Performance Report

Cat Product Information

For Dealer Sales Personnel
This document supplements information in the Specalog. Marketing content
will be available only on secured dealer extranets and by accessing the
PDF in the Electronic Sales Library.
Cat

993K vs.
Komatsu WA900-3
July 2010
2
Study Purpose
Study Dates
Field Data By
Location
Written By
Weather Conditions
Tested Units
Material
Scale System
Calibration Date
Business Unit
The purpose of the study was to conduct economic analysis of
current feet, as well as determine the performance differences
between the Cat

993K and the Komatsu WA900-3 wheel

loaders, identify areas of opportunity and to verify total
production, fuel burn and machine availability.
April 12 15, 2010
Randy Aneloski Cat Global Mining
Tom Grill Cat QSID
Reed Garretts Tucson Proving Grounds
Jamie Wintzel Cat Global Mining
Bill Olsen Tinaja Hills DAC
Kent Clifton Cat Global Mining
Gold mine in Nevada, USA. Altitude was approximately
1280 m (4,200 ft).
Randy Aneloski CGM
Temperatures ranged from 1 C to 21 C (35 F to 70 F).
Dry Conditions.
Cat

993K (Mine Owned feld follow)

Komatsu WA900-3 (Mine Owned)
Gold ore ranging in density between 971.03 1040.4 kg/m
(2,800 3,000 lb/yd). A study was also done in crushed ore
which had an average density of 1079.2 kg/m (3,112 lb/yd).
The scale system used for this test was the Cat THDAC set
of Transcale AS300 weigh system.
March 2009
This study was completed by Cat Global Mining with
assistance from QSID, Cashman Equipment and Cat Product
Development COE.
3
Key Findings
Executive Summary
The Komatsu WA900-3 was inoperable with a hydraulic system
problem the entire time that we were on site. Because of that we
were not able to get any production or fuel data from that loader.
The Cat 993K was tested in three separate segments. Production
and fuel was measured in each segment. The same customers
operator was used for all segments.

The Cat 993K 6 pass loaded the 785 trucks to weights
ranging between 129.8 144 tonnes (143.1 158.7 tons).

The 993K bucket payloads ranged between 21.7 24 tonnes
(23.9 26.5 tons).

Measured loader production ranged between 2237.2
2676.8 tonnes/hr (2,466.1 2,950.7 tons/hr).

Extrapolated production using constant truck exchange
time ranged between 2489.2 2702.9 tonnes/hr (2,743.9
2,979.4 tons/hr).

993K fuel consumption ranged between 142.7 158.6 l/hr
(37.7 41.9 gal/hr).

993K cycles averaged between 28.02 28.32 seconds.
4
Machine Comparison
Model 993K High Lift WA900-3 High Lift
Serial Number LWA00426 n/a
Unit Number n/a n/a
Hours 20,800 18,000
Tires
Front Bridgestone 50/65-51 62PR L5 Bridgestone 45/65-45 58PR L5
Rear Bridgestone 50/65-51 62PR L5 Bridgestone 45/65-45 58PR L5
Year Manufactured 2006 2006
Engine
Model C32 ACERT Tier 2
Manufacturer Caterpillar Cummins
Rated Engine RPM 1900
Displacement 32.1 L (1,959 in
3
)
Cylinders 12 12
Hp Rated 708 kW (950 hp)
Hp/L 29.4 hp/L
Transmission Cat Komatsu
Forward Gears 3 3
Reverse Gears 3 3
Top Speed 22.1 km/h (13.7 mph) CD 28 km/h (17.4 mph)
Machine Weight as Confgured
Bucket High Abrasion Spade Rock
Bucket Capacity SAE 2:1 13 m
3
(17 yd
3
) SAE 2:1 13 m
3
(17 yd
3
)
Additional Options Fire Suppression ASR, ASRC, Exhaust Brake
Spec Sheet Weight Estimate 135 586 kg (298,968 lb) 107 350 kg (236,670 lb)
Scale Actual 137 212 kg (302,500 lb) n/a
Fuel Level 100% n/a
5
Test Procedure
Fuel Consumption and
Measurement
For the purpose of creating consistent and accurate data the
Cat 993K was measured using the same operator and the study
team utilized the same cycle time taker. Fuel system data was
gathered using the TPG Engineer for consistency.
Fuel consumption data was gathered using Cat day tank
system. This system was plumbed into each loaders factory
fuel system and then isolated from the main tank so that the
loader would burn only fuel from the day tank as well as return
un-burnt fuel to the day tank. The tank was then weighed
before and after the testing period and the difference between
the beginning and ending weight was correlated to the amount
of fuel burnt during the test. Temperature measurements were
also gathered and used to calculate fuel expansion.
6
Truck payload information was collected using portable
scale system from Tinaja Hills, the certifed Transcale AS300.
In order to ensure the accuracy of the scale system the earthen
pads that the scales rest on were constructed to be level within
one tenth of a foot. These measurements were checked during
the construction of the pads as well as after the scales were set
using a tripod mounted laser and grade rod. The same method
and accuracy was applied to the ramps leading to the scale pads.
Throughout the duration of the study the scale pads and ramps
were checked to ensure they remained level. This was done
using both the laser and grade rod and also by completing a
Site Level Test. During a Site Level Test a loaded haul truck
is weighed one axle at a time in the usual manner and then
re-weighed in the opposite direction. The weight is recorded
and must match within 0.5%.
Payload Measurement
7
During the study all loader cycle times were recorded.
A dedicated cycle timing program was used to gather all study
loader cycle times and all clocks were set to assure proper
matching between payloads, truck loads and loader cycles.
Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by Study
Segment #1
The 993K was operated in light density ore by the customers
operator. The operator was consistently 6 pass loading
Cat 785 Trucks. Material was well shot, free fowing and very
consistent in fracture size. The operator was very effcient
and fuid in his movements. The loading foor was hard
packed and fat.
Excellent truck queuing and spotting was observed consistently.
This operation in the loading area should be considered
World Class.
Cycle Times
Test Results
8
Test Results (continued)
Cycle Segment
Cycle time
minutes
Load/Dig 0.114
Travel Loaded 0.161
Dump 0.075
Travel Empty 0.12
Total 0.47
Truck Loading
Average Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons) 21.65 (23.86)
Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons) 129.85 (143.14)
Truck Exchange Time Minutes 0.79
Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) 2278.1
(2,511.15)
Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck
Exchange Time
2489.22
(2,743.9)
Fuel Consumption
L/hr (Gal/hr) 143.09 (37.8)
Tonnes/L (Tons/gal) 15.92 (66.4)
9
Test Results (continued)
Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by Study
Segment #2
The 993K was operated in heavier density ore but in the same
pit as above by the customers operator. The operator was
6 pass loading Cat 785 Trucks. Material was well shot, free
fowing and very consistent in fracture size. The operator was
very effcient and fuid in his movements. The loading foor was
hard packed and fat.
Cycle Segment
Cycle time
minutes
Load/Dig 0.158
Travel Loaded 0.075
Dump 0.12
Travel Empty 0.119
Total 0.472
Truck Loading
Average Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons) 23.2 (25.57)
Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons) 139.2 (153.44)
Truck Exchange Time Minutes 0.66
Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) 2702.87
(2,979.4)
Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck
Exchange Time
n/a
Fuel Consumption
L/hr (Gal/hr) 158.61 (41.9)
Tonnes/L (Tons/gal) 17.04 (71.1)
10
Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by Study
Segment #3
The 993K was loading crushed ore from a stock pile into
Cat 785 Trucks. As before, the loader was being operated by the
mines operator. Density of this crushed ore was heavier than
earlier segments in the pit. The loading foor was hard packed
and fat. Truck exchange was not as good as it was in the pit
because of limited access to the loading area by the trucks.
Cycle Segment
Cycle time
minutes
Load/Dig 0.167
Travel Loaded 0.075
Dump 0.121
Travel Empty 0.103
Total 0.466
Truck Loading
Average Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons) 24.0 (26.45)
Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons) 144.0 (158.71)
Truck Exchange Time Minutes 2.61
Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) 2015.76 (2,222)
Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck
Exchange Time
2601.35
(2,867.5)
Fuel Consumption
L/hr (Gal/hr) 151.04 (39.9)
Tonnes/L (Tons/gal) 13.35 (55.7)
Test Results (continued)
11
993K HL

Power Stronger into bank and faster lifting than Komatsu.
Better than a 992C, 993K has more power than any other
machine he has ran. Cat can dig into a tough wall of hard
material when the Komatsu would struggle. Easier to load
the bucket off the wall.

Hydraulics and Controllability Faster and easier to load
truck than Komatsu. Komatsu is jerky, when going into load
a truck, when he hits the de clutch on the Komatsu he gets a
hard stop, the Cat does not do that it is very smooth and
easy to control.

Operator Information Board Likes how Cat can be
confgured to operator preference and layout of the
information clusters. Komatsu information board is at
an inconvenient position near the operators right back.

Reliability No question, Cat is more reliable.

Cab Likes Cat visibility and room in the cab and the ability
to have a passenger. Diffcult to train someone on the
Komatsu since there is no buddy seat.

Seat Control position on the Cat is great, very comfortable
relaxed position. Komatsu control position is very
uncomfortable, elbows are positioned too far backward
resulting in uncomfortable operating arm position.

Cab Sound Cat sound is very quiet, can have a conversation
with passenger and not have to raise voice.
The 993K had the power and weight to get very good fll factors
in this application. The combination of well shot material and
excellent operator resulted in short wheel loader cycle times.
Add to this, good truck exchange and the 993K was able
to produce between 2278.1 2702.87 tonnes/hr
(2,511.15 2,979.4 tons/hr).
This information can be used as a baseline for determining
production and fuel consumption for other 993K applications.
Keep in mind that each application will have its own conditions
that will affect the production and fuel consumption.
Operator Comments
Conclusion
TEXR0154
July 2010
www.cat.com
2010 Caterpillar
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.
The information contained herein is intended for circulation only to Caterpillar and dealer employees whose duties require knowledge of such reports and
is intended exclusively for their information and training. It may contain unverified analysis and facts observed by various Caterpillar or dealer employees.
However, effort has been made to provide reliable results regarding any information comparing Caterpillar built and competitive machines. Effort has been
made to use the latest available spec sheet and other material in the full understanding that these are subject to change without notice. Any reproduction
of this release without the foregoing explanation is prohibited.
CAT, CATERPILLAR, SAFETY.CAT.COM, their respective logos, Caterpillar Yellow and the Power Edge trade dress, as well as corporate and product
identity used herein, are trademarks of Caterpillar and may not be used without permission.