Download - 330DL VS 330CL

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

1/12

Caterpillar Product Information

Performance ReportJanuary 2006

Cat 330D Lvs. Cat 330C L

For Dealer Sales Personnel

www.cat.com

A performance study was conducted at the Peoria Proving Groundsto 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.

Job Study Purpose

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

2/12

2

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 productivitytests. 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.

Results of Trenching Tests

330C L 330D L

GAL/HR

330C L 330D L

12.99 (95%)

0

Productivity Results

600

500

400

300

200

100

503.7

(100%)

539.9

(107%)

330C L 330D L

CYD/HR

Fuel Consumption

11.59

(100%)

12.93

(112%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fuel Efficiency

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

CYD/GAL

43.5

(100%)

41.8

(96%)

330C L 330D L

Deep Trench Cycle Times

16

7.44

14

12

10

8

6

4

20

2.76

1.38

2.762.62

1.48

2.62

6.8

13.61 (100%)

Load Lift & Swing Dump Swing Empty

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

3/12

3

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 trenchingover 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

50

45.0

(100%)

HD-P

Bucket Family

40

30

20

10

0

HD GP

Force(lb)

Thousands

Force(lb)

Thousands

46.9

(104%) 40.6

(100%)

42.4

(104%)38.1

(100%)

43.0

(113%)

330C L 330D L 330C L 330D L

HD-P

Bucket Family

HD GP

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

31.5

(100%)

33.2

(105%)30.9

(100%)

32.6

(105%)30.1

(100%)

32.8

(109%)

Stick Forces (SAE)

3.9 m Stick

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

4/12

4

Truck Loading Tests Results

Productivity Results

700

CYD/HR

667

(104%)

330C L 330D L

665

(100%)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Cycle Times

25

8.76

330C L

6.84

2.64

5.46 5.28

1.92

6.18

9.96

20

15

10

5

0

330D L

22.6 (100%) 22.4 (99%)


330D L Fuel Consumption

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Fuel Consumption (gal/hr)

15.52(100%)

7.53

(49%)

Loading Only Loading with Truck Wait Time

330C L Fuel Consumption

13.96(100%)

6.81

(49%)

14

12

10

86

4

2

0

Loading Only Loading with Truck Wait Time

Fuel Consumption (gal/hr)

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 highwayarticulated 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%

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

5/12

5

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

Loose Material

Loading

9.96

20

15

10

5

0

Hard-Bank Material

Loading

6.18

1.92

5.28 4.86

1.98

5.46

9.96

22.4 (100%) 21.2 (95%)


Loose Material

Loading

Hard-Bank Material

Loading


330C L Cycle Times Comparison

25

30

20

15

10

5

0

8.76

6.84

2.64

5.465.40

2.40

5.82

12.42

22.6 (100%) 25.0 (110%)

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

6/12

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

7/12

7

Lifting Tests ResultsTest DescriptionFour 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 measuredwere 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.

330D L 330D L330C L

(Heavy-Lift On) (Heavy-Lift On)

Test #1Load Height m (ft/in) 5.97 (19'7") 6.22 (20'5") 8.26 (27'1")

Distance m (ft/in) 8.05 (26'5") 8.08 (26'6") 6.83 (22'5")


Distance m (ft/in) 9.96 (32'8") 10.13 (33'3") 10.9 (33'4")


Distance m (ft/in) 8.81 (28'11") 8.99 (29'6") 9.86 (32'4")


Distance m (ft/in) 7.67 (25'2") 7.77 (25'6") 7.77 (25'6")

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

8/12

8

5.0 ft 10.0 ft 15.0 ft 20.0 ft 25.0 ft 30.0 ft Max Reach

Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side ft

105% 105% 102%

105% 105% 101%

103% 103% 105% 100% 106% 106% 101%

104% 101% 104% 101% 105% 101% 101%

102% 102% 103% 101% 104% 100% 104% 101% 105% 98% 101%

103% 101% 103% 100% 104% 100% 100% 100% 105% 98% 101%

113% 113% 104% 100% 104% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 104% 98% 101%

106% 106% 106% 106% 105% 99% 103% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 104% 98% 101%

104% 104% 104% 104% 105% 99% 104% 99% 99% 99% 97% 97% 102% 97% 101%

102% 102% 101% 101% 106% 99% 106% 99% 108% 99%109% 109% 109% 104% 112% 99%

= Advantage for the 330D L

= No Difference ( 1%)

= Advantage for the 330C L

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

-20 ft-15 ft

-10 ft

-5 ft

Load Radius

Lift Chart Comparison

Lift Tests Summary Due to the increased hydraulic pressure and the addition of theheavy 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 machinewith 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

LiftCapability(lb)

Over-Front Lifting

Key Working Range25

3.9 m Stick

19.8

(100%)

20

15

10

5

0

20.4

(103%)

21.2

(100%)

21.9

(104%)

3.2 m Stick

330C L 330D L

Over-Side Lifting

Key Working RangeThousands

3.9 m Stick

15.3

(100%)

15

10

5

0

3.2 m Stick

330C L 330D L

15.5

(101%)

15.8

(100%)

16.0

(102%)

LiftCapability(lb)

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

9/12

9

Machine Specifications

Cat 330D L Cat 330C L

Engine C9 with ACERT Technology C9

Horsepower kW (hp) 200 (268) 184 (247)

Flow L/min (gal/min) 2 280 (74.0) 280 (74.0)

Weight kg (lb) 36 151 (79,700) 35 100 (77,400)

Track Shoes mm (in) 800 (32) 800 (32)

Stick Force kN (lb) SAE 145.0 (32,597) 138.0 (30,900)

Bucket Force kN (lb) SAE 188.5 (42,376) 181.0 (40,600)

Boom m (ft/in) 6.5 (21'4") 6.5 (21'4")

Stick m (ft/in) 3.9 (12'10") 3.9 (12'10")

Machine Hours 55 10

Bucket SpecificationsCat 330D L/330C LTrenching Tests Bucket Heavy Duty

Capacity m3 (yd3) 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)

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

10/12

330C L 330D L

Engine

Engine Model Cat C9 C9 with

ACERT Technology

ISO 9249 kw (hp) 184 (247) 200 (268)

SAE J1349 kw (hp) 182 (244) 188 (252)

EEC 80/1269 kw (hp) 184 (247) 200 (268)

Bore mm (in) 112 (4.4) 112 (4.4)

Stroke mm (in) 149 (5.86) 149 (5.86)

Displacement L (in3) 8.8 (537) 8.8 (537)

Emissions Tier 2 Tier 3

Weights

Operating Weight kg (lb) 35 100 (77,400) 36 151 (79,700)

Service Refill Capacities

Fuel Tank Capacity L (gal) 620 (163) 620 (163)

Cooling System L (gal) 40 (10.5) 40 (10.5)

Engine Oil L (gal) 40 (10.5) 40 (10.5)

Swing Drive L (gal) 19 (5) 19 (5)

Final Drive (each) L (gal) 8 (2.1) 8 (2.1)

Hydraulic System (inclosed tank) L (gal) 410 (108) 410 (108)

Hydraulic Tank L (gal) 175 (46.2) 175 (46.2)

Hydraulic System

Main Implement System Max Flow (2 ) L/min (gal/min) 280 (74.0) 280 (74.0)

Maximum Pressure Implement Normal MPa (psi) 34.3 (4,980) 35 (5,076)

Max Pressure Implement Heavy Lift MPa (psi) N/A 36 (5,221)

Pilot System Maximum Flow L/min (gal/min) 36 (9.5) 43 (11.3)

Pilot System Maximum Pressure MPa (psi) 4.12 (597) 3.9 (566)

Boom Cylinder Bore mm (in) 150 (5.9) 150 (5.9)

Boom Cylinder Stroke mm (in) 1440 (56.6) 1440 (56.6)

Stick Cylinder Bore mm (in) 170 (6.69) 170 (6.69)

Stick Cylinder Stroke mm (in) 1738 (68.4) 1738 (68.4)

D/DB Family Bucket Cylinder Bore mm (in) 150 (5.9) 150 (5.9)

D/DB Family Bucket Cylinder Stroke mm (in) 1151 (45.3) 1151 (45.3)

E/TB1 Family Bucket Cylinder Bore mm (in) 160 (6.3) 160 (6.3)

E/TB1 Family Bucket Cylinder Stroke mm (in) 1356 (53.3) 1356 (53.3)

10

Technical SpecificationComparison

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

11/12

11

330C L 330D L

Drive

Maximum Travel Speed kph (mph) 5 (3.1) 5 (3.1)

Maximum Drawbar Pull kN (lb) 294 (66,094) 300 (67,442)

Swing Mechanism

Swing Speed rpm 10.2 rpm 10.2 rpm

Swing Torque kNm (lb ft) 108 (79,657) 108.7 (80,142)

Dimensions

Shipping Height mm (ft in) 3630 (11'11") 3630 (11'11")

Shipping Length mm (ft in) 11 200 (36'9") 11 200 (36'9")

Shipping Width (32" TG shoes) mm (ft in) 3390 (11'1") 3390 (11'1")

Tail Swing Radius mm (ft in) 3500 (11'6") 3500 (11'6")

Length to Center of Rollers mm (ft in) 4040 (13'3") 4040 (13'3")

Track Length mm (ft in) 5020 (16'6") 5020 (16'6")

Ground Clearance mm (ft in) 450 (1'6") 450 (1'6")

Track Gauge mm (ft in) 2590 (8'6") 2590 (8'6")

Working Ranges

Maximum Reach @ Ground Level m (ft in) 11 640 (38'2") 11 714 (38'5")

Maximum Digging Depth m (ft in) 8090 (26'7") 8185 (26'10")

Minimum Loading Height m (ft in) 2010 (6'7") 1911 (6'3")

Maximum Loading Height m (ft in) 7640 (25'1") 7542 (24'9")

Maximum Vertical Wall Digging Depth m (ft in) 7350 (24'1") 7152 (23'6")

Maximum Cutting Height m (ft in) 10 810 (35'6") 10 749 (35'3")

Maximum Depth Cut for an 2.4 m

(8 ft) Level Bottom m (ft in) 7740 (25'5") 8052 (26'5")

Technical SpecificationComparison (continued)

7/28/2019 330DL VS 330CL

12/12

TEXR0431January 2006

www.cat.com

2006 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 andis 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.

November 2005Study Date

Peoria Proving Grounds East Peoria, IL

Location

J. Shurts WLED Excavator Commercial Group

M. Barden WLED Excavator Commercial Group

T. Masayasu HEDC, Design Center

D. Muller PPG Engineer

Participants

J. Shurts WLED Excavator Commercial GroupWritten By

R. Fauber Edwards Demonstration Center

R. Hiett PPG OperatorOperator