From a 50% efficiency boost to repeat purchases two years later: a 16-year service record of a center‑hole drilling machine.

Whether a machine tool can meet customer expectations hinges largely on its machining performance right after commissioning; likewise, it is equally important to assess whether customers will choose to repurchase and whether the equipment will continue to satisfy production needs even after years of operation.

A case study on motor shaft machining at a pump company in Zhejiang documents the following experience.

In 2010, the company purchased a Juxin KPD70-680 center‑drilling machine for machining motor shafts. At the time, the customer faced the following challenge: with large‑volume production of motor shafts, using conventional lathes to turn the end faces and drill center holes resulted in low efficiency and subpar process consistency.

In response to this requirement, the customer opted for a dedicated center-drilling machine.

According to customer feedback, after the equipment was put into operation, machining efficiency improved by 50% compared with conventional lathes, machining accuracy remained stable, batch-to-batch consistency was excellent, and there were virtually no malfunctions. Two years later, in 2012, the customer placed a follow-up order for another Juxin KPD70-650 milling‑drilling machine.

As of 2026, the first KPD70-680 center‑drilling machine purchased in 2010 has been in service for 16 years and continues to operate reliably, with no loss of precision; routine maintenance is sufficient.

From addressing real‑world machining challenges, to placing a follow‑up order two years later, and ultimately to continued use 16 years on, this case demonstrates the practical value of specialized equipment in the production environment.

I. In 2010, what problems did mass production of motor shafts encounter?

The motor shaft is a critical component of the motor, and its machining process encompasses the machining of end faces, journal surfaces, and other related features. For shaft-type workpieces requiring center-hole machining, the quality of both the end-face and center-hole operations directly affects the positioning and subsequent machining in downstream processes.

For mass production, equipment must not only perform machining tasks but also meet the demands of repetitive manufacturing.

At the time, a certain pump manufacturer in Zhejiang faced a fairly clear challenge: its motor shafts required large‑volume machining, yet conventional lathes were slow when performing end‑face and center‑hole operations, and their machining consistency was also inadequate.

There are two distinct issues here.

The first issue is processing efficiency.

When production runs are continuous and batch sizes are large, if the equipment’s processing method does not align well with the target operation, it can disrupt the entire process flow. Just because a machine can perform the required machining does not necessarily mean it is suitable for the current batch‑size requirements.

The second issue is batch consistency.

For motors of the same batch, the machining results must meet the corresponding process requirements. Equipment, workpiece positioning, machining methods, and operational procedures can all affect the stability of batch production.

At the time, the customer’s requirement was not merely to machine the end face and center hole of a single workpiece, but to make this operation better suited for high-volume production.

Therefore, choosing the right equipment becomes a matter that requires careful consideration.

II. Why consider a dedicated center-hole drilling machine?

Conventional lathes are versatile and capable of handling a wide range of turning operations. However, for production tasks with specific process requirements—such as face machining or center-hole drilling—companies must further assess whether the machine’s machining capabilities are appropriately matched to the job at hand.

The value of a dedicated center‑drilling machine lies in its equipment configuration, which is tailored to the corresponding process, ensuring that the machine’s capabilities align more closely with the specific machining task.

For shaft-type components such as motor shafts, equipment selection typically requires a comprehensive assessment that takes into account workpiece dimensions, end-face machining requirements, center-hole specifications, positioning methods, and subsequent processing steps.

If a company’s primary production tasks are well-defined, it can assess the necessity of adopting specialized equipment rather than simply comparing whether the equipment offers more versatile functions.

In 2010, a pump manufacturer in Zhejiang opted for the Juxin KPD70-680 center‑drilling machine specifically to address the slow efficiency of conventional lathes in machining end faces and drilling center holes, as well as the lack of consistency in batch production.

It should be noted that the specific equipment configuration and process plan must still be based on the actual workpiece and technical requirements. The focus of this case study is the production issues explicitly raised by the customer at the time, as well as the practical feedback received after the equipment was put into operation.

III. After implementation, efficiency improved by 50%—what did customers report?

Once the equipment is put into production, the customer’s primary concern is whether it can resolve the issues that existed previously.

According to customer feedback, after adopting the Juxin KPD70-680 center‑hole drilling machine, motor shaft machining efficiency has improved by 50% compared with conventional lathes, machining accuracy remains stable, batch-to-batch consistency is excellent, and equipment downtime is virtually nonexistent.

Among them, the 50% efficiency improvement is based on actual user feedback provided by customers.

For mass production, such a shift means that the value of equipment selection extends beyond merely performing a specific machining operation; it also encompasses processing efficiency and the stability of batch production.

Meanwhile, stable machining accuracy and excellent batch-to-batch consistency are also key concerns for customers.

It should be noted that the extent of efficiency gains varies depending on the specific workpiece, machining process, equipment configuration, and production organization. Accordingly, this figure should be interpreted as feedback from the customer regarding their own operating conditions, rather than a universal outcome that all customers would necessarily achieve when using the same model of equipment.

Similarly, “virtually no failures” is a customer’s description of the equipment’s operational status and should not be construed to mean that the equipment has never experienced a failure or undergone any maintenance.

With these boundaries clearly defined, customer feedback confirms that, once put into operation, the equipment has met the customer’s expectations for processing efficiency, dimensional stability, and batch-to-batch consistency.

IV. After two years of use, why do customers make another purchase?

If the machining performance of a machine shortly after it is put into service represents the first test of its selection, then whether the customer places a follow-up order offers another valuable benchmark.

In 2010, a pump manufacturer in Zhejiang purchased a Juxin KPD70-680 machine tool for center-hole drilling.

After two years of operation, the customer found the first unit to perform exceptionally well. In 2012, the customer placed a second order for a Juxin KPD70-650 milling and drilling machine.

This repurchase information has made the entire case timeline more complete.

In the first phase, the production requirement was clear: mass‑producing motor shafts. Using conventional lathes to machine the end faces and drill center holes proved inefficient, and batch‑to‑batch consistency was subpar.

In the second phase, feedback following the equipment’s commissioning indicates a 50% improvement in machining efficiency compared to conventional lathes, stable machining accuracy, excellent batch-to-batch consistency, and virtually no malfunctions.

In the third phase, a follow-up purchase was made two years later: in 2012, the customer repurchased one KPD70-650 milling and drilling machine.

It should be noted that the customer’s stated reason for repurchasing is that the first machine delivered excellent performance after two years of operation. Based on this, we can present the customer’s actual usage feedback and repurchase experience; however, we should refrain from drawing further conclusions about the specific workpieces processed by the second machine, its production capacity, or whether the two machines are configured identically.

For equipment manufacturers, customer repurchase is a meaningful metric. It indicates that, after gaining experience with their first piece of equipment, customers have chosen to invest in related products again.

Rather than merely touting product advantages in vague terms, this kind of experience—built on specific processing needs, real-world user feedback, and repeat purchases—enables other companies to gain a clearer understanding of how the equipment performs in production.

V. From 2010 to 2026, the first piece of equipment has been in service for 16 years.

The year is 2026.

The Juxin KPD70-680 center-drilling machine purchased in 2010 has been in service for 16 years to date.

According to customer feedback, the equipment continues to operate stably, with no issues in machining accuracy; routine maintenance is sufficient for day-to-day operation.

These pieces of information constitute the core content of this long-term service record.

First, the equipment remains in use. For manufacturing enterprises, whether the equipment can still perform its intended processing tasks is a key factor in assessing its current utility.

Secondly, customer feedback indicates that there are no issues with precision. For motor shaft machining, the resulting dimensions must meet the specific process requirements. Based on the customer’s actual feedback, the equipment continues to satisfy their operational needs. As for the precise numerical values of accuracy, they should be verified against the official test records.

Thirdly, the customer stated that routine maintenance is sufficient. This reflects the current state of maintenance but does not imply that the equipment has remained free of malfunctions or component replacements since 2010.

The long-term operational performance of equipment is influenced by factors such as actual operating conditions, operating practices, maintenance management, and the production environment. Therefore, one cannot infer that all equipment shares the same service life solely on the basis of a single unit’s years in service.

What can be confirmed in this case is that the first piece of equipment has been in service for 16 years, and the customer reports that it continues to operate reliably, with no issues in accuracy, requiring only routine maintenance.

For enterprises that require long-term, large-scale batch processing, this is a practical usage record worth understanding.

VI. Examining the Selection Approach for Specialized Equipment Through a Motor Shaft Case Study

Looking back on this experience, a clear correlation has emerged between customer needs and equipment usage patterns.

In 2010, due to slow batch‑processing efficiency and insufficient batch‑to‑batch consistency in motor shaft machining, the customer purchased a Juxin KPD70‑680 center‑drilling machine.

After commissioning, customer feedback indicates that machining efficiency has improved by 50% compared to conventional lathes, with stable precision, excellent batch-to-batch consistency, and virtually no malfunctions.

In 2012, the customer placed another order for a KPD70-650 milling and drilling machine.

By 2026, the first piece of equipment will have been in service for 16 years and will continue to operate reliably, with customers reporting no issues in machining accuracy—routine maintenance is all that’s required.

This case offers valuable insights for other companies engaged in the machining of shaft-type components: it does not simply assert that specialized machine tools are invariably superior to conventional lathes, but rather underscores the importance of clearly identifying one’s specific operational challenges before selecting equipment.

If the primary issue is low batch-processing efficiency, the equipment configuration should be analyzed with a focus on the target operation.

If the primary focus is on batch consistency, an assessment must be conducted in conjunction with workpiece requirements, positioning methods, equipment configuration, and machining processes.

If you want the equipment to last for a long time, you should also pay attention to maintenance, operational logs, and after-sales support.

Only by analyzing the equipment within the context of specific workpieces, machining processes, and production environments can the selection process be more well-founded.

7. Time, repurchase rate, and actual usage together serve as benchmarks for assessing equipment value.

The use value of a piece of equipment can be examined from different stages.

When first procuring the equipment, assess whether it is suitable for the specific machining tasks at hand; once in operation, evaluate whether it meets both efficiency and quality standards; after a period of use, determine whether the customer is willing to continue purchasing; and over the long term, verify that the equipment continues to satisfy production requirements.

The case of a certain pump company in Zhejiang happens to encompass records from these various stages.

Purchased in 2010 and repurchased in 2012, the first unit had been in service for 16 years as of 2026.

From the slow efficiency of turning end faces and drilling center holes on a conventional lathe, to customer feedback reporting a 50% increase in machining productivity and excellent batch-to-batch consistency, and further to repeat purchases two years later and continued use even after 16 years—this sequence of events collectively paints a vivid picture of a real-world equipment‑application case.

Juxin Machine Tools specializes in the machining of shafts, discs, housings, and other related rotary components, offering dedicated CNC machine tools, advanced process technologies, and automated line‑integrated solutions.

For every machining requirement, equipment selection should be grounded in the specific workpiece and process. Aligning the machine’s design with the task at hand and continuously validating its performance through real-world production applications is the foundation for maximizing the value of specialized machine tools.

From 2010 to 2026, the 16-year service record of this KPD70-680 center‑drilling machine, along with its repurchase in 2012, provides a concrete reference for understanding the application value of specialized equipment in the mass production of motor shafts.