Why My Office Went with Dorner for Crushing Equipment (And One Thing I Wish I'd Known)

Posted on 2026-05-13

If you're short on time, here's the bottom line: After comparing quotes and considering total cost of ownership, we chose Dorner crushing and screening equipment. The purchase wasn't the cheapest option, but in my experience managing procurement for a mid-sized mining operation, the few thousand dollars saved on a lower-priced alternative would have been lost several times over in downtime and maintenance costs within the first year.

I'm the office administrator for a 150-person mining supply company. I handle roughly $2.5 million in annual procurement across 12 vendors, mostly for heavy equipment parts and machinery. I report to both operations and finance, so I live at the intersection of 'we need it to work' and 'what did it cost?'

The Quick Decision: Dorner's Crushing Line

We needed a new primary jaw crusher for a site expansion. The project timeline was tight—I had maybe two weeks to get a purchase order issued. Normally, I'd run a four-week bidding process with at least three vendors, but with the operations manager pushing for a start date, I had to move fast.

Our usual supplier quoted one of the big names (I won't say which, but you know the ones). Their price was competitive. Then our operations manager mentioned he'd heard good things about Dorner's durability from a colleague at another site. I reached out, got a quote, and the numbers were close enough that I decided to dig deeper.

I don't have hard data on industry-wide failure rates for this equipment class, but based on our experience and conversations with peers over the last five years, my sense is that the 'cheaper' option often ends up costing 15-25% more in the first three years due to replacement parts and unscheduled maintenance. That was a big factor in our decision.

What Sold Me on Dorner

It wasn't one thing, but a few details that added up:

Wear parts availability: Their quote included a clear lead time for critical wear components like liners and cheek plates. Some vendors seemed vague on this; Dorner gave us a concrete schedule.
The counterweight design: Their eccentric shaft counterweight setup (which, in layman's terms, balances the crushing motion) was noticeably more robust than the competing quote. The operations manager pointed this out—it meant less vibration and stress on the frame over time.
Responsiveness: The sales engineer answered technical questions about manganese steel hardness and toggle plate angles within hours, not days. (Note to self: that level of pre-sales support is a good sign for post-sales support.)

I'd be lying if I said I didn't consider the absolute lowest bid. In hindsight, going with the cheapest quote would have been a classic case of 'buy cheap, buy twice.' Our finance department is strict about getting at least three quotes for anything over $50k, but they also approved a slightly higher spend when I showed the total cost projection over five years, factoring in estimated downtime.

One Regret (The 'Boundary Condition')

The actual installation went smoothly—Dorner's team was on-site for commissioning and trained our crew. The crusher has been running for eight months now, and performance is exactly as specified. Throughput is consistent, and the product size distribution is within spec.

But here's what I wish I'd done differently: I should have budgeted for a more comprehensive initial spare parts kit.

When I placed the order, I bought the standard recommended spare parts package. And it's been fine—we haven't needed any emergency parts yet. But the one thing I didn't account for was the time it takes to get non-standard wear items when your operation is remote. We're about a six-hour drive from the nearest major supply depot. While Dorner's lead time for standard parts is excellent (they quoted 5-7 days, and it's been accurate), if we'd had a catastrophic failure on, say, a jaw die, those extra days of downtime would have been costly.

I mentioned this to the Dorner rep on a follow-up call. They acknowledged that for operations in remote areas, they recommend ordering a 'remote site survival kit'—a small additional inventory of the most critical, long-lead components. This wasn't pushed during the initial sales process (which I appreciate—no hard sell), but I wish I'd asked.

Is that their fault? No. It's a lesson I should have learned from past experience. But if you're reading this and your site is far from a warehouse, ask about that before you sign the PO.

TCO: The Numbers I Wish I Had Tracked More Carefully

I don't have a perfect spreadsheet tracking every single cost difference, but I can give you the rough picture. As of Q1 2025, we've spent the following on the new Dorner crusher:

Initial purchase price: Let's say it was around $X (I'm keeping specifics vague for confidentiality).
Installation and commissioning: Included in the purchase price.
Spare parts for 6 months of operation: Under $2,000 (just standard items like filters, a belt, and a few bolts).
Unscheduled downtime: None so far.

Compare that to a different machine we bought three years ago for a different project. That one was the lowest quote at the time. After one year, we had replaced a failed bearing (parts + labor: ~$4,000), had a secondary crusher cone blow out (warranty dispute, cost us $8,000), and dealt with a few week-long delays due to parts availability. That $8,000 saved on the initial purchase? It was gone, plus interest.

The old saying 'you get what you pay for' is a cliché for a reason. But I'd refine it for this industry: you get what you pay for over the life of the equipment.

Should You Always Pick the Higher-Priced Option?

No. That would be a bad rule. (And our finance team would kill me.)

Here's what I've learned: Don't pick the cheapest. Don't pick the most expensive. Pick the one that's been properly vetted for your specific operational conditions.

For us, that was Dorner. Their equipment appeared well-built, their support was responsive, and the long-term cost picture was better. If someone else has a different need—say, a large, well-stocked mine with a dedicated maintenance team that can handle more frequent repairs—a cheaper option might work fine. But for our setup, with a lean maintenance crew and a site that's a bit remote, reliability and parts support were paramount.