analisis comparativo cat® 992g vs.cat 993k

Cat 992Gvs.Cat 993K

For Dealer Sales Personnel

Caterpillar Product Information

Performance ReportNovember 2008

Study Purpose

Study Date

Participants

Location

Written by

The aim of this study was to compare production and fuel efficency ona customers 992G and a 993K highlift machine.

October 14-16, 2008

Tom Grill, Caterpillar Inc.John Deselen, Caterpillar Inc.Tony McGuire, Caterpillar Inc.Rachel Sherzer, Caterpillar Inc.

Quarry (customer location), Western United States

Tom Grill, Caterpillar Inc.

www. cat.com

Machine Specifications

Job Description

2 Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

The job study was performed at a customer quarry located in the WesternUnited States. The test were conducted with the customers normal operators.Three different tests were completed in two different materials. The first testwas done in overburden material and the machine was operated by the first shiftoperator. The second test was done in the same material with the second shiftoperator. In the first and second test, each operater worked in the same face toensure consistency of material for both tests. The third test was done inlimestone material with the availability of only the second shift operator.

The material density for both the overburden and the limestone were similar.Both were approximately 1572 kg/cu meters or 2650 lbs per LCY (loose cubicyard). It should be noted that the overburden density was very similar to thelimestone, however is considered too low of quality for utilization.

Fuel measurements were recorded with Burn Rate Meters provided byCaterpillar. Note picture to the left of the burn rate meter. Loader cycle timeswere recorded with a laptop computer and weight of the trucks were recordedwith a Caterpillar scale truck.

CAT 992G Cat 993K

Engine Type Cat 3508B Cat C32 ACERTGross Power kW (hp) 656 (880) 782 (1050)

rpm 1750 1900

Net Power kW (hp) 597 (800) 708 (950)rpm 1750 1900

Operating Weight kg (lb) 99 116 (218,513) 134 469 (296,505)

Linkage High Lift High Lift

Bucket Size m (yd) 13 (17) 14.5 (19)

Bucket Type Spade Edge Rock Spade Edge Rock

Tires 45/65 R45 50/65 R51Michelin Michelin

Machine Hours 32, 570* 209

* 992G engine, transmission, torque converter and pumps were overhauled at 30,000 hours.

Test 1 Summary

3

The first test was in the overburden material with the first shiftoperator. The results look at production based on average loadercycle time and average bucket payload. This test does not includedelays such as truck transfer time, cleanup, etc.

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

992G 993KProductivitytonnes/hr 1395 1749tons/hr 1538 1928993K Advantage 25%

Fuel Consumptionlitres/hr 121 143gallons/hr 32 38993K Disadvantage 9%

Test 1 Summary


992G 993K

Fuel Efficiencytonnes/litre 10.2 11.1tons/gallon 42.4 46.2993K Advantage 17%

Cycle TimesMinutes .809 .796993K Advantage 2%

Important Note: Any results within 3% for productivity (tons/hr) and fuel

efficiency (tons/liter) are considered equal within the accuracy

Test 1 Summary

3Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

992G 993KAverage Bucket Loadtonnes 18.8 23.2tons 20.7 25.6993K Advantage 24%

Average Bucket Fill FactorPercentage 92% 102%

Test 2 Summary


The second test was in the overburden material with the secondshift operator. The results look at production based on averageloader cycle time and average bucket payload. This test does notinclude delays such as truck transfer time, cleanup, etc.


Fuel Consumptionlitres/hr 121 136gallons/hr 32.1 36.4993K Disadvantage 13%


Test 2 Summary

992G 993K

Fuel Efficiencytonnes/litre 11.2 12tons/gallon 46.7 50993K Advantage 7%

Cycle TimesMinutes .715 .729993K Disadvantage 2%

Test 2 Summary


992G 993KAverage Bucket Loadtonnes 17.3 21.3tons 19 23.5993K Advantage 24%





Test 3 Summary

This final test was in the limestone material and due to the jobsitescheduling was done with the second shift operator. The resultslook at production based on average loader cycle time and averagebucket payload. This test does not include delays such as trucktransfer time, cleanup, etc.


Fuel Consumptionlitres/hr 110 117gallons/hr 29 31993K Disadvantage 6%


Test 3 Summary

992G 993K

Fuel Efficiencytonnes/litre 11 11.4tons/gallon 46.2 47.7993K Advantage 3%

Cycle TimesMinutes .674 .671993K Disadvantage less than 1/2 percentage point




Test 3 Summary

992G 993KAverage Bucket Loadtonnes 18.5 23tons 20.4 25.3993K Advantage 24%



In Test 1, with the first shift operator, the 992G is an eight passmatch versus the 993K which did six passes per truck. The cycletimes observed on both loaders would be considered high andresult in less production. One would think the higher cycle timeson the 993K is associated with just a couple weeks onsite andlimited operation. However, high cycle times were seen on bothmachines.Through training techniques, a reduction in 993K cycling timesfrom .796 minutes to .65 (8.7 seconds) would result in additional433 tons moved an hour. There are two areas in the cycle that thecustomer received training on to assist in the reduction, bucketloading and travel to the truck with a loaded bucket.In this test, the operator was observed to be loading the bucketafter it was full. This is a very easy way to add an additional two tothree seconds in this segment of the cycle. Another issue noticedwas the travel from the face to the truck. During the test, theoperator would not raise the bucket until he backed away from heface and started moving towards the truck, resulting in a wait forthe linkage to clear the truck rail. Raising the bucket as you backaway from the face will significantly reduce travel time and makedumping smoother. Note, linkage should be high enough to clearthe rail so you can begin dumping as you approach the truck. Thisis especially important for the location of this test due to having785s with high sides.Another issues seen when running Test 1 was the inconsistency ofthe truck spotting. Proper truck spotting would be roughly a 45degree angle to the face with the truck backed up so the rear tiresare almost touching the face. The loader should work in the areaof the face by approximately two bucket widths. Following theseguidelines the wheel loader will travel no more than 1revolutions of the tires.Finally, due to the reach capabilities of the 992G, the operator haddifficulty centering the load on the trucks. This can result in atruck having overloads on one side of the truck bed causing unevendistribution load on the truck tires.In test 2, similar issues were seen with cycle times and inconsistenttruck spotting. The second shift operator did a little better onraising the bucket in the travel loaded part of the cycle.The third test was done in limestone. The material was shot on a40 foot bench and was well fractured with very little oversizematerial. The 993K had more loads toward the back of the shotwhere the digging is tougher. The 992G had a mix of seven toeight pass per truck versus the 993K doing six passes. Note, onetime the 993K did do a seven pass to the 785.

Observations

992G Truck Bed Load

993K Truck Bed Load

In summary, key areas of improvement for this customer jobsiteand potentially for your customers job sites are as follows:

For correct truck spotting, the truck should be angled 45degrees to the face. Monitor bucket load time to ensure you are not addingtwo or three seconds to loading a bucket that is alreadyfull. Engage lift as you are backing away from the face. Onthis site it is critical to cycle time when loading the 785swith the high body sides. Note, ideally you should haveyour linkage high enough so that you can begindumping as you approach the truck. When possible, work the face from left to right. Bydoing this you always have a place to spot the truck. Trucks should always try to do a good job of getting intoposition to load quicker. This can be a time saver. Make sure to spot the truck with a bucket that is as fullas possible.

As seen in initial field follow data, the 993K outperforms the 992Gin production on an average of over 20%. When it came to fuelconsumption (fuel burn), the 993K on the average consumedaround 10% more fuel. However, when looking at fuel efficiency,the 993K averages moving 9% more material per litre (gallon).When looking at bucket payloads and higher fill factor, the 993Kadvantage is due to higher lift force, greater breakout and increasedrimpull over the 992G. In conclusion, this test assisted the customerin giving them training techniques to improve production andvalidated the performance of the 993K over the 992G. This furtherassists you when specing a wheel loader to your jobsite tounderstand the capabilities and pass match for the 993K.

Observations

Conclusion

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K 13

TEXR0488

www.CAT.com 2008 Caterpillar

All Rights ReservedPrinted in U.S.A.

The information contained herein is intended for circulation only to Caterpillar and dealer employees whose duties require knowledgeof such reports and is intended exclusively for their information and training. It may contain unverified analysis and facts observed byvarious Caterpillar or dealer employees. However, effort has been made to provide reliable results regarding any informationcomparing Caterpillar built and competitive machines. Effort has been made to use the latest available spec sheet and other materialin the full understanding that these are subject to change without notice. Any reproduction of this release without the foregoingexplanation is prohibited.

CAT, CATERPILLAR, their respective logos, Caterpillar Yellow and the POWER EDGE trade dress, as well as corporate and productidentity used herein, are trademarks of Caterpillar and may not be used without permission.

Cat 992G vs. 993KMachine SpecificationsJob DescriptionTest 1 - Productivity and Fuel ConsumptionTest 1 - Fuel Efficiency and Cycle TimesTest 1 - Average Bucket Load and Fill FactorTest 2 - Productivity and Fuel ConsumptionTest 2 - Fuel Efficiency and Cycle TimesTest 2 - Average Bucket Payload and Fill FactorTest 3 - Productivity and Fuel ConsumptionTest 3 - Fuel Efficiency and Cycle TimesTest 3 - Average Bucket Load and Fill FactorObservationsConclusion

analisis comparativo cat® 992g vs.cat 993k

Documents