Does Cat govern there rental loaders? The reason i ask is we have a 980H rental at work while one of our loaders is down, And it is a DOG! It barely holds 1500 rpm in a full stall. Anyone have anything to add?
Komatsukid, First of all......there really isn't a way to govern equipment these days unless there are different "power" modes like the Komatsu loaders. If a dealer were even able to go in a change the power ratings of the engines (which I 99% sure they can't touch the ECU's) they would be opening themselves up for HUGE litigation from the EPA and/or other state agencies. Now that I have that out of the way....there seems to be a wide tolerance on 980H performance out there. Across the board I would say that most customers have been dissappointed when coming from their G's and GII's in terms of both fuel consumption and performance. I have talked with numerous operators and customers that have said that the 980H is a "fuel sucking monster" and had similar complaints on power. The transmission shift quality is another area that there seems to be quite a variance. We rented a low hour late model 980H a while back and the transmission shifted worse than our 980GII. We called the dealer to come out and look at it. He ran all his tests, shrugged his shoulders and said "Yeah its the nature of the beast. Some of these things shift real good and others don't. It just depends on the machine that you get." From what you discribe and without being on the machine to see myself, I would say that what you experienced is probably "normal". Especially if you are coming off a 980G/GII, WA500-3/6 or 844J. At least this has been my experience with the 980H. In my opinion it is the most out dated machine in the size class. It has the most out of date hydraulic system (open center with gear pumps), it has the lowest horsepower out of all its competitors (315HP) and probably the second worst fuel consumption. But yet they are pumping them out the door in Peroria as fast as they can. I don't get it.:beatsme
What can I say, some people will buy anything at all as long as it says Cat on it somewhere. I'd have to be honest and say I haven't any experience with newer mid size Cats, but I do have time on newer mid size Komatsus, and I'd be leaning pretty heavily towards one of those. One of our contractors ran 980Gs exclusively. They were due for upgrade and got a new 980H, then they got a WA500 and a WA450. I have heard they have two more WA500s on order.
Aurora.
1500 is just about spec in a double stall.
i cant belive people are buying this machine. 1500 rpm might be the spec for a full stall but that just dont cut it digging in a stoney natural bank. i am disappointed I expected alot more from Cat. My boss fed our crusher with it today and I laped him with our 988b. thats sorry.
Correct torque converter stall for the 980H is 1990 plus or minus 65 rpm in forth gear. I don't remember ever seeing Cat give a specification of full stall on any of their machines. When I do a full stall on these machines I usually figure about no more than 500 rpm drop from high idle. It is stated the subject machine is a rental. The full stall stated is probably low and warrants a further check of things like fuel filters, air filter and maybe deeper in checking turbo boost. Possibly the mechanic that worked on the machine did not look close enough. I have worked on both WA500-3 and 980G and H machines and haven't seen a lot of difference in performance. Most of WA500 machines I've worked on used the SA6D140 Komatsu engine which used a considerable amount of fuel but had plenty of power and performance. I have also worked on the machines with Cummins engines and wouldn't have one if it was given to me. They had no torque and gave considerable problems with keeping them running. Both machines are the top of their class. The only point I have one way or the other is that there are far more old 980 Cats than there will ever be old WA500 Komatsu loaders. I have several 980 G Cats in my area that have in excess of 20,000 hours with no component rebuilds. I have never seen a WA500 Komatsu in that range that had not at least gone through an engine. Komatsu has ruined the market for rebuildability of their machines through their parts prices and the fact that they have no resale value. If the current Komatsu is that much better than the current Cat, that might change. I won't hold my breath.
ok ok....you got me there I was speaking more metaphorically though:cool2 To be fair to those on here that think that I am just Cat bashing again...I will give credit where credit is due. I have spent time on the 966H and there have been some significant improvements made to it over the GII. Remember thought that the 980H is the only production class H series loader that didn't get a PCLS hydraulic system with piston pumps. This really contributes to its poor performance (fuel and engine pull down). Based on first hand knowledge and feedback from others I can say that the two best performing 7 cu yd loaders on the market today is the 844J and the WA500-6. The new Komatsu is a hoss of a loader but she got a little heavy with the -6 series. Nothing is free and although the loader is rock solid with good stability all that extra weight makes it pretty thirsty at the pump. I believe that if an equipment manager is looking at a machine to buy, rent, lease etc all factors of the machine performance should be taken into consideration. This includes productivity, easy of maintenance, O&O costs, dealer/manufacturer support, operator comfort etc etc. Taken everything into consideration the 844J looks pretty attractive. OK...I'll step down from my soapbox now.
Both machines are the top of their class. The only point I have one way or the other is that there are far more old 980 Cats than there will ever be old WA500 Komatsu loaders. I have several 980 G Cats in my area that have in excess of 20,000 hours with no component rebuilds. I have never seen a WA500 Komatsu in that range that had not at least gone through an engine. Komatsu has ruined the market for rebuildability of their machines through their parts prices and the fact that they have no resale value. If the current Komatsu is that much better than the current Cat, that might change. I won't hold my breath.[/QUOTE] the company i work for has 3 WA500-3 they all have over 20,000 hours, no tranny or major engine work yet
I agree. Although I havn't tried a 980 or wa500, I did however use a 844J. Within those few minutes I was on it, I fell in love. I was a beautiful machine in every way shape and form. Not to mention I fell that John Deere has the best color schemes, and best looking machines out there. I honestly fell the look of cats to be boring, but anything past the 980 is beautiful
Field Mechanic, Congratulations on the high hour WA500s. Which engines are installed in them? Now what do you think you'll get for a trade value when it's time for new ones? I don't have any experience with the larger Deere wheel loaders and there are a few showing up around here. The older Deere wheel loaders I have looked at have all had center hitch problems. I don't know where they were at as far as actual operating hours but from my experience it seemed to be the primary reason for selling them off. That "J" series looks like a well thought out machine and I would like to see them become a bigger competitor.
Interesting topic of discussion and I feel it has a lot of educational value since you guys run these machines on a daily basis. Reliability is a key point since without it you are out of a job and no reason to get up in the morning. I do have a question about full stall RPM? I'm trying to get a picture of this since it has been many years since I've run loaders. I have operated a WA380 and I liked it very much, and it was much nicer than the old 920/930's I operated back in the mid-80's.
When we stall test loaders we bring the engine to its high idle roll the bucket back to the curled position and hold the lever back, Note the rpm under load. then we depress the brake and shift the machine into foward(Keeping the machine in second gear) Again watching for rev loss, Smoke, etc. In a full stall our machines hold 2000 to 2100 rpm.
Stall tests are done on machines with torque converters which give an indication of how much horsepower the engine is putting out. A hydraulic stall is as described by komatsukid and is an indication of the efficiency of the hydraulic system. A full stall is when both the torque converter and the hydraulics are stalled out at the same time. As mentioned earlier in this thread, many wheel loaders are using variable displacement piston pumps to run the hydraulic systems now. In those systems the pumps are destroked when they reach a specified flow and pressure in the system so stalling one of these systems tells you nothing. These types of systems make more efficient use of the horsepower being drawn off the engine for the up side. On the down side, piston pumps are far more expensive to purchase and usually involve specific valves and engineering that add to the initial purchase price of the machine. All this also adds weight which burns more fuel moving it around. It has been years since I worked for the Komatsu dealer but all the wheel loaders back then were stall tested in third gear. All those loaders also used gear pumps with aluminum bodies which have a finite number of pressure cycles they can go through. As I recall the Komatsu SA6D140 engines in those loaders had a high idle of 2,100 and a full stall of approximately 1,550 rpm. A full stall of 2,000 rpm tells me that the test is being done wrong or there is a problem with the machine. Perhaps someone might have the factory specifications and instructions on how that test is supposed to be run.
why would the test be done in third gear? wheel loaders are made to dig in second gear because wheel torque and hydraluic speed are better controled. third gear is a travel gear and wont simulate the machine digging.
They are done in third gear if the manufacturer specifies it to be done in third gear. From my experience with wheel loaders, the brakes are supposed to just be able to hold the machine in second gear if they are working perfectly. If they are not working perfectly, the amount of torque being generated might allow the machine to move unexpectedly creating an unsafe condition. Sorry, I'm rambling but I hope you get the idea. Good Night
John C. is correct-- the stall is done in third due to safety concerns. It might hold the machine in second with the brakes, but its also a lot harder on the components. The results as far as engine performance will be the same regardless of whether your in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. The rpms from a stall test can tell you a lot more than just hp; The performance of the torque converter can affect it. On the other subject.... I haven't seen any j series deere loaders around yet, I'm anxious to see some in our area. I think they have come a long way in the right direction. There have been some WA450s a contractor had here working. When i talked to the owner, they said that they had horrible trouble with part failures and maintenance cost. Working for the dealer now, We have quite a few 980G and G II's running around with high hours. We did a certified rebuild last month on a 980G II with 37000 hrs on it. The 980H's are starting to populate now. We have many in the rental fleet now and they have had trouble with air cleaners and fuel quality. No one quite likes them as well as the 972H or 966H, but they're a different animal. I think the difference is in the rebuildability and the service behind the product. That's where the Komatsu's fall off. I'm a Cat fan obviously, but I'm open to other great products out there- I'd like to see more of the j series Deere running around.
Oh so that is a stall test!! Wow we'd pretty much do that everytime we loaded out materials in the 920/930. I mean it wasn't maybe to that stress level but very similiar to regular ops. Nowdays with the computers I would think you could use trend analysis to find the operations of all systems and use the stall test would be a back up check of the system as a last resort to trouble checking since i seems pointless IMO from what I'm reading. Although I could be mistaken about the reason and how effective this test is.
Life of a loader Have a friend that has a JD and Komat. Bought both of them because they were cheaper than the 980's. Well they are 2 years old and say they are about wore out. Will trade after this season and go back to the Cats. Also has a parts problem with them-imagine that. Just a lesson for him buying price over quality.
i can't say alot on the 980's never have ran one, but we have a wa500-3lk (8700 hrs) and have very minor problems with it. its a long boom we use it to load a 769d and terex tr35. its our pit machine but the operator is very good that runs it. We bought it because it was 15% cheaper than an used cat. We are not overly brand loyal, we ran michigans, deeres, komastu's, and now have a cat 972h. The cat is an ok machine, but it has slower ground speeds, hyd's, and cycles than the 744h mh it replaced, not to mention it uses more fuel. We had 2 744h mh's (now 824j) first one was excellent didn't do anything to it, the second one was a giant turd. We demoed a wa480 and 972h the 480 was slower than cat, money was about the same, so we got the cat. Needless to say next time we will look at the deere again. For the most part everyone makes a good machine, there are some lemons (and we got one), but alot of it has to do with the operator. If you have an guy that has only ran cats he'll want a cat, same with the other brands. Loaders are kinda like pickups, a ford guy won't own a chevy and a chevy guy won't own a ford. then there is us crazy's that drive mopars.
We have a brand new 980H at the pulp mill I work at. Very nice, it's replacing a 1990 980?. The new machine drives very nice, quiet and lots of power. We have the 1/2 steering wheel in it. It's much easier on the shoulders. We use it in the bark pile, 18yrd bucket, works great for us. AK
Aweful, What mill are you at, Nackawick?
AV Cell (the sister mill) Atholville.
View attachment loader2.bmp View attachment loader.bmp Here is our 980H when it was brand new. Thats me standing there, I'm 6ft 2in tall. It's a big bucket, we use it in the bark pile.
Could have used it this winter to shovel yer driveway
Just as farm boy has said, there seems to be a wide varience in the way the new H's run. A local contractor I hauled for here replaced some 980 G's with new H's. The operators say they don't have the power but they said the fuel consumption was way better. They also told me they were more comfortable in the cab. But part of the power problem may be that all the old G's were tuned up a bit, and when they complained about the H's, the local Cat dealer would not crank up the H's. Said their hands are tied with those new Acert motors, due to warranty and emmisions. The operators also found they had better power if you lugged them down a bit and not charged the bank with the pedal to the floor? How does the fuel consumption compare between the JD and the Cat? I was recently talking to a sales rep from a company that makes grinders for bark and hog fuel. They use both Cat and JD power. He said the Cats have a little more power (in the 500h.p. class) but he said the JD's use way less fuel. He did also say the new JD's they just started using have closed the power gap since last year.
Deere doesn't have a loader in the 500 HP class, unless he's testing a prototype.
That's how a loader should be properly run. If you're charging the pile hoping to fill the bucket only with ground speed built up, you'd get tossed off a job real quick around here. When you charge the pile, you're bashing on the machine, you'll probably spin the tires once you hit it, and you're not using the machine efficiently via the hydraulics. We also know that peak torque is typically made below full RPM, so flooring it for the most power usually isn't the answer, however engine management systems have changed a lot so I suppose it depends on how new the machine you're running is. I know you're not running the loader, sorry for hassling you, I just thought I should point out that what you're saying makes sense.
I know. That's why I said I was talking to a guy from a grinder manufacturer. I just wanted to know if the same was true for the equipment regarding fuel useage. I've ran lots of Cat's but no seat time in the new JD's.
True, but do you find the new Cat equipment with Acert power have a "sweet spot" on the fuel pedal? The way that operator was explaining it to me, it was kind of like how my truck is. I have an Acert in my Paystar and I find if you floor the pedal and try to drive it hard, it will not impress you. But if you feather the throttle and keep the RPM's low, it will pull till the cows come home. I just wonder if the new loaders are like that.
Haha -- I can't read. Oh boy. ointhead
Hey Tigerotor77, I reread my reply to you and wow, it kind of sounds sarcastic. Sorry, didn't mean it like that. I kinda confused the situation referring to the grinders, but was just making the comparison to see if the same holds true with the loaders.:drinkup Be cool to see a 500 h.p. JD loader though
No no! I didn't take it that way at all. I was just being an idiot the first time around and didn't read the post the way it was typed. No harm done at all and certainly no offense taken... so back to business as usual!
i have a 980H and having a ride control problem. the bucket is droping when it is auto can drop many feet when loaded. only does it when in auto not in manual or off. can anyone help
check the electrical solenoid for ride control and also the check valve both are located on the front frame,access from under loader behind front axle check valve is inline with one of the hoses 15/16 wrench size
we've rebuilt all the valves changes all solnoids and acc. still no luck were stumped any ideas will help
where is the check valve
So then if you have cleaned and removed corrosion from the pin connectors and also checked to see if any pins are broken/bent or pushed back into the connector? Then it could be a software anomaly if a program runs the ride control. Hopefully it is under warranty?