Is the product CE certified?

Yes, most of our popular products have obtained CE certification.

What is the engine power?

The machine is equipped with a 9hp engine.

What are the main export markets?

Our products are mainly exported to Europe, America, Australia, South Africa, and Southeast Asia.

ATV Design Post Hole Digger Machines

Name: ATV Design Post Hole Digger Machines
Brand: Changzhou Kaideli Machinery Co., Ltd.
SKU: 2126700075

Jiangsu, ChinaChangzhou Kaideli Machinery Co., Ltd.

US$900.00-950.00

5 Pieces

Product profile

Customization

Available

Warranty

1year

Max Digging Depth

1130mm

Model NO.

ATEA

Max Diameter of The Hole

300mm

Transport Package

Steel Crates

Specification

CE Standard

Trademark

Kaideli

Origin

Changzhou, China

Production Capacity

50PCS/Month

Key features

One Year Warranty: All products are guaranteed with a one-year warranty covering mechanical defects.

CE Certified: Most popular products have obtained CE certification for European and global markets.

Multiple Auger Sizes: Available in 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12-inch augers to suit various digging needs.

High Performance Engine: Equipped with a 9hp engine and hydraulic motor with 3800 in-lbs torque.

OEM/ODM Service: Custom production available according to specific customer requirements.

Fast Delivery: Complete production equipment ensures short lead time of one month.

Strict Quality Control: Every model is tested before delivery to ensure reliability.

Versatile Application: Suitable for digging manholes, planting holes, and fence installation.

Company profile

Changzhou Kaideli Machinery Co., Ltd.

Jiangsu, China

CertifiedBusiness Type: Manufacturer/Factory & Trading Company CertifiedR&D Capacity: ODM Service Available & OEM Service AvailableExport Year: 2011-12-01 CertifiedNearest Port: Shanghai PortAverage Response Time: ≤4.02h CertifiedTerms of Payment: LC, T/T, D/P, etc.

AI-Powered supplier vetting

SummaryChangzhou Kaideli Machinery Co., Ltd. is a China-based limited company established in 2011, with operations in Jiangsu and manufacturing facilities in Changzhou. The supplier reports agricultural machinery and component manufacturing experience, five production lines, a 6,510.57 m² manufacturing plant, 90% export sales, and exports to approximately 30 countries. It claims CE certification for most popular products and describes service responsiveness, but no supplier management-system certification is recorded. Evidence indicates established production and export capability, with four years of R&D engineer experience and 11–20 quality-control staff reported. However, the available information does not sufficiently verify financial strength, customization capability, after-sales execution, or specific customer cases.

Supplier typeThe supplier is legally identified as a limited company and commercially described as both a manufacturing/processing machinery business and a trade company. Its stated products, factory, production lines, and manufacturing history support a combined manufacturing-and-trading profile rather than a purely trading operation.

CertificationsThe supplier states that it has CE certification for most popular products, indicating product-level certification coverage. However, supplier management-system certification is explicitly listed as NIL, so the evidence supports CE certification claims but not certified management systems.

R&D capabilityThe supplier reports four years of R&D engineer experience, more than five technicians, and accumulated design and manufacturing experience in agricultural machinery and components. This supports some technical development capability, but there is no evidence of patents, new-product development records, or dedicated innovation systems.

Production capacityProduction capability is supported by five production lines, a 6,510.57 m² manufacturing plant, reported output of about 300 containers exported to 30 countries, and a one-month stated lead time in both peak and off-peak seasons. The slices also report more than 80 workers in one company description, while another record lists 58 employees; this inconsistency limits confidence in the exact workforce size but does not negate the evidence of operating production capacity.