Caterpillar Product Information

Performance Report
November 2008

Cat 992G
vs.
Cat 993K

Study Purpose

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

Study Date

October 14-16, 2008

Participants

Tom Grill, Caterpillar Inc.

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

Location

Quarry (customer location), Western United States

Written by

Tom Grill, Caterpillar Inc.

For Dealer Sales Personnel

www. cat.com

Machine Specifications
CAT 992G

Cat 993K

kW (hp)
rpm

Cat 3508B
656 (880)
1750

Cat C32 ACERT

782 (1050)
1900

kW (hp)
rpm

597 (800)
1750

708 (950)
1900

Operating Weight kg (lb)

99 116 (218,513)

134 469 (296,505)

Linkage

High Lift

High Lift

13 (17)

14.5 (19)

Bucket Type

Spade Edge Rock

Spade Edge Rock

Tires

45/65 R45
Michelin

50/65 R51
Michelin

Machine Hours

32, 570*

209

Engine Type
Gross Power

Net Power

Bucket Size

m (yd)

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

Job Description

The job study was performed at a customer quarry located in the Western
United States. The test were conducted with the customers normal operators.
Three different tests were completed in two different materials. The first test
was done in overburden material and the machine was operated by the first shift
operator. The second test was done in the same material with the second shift
operator. In the first and second test, each operater worked in the same face to
ensure consistency of material for both tests. The third test was done in
limestone 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 cubic
yard). It should be noted that the overburden density was very similar to the
limestone, however is considered too low of quality for utilization.
Fuel measurements were recorded with Burn Rate Meters provided by
Caterpillar. Note picture to the left of the burn rate meter. Loader cycle times
were recorded with a laptop computer and weight of the trucks were recorded
with a Caterpillar scale truck.

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

Test 1 Summary
The first test was in the overburden material with the first shift
operator. The results look at production based on average loader
cycle time and average bucket payload. This test does not include
delays such as truck transfer time, cleanup, etc.
992G

993K

tonnes/hr

1395

1749

tons/hr

1538

1928

Productivity

993K Advantage

25%

Fuel Consumption
litres/hr

121

143

gallons/hr

32

38

993K Disadvantage

9%

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

Test 1 Summary
992G

993K

tonnes/litre

10.2

11.1

tons/gallon

42.4

46.2

Fuel Efficiency

993K Advantage

17%

Cycle Times
Minutes
993K Advantage

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

.809

.796
2%

Test 1 Summary
992G

993K

tonnes

18.8

23.2

tons

20.7

25.6

Average Bucket Load

993K Advantage

24%

Average Bucket Fill Factor

Percentage

92%

102%

Important Note: Any results within 3% for productivity (tons/hr) and fuel
efficiency (tons/liter) are considered equal within the accuracy

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

Test 2 Summary
The second test was in the overburden material with the second
shift operator. The results look at production based on average
loader cycle time and average bucket payload. This test does not
include delays such as truck transfer time, cleanup, etc.
992G

993K

tonnes/hr

1449

1754

tons/hr

1597

1935

Productivity

993K Advantage

21%

Fuel Consumption
litres/hr

121

136

gallons/hr

32.1

36.4

993K Disadvantage

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

13%

Test 2 Summary
992G

993K

tonnes/litre

11.2

12

tons/gallon

46.7

50

Fuel Efficiency

993K Advantage

7%

Cycle Times
Minutes
993K Disadvantage

.715

.729
2%

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

Test 2 Summary
992G

993K

17.3

21.3

19

23.5

Average Bucket Load

tonnes
tons
993K Advantage

24%

Average Bucket Fill Factor

Percentage

83%

92%

Important Note: Any results within 3% for productivity (tons/hr) and fuel
efficiency (tons/liter) are considered equal within the accuracy

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

Test 3 Summary
This final test was in the limestone material and due to the jobsite
scheduling was done with the second shift operator. The results
look at production based on average loader cycle time and average
bucket payload. This test does not include delays such as truck
transfer time, cleanup, etc.
992G

993K

tonnes/hr

1651

2050

tons/hr

1820

2260

Productivity

993K Advantage

24%

Fuel Consumption
litres/hr

110

117

gallons/hr

29

31

993K Disadvantage

6%

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

Test 3 Summary
992G

993K

tonnes/litre

11

11.4

tons/gallon

46.2

47.7

Fuel Efficiency

993K Advantage

3%

Cycle Times
Minutes
993K Disadvantage

10

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

.674

.671

less than 1/2 percentage point

Test 3 Summary
992G

993K

tonnes

18.5

23

tons

20.4

25.3

Average Bucket Load

993K Advantage

24%

Average Bucket Fill Factor

Percentage

91%

100%

Important Note: Any results within 3% for productivity (tons/hr) and fuel
efficiency (tons/liter) are considered equal within the accuracy

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

11

Observations

992G Truck Bed Load

993K Truck Bed Load

12

In Test 1, with the first shift operator, the 992G is an eight pass
match versus the 993K which did six passes per truck. The cycle
times observed on both loaders would be considered high and
result in less production. One would think the higher cycle times
on the 993K is associated with just a couple weeks onsite and
limited operation. However, high cycle times were seen on both
machines.
Through training techniques, a reduction in 993K cycling times
from .796 minutes to .65 (8.7 seconds) would result in additional
433 tons moved an hour. There are two areas in the cycle that the
customer received training on to assist in the reduction, bucket
loading and travel to the truck with a loaded bucket.
In this test, the operator was observed to be loading the bucket
after it was full. This is a very easy way to add an additional two to
three seconds in this segment of the cycle. Another issue noticed
was the travel from the face to the truck. During the test, the
operator would not raise the bucket until he backed away from he
face and started moving towards the truck, resulting in a wait for
the linkage to clear the truck rail. Raising the bucket as you back
away from the face will significantly reduce travel time and make
dumping smoother. Note, linkage should be high enough to clear
the rail so you can begin dumping as you approach the truck. This
is especially important for the location of this test due to having
785s with high sides.
Another issues seen when running Test 1 was the inconsistency of
the truck spotting. Proper truck spotting would be roughly a 45
degree angle to the face with the truck backed up so the rear tires
are almost touching the face. The loader should work in the area
of the face by approximately two bucket widths. Following these
guidelines the wheel loader will travel no more than 1
revolutions of the tires.
Finally, due to the reach capabilities of the 992G, the operator had
difficulty centering the load on the trucks. This can result in a
truck having overloads on one side of the truck bed causing uneven
distribution load on the truck tires.
In test 2, similar issues were seen with cycle times and inconsistent
truck spotting. The second shift operator did a little better on
raising the bucket in the travel loaded part of the cycle.
The third test was done in limestone. The material was shot on a
40 foot bench and was well fractured with very little oversize
material. The 993K had more loads toward the back of the shot
where the digging is tougher. The 992G had a mix of seven to
eight pass per truck versus the 993K doing six passes. Note, one
time the 993K did do a seven pass to the 785.

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

In summary, key areas of improvement for this customer jobsite

and potentially for your customers job sites are as follows:

Observations

For correct truck spotting, the truck should be angled 45

degrees to the face.
Monitor bucket load time to ensure you are not adding
two or three seconds to loading a bucket that is already
full.
Engage lift as you are backing away from the face. On
this site it is critical to cycle time when loading the 785s
with the high body sides. Note, ideally you should have
your linkage high enough so that you can begin
dumping as you approach the truck.
When possible, work the face from left to right. By
doing this you always have a place to spot the truck.
Trucks should always try to do a good job of getting into
position to load quicker. This can be a time saver.
Make sure to spot the truck with a bucket that is as full
as possible.

As seen in initial field follow data, the 993K outperforms the 992G
in production on an average of over 20%. When it came to fuel
consumption (fuel burn), the 993K on the average consumed
around 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 993K
advantage is due to higher lift force, greater breakout and increased
rimpull over the 992G. In conclusion, this test assisted the customer
in giving them training techniques to improve production and
validated the performance of the 993K over the 992G. This further
assists you when specing a wheel loader to your jobsite to
understand the capabilities and pass match for the 993K.

Performance Report Cat 992G vs. 993K

Conclusion

13

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, 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.
TEXR0488
www.CAT.com
2008 Caterpillar
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.