What are the payment terms for this product?

Payment terms include LC, T/T, D/P, PayPal, and Western Union.

What is the lead time for production?

The average lead time is one month, regardless of peak or off-peak seasons.

Lsp22t Log Splitter with Horizontal or Vertical Positioning with 3 Point Linkage

Name: Lsp22t Log Splitter with Horizontal or Vertical Positioning with 3 Point Linkage
Brand: Changzhou Kaideli Machinery Co., Ltd.
SKU: 2009933865

Jiangsu, ChinaChangzhou Kaideli Machinery Co., Ltd.

US$500.00-600.00

5 Pieces

Product profile

Customization

Available

Type

Log Splitter

Power Type

Hydraulic

Model NO.

LS22T, LSP22T

Layout

Vertical

Controlling Mode

Hydraulic Semi-automatic

Automatic Grade

Tractor Driven

Precision

Normal Precision

Certification

Customized

Condition

New

Color

Customized

Log Splitter

Lsp18t,22t

Transport Package

Steel Crates

Specification

CE Standard

Trademark

Kaideli

Origin

Changzhou, China

Production Capacity

100 Sets Per Month

Key features

Hydraulic Semi-automatic: Easy and safe operation with hydraulic control system.

Dual Positioning: Supports both horizontal and vertical positioning for logs.

High Splitting Force: 22-tonne ram provides strong splitting power for tough wood.

Customizable Options: Color and model customization available for specific needs.

CE Certified: Meets CE safety and quality standards for reliable performance.

Single Operator: Designed for easy operation by one person safely.

OEM/ODM Service: Professional manufacturer offering OEM and ODM services.

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: ≤3.29h 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.