The Prusa XL Needs an Official Reliability and Upgrade Roadmap
The Prusa XL Needs an Official Reliability and Upgrade Roadmap
I’m posting this as constructive criticism from an XL owner who wants the platform to succeed. The XL is still one of the most interesting printers on the market, but I believe Prusa needs to communicate more clearly with current owners about reliability improvements, hardware revisions, enclosure limitations, and the long-term roadmap for the machine.
I also want to be clear that I am not claiming every XL owner has experienced every issue listed here. Some owners may be perfectly happy with their machines. My point is that enough concerns exist around reliability, revisions, enclosure limitations, and upgrade direction that Prusa should communicate more clearly with current owners.
I purchased the Prusa XL, especially the multi-tool version, expecting a premium, professional-grade machine from a company known for reliability, repairability, transparency, and long-term upgrade support. The XL is not a budget printer. Many of us invested thousands of dollars into this platform because we believed Prusa was building something more serious than another hobby-grade machine.
Unfortunately, the current state of the XL still feels like a machine that needs major mechanical and firmware refinement. That would be frustrating on any printer, but it is especially frustrating on a flagship toolchanger that was marketed as a premium Prusa product.
This is not meant as an anti-Prusa post. It is a request for Prusa to treat the XL like the flagship machine many of us paid for, and to publicly address where this platform is going.
1. The XL needs a published reliability roadmap
Prusa should publicly address whether they plan to improve or offer official upgrades for the following areas:
More reliable X/Y homing
Failed or inconsistent input shaper and phase stepping calibration
Layer-shift prevention
Meaningful crash recovery or crash detection alternatives
Toolchanger reliability
Belt path stability
Better motion hardware options
Improved X/Y motor, pulley, idler, and tensioner mounting
A real upgrade path for early XL owners
Firmware updates have helped in some areas, but the fact that homing, toolchanging, phase stepping, and calibration issues continue to appear in release notes and community discussions shows that these are not isolated user errors. These are core reliability concerns on the machine.
A toolchanger is only useful if the printer can repeatedly home, calibrate, pick tools, dock tools, and complete prints without the user wondering whether the next long print will end in a layer shift or tool crash.
2. The enclosure design feels like an afterthought
The official XL enclosure is disappointing for a machine of this size, price, and purpose. It feels like a passive box wrapped around a printer that was not truly designed from the beginning to be enclosed.
The enclosure has too many compromises. It is full of openings, airflow paths, flexible panels, and design decisions that make it feel more like draft reduction than a serious chamber solution for engineering materials. For a machine advertised for materials such as PCCF, Nylon, ASA, and other technical filaments, the enclosure should be better sealed, more robust, and more intelligently controlled.
The current enclosure approach is especially frustrating because Prusa clearly understands the value of designing a printer around an enclosed CoreXY platform. The newer CORE One platform appears to be much more intentionally designed around enclosure use from the beginning. So why does the much more expensive XL not have an equally serious enclosure strategy or official chamber-temperature roadmap?
If the limitation is the heatbed control electronics, the toolheads, or other chamber-sensitive components, Prusa should say that clearly and offer a proper upgrade path. If there is a practical or safe chamber-temperature limit for the XL because of the heatbed module, toolheads, printed parts, wiring, or internal electronics, that limit should be documented plainly. Owners should not have to discover these limits through forum posts, failed prints, thermal concerns, support conversations, or trial and error.
3. The heatbed electronics and chamber-temperature limits need to be addressed
A large-format enclosed printer should be able to support stable chamber temperatures for engineering materials. If the XL cannot safely operate at higher chamber temperatures because of the heatbed control module or other electronics mounted inside the heated environment, that is a design limitation that needs to be acknowledged.
The solution should not be for users to invent cooling ducts, relocate electronics, water-cool boards, or reverse-engineer the safe temperature range of sensitive components. Prusa should provide one of the following:
A published safe chamber-temperature limit for the XL.
An official electronics cooling upgrade.
A heatbed-control-module relocation kit.
A revised heatbed electronics module rated for higher chamber temperatures.
A redesigned enclosure with controlled airflow that protects electronics while allowing the chamber to do its job.
A printer this expensive should not leave users guessing what chamber temperature is safe.
4. Prusa needs to communicate hardware revisions better
One of the biggest frustrations with the XL is that Prusa appears to make quiet hardware changes to printed parts, O-ring arrangements, washer arrangements, pulley clearances, belt-related parts, and other CoreXY components without clearly communicating the reason for the change to existing owners.
For example, Prusa has changed or revised parts related to the XL CoreXY system and O-ring/washer arrangement. The community has had to piece together what changed, which printers are affected, and whether early owners should reprint or replace parts.
That is not good enough for a premium machine.
Prusa should publish a clear XL hardware revision changelog. Not just firmware release notes. Hardware revision notes.
Something like:
Date of change
Affected serial number range or manufacturing date
Old part revision
New part revision
Reason for the change
Whether the change is required, recommended, or optional
Whether the owner should reprint the part or purchase an updated part
Whether the change improves reliability, temperature resistance, belt tracking, noise, vibration, calibration, or maintenance
If Prusa finds that a new O-ring, washer, pulley clearance, tensioner, carriage, or CoreXY printed part improves X/Y stability, belt alignment, noise, or reliability, current owners should be told directly.
A simple email or public notice would go a long way:
“Owners of XL printers manufactured before this date may benefit from the updated CoreXY printed parts and O-ring/washer arrangement. This update improves clearance and reliability around the pulleys. It is recommended for users experiencing belt noise, pulley rubbing, calibration inconsistency, or enclosure-related heat concerns.”
That is the kind of transparency many of us expected from Prusa.
5. The belt system and tensioners need a more stable mounting solution
The XL’s belt system, idler mounting, and tensioner arrangement should be more robust. For a large CoreXY printer with a heavy toolchanger system, the belt path and gantry alignment are critical. Any flex, creep, shifting, O-ring compression, printed-part deformation, pulley misalignment, or tensioner instability can affect print quality and reliability.
Many of these components are still based around printed parts. That may be acceptable on smaller or lower-cost machines, but on a large premium toolchanger, it raises legitimate concerns.
Prusa seems to understand this on newer machines. The CORE One platform is clearly built around a more rigid enclosed CoreXY structure and a more integrated design philosophy. That makes it even more frustrating that the XL, which costs far more and carries a heavier toolchanging system, still feels like it needs a stronger official mechanical upgrade path.
Prusa should consider offering:
CNC aluminum belt tensioners
Metal idler mounts
A revised gantry hardware kit
PCCF or aluminum replacement CoreXY parts
Improved pulley hardware
A better documented belt-tensioning procedure
Optional 0.9-degree motor and pulley upgrade support
A true “XL motion reliability kit”
The community should not have to redesign the belt system from scratch to make the flagship Prusa printer feel mechanically mature.
6. Crash detection and layer-shift protection need a real answer
One of the most frustrating parts of the XL experience is the lack of confidence after a nozzle strike, tool collision, curled print edge, or minor skipped step. On a large multi-tool printer, a small error can become a major failure very quickly.
If traditional crash detection is disabled or incompatible with input shaper, phase stepping, or the current motion strategy, then Prusa needs to provide an alternative. Saying, effectively, that crash detection is not compatible is not enough on a printer in this class.
Possible solutions could include:
Better stall detection during non-print moves
More conservative toolchange safety checks
Physical limit switch upgrade support
Optional closed-loop stepper support
Better print recovery after detected tool or axis mismatch
More robust homing validation
A post-collision re-home and continue strategy
Better user-facing diagnostics when the machine loses position
The XL should not rely on blind trust that no missed steps occurred during a long multi-tool print.
7. The XL also needs a real multi-material expansion strategy
The 5-tool XL is still a powerful concept, but the market is moving quickly. The trend is obvious: more colors, more materials, more toolheads, less waste, faster changes, and more automation.
Bambu Lab has moved aggressively into multi-color and dual-nozzle systems, with configurations advertising very high filament counts. Snapmaker has introduced a 4-toolhead toolchanger. Sovol appears to be preparing a multi-toolhead or multi-material machine. Other companies and open-source projects are also pushing multi-material systems forward.
Meanwhile, the Prusa XL still feels like it has not received a clear next-step roadmap beyond the original five-tool concept.
Five independent toolheads are still extremely useful, but Prusa should build on that strength instead of letting the XL sit still. One obvious direction would be official MMU support for the XL.
Imagine an XL where each toolhead could optionally be fed by an MMU-style unit. Even if not every use case needs 20 or 25 materials, the capability would make the XL far more competitive. It would also allow users to combine the strengths of toolchanging and filament switching:
Five toolheads for different nozzle sizes or material classes
MMU support for multiple colors per tool
Reduced waste compared with single-nozzle color systems
More flexible multi-material workflows
Better support for soluble supports, flexible materials, engineering materials, and decorative colors
A true Prusa answer to the current multi-color market
Prusa already has the MMU3 ecosystem. Prusa already has PrusaSlicer multi-material logic. Prusa already has the XL toolchanger platform. The missing piece is a serious roadmap tying these systems together.
8. Prusa needs to stop leaving early XL owners in the dark
Many early XL owners waited a long time and paid a lot of money. Those owners should not feel like beta testers who are expected to quietly accept later improvements without communication.
If Prusa has improved parts, changed materials, revised O-ring arrangements, improved pulley clearances, changed tensioner geometry, modified toolchanger parts, or found ways to make the machine more reliable, early owners deserve to know.
Prusa has built much of its reputation on upgradeability and long-term support. The XL needs that same treatment.
Not just firmware updates.
Not just quiet part revisions.
Not just support responses one owner at a time.
The XL needs a clear public upgrade path.
9. What I would like Prusa to do
I would like Prusa to publish an official XL reliability and upgrade roadmap covering:
Known XL hardware revisions and their purpose.
Recommended upgrades for early XL owners.
A clear explanation of O-ring, washer, pulley, and CoreXY printed-part changes.
A better enclosure and chamber-temperature strategy.
A published safe chamber-temperature limit.
An electronics cooling or relocation option for the heatbed control module.
A stronger belt/idler/tensioner mounting system.
A crash detection or crash recovery replacement strategy.
Better homing and calibration reliability.
A plan for MMU3 or expanded multi-material support.
A premium mechanical upgrade kit for the XL motion system.
Better communication when hardware changes are made.
The XL is not a cheap printer. The 5-tool version is a serious investment. Owners should not have to scour forums, Reddit, GitHub issues, support chats, and Printables file dates to figure out whether their machine has outdated parts or whether a later revision quietly fixed a problem they are experiencing.
Conclusion
The Prusa XL is still one of the most interesting printer platforms on the market. The toolchanger concept is excellent. The build volume is useful. The open ecosystem matters. The repairability matters. The idea behind the machine is still strong.
But the XL needs more than incremental firmware fixes. It needs a clear mechanical, thermal, and multi-material roadmap.
Prusa should publicly acknowledge the weak points, explain the hardware revisions, support early owners, and offer official upgrade paths that make the XL feel like the flagship machine it was supposed to be.
Many of us bought the XL because we believed in Prusa’s long-term approach. Now we need Prusa to prove that same commitment to the XL platform.