap production. Choose wisely.

---

Part 2: Output Comparison

Output is the most obvious difference between cavitation levels. Here are typical outputs for cap molds with a 5 second cycle time.

A 32 cavity mold running a 5 second cycle produces 32 caps per cycle, 6.4 caps per second, 384 caps per minute, and 23,040 caps per hour.

A 48 cavity mold running a 5 second cycle produces 48 caps per cycle, 9.6 caps per second, 576 caps per minute, and 34,560 caps per hour.

A 64 cavity mold running a 5 second cycle produces 64 caps per cycle, 12.8 caps per second, 768 caps per minute, and 46,080 caps per hour.

The 64 cavity mold produces twice the output of the 32 cavity mold and 33 percent more than the 48 cavity mold.

At 8,000 production hours per year, annual outputs are as follows. A 32 cavity mold produces 184 million caps per year. A 48 cavity mold produces 276 million caps per year. A 64 cavity mold produces 368 million caps per year.

---

Part 3: Machine Requirements

Higher cavitation requires larger injection molding machines.

A 32 cavity cap mold typically requires a clamping force of 150 to 250 tons. The platen size must accommodate the mold footprint. Injection capacity must be sufficient for the shot weight.

A 48 cavity cap mold typically requires a clamping force of 250 to 400 tons. The larger mold requires more platen area. The injection unit must handle higher shot weight.

A 64 cavity cap mold typically requires a clamping force of 400 to 600 tons. The mold is large and heavy. The machine must be sized accordingly.

Before choosing a higher cavitation mold, verify that your machine can handle it. If not, you may need to invest in a larger machine. This adds significant cost.

---

Part 4: Price Comparison

Higher cavitation molds cost more. The price increase is not linear. Each additional cavity adds complexity.

A 32 cavity cap mold with hot runner typically costs 35,000 to 55,000 US dollars.

A 48 cavity cap mold with hot runner typically costs 50,000 to 80,000 US dollars.

A 64 cavity cap mold with hot runner typically costs 70,000 to 110,000 US dollars.

The 48 cavity mold costs approximately 40 to 50 percent more than the 32 cavity mold. The 64 cavity mold costs approximately 40 to 50 percent more than the 48 cavity mold.

The cost per cavity decreases with higher cavitation. The 32 cavity mold costs approximately 1,100 to 1,700 US dollars per cavity. The 48 cavity mold costs approximately 1,000 to 1,700 US dollars per cavity. The 64 cavity mold costs approximately 1,100 to 1,700 US dollars per cavity. The cost per cavity is similar across all three cavitation levels.

---

Part 5: Maintenance Comparison

Higher cavitation molds require more maintenance.

The 32 cavity mold has 32 cavities, 32 valve gates, 64 guide bushings, and 64 ejector pins. Maintenance is straightforward. Spare parts costs are lower. Cleaning is faster.

The 48 cavity mold has 48 cavities, 48 valve gates, 96 guide bushings, and 96 ejector pins. More components means more potential failure points. Maintenance takes longer. Spare parts inventory is larger.

The 64 cavity mold has 64 cavities, 64 valve gates, 128 guide bushings, and 128 ejector pins. Maintenance is more complex. Cleaning takes more time. Spare parts costs are higher.

Higher cavitation molds also have more complex hot runner manifolds. Balancing flow across 64 cavities is more challenging than balancing 32 cavities. Troubleshooting is more difficult.

---

Part 6: Downtime Impact

When a mold is down for maintenance, production stops. Higher cavitation molds have a greater impact on output when they are down.

A 32 cavity mold down for 4 hours loses 1,536 caps or 92,160 caps per hour times 4 hours equals 92,160 caps.

A 48 cavity mold down for 4 hours loses 2,304 caps per hour times 4 hours equals 138,240 caps.

A 64 cavity mold down for 4 hours loses 3,072 caps per hour times 4 hours equals 184,320 caps.

The 64 cavity mold loses twice as much production during downtime as the 32 cavity mold. This is an important consideration for factories with limited spare molds or long changeover times.

---

Part 7: Flexibility Comparison

Lower cavitation molds are more flexible.

A 32 cavity mold is easier to change over. It is lighter. It is smaller. It fits on more machines. It can be moved between machines more easily.

A 64 cavity mold is heavy and large. It may only fit on one or two large machines. Changeover takes longer. It is less flexible.

For factories with multiple bottle sizes and frequent changeovers, lower cavitation may be more practical. For factories with dedicated high volume lines, higher cavitation makes sense.

---

Part 8: Hot Runner Balance

Balancing a hot runner becomes more difficult at higher cavitation.

A 32 cavity hot runner has 32 flow paths. Balancing is manageable. Weight variation of 0.3 percent is achievable with standard techniques.

A 48 cavity hot runner has 48 flow paths. Balancing requires more precision. Flow simulation and individual temperature control are essential.

A 64 cavity hot runner has 64 flow paths. Balancing is the most difficult. Sequential valve gate timing is often required. Weight variation of 0.3 percent is achievable but requires more effort.

Higher cavitation molds require more advanced hot runner technology. This adds cost and complexity.

---

Part 9: Cooling Uniformity

Cooling becomes more challenging at higher cavitation.

A 32 cavity mold has fewer cooling circuits. Temperature distribution is easier to control. Thermal imaging shows consistent temperatures.

A 48 cavity mold has more cooling circuits. Temperature variation across cavities may be higher. Conformal cooling may be needed to maintain uniformity.

A 64 cavity mold has the most cooling circuits. Temperature variation is most difficult to control. Conformal cooling is often essential.

Higher cavitation molds require more sophisticated cooling design. This adds cost.

---

Part 10: Defect Risk

Higher cavitation molds have higher defect risk when problems occur.

A single damaged cavity in a 32 cavity mold affects 3 percent of production. A single damaged cavity in a 48 cavity mold affects 2 percent of production. A single damaged cavity in a 64 cavity mold affects 1.5 percent of production. The percentage impact is lower for higher cavitation.

But the absolute impact is higher. A defective cavity in a 64 cavity mold produces more bad caps per cycle than a defective cavity in a 32 cavity mold.

Higher cavitation molds are more complex. There are more potential failure points. The risk of a problem is higher.

---

Part 11: Cost per Cap Comparison

The most important metric is cost per cap. This includes mold cost amortization, maintenance cost, and downtime cost.

For a mold running 20 million cycles over 5 years, the cost per cap is as follows.

The 32 cavity mold at 45,000 US dollars produces 640 million caps over 5 years (32 cavities times 20 million cycles). Mold cost per cap is 0.0070 US dollars. Maintenance at 15,000 US dollars per year adds 0.0012 US dollars per cap. Total mold and maintenance cost is 0.0082 US dollars per cap.

The 48 cavity mold at 65,000 US dollars produces 960 million caps over 5 years (48 cavities times 20 million cycles). Mold cost per cap is 0.0068 US dollars. Maintenance at 20,000 US dollars per year adds 0.0010 US dollars per cap. Total cost is 0.0078 US dollars per cap.

The 64 cavity mold at 90,000 US dollars produces 1.28 billion caps over 5 years (64 cavities times 20 million cycles). Mold cost per cap is 0.0070 US dollars. Maintenance at 28,000 US dollars per year adds 0.0011 US dollars per cap. Total cost is 0.0081 US dollars per cap.

The cost per cap is very similar across all three cavitation levels. The 48 cavity mold shows a slight advantage. The differences are small.

---

Part 12: Which Cavitation Is Right for You

Choose 32 cavities for annual volume under 100 million caps per year, smaller injection machines under 250 tons, frequent changeovers and multiple bottle sizes, limited maintenance staff, or budget constrained projects.

Choose 48 cavities for annual volume of 100 to 250 million caps per year, medium to large machines 250 to 400 tons, dedicated production lines, experienced maintenance team, or willingness to invest for long term cost savings.

Choose 64 cavities for annual volume over 250 million caps per year, large machines over 400 tons, dedicated high volume lines, sophisticated maintenance capability, or maximum output per machine.

---

Part 13: Real Customer Examples

A water bottler in Southeast Asia produces 150 million caps per year. They chose a 48 cavity mold. The output meets their demand. The mold fits their 300 ton machine. Maintenance is manageable.

A CSD bottler in South America produces 300 million caps per year. They chose a 64 cavity mold. The output matches their high speed capping line. They have the machine capacity and maintenance team to support it.

A contract cap molder in Europe produces many different cap types. They chose 32 cavity molds. The flexibility allows them to change molds frequently. The smaller molds fit multiple machines.

---

Part 14: Meto Capability at All Cavitations

Meto designs and manufactures cap molds at all three cavitation levels.

For 32 cavity molds, we provide reliable, cost effective molds for mid volume production. Standard hot runner with valve gate is included. Weight variation is 0.3 percent.

For 48 cavity molds, we provide high efficiency molds for high volume production. Advanced hot runner balance and conformal cooling are available. Weight variation is 0.3 percent.

For 64 cavity molds, we provide maximum output molds for ultra high volume production. Sequential valve gate timing and conformal cooling are standard. Weight variation is 0.3 percent.

All Meto cap molds include premium steel, in house vacuum heat treatment, and full documentation. We stand behind every mold.

---

Part 15: Conclusion

The choice between 32, 48, and 64 cavity cap molds depends on your production volume, machine size, maintenance capability, and flexibility needs.

The 32 cavity mold is the most flexible and accessible. It is best for low to medium volume production.

The 48 cavity mold is the most balanced. It provides good output with manageable cost and maintenance.

The 64 cavity mold is the most efficient. It delivers maximum output per machine for high volume production.

The cost per cap is similar across all three cavitation levels. The choice should be based on your specific production needs, machine capacity, and maintenance capabilities.

Meto can help you choose the right cavitation for your application. We consider your production volume, machine specifications, and business goals. We provide the mold that fits your needs.

Contact Meto today to discuss your cap mold requirements. Tell us your annual volume and machine specifications. We will recommend the optimal cavitation and provide a quotation.