Cat Product Information

Performance Report
July 2010

Cat 993K vs.

Komatsu WA900-3

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.

Study Purpose

The purpose of the study was to conduct economic analysis of

current fleet, 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.

Study Dates

April 12 15, 2010

Field Data By

Randy Aneloski
Tom Grill
Reed Garretts
Jamie Wintzel
Bill Olsen
Kent Clifton

Location

Gold mine in Nevada, USA. Altitude was approximately

1280 m (4,200 ft).

Written By

Randy Aneloski

Weather Conditions

Temperatures ranged from 1 C to 21 C (35 F to 70 F).

Dry Conditions.

Tested Units

Cat 993K (Mine Owned field follow)

Komatsu WA900-3 (Mine Owned)

Material

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).

Scale System

The scale system used for this test was the Cat THDAC set
of Transcale AS300 weigh system.

Calibration Date

March 2009

Business Unit

This study was completed by Cat Global Mining with

assistance from QSID, Cashman Equipment and Cat Product
Development COE.

Cat Global Mining

Cat QSID
Tucson Proving Grounds
Cat Global Mining
Tinaja Hills DAC
Cat Global Mining

CGM

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.

Key Findings

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).

Executive Summary

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.

Machine Comparison
Model
Serial Number
Unit Number
Hours
Tires
Front
Rear
Year Manufactured
Engine
Model
Manufacturer
Rated Engine RPM
Displacement
Cylinders
Hp Rated
Hp/L

993K High Lift

LWA00426
n/a
20,800

WA900-3 High Lift

n/a
n/a
18,000

Bridgestone 50/65-51 62PR L5

Bridgestone 50/65-51 62PR L5
2006

Bridgestone 45/65-45 58PR L5

Bridgestone 45/65-45 58PR L5
2006

C32 ACERT Tier 2

Caterpillar
1900
32.1 L (1,959 in3)
12
708 kW (950 hp)
29.4 hp/L

Transmission
Forward Gears
Reverse Gears
Top Speed

Cat
3
3
22.1 km/h (13.7 mph) CD

Komatsu
3
3
28 km/h (17.4 mph)

Bucket
Bucket Capacity
Additional Options
Spec Sheet Weight Estimate

High Abrasion Spade Rock

SAE 2:1 13 m3 (17 yd3)
Fire Suppression
135 586 kg (298,968 lb)

SAE 2:1 13 m3 (17 yd3)

ASR, ASRC, Exhaust Brake
107 350 kg (236,670 lb)

Scale Actual

137 212 kg (302,500 lb)

n/a

Fuel Level

100%

n/a

Cummins

12

Machine Weight as Configured

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.

Test Procedure

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.

Fuel Consumption and

Measurement

Payload Measurement

Truck payload information was collected using portable

scale system from Tinaja Hills, the certified 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%.

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.

Cycle Times

Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by Study

Segment #1

Test Results

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 flowing and very
consistent in fracture size. The operator was very efficient
and fluid in his movements. The loading floor was hard
packed and flat.
Excellent truck queuing and spotting was observed consistently.
This operation in the loading area should be considered
World Class.

Test Results (continued)

Cycle Segment
Load/Dig
Travel Loaded
Dump
Travel Empty
Total
Truck Loading
Average Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons)
Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons)
Truck Exchange Time Minutes
Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour)
Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck
Exchange Time
Fuel Consumption
L/hr (Gal/hr)
Tonnes/L (Tons/gal)

Cycle time
minutes
0.114
0.161
0.075
0.12
0.47
21.65 (23.86)
129.85 (143.14)
0.79
2278.1
(2,511.15)
2489.22
(2,743.9)
143.09 (37.8)
15.92 (66.4)

Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by Study

Segment #2

Test Results (continued)

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
flowing and very consistent in fracture size. The operator was
very efficient and fluid in his movements. The loading floor was
hard packed and flat.
Cycle Segment
Load/Dig
Travel Loaded
Dump
Travel Empty
Total
Truck Loading
Average Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons)
Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons)
Truck Exchange Time Minutes
Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour)
Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck
Exchange Time
Fuel Consumption
L/hr (Gal/hr)
Tonnes/L (Tons/gal)

Cycle time
minutes
0.158
0.075
0.12
0.119
0.472
23.2 (25.57)
139.2 (153.44)
0.66
2702.87
(2,979.4)
n/a

158.61 (41.9)
17.04 (71.1)

Test Results (continued)

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 floor was hard packed
and flat. 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
Load/Dig
Travel Loaded
Dump
Travel Empty
Total
Truck Loading
Average Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons)
Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons)
Truck Exchange Time Minutes
Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour)
Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck
Exchange Time
Fuel Consumption
L/hr (Gal/hr)
Tonnes/L (Tons/gal)

10

Cycle time
minutes
0.167
0.075
0.121
0.103
0.466
24.0 (26.45)
144.0 (158.71)
2.61
2015.76 (2,222)
2601.35
(2,867.5)
151.04 (39.9)
13.35 (55.7)

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.

Operator Comments

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
configured 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. Difficult 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 fill 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).

Conclusion

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.

11

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.

TEXR0154
July 2010
www.cat.com
2010 Caterpillar
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.