A packaging machine rarely fails all at once. Performance drops, components become harder to replace, or new requirements expose limits the system was not designed to handle. When this happens, production, cost, and delivery commitments are at risk. The OEM and the customer must decide whether to retrofit the machine or replace it.
Retrofits can extend service life with less cost and downtime. Replacement can remove constraints and reset performance. The risk is choosing the wrong path for the actual condition of the system.
In practice, OEMs frame the decision around three questions:
Is the base machine structurally sound?
Can a retrofit bring the machine back to the necessary performance levels?
Can the work be completed within production and labor cost constraints?
Jordan Hamrick, president, Hamrick Packaging Systems, Kent, Ohio, said, “The first thing we look at is the machine’s performance. Did the scope of the product change during the life cycle? Is the current machine still conducive to the design, or would a new machine be a better fit? If the machine is 4–5 years old and the customer just wants to speed it up, we can look at replacing pneumatic components with servos. But when requirements jump 400% to 600% in throughput, we quote new rather than retool the existing.”
When the decision is not clear, the right call is the one that minimizes the risk of unplanned downtime. A common mistake is to move too quickly to one path. Some OEMs push replacement before fully understanding what the existing machine can do. Others expect a lower-cost retrofit to deliver new-machine performance. Both approaches create unnecessary cost, risk, and disruption.
Where retrofits fall short
Retrofit projects often fail not because the concept is flawed, but because the initial scope is incomplete. Jared Jones, COO of CODI Manufacturing, Littleton, Colorado, remembers a project that taught the organization a valuable lesson.
“We assumed components were the same throughout the system,” he said. “When we got downstream, we found everything had been modified down to the bolts. What should have been a straightforward retrofit turned into a labor- and time-intensive effort that required cutting components out. The retrofit took longer than replacing the system would have. Now we thoroughly examine the entire system before making a recommendation.”
Bill Gagne, owner of Harris Hill Automation in Poland, Maine, adds that the short- and long-term goals of the customer and the project should be understood. “For example, a controls modernization can accommodate the next few years of stable or scaling production, while in parallel, we work to develop a long-term strategy for increased throughput and reliability.”
Start with the base machine
The starting point in the assessment is the condition of the base machine. Frames, major structures, and core mechanical elements must be capable of supporting one or more new lifecycles. Gagne at Harris Hill said his company “utilizes 3D scanning technologies to assist in the reproduction of vintage mechanical parts that may not have the modern documentation or models we’re accustomed to.”
In the industry, a legacy machine remained mechanically sound but operated withControl panel upgrades can have a transformative effect on packaging machines with mechanical integrity.Steve Sterling obsolete controls and components that were becoming difficult to support. Production demand ruled out taking the line down for an extended period to install a new machine. The OEM carried out a thorough evaluation and, in consultation with the customer, concluded that a retrofit was the lower-risk path. Controls, motion components, and key accuracy elements were upgraded in stages while the base machine remained in place. The result was improved performance, reduced scrap, and continued production without disruption.
The next question is whether the machine can still be supported. Some key components that cannot be substituted by off-the-shelf replacements may be near the end of their commercial life or no longer serviceable. When parts become difficult to source or support, the retrofit path becomes higher risk.
“If a customer acquires a machine from the 1980s where most components are obsolete and it requires a complete teardown to the frame, it makes more sense to purchase new,” Hamrick said.
Another factor is whether the machine can meet current throughput, material, and performance requirements. Increasingly, this includes new and lighter materials that change handling, sealing, and stability requirements. These materials introduce new challenges that older machines were not designed to address.
In some cases, the machine can be brought forward through targeted upgrades of key components. In others, the limitations are built into its structure. The question is not whether the machine can run, but whether it can run reliably at the required throughput, accuracy, and control level.
A key limitation is how far the existing platform can be advanced. If a retrofit cannot support current-generation controls, communication, or performance requirements, the long-term value diminishes. “If I can’t bring the machine up to current technology, it doesn’t make sense,” CODI’s Jones said. “You don’t want to invest and still be behind.”
A critical but often underestimated factor is the scope of control system changes. Replacing components with like-for-like equivalents carries relatively low risk. However, when a retrofit introduces new control architectures or shifts in actuation technology, the programming and validation effort increases significantly. “If you are just doing like-for-like components, that’s minimal risk,” Jones said. “But if you are trying to advance the machine into newer technology, that’s a different program, and it has to be fully proven out.”
Weigh downtime, labor, and cost
Production realities often drive the decision. In many operations, line utilization requirements and available shutdown windows limit how long a machine can be taken out of service. Retrofit can also be executed in phases without taking the entire system offline. Replacement typically requires a longer installation and ramp-up period. If production cannot absorb extended downtime, retrofit may be the more practical path.
In many cases, the decision is less about equipment cost and more about installation complexity. The amount of on-site labor required to remove, modify, and reinstall equipment can outweigh the expected cost savings of a retrofit. “It comes down to how much labor is required on site,” said Jones. “Is it less to install new, or less to retrofit? That’s one of the first things we look at.”
“When customers acquire older machines—especially units from the 1990s or early 2000s—we often need a full on-site audit to understand what we’re dealing with,” Hamrick said. “Sometimes these retrofits can be five to six times what the customer paid for the machine itself, and the sticker shock makes them reconsider whether they should have purchased new.”
Cost and timing must be evaluated together. Retrofit is often less expensive and can be completed more quickly than replacing the machine, but those advantages depend on the scope. As the number of components replaced or redesigned rises, costs and timelines can approach those of a new system.
This used retort had its shell refurbished and new valves and control panels installed. Purchasing a unit on the secondhand market at a 50-to-60% cost savings versus a new retort allowed Hoganville Family Farms to automate its workflow.Stever SterlingReplacement decisions may also be offset by the residual value of existing equipment. In some cases, legacy systems retain value on the secondary market, offsetting replacement cost. Hoganville Family Farms bought a retort on the secondary market. “We purchased a used retort and then trucked it to an OEM,” said Jeff Rome at Hoganville Family Farms, Ottawa, Kansas. “Retrofitting was the only way we could have upgraded our operation.”
The OEM refurbished the stainless-steel retort shell, replaced the valves, rebuilt the control system within a modern control panel, and added a touchscreen HMI. The retrofit brought the system up to current standards at an estimated 50-to-60% cost savings compared to a new system. The retort automated the sterilization cycle, eliminating manual handling and stabilizing process consistency. For this operation, rebuilding a second-hand asset was the lower-risk path.
The final consideration is how long the solution will hold. Retrofit addresses current gaps, but it does not reset the entire machine. Remaining components continue to age and may introduce new risks over time. Replacement, by contrast, resets the system.
“We don’t care how you get a Hamrick machine, whether it’s new or retrofit, we will support it regardless,” Hamrick said. “We try to convey the best approach and often will quote both options.”
Retrofit is appropriate when the base machine remains mechanically viable, can be supported with available components, and can meet current requirements through targeted upgrades. Replacement becomes necessary when structural limits, obsolescence, or performance gaps cannot be resolved without introducing new risks.
The decision is not which option is better, but which option avoids creating the next failure.
We’ve done the legwork to identify and vet experienced packaging and processing consultants you can contact directly for your next project. Decades of combined experience in packaging line engineering, machinery selection, package and materials development, and food processing operations.
Where innovation meets sustainability. Join the leading forum for packaging recycling professionals, featuring cutting-edge solutions, expert insights, and the connections you need to advance the circular economy. Secure your spot today.
