Jiangsu Nanyuan HydraulicThe QW-400 feed-size entry in Nanyuan’s earlier product table is not a complete machine footprint. Its 2000 × 1400 mm figure carries an explicit qualification: the feed hopper is excluded. Keep that qualification with the number, then request the current assembly drawing before comparing it with available site space.
The current QW-400 container shear listing links to the company’s historical table and asks buyers to confirm loader access, footprint and foundation conditions. Historical figures provide a reference for discussion; they do not establish the dimensions or permitted use of a newly quoted machine.
Preserve the table heading and its exclusion
In the earlier QW series table, the QW-400 entry appears under “Feed size (mm)” as 2000 × 1400, with the hopper exclusion beside it. Copying only the two numbers into a comparison sheet removes information needed to interpret them.
Retain the model, heading, units, number order and exclusion together. The heading does not label those two values as length and width, so do not add axis labels without a drawing or written clarification. Nor should the entry be carried into an adjacent model row whose own information has not been confirmed.
Keep three dimensional questions separate
- Feed reference: which feature and boundaries the historical feed-size field describes.
- Proposed assembly: the current arrangement and dimensions, identifying the hopper and other included equipment.
- Site working space: the space assessed for loading, discharge, access and service around that arrangement.
A response to the first question does not automatically answer the other two. Even an overall assembly drawing does not, by itself, approve a site layout or define the space required for safe operation. Those conclusions belong to the applicable machine documentation and qualified project review.
Ask for a drawing that identifies the excluded component
Refer to the historical QW-400 row and ask which current drawing identifies the feed reference and the hopper arrangement in the proposal. Request the drawing number and revision, with the machine or quotation reference to which it applies. The useful answer connects the number to identifiable geometry rather than simply repeating the catalog cell.
Clarify whether the hopper shown is within the quoted supply, an alternative configuration or an interface with separately supplied equipment. The exclusion in a dimensional note does not establish commercial inclusion. A component can be excluded from one measurement without that note saying who supplies it.
Do not add an assumed hopper size to the archived feed dimensions to calculate an overall footprint. Dimensions may describe different directions, overlap or use different boundaries; the table does not provide the geometry needed for that calculation. An annotated current assembly drawing is the appropriate evidence.
Use an answerable comparison record
For each proposal, keep these fields together:
- Exact model and quotation revision.
- Historical source row, units and complete exclusion note.
- Supplier explanation of the feed-reference boundaries.
- Current assembly drawing and hopper identification.
- Included equipment and separately supplied interfaces.
- Site-layout review reference and unresolved questions.
If the supplier has supplied a feed dimension but no assembly drawing, record the feed information as received and the assembly question as open. That is not proof that the machine will not fit. It is an accurate description of the evidence still needed to decide.
Keep feed suitability outside the footprint conclusion
Neither this historical dimension nor the hopper qualification defines a safe piece size, loader reach or approved loading method. Material grade, shape, condition and handling need their own configuration-specific assessment. The QW buyer guide provides the wider material and quotation questions; this article addresses the narrower dimensional exclusion.
Send Nanyuan the QW-400 reference, current proposal and site-layout question. Ask for the drawing that distinguishes the feed reference from the complete proposed assembly, including the hopper. Compare the documented arrangement, not an unqualified pair of historical numbers.