Caterpillar Product Information

Performance Report
January 2006

Cat 330D L vs. Cat 330C L

Job Study Purpose

A performance study was conducted at the Peoria Proving Grounds to compare the new 330D L against the 330C L. Each machine was measured in hard trenching and truck loading in a controlled test environment. The report summarizes the overall test detail and results.

For Dealer Sales Personnel

www.cat.com

Results of Trenching Tests

Test Description The trenching test was conducted by digging a single bucket wide 1219 mm (48") trench that was 3.35 m (11'0") deep and approximately 30.5 m (100') long. Cycle times were recorded using a computer program that was specifically designed for productivity tests. Depths of the trenches were measured at several intervals to ensure accuracy of the trench depths. Fuel, when measured, was measured using portable day tanks that were weighed prior to the test, and then weighed upon completion of the test. All results are based on 60 minute work hours. The material was a well-compacted mixture of topsoil and clay with a material density of 1660 kg/m3 (2,800 lb/yd3). Side-cutters on the buckets were utilized. Machines were alternated after each trenching run to ensure consistency of the field.

Productivity Results
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 330C L CYD/HR 330D L Load 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Deep Trench Cycle Times

13.61 (100%) 2.76 1.38 2.76 7.44 12.99 (95%) 2.62 1.48 2.62 6.8
330D L Dump Swing Empty

503.7 (100%)

539.9 (107%)

330C L Lift & Swing

Fuel Consumption
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 330C L 330D L GAL/HR 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Fuel Efficiency

11.59 (100%)

12.93 (112%)

43.5 (100%)

41.8 (96%)

330C L

330D L

CYD/GAL

Trenching Results Summary Each machine was equipped with an identical D-linkage (C-series) 48" HD bucket with heavy-duty sidecutters. With the increased horsepower and breakout forces (see graphs below) of the 330D L, it was able to show productivity advantages of 7% in deep trenching over the 330C L. The 330D L also showed a 5% cycle time advantage in deep trenching while carrying 2% more fill factor than the 330C L. Bucket and stick forces were increased 4% and 5% respectively with the HD bucket installed. As a result the 330D L was able to spend 9% less time in the load cycle than the 330C L and carrying more material as evidenced by the fill factors, which led to its productivity advantage over the 330C L. Due to the increased productivity and higher horsepower, the 330D L did consume more fuel, but overall fuel efficiency (material moved per liter/gallon) was 96% of the 330C L.

Bucket Forces (SAE) 3.9 m Stick

Thousands 50 40 Force (lb) 30 20 10 0 HD-P HD Bucket Family GP 46.9 45.0 (100%) (104%) 42.4 40.6 (100%) (104%) 43.0 38.1 (113%) (100%) Force (lb) 330C L 330D L Thousands 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 HD-P

Stick Forces (SAE) 3.9 m Stick

330C L 330D L

33.2 31.5 (100%) (105%)

32.6 30.9 (100%) (105%)

32.8 30.1 (109%) (100%)

HD Bucket Family

GP

Truck Loading Tests Results

Test Description Loose Material This truck loading test was conducted using loose re-handled material which was a mixture of soil and clay. The tests were same level loading, swinging 90. The depth was approximately 4.3 m (14'0"). Every test consisted of each machine loading 9 off highway articulated trucks. Machines were alternated between each run to ensure the consistency of the material between runs. Each machine was equipped with a 60" (2.43 yd3) bucket. Cycle times were taken using a computer program specifically designed for truck loading tests. Fuel results were measured for the full test duration including idle time. Results are based upon a 60 minute work hour. In the loose-material loading, the increased horsepower and forces were not sufficiently taxed on the 330D L with 60" HD bucket. Therefore, productivity was equal relative to 330C L.

Fill Factors: 330C L = 173%; 330D L = 170%

Productivity Results
700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 330C L CYD/HR 330D L 0 330C L Load 15 667 (104%) 665 (100%) 6.84 10 5 8.76 25 20 5.46 2.64

Cycle Times
22.6 (100%) 22.4 (99%) 5.28 1.92 6.18

9.96

330D L Dump Swing Empty

Lift & Swing

330D L Fuel Consumption

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Loading Only 14 12 10 15.52 (100%) 7.53 (49%) 8 6 4 2 0 Fuel Consumption (gal/hr) Loading with Truck Wait Time

330C L Fuel Consumption

13.96 (100%) 6.81 (49%)

Fuel Consumption (gal/hr) Loading Only Loading with Truck Wait Time

Test Description Hard-Bank Material These truck loading tests were conducted using virgin material excavated from a three bucket wide by 4.3 m (14'0") trench. The tests were same level loading, swinging 90. Each test consisted of each machine loading 9 off highway articulated trucks. Machines were alternated between each run to ensure the consistency of the material between runs. Cycle times and fuel were recorded identical to the Loose Material test. The 330C L experienced stick stalling in these tougher digging/ loading conditions, which resulted in a lower productivity and lower cycle time compared to the 330D L. The 330D L cycle times remained consistent between hard-bank and loose-material loading. The 4% and 5% increase in 330D L bucket and stick forces respectively became apparent with the HD60" bucket in the hard-bank test.

330D L Cycle Times Comparison

25 20 15 6.18 10 22.4 (100%) 5.28 1.92 21.2 (95%) 4.86 1.98 5.46

330C L Cycle Times Comparison

30 25 20 15 10 5.46 2.64 6.84 22.6 (100%) 25.0 (110%) 5.40 2.40 5.82

5 0

9.96

9.96

5 0

8.76 Loose Material Loading

12.42

Loose Material Loading Load Lift & Swing

Hard-Bank Material Loading Dump Swing Empty Load

Hard-Bank Material Loading Dump Swing Empty

Lift & Swing

Truck Loading Summary The 330D L was able to maintain the productivity benchmark set by the 330C L. With the increased lift and forces the 330D L was able to slightly reduce the load times. The improvement came specifically in the lift and swing cycle. Overall the 330D L was not taxed in the loose-material application, therefore not highlighting the increased horsepower and forces. The 330C L was over matched by the HD 60" bucket in the tough hard-bank application, but the 330D L had enough stick and break-out force improvement to maintain productivity from loose-material to hard-bank material truck loading.

Load Cycle Comparison

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

8.76 (100%)

12.42 (142%)

9.96 (100%)

9.96 (100%)

330C L Loose Material Loading

330D L Hard-Bank Material Loading

Test Description Four different lift tests were conducted to demonstrate any lifting differences as a result of the addition of the heavy lift circuit for the 330D L. The weight used in all of the tests was a fabricated weight, which weighed approximately 6800 kg (15,000 lb). Distances measured were from the center point of the swing bearing to the distance of the load point. Load heights were measured from the ground level up to the load point, which was the bucket lift eye. Test #1 Over the Front The boom was pulled all the way up and the stick was then extended out as far as it could reach, before coming off its rollers or was hydraulically limited. Test #2 Over the Front The load was held at a constant lift point and was extended to its maximum reach using both boom and stick until the machine either tipped (came off its rollers) or was hydraulically limited. Test #3 Over the Front The load was held at a constant lift point and was extended over the front using the boom, until the boom was hydraulically limited (stalled). Test #4 Over the Side The boom was pulled all the way up and the stick was then extended out as far as it could reach before coming off its rollers, or was hydraulically limited.

Lifting Tests Results

330C L Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Test #4 Load Height Distance Load Height Distance Load Height Distance Load Height Distance m (ft/in) m (ft/in) m (ft/in) m (ft/in) m (ft/in) m (ft/in) m (ft/in) m (ft/in) 5.97 (19'7") 8.05 (26'5") 2.51 (8'3") 9.96 (32'8") 2.49 (8'2") 8.81 (28'11") 2.59 (8'6") 7.67 (25'2")

330D L (Heavy-Lift On) 6.22 (20'5") 8.08 (26'6") 2.29 (7'6") 10.13 (33'3") 2.34 (7'8") 8.99 (29'6") 2.44 (8'0") 7.77 (25'6")

330D L (Heavy-Lift On) 8.26 (27'1") 6.83 (22'5") 2.29 (7'6") 10.9 (33'4") 2.34 (7'8") 9.86 (32'4") 2.44 (8'0") 7.77 (25'6")

Lift Chart Comparison

330D L vs. 330C L Lifting Capacities
330C L, Reach Boom, 3.9D Stick 800 mm Shoes 330D L, Reach Boom, 3.9D B Stick 800 mm Shoes, Heavy Lift ON Bucket Weight Equalized Lift Point Height 30 ft 25 ft 20 ft 15 ft 10 ft 5 ft Ground -5 ft -10 ft -15 ft -20 ft Load Radius 5.0 ft Front Side 10.0 ft Front Side 15.0 ft Front Side 20.0 ft Front Side 25.0 ft Front Side 30.0 ft Front Side Front 105% 105% 106% 105% 105% 105% 104% 104% 102% Max Reach Side 105% 105% 106% 101% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% ft 102% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101% 101%

106% 104% 102%

106% 104% 102%

113% 106% 104% 101% 109%

113% 106% 104% 101% 109%

102% 103% 104% 105% 105% 106% 109%

102% 101% 100% 99% 99% 99% 104%

103% 103% 104% 103% 104% 106% 112%

101% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 99%

103% 104% 104% 104% 100% 99% 99% 108%

103% 101% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99%

105% 104% 104% 100% 100% 99% 97%

100% 101% 101% 100% 100% 99% 97%

= Advantage for the 330D L = No Difference ( 1%) = Advantage for the 330C L

Lift Tests Summary

Due to the increased hydraulic pressure and the addition of the heavy lift, the 330D L is able to demonstrate better lift performance than the 330C L over-the-front. The 330D L also maintained the lift performance of the 330C L in over-the-side tests. The above chart is an overlay of the lift charts for each machine with the bucket weights equalized. Overall there is a 4% advantage in over-the-front and 2% in over-the-side lifting application. In the Key Working Range of ground line to 20 feet in the vertical direction and 10 to 30 feet in the horizontal direction, the 330D L has a 3% lift advantage over-the-front versus the 330C L.

Thousands 25

Over-Front Lifting Key Working Range

Thousands 15 Lift Capability (lb)

Over-Side Lifting Key Working Range

20 Lift Capability (lb)

15 19.8 (100%) 20.4 (103%) 21.2 (100%) 21.9 (104%)

10 15.3 (100%) 5 15.5 (101%) 15.8 (100%) 16.0 (102%)

10

5 330C L 3.9 m Stick 330D L 3.2 m Stick 0 330C L 3.9 m Stick 330D L 3.2 m Stick

Machine Specifications
Engine Horsepower kW (hp) Flow L/min (gal/min) 2 Weight kg (lb) Track Shoes mm (in) Stick Force kN (lb) SAE Bucket Force kN (lb) SAE Boom m (ft/in) Stick m (ft/in) Machine Hours Cat 330D L C9 with ACERT Technology 200 (268) 280 (74.0) 36 151 (79,700) 800 (32) 145.0 (32,597) 188.5 (42,376) 6.5 (21'4") 3.9 (12'10") 55 Cat 330C L C9 184 (247) 280 (74.0) 35 100 (77,400) 800 (32) 138.0 (30,900) 181.0 (40,600) 6.5 (21'4") 3.9 (12'10") 10

Cat 330D L/330C L Trenching Tests Bucket Heavy Duty 3 3 Capacity m (yd ) 1.41 (1.84) Tip Radius mm (in) 1779 (70.0) Width mm (in) 1219 (48.0) Weight kg (lb) 1395 (3,069) Truck Loading Tests Bucket Heavy Duty Capacity m3 (yd3) 1.87 (2.45) Tip Radius mm (in) 1779 (70.0) Width mm (in) 1524 (60) Weight kg (lb) 1620 (3,564)

Bucket Specifications

Technical Specification Comparison

330C L Engine Engine Model ISO 9249 SAE J1349 EEC 80/1269 Bore Stroke Displacement Emissions Operating Weight Fuel Tank Capacity Cooling System Engine Oil Swing Drive Final Drive (each) Hydraulic System (inclosed tank) Hydraulic Tank Main Implement System Max Flow (2) Maximum Pressure Implement Normal Max Pressure Implement Heavy Lift Pilot System Maximum Flow Pilot System Maximum Pressure Boom Cylinder Bore Boom Cylinder Stroke Stick Cylinder Bore Stick Cylinder Stroke D/DB Family Bucket Cylinder Bore D/DB Family Bucket Cylinder Stroke E/TB1 Family Bucket Cylinder Bore E/TB1 Family Bucket Cylinder Stroke kw (hp) kw (hp) kw (hp) mm (in) mm (in) L (in3) Weights kg (lb) 35 100 (77,400) Service Refill Capacities L (gal) L (gal) L (gal) L (gal) L (gal) L (gal) L (gal) Hydraulic System L/min (gal/min) MPa (psi) MPa (psi) L/min (gal/min) MPa (psi) mm (in) mm (in) mm (in) mm (in) mm (in) mm (in) mm (in) mm (in) 620 (163) 40 (10.5) 40 (10.5) 19 (5) 8 (2.1) 410 (108) 175 (46.2) 280 (74.0) 34.3 (4,980) N/A 36 (9.5) 4.12 (597) 150 (5.9) 1440 (56.6) 170 (6.69) 1738 (68.4) 150 (5.9) 1151 (45.3) 160 (6.3) 1356 (53.3) 36 151 (79,700) 620 (163) 40 (10.5) 40 (10.5) 19 (5) 8 (2.1) 410 (108) 175 (46.2) 280 (74.0) 35 (5,076) 36 (5,221) 43 (11.3) 3.9 (566) 150 (5.9) 1440 (56.6) 170 (6.69) 1738 (68.4) 150 (5.9) 1151 (45.3) 160 (6.3) 1356 (53.3) Cat C9 184 (247) 182 (244) 184 (247) 112 (4.4) 149 (5.86) 8.8 (537) Tier 2 C9 with ACERT Technology 200 (268) 188 (252) 200 (268) 112 (4.4) 149 (5.86) 8.8 (537) Tier 3 330D L

10

Technical Specification Comparison (continued)

330C L Drive Maximum Travel Speed Maximum Drawbar Pull Swing Speed Swing Torque Shipping Height Shipping Length Shipping Width (32" TG shoes) Tail Swing Radius Length to Center of Rollers Track Length Ground Clearance Track Gauge Maximum Reach @ Ground Level Maximum Digging Depth Minimum Loading Height Maximum Loading Height Maximum Vertical Wall Digging Depth Maximum Cutting Height Maximum Depth Cut for an 2.4 m (8 ft) Level Bottom kph (mph) kN (lb) Swing Mechanism rpm kNm (lb ft) Dimensions mm (ft in) mm (ft in) mm (ft in) mm (ft in) mm (ft in) mm (ft in) mm (ft in) mm (ft in) Working Ranges m (ft in) m (ft in) m (ft in) m (ft in) m (ft in) m (ft in) m (ft in) 5 (3.1) 294 (66,094) 10.2 rpm 108 (79,657) 3630 (11'11") 11 200 (36'9") 3390 (11'1") 3500 (11'6") 4040 (13'3") 5020 (16'6") 450 (1'6") 2590 (8'6") 11 640 (38'2") 8090 (26'7") 2010 (6'7") 7640 (25'1") 7350 (24'1") 10 810 (35'6") 7740 (25'5") 5 (3.1) 300 (67,442) 10.2 rpm 108.7 (80,142) 3630 (11'11") 11 200 (36'9") 3390 (11'1") 3500 (11'6") 4040 (13'3") 5020 (16'6") 450 (1'6") 2590 (8'6") 11 714 (38'5") 8185 (26'10") 1911 (6'3") 7542 (24'9") 7152 (23'6") 10 749 (35'3") 8052 (26'5") 330D L

11

Study Date Location Participants

November 2005

Peoria Proving Grounds East Peoria, IL

J. Shurts WLED Excavator Commercial Group M. Barden WLED Excavator Commercial Group T. Masayasu HEDC, Design Center D. Muller PPG Engineer

Written By Operator

J. Shurts WLED Excavator Commercial Group

R. Fauber Edwards Demonstration Center R. Hiett PPG Operator

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, ACERT, their respective logos, and Caterpillar Yellow, as well as corporate and product identity used herein, are trademarks of Caterpillar and may not be used without permission.

TEXR0431
January 2006 www.cat.com
2006 Caterpillar All Rights Reserved Printed in U.S.A.