---
title: "What Does an OEM Manufacturer Warranty Normally Cover for Injection Molded Parts?"
description: "Batch defects after PPAP approval often lead to OEM warranty disputes. Learn what a factory warranty covers, how to control containment cost and lead time, and how to judge supplier reliability before approving repairs."
url: "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/oem-manufacturer-warranty-coverage.html"
language: "en"
type: "Q&A"
category: "Custom Manufacturing Q&A"
datePublished: "2026-11-01"
dateModified: "2026-11-01"
brand: "HYNEU"
manufacturer: "HYNEU"
answerCount: 8
---

# What Does an OEM Manufacturer Warranty Normally Cover for Injection Molded Parts?

## Question

 I am a quality engineer at a mid-sized hardware brand, and I manage the outsourced production of plastic housings and structural brackets with an OEM injection molding supplier in Zhejiang. The first three batches after PPAP approval passed my incoming inspection, but starting from batch four I have found recurring issues: visible sink marks on the outer surface, warpage on the long mounting flange, and a critical boss hole drifting from 4.05 mm to 4.25 mm across different cavities. I have rejected more than 12% of the last shipment, and the production line is already under pressure because those parts are needed to finish a customer order. The supplier's response is that these are "normal production variations" caused by material shrinkage and environmental humidity, which they claim are not covered under the OEM manufacturer warranty. My purchasing contract only has one vague sentence saying "the seller warrants that products conform to approved samples and drawings, " so now I am stuck: I believe this is a process control failure, while the supplier insists it is within "industry acceptable tolerance." I need to know what an OEM manufacturer warranty should actually cover, whether my claim is reasonable, and what evidence I should be collecting before pushing back. At the same time, I want to understand how a reliable injection molding factory would realistically respond in this situation—what would they inspect, what would they offer, and how long would a corrective action take? I am trying to decide whether to give this supplier a chance to fix the process or start evaluating alternative manufacturers, so I need practical criteria, not just contract theory. 

## Answers
                            
### Answer 1 — Best Answer

Your situation is typical of what happens when warranty language is written too broadly. In OEM injection molding, a manufacturer warranty should contain three concrete requirements: a clear acceptance boundary tied to the approved drawing and signed PPAP dimensional report, a statement that production parts must stay within the qualified process window from initial sampling, and a defect responsibility clause that separates customer design errors and customer-specified material choices from factory process failures. If your contract is vague, do not spend time arguing about the word "warranty." Instead, **re-anchor the discussion to your approved sample, the dimensional report, and the material grade specification** that both parties signed off on.

Before you send a formal claim, verify the key parameters yourself. Measure the boss hole across all cavities, check the warpage on a surface plate, and record whether the sink marks appear at the same gate location or wall section every time. Keep the first-pass inspection records from batches one through three. This evidence will tell you whether the issue is continuous drift, a cavity-specific problem, or a sudden process change. Dimensional drift on a boss hole is almost always traceable to melt temperature shifting, cooling time being shortened to increase output, or worn guide bushings on that cavity. None of these are normal variation, and none should be excluded from warranty coverage.

One point that separates professional buyers from inexperienced ones is how they document the defect. Every time you find a nonconforming part, write down the date, the batch number, the cavity number if it is marked, and the ambient temperature in your inspection room. This matters because the supplier may argue that parts were damaged in transit or that your measurement method differs from theirs. If you can show a pattern across multiple batches and cavities, you shift the burden of proof to the factory, which is exactly where it belongs. You should also photograph every defect with a scale reference and store the affected parts in their original packaging for a joint review visit.

On cost and lead time, the containment decision is urgent. The supplier will normally need **three to five working days** to confirm root cause, and another five to ten days if a mold repair is required. If the repair involves steel welding or replacement inserts, the timeline extends to two to three weeks because the tool must be re-cut, polished, and re-qualified. Meanwhile, you must agree on sorting: either your IQC team measures 100% and you back-charge the supplier, or they send a technician to sort at your site. This decision affects both your downtime and your negotiating position, so decide it before you call them.

There is also a commercial dimension that is easy to overlook. When a factory knows that a buyer is in the middle of a production crunch, they may delay the corrective action because they assume you will accept marginal parts rather than wait for a replacement. To prevent this, give them a written deadline and state the consequence clearly, for example, that sorting and rework costs will be deducted from the next payment. You do not need to be aggressive, but you do need to be specific. In most cases, a serious factory responds much faster when the buyer communicates a measured timeline instead of an emotional complaint.

When judging whether the factory is reliable, do not listen to verbal promises. Ask for three documents: **the last 100-shot process parameter log, the mold maintenance record, and the internal quality report for the rejected batches**. A capable injection molding supplier will already have these and will not hesitate to share them. A supplier that hesitates or offers only generic explanations is likely running the job on a narrow process window with weak monitoring.

You should also request a formal 8D corrective action, not for the paperwork itself, but because it forces the supplier to separate containment, root cause, and preventive action. Pay close attention to whether the final corrective action references a mold repair, a process window change, or a control plan update. If the answer is only "we adjusted the parameters, " the problem will return on the next production run.

Finally, check the mold ownership clause in your purchase order. If you own the tooling, mold wear correction is the manufacturer's responsibility unless the claim is design related. Even if the supplier owns the mold, process responsibility still rests with them as the production expert. Once the current supplier has delivered a corrective action, do not immediately relax the inspection level. Plan for a full re-qualification of the next two batches, including measurement of every critical dimension and a functional assembly test. If the same defect reappears, activate a parallel sourcing project. The shortlist evaluation should include the same documentation discipline: a clear warranty definition in the quotation, an approved PPAP report before mass production, and a written process parameter sheet locked for production. Otherwise you will inherit the same ambiguity that created your current dispute.

**status:** accepted
**Author:** Irene Tang
**Date:** 2026-11-01

### Answer 2

From what you describe, the boss hole drift from 4.05 mm to 4.25 mm might not automatically mean the part is bad. The real question is whether the assembly still functions. Before you escalate into a warranty fight, assemble the affected parts with the mating screws and components, and run the same fitting test you used during initial qualification.

If a 4.25 mm hole still accepts the fastener and meets pull-out torque, then the part may be functionally acceptable even though it exceeds the drawing tolerance. In that case, the best commercial outcome may be a documented deviation acceptance, not a full rejection. That approach preserves the schedule and gives the factory a clear expectation about what really matters.

However, sink marks and warpage cannot be treated the same way because they affect the external appearance and the flatness of the mounting interface. The danger is that you may accept a part that looks cosmetically acceptable at your dock but fails in the customer's hand due to heat, humidity, or screw-driving stress.

If you really need long-term confidence, ask the factory to validate the corrected parts under your actual assembly sequence and temperature conditions before you release the next purchase order. A reliable OEM manufacturer will cooperate with a joint functional test, not just send you new samples.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Nathan Guo
**Date:** 2026-11-01

### Answer 3

From a delivery risk point of view, the first thing to control is the inventory buffer. You currently have a rejected shipment sitting at your dock; do not leave it there unresolved while you argue about warranty. Establish a sorting plan immediately: either your IQC team does 100% measurement and you back-charge the factory, or the factory sends personnel to sort on your site within 48 hours.

The replacement batch should be given a clear deadline, not a promise. Ask them to commit to a protective shipment date and include a penalty clause if they miss it, because your own customer order depends on it.

You should also look at the factory's scheduling situation. In this season, most injection molding factories in Zhejiang are running at high capacity, which means they may shorten cooling time or increase cycle speed to meet delivery. That creates exactly the kind of drift you are seeing.

Ask the supplier what other orders are running on the same molding machine and whether the mold can be moved to a dedicated machine with sufficient curing time. If they refuse to adjust production scheduling, that tells you a lot about how much priority your order really has.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Claire Ren
**Date:** 2026-11-01

### Answer 4

Your observation that the drift is happening across different cavities strongly points to tooling wear, not material shrinkage. When a boss hole opens up gradually from 4.05 mm to 4.25 mm, the likely cause is wear on the core pin or the ejector system, especially if those cavities run hotter or have less cooling.

Ask the factory for the mold maintenance record and the number of cycles since the last service. If the mold has exceeded 200,000 shots without replacing core pins or guide bushings, the dimension drift is a predictable result of running the tool too long without maintenance.

You can also ask them to measure the core pin diameter directly while the mold is open and take a quick temperature reading on the cavity surface for each impression. If one cavity runs five to ten degrees hotter, that cavity will always produce a slightly different dimension.

The proper fix is a maintenance stop, not a parameter change. Before you accept a corrective action, ask them to state the expected wear life of that mold and the planned preventive maintenance interval going forward. If they have no maintenance plan, you are going to face the same issue again in another few months.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Wendy Gao
**Date:** 2026-11-01

### Answer 5

One thing most buyers overlook in warranty discussions is the material certificate for each lot. The supplier may have switched to a lower-cost resin or used a higher regrind ratio without telling you, and that would directly explain both the sink marks and the dimensional shift.

Ask them to provide the certificate of analysis and the lot number for each batch of resin used in the rejected shipments, and compare the melt flow index against the value from your approved sample. If they cannot provide these records, the warranty negotiation becomes very difficult because you cannot prove whether it is an equipment issue or a material issue.

You should also check whether the material grade is a virgin resin or a blend. In OEM production, some factories mix 10% to 20% regrind to reduce cost, but if the regrind ratio fluctuates, the shrinkage rate changes significantly, especially for semi-crystalline materials.

If your part uses a filled material, the dimensional drift could also come from uneven filler distribution when the barrel temperature is raised to compensate for a change in resin viscosity. Ask them to confirm the material grade, the regrind policy, and the drying conditions before each production run. This information is more reliable than any verbal warranty promise, because it gets to the root of what actually changed in the part.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Victor Luo
**Date:** 2026-11-01

### Answer 6

Sink marks on the outer surface combined with warpage on the mounting flange usually point back to the gate location and the wall thickness transition in the original mold design. If the gate is too small or located near a thick section, the holding pressure cannot pack out the material before the gate freezes, so you naturally get sink marks and differential shrinkage.

This can be a design weakness that existed from the start but only becomes visible when the process window narrows, for example when ambient humidity rises or when the factory increases cycle speed.

Ask to see the original mold flow analysis or the DFM report and check whether the wall thickness ratio falls within the recommended range for the material grade. If the design had marginal packing capability from day one, then the warranty claim is not so straightforward.

The factory might argue that the approved sample was made under slow, ideal conditions and that production conditions differ. In that case, the practical solution may be a negotiated tooling modification: you share the cost of a gate or runner change, and the factory covers the labor. That is often faster and cheaper than a full warranty dispute.

You can also request a short-shot test or cavity pressure measurement to see whether each impression fills and packs consistently. That will tell you if the issue is structural or simply process related.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Aaron Fang
**Date:** 2026-11-01

### Answer 7

Your situation involves two separate issues at once: the physical defect and the measurement dispute. On the measurement side, confirm that you and the supplier are using the same inspection method. For the boss hole, check whether they measure at the same position and after the same cooling time.

Injection molded parts continue to shrink for hours after ejection, so if they inspect at the machine within 15 minutes while you inspect 48 hours later, you will always see a disagreement. A reliable factory should be willing to align on measurement conditions and perform a joint measurement on retained parts from the disputed batch.

On the defect classification side, separate cosmetic issues from functional ones. Sink marks are a visual criterion and should have been defined in the limit samples.

If the original PPAP did not include an appearance limit, you now have a gap you must close for future batches. Warpage on the mounting flange affects the assembly function, so it deserves a formal corrective action request.

Ask the factory to conduct an 8D analysis and provide evidence of the root cause, not just a new process setting. The way they respond to this claim will tell you more about their long-term quality system than the number of certificates they hold.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Marcus He
**Date:** 2026-11-01

### Answer 8

From the process side, the three symptoms you list—sink marks, warpage, and dimensional drift—are the classic result of an unstable injection process window. When a factory shortens holding time or reduces cooling time to increase output, the part is ejected hotter and softer, which leads to warpage and post-mold shrinkage that shows up in your incoming inspection days later.

Ask the supplier for the actual process parameters used in the rejected batches: holding pressure, holding time, cooling time, melt temperature, and back pressure. Then compare them to the parameters on the approved sample process sheet.

Also ask whether they run in semi-automatic or fully automatic mode. In many OEM factories, the qualified process parameters are saved from the sampling run, but in mass production the machine operator is allowed to adjust parameters to keep parts from sticking or to speed up the cycle.

If the parameters were changed without a formal process change approval, that is a process control failure and should be covered by the manufacturer warranty. You can suggest adding cavity pressure sensors or a process monitoring system to lock the critical parameters, and if the factory resists that suggestion, you have to ask yourself whether they want to solve the problem or just avoid responsibility.

**status:** suggested
**Author:** Henry Cao
**Date:** 2026-11-01

## Related Resources

- [Custom Manufacturing Q&A](https://www.hyneu.com/questions/custom-manufacturing/)
- [Custom Manufacturing](https://www.hyneu.com/custom-manufacturing/)
- [OEM Manufacturing](https://www.hyneu.com/custom-manufacturing/oem/)
- [ODM Manufacturing](https://www.hyneu.com/custom-manufacturing/odm/)
- [Contract Manufacturing](https://www.hyneu.com/custom-manufacturing/contract/)
- [Capabilities](https://www.hyneu.com/capabilities/)
- [Products](https://www.hyneu.com/products/)
- [Buying Guides](https://www.hyneu.com/buying-guides/)

## Structured Data

```json
[
    {
      "@context": "https://schema.org",
      "@type": "QAPage",
      "mainEntity": {
        "@type": "Question",
        "name": "What Does an OEM Manufacturer Warranty Normally Cover for Injection Molded Parts?",
        "text": "I am a quality engineer at a mid-sized hardware brand, and I manage the outsourced production of plastic housings and structural brackets with an OEM injection molding supplier in Zhejiang. The first three batches after PPAP approval passed my incoming inspection, but starting from batch four I have found recurring issues: visible sink marks on the outer surface, warpage on the long mounting flange, and a critical boss hole drifting from 4.05 mm to 4.25 mm across different cavities. I have rejected more than 12% of the last shipment, and the production line is already under pressure because those parts are needed to finish a customer order. The supplier's response is that these are "normal production variations" caused by material shrinkage and environmental humidity, which they claim are not covered under the OEM manufacturer warranty. My purchasing contract only has one vague sentence saying "the seller warrants that products conform to approved samples and drawings, " so now I am stuck: I believe this is a process control failure, while the supplier insists it is within "industry acceptable tolerance." I need to know what an OEM manufacturer warranty should actually cover, whether my claim is reasonable, and what evidence I should be collecting before pushing back. At the same time, I want to understand how a reliable injection molding factory would realistically respond in this situation—what would they inspect, what would they offer, and how long would a corrective action take? I am trying to decide whether to give this supplier a chance to fix the process or start evaluating alternative manufacturers, so I need practical criteria, not just contract theory.",
        "answerCount": 8,
        "upvoteCount": 9,
        "datePublished": "2026-11-01T10:04:42Z",
        "dateModified": "2026-11-01T10:05:28Z",
        "author": {
          "@type": "Person",
          "name": "Anonymous",
          "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/oem-manufacturer-warranty-coverage.html"
        }
                ,"acceptedAnswer": {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "Your situation is typical of what happens when warranty language is written too broadly. In OEM injection molding, a manufacturer warranty should contain three concrete requirements: a clear acceptance boundary tied to the approved drawing and signed PPAP dimensional report, a statement that production parts must stay within the qualified process window from initial sampling, and a defect responsibility clause that separates customer design errors and customer-specified material choices from factory process failures. If your contract is vague, do not spend time arguing about the word "warranty." Instead, re-anchor the discussion to your approved sample, the dimensional report, and the material grade specification that both parties signed off on. Before you send a formal claim, verify the key parameters yourself. Measure the boss hole across all cavities, check the warpage on a surface plate, and record whether the sink marks appear at the same gate location or wall section every time. Keep the first-pass inspection records from batches one through three. This evidence will tell you whether the issue is continuous drift, a cavity-specific problem, or a sudden process change. Dimensional drift on a boss hole is almost always traceable to melt temperature shifting, cooling time being shortened to increase output, or worn guide bushings on that cavity. None of these are normal variation, and none should be excluded from warranty coverage. One point that separates professional buyers from inexperienced ones is how they document the defect. Every time you find a nonconforming part, write down the date, the batch number, the cavity number if it is marked, and the ambient temperature in your inspection room. This matters because the supplier may argue that parts were damaged in transit or that your measurement method differs from theirs. If you can show a pattern across multiple batches and cavities, you shift the burden of proof to the factory, which is exactly where it belongs. You should also photograph every defect with a scale reference and store the affected parts in their original packaging for a joint review visit. On cost and lead time, the containment decision is urgent. The supplier will normally need three to five working days to confirm root cause, and another five to ten days if a mold repair is required. If the repair involves steel welding or replacement inserts, the timeline extends to two to three weeks because the tool must be re-cut, polished, and re-qualified. Meanwhile, you must agree on sorting: either your IQC team measures 100% and you back-charge the supplier, or they send a technician to sort at your site. This decision affects both your downtime and your negotiating position, so decide it before you call them. There is also a commercial dimension that is easy to overlook. When a factory knows that a buyer is in the middle of a production crunch, they may delay the corrective action because they assume you will accept marginal parts rather than wait for a replacement. To prevent this, give them a written deadline and state the consequence clearly, for example, that sorting and rework costs will be deducted from the next payment. You do not need to be aggressive, but you do need to be specific. In most cases, a serious factory responds much faster when the buyer communicates a measured timeline instead of an emotional complaint. When judging whether the factory is reliable, do not listen to verbal promises. Ask for three documents: the last 100-shot process parameter log, the mold maintenance record, and the internal quality report for the rejected batches . A capable injection molding supplier will already have these and will not hesitate to share them. A supplier that hesitates or offers only generic explanations is likely running the job on a narrow process window with weak monitoring. You should also request a formal 8D corrective action, not for the paperwork itself, but because it forces the supplier to separate containment, root cause, and preventive action. Pay close attention to whether the final corrective action references a mold repair, a process window change, or a control plan update. If the answer is only "we adjusted the parameters, " the problem will return on the next production run. Finally, check the mold ownership clause in your purchase order. If you own the tooling, mold wear correction is the manufacturer's responsibility unless the claim is design related. Even if the supplier owns the mold, process responsibility still rests with them as the production expert. Once the current supplier has delivered a corrective action, do not immediately relax the inspection level. Plan for a full re-qualification of the next two batches, including measurement of every critical dimension and a functional assembly test. If the same defect reappears, activate a parallel sourcing project. The shortlist evaluation should include the same documentation discipline: a clear warranty definition in the quotation, an approved PPAP report before mass production, and a written process parameter sheet locked for production. Otherwise you will inherit the same ambiguity that created your current dispute.",
            "upvoteCount": 9,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/oem-manufacturer-warranty-coverage.html#acceptedAnswer",
            "datePublished": "2026-11-01T10:37:52Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Irene Tang","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/irene-tang.html"}        }
                ,"suggestedAnswer": [
                  {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "From what you describe, the boss hole drift from 4.05 mm to 4.25 mm might not automatically mean the part is bad. The real question is whether the assembly still functions. Before you escalate into a warranty fight, assemble the affected parts with the mating screws and components, and run the same fitting test you used during initial qualification. If a 4.25 mm hole still accepts the fastener and meets pull-out torque, then the part may be functionally acceptable even though it exceeds the drawing tolerance. In that case, the best commercial outcome may be a documented deviation acceptance, not a full rejection. That approach preserves the schedule and gives the factory a clear expectation about what really matters. However, sink marks and warpage cannot be treated the same way because they affect the external appearance and the flatness of the mounting interface. The danger is that you may accept a part that looks cosmetically acceptable at your dock but fails in the customer's hand due to heat, humidity, or screw-driving stress. If you really need long-term confidence, ask the factory to validate the corrected parts under your actual assembly sequence and temperature conditions before you release the next purchase order. A reliable OEM manufacturer will cooperate with a joint functional test, not just send you new samples.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/oem-manufacturer-warranty-coverage.html#suggestedAnswer-2",
            "datePublished": "2026-11-01T10:36:21Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Nathan Guo","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/nathan-guo.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "From a delivery risk point of view, the first thing to control is the inventory buffer. You currently have a rejected shipment sitting at your dock; do not leave it there unresolved while you argue about warranty. Establish a sorting plan immediately: either your IQC team does 100% measurement and you back-charge the factory, or the factory sends personnel to sort on your site within 48 hours. The replacement batch should be given a clear deadline, not a promise. Ask them to commit to a protective shipment date and include a penalty clause if they miss it, because your own customer order depends on it. You should also look at the factory's scheduling situation. In this season, most injection molding factories in Zhejiang are running at high capacity, which means they may shorten cooling time or increase cycle speed to meet delivery. That creates exactly the kind of drift you are seeing. Ask the supplier what other orders are running on the same molding machine and whether the mold can be moved to a dedicated machine with sufficient curing time. If they refuse to adjust production scheduling, that tells you a lot about how much priority your order really has.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/oem-manufacturer-warranty-coverage.html#suggestedAnswer-3",
            "datePublished": "2026-11-01T10:28:55Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Claire Ren","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/claire-ren.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "Your observation that the drift is happening across different cavities strongly points to tooling wear, not material shrinkage. When a boss hole opens up gradually from 4.05 mm to 4.25 mm, the likely cause is wear on the core pin or the ejector system, especially if those cavities run hotter or have less cooling. Ask the factory for the mold maintenance record and the number of cycles since the last service. If the mold has exceeded 200,000 shots without replacing core pins or guide bushings, the dimension drift is a predictable result of running the tool too long without maintenance. You can also ask them to measure the core pin diameter directly while the mold is open and take a quick temperature reading on the cavity surface for each impression. If one cavity runs five to ten degrees hotter, that cavity will always produce a slightly different dimension. The proper fix is a maintenance stop, not a parameter change. Before you accept a corrective action, ask them to state the expected wear life of that mold and the planned preventive maintenance interval going forward. If they have no maintenance plan, you are going to face the same issue again in another few months.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/oem-manufacturer-warranty-coverage.html#suggestedAnswer-4",
            "datePublished": "2026-11-01T10:21:24Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Wendy Gao","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/wendy-gao.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "One thing most buyers overlook in warranty discussions is the material certificate for each lot. The supplier may have switched to a lower-cost resin or used a higher regrind ratio without telling you, and that would directly explain both the sink marks and the dimensional shift. Ask them to provide the certificate of analysis and the lot number for each batch of resin used in the rejected shipments, and compare the melt flow index against the value from your approved sample. If they cannot provide these records, the warranty negotiation becomes very difficult because you cannot prove whether it is an equipment issue or a material issue. You should also check whether the material grade is a virgin resin or a blend. In OEM production, some factories mix 10% to 20% regrind to reduce cost, but if the regrind ratio fluctuates, the shrinkage rate changes significantly, especially for semi-crystalline materials. If your part uses a filled material, the dimensional drift could also come from uneven filler distribution when the barrel temperature is raised to compensate for a change in resin viscosity. Ask them to confirm the material grade, the regrind policy, and the drying conditions before each production run. This information is more reliable than any verbal warranty promise, because it gets to the root of what actually changed in the part.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/oem-manufacturer-warranty-coverage.html#suggestedAnswer-5",
            "datePublished": "2026-11-01T10:19:48Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Victor Luo","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/victor-luo.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "Sink marks on the outer surface combined with warpage on the mounting flange usually point back to the gate location and the wall thickness transition in the original mold design. If the gate is too small or located near a thick section, the holding pressure cannot pack out the material before the gate freezes, so you naturally get sink marks and differential shrinkage. This can be a design weakness that existed from the start but only becomes visible when the process window narrows, for example when ambient humidity rises or when the factory increases cycle speed. Ask to see the original mold flow analysis or the DFM report and check whether the wall thickness ratio falls within the recommended range for the material grade. If the design had marginal packing capability from day one, then the warranty claim is not so straightforward. The factory might argue that the approved sample was made under slow, ideal conditions and that production conditions differ. In that case, the practical solution may be a negotiated tooling modification: you share the cost of a gate or runner change, and the factory covers the labor. That is often faster and cheaper than a full warranty dispute. You can also request a short-shot test or cavity pressure measurement to see whether each impression fills and packs consistently. That will tell you if the issue is structural or simply process related.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/oem-manufacturer-warranty-coverage.html#suggestedAnswer-6",
            "datePublished": "2026-11-01T10:16:55Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Aaron Fang","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/aaron-fang.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "Your situation involves two separate issues at once: the physical defect and the measurement dispute. On the measurement side, confirm that you and the supplier are using the same inspection method. For the boss hole, check whether they measure at the same position and after the same cooling time. Injection molded parts continue to shrink for hours after ejection, so if they inspect at the machine within 15 minutes while you inspect 48 hours later, you will always see a disagreement. A reliable factory should be willing to align on measurement conditions and perform a joint measurement on retained parts from the disputed batch. On the defect classification side, separate cosmetic issues from functional ones. Sink marks are a visual criterion and should have been defined in the limit samples. If the original PPAP did not include an appearance limit, you now have a gap you must close for future batches. Warpage on the mounting flange affects the assembly function, so it deserves a formal corrective action request. Ask the factory to conduct an 8D analysis and provide evidence of the root cause, not just a new process setting. The way they respond to this claim will tell you more about their long-term quality system than the number of certificates they hold.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/oem-manufacturer-warranty-coverage.html#suggestedAnswer-7",
            "datePublished": "2026-11-01T10:07:26Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Marcus He","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/marcus-he.html"}          }
          ,          {
            "@type": "Answer",
            "text": "From the process side, the three symptoms you list—sink marks, warpage, and dimensional drift—are the classic result of an unstable injection process window. When a factory shortens holding time or reduces cooling time to increase output, the part is ejected hotter and softer, which leads to warpage and post-mold shrinkage that shows up in your incoming inspection days later. Ask the supplier for the actual process parameters used in the rejected batches: holding pressure, holding time, cooling time, melt temperature, and back pressure. Then compare them to the parameters on the approved sample process sheet. Also ask whether they run in semi-automatic or fully automatic mode. In many OEM factories, the qualified process parameters are saved from the sampling run, but in mass production the machine operator is allowed to adjust parameters to keep parts from sticking or to speed up the cycle. If the parameters were changed without a formal process change approval, that is a process control failure and should be covered by the manufacturer warranty. You can suggest adding cavity pressure sensors or a process monitoring system to lock the critical parameters, and if the factory resists that suggestion, you have to ask yourself whether they want to solve the problem or just avoid responsibility.",
            "upvoteCount": 0,
            "url": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/oem-manufacturer-warranty-coverage.html#suggestedAnswer-8",
            "datePublished": "2026-11-01T10:05:28Z",
            "author": {"@type": "Person","name": "Henry Cao","url": "https://www.hyneu.com/team/henry-cao.html"}          }
                  ]
              }
    },
    {
      "@context": "https://schema.org",
      "@type": "BreadcrumbList",
      "itemListElement": [
          {"@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "name": "Home", "item": "https://www.hyneu.com/"},{"@type": "ListItem", "position": 2, "name": "Q&A", "item": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/"},{"@type": "ListItem", "position": 3, "name": "Custom Manufacturing Q&A", "item": "https://www.hyneu.com/questions/custom-manufacturing/"}          ,{"@type": "ListItem", "position": 4, "name": "What Does an OEM Manufacturer Warranty Normally Cover for Injection Molded Parts?"}
      ]
    }
]
```