{"id":1551,"date":"2026-05-05T05:22:48","date_gmt":"2026-05-05T05:22:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wormreducers.xyz\/?p=1551"},"modified":"2026-05-05T05:22:48","modified_gmt":"2026-05-05T05:22:48","slug":"aluminum-vs-cast-iron-housing-for-worm-gear-reducers-compared","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wormreducers.xyz\/fr\/aluminum-vs-cast-iron-housing-for-worm-gear-reducers-compared\/","title":{"rendered":"Comparaison des carters en aluminium et en fonte pour r\u00e9ducteurs \u00e0 vis sans fin"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Comparaison des carters en aluminium et en fonte pour r\u00e9ducteurs \u00e0 vis sans fin<\/h1>\n

An engineering comparison of die-cast aluminum and grey-iron housings \u2014 weight, thermal capacity, vibration damping, corrosion resistance and total ownership cost, with the application matrix that decides between them.<\/p>\n

Get a Housing-Optimised Specification \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The housing of a worm gear reducer is the part buyers see and pick up first, and the part that determines weight, thermal envelope, acoustic behaviour and corrosion resistance more than any other component. Two materials dominate Korean and Asian worm gear reducer manufacturing: die-cast aluminum (the NMRV \/ RV \/ EP-NRV catalogue families) and grey cast iron (the WP \/ SCWS \/ SHVW catalogue families). Each delivers a distinct combination of cost, capability and constraint, and the choice between them frequently sits at the centre of a specification disagreement between equipment OEM and end-user. The article below compares both materials across eight engineering properties, six environment classes and ten common application scenarios.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n
HOUSING A \u2014 ALUMINUM<\/div>\n

ADC12 \/ A380 \/ EN AC-46000<\/p>\n

Si 9-12% \/ Cu 1.5-3.5% \/ Fe 0.8-1.3%<\/p>\n