Hello all, I've been looking at these machines http://www.ironplanet.com/for-sale/...rm=msg=15611,kwtag=auctioncarousel&pnLink=yes for a time now and having owned a 988B loader for 8+ years in the past, we are in the market for one or two B and F series right now. What concerns me with Gov (DOD) spec equipment is the arrangement specs. For example... The transmission for a 988B/DV43 Container Handler may be different than a civilian industry spec machine. The front end of a container handler can be removed / replaced with a front end frame to receive Boom and bucket to convert to a front end loader. I have access to very cheap front ends and frames to convert together with hydraulic pumps / valves / etc.. Cat already makes the 988 models such as wheeled push dozers, soil / landfill compactors etc..so my question is, what is the obvious obstacles for such a conversion from a military spec... from a civilian spec... 988 Wheeled push dozer / landfill compactor etc.. to convert to a front end loader. Happy Thanksgiving all
I think you could be buying a Money Pit. You could likely get a great machine but only if you want to do container handling, I think you would need a loader front frame half and a used one will be well used needing some restoration to the bores. My thoughts only. Later Bob
Main difference, in the specs ability to operate in 5 feet of sea water. We did build a prototype 475 as a bid machine, but it was too big, more like a 992 size, price was too high. too compete. 275 would take too much modification too meet specs and be in price range. required water proof axle and trans and lower pins and bushings and remote breathers which we now offer as options. Not sure if we could have modified the front frame to work or build a new one. would have be a high volume to make it a profitable project, including factory expansion.
earthwork - Thanks for that link, lots of great machines, I was expecting to see an Abrams tank, but didn't happen -
Do you have a Cat Serial Number for that 988B..? It may be possible to look in the Cat systems to see how it was set up when it left the factory. Never having seen one of these before it's quite possible that the conversion from loader to container handler was done by a 3rd party on behalf of the US Military. Edit: Found Serial Numbers looking through the photos. Machine Serial Number 62Y00266 registers nothing, no 62Y S/N prefix exists on the system. The engine 48W16294 appears at first sight to be a standard 3408 for a 988B but the engine Arrangement Number is weird and does not exist. The transmission S/N 2MA02878 is a standard 988B transmission, it falls in the 2MA1-99999 S/N range of a 3P-9094 Transmission Arrangement. I'll do a bit more digging in the Machine Arrangement and engine arrangement and let you know what I find.
Well the 5R-4350 Machine Arrangement shown alongside the Machine Serial Number does exist and I can see a breakdown of it. Contrary to what I thought previously the whole thing was manufactured by Cat, or so it seems. At the Group level some of them appear in the system but only those that are common with a 988B or anything else. None of the 5R-xxxx numbers appear on the syste in as much as I can't find illustrated parts diagrams for them. The torque converter is 5R-4358 which is a special. It has a lockup clutch and a freewheel stator installed. The Power Train oil lines and PT cooler oil lines are also specials. Also the 5R-4402 Engine Arrangement exists and I can see the breakdown of that also. However comparing the 5R-4402 to an 8N-1843 Engine Arrangement that would have been installed in a 988B of the 1983 era when this machine was built the rods/pistons and the turbo are different (among others) and I can't for the life of me figure out why unless the engine in the container handler has a lot more HP than the standard loader engine. Here's the major kicker. Both the 5R-4414 rear chassis and the 5R-4425 front chasis are specials and so are obviously different to a 988B.
Could be all the wiring and lower pins and bushings have to be corossive preventive, we had to do all that to meet specs, similar to machines going into fertilizer plants. That would create new part numbers for complete frames for build sheets, along with different pin locations for front hoist attachment.
Oldseabee did you take part in building some specialized machines like that? Where I used to work they had two rear wheel steer Michigans that were ex gov't that could lift 40k. They were as big or bigger than a 988b. On the 988b subject about two years ago they cut up more than a dozen of those container handlers for scrap and sold a lot of the big parts for 988 spares.
Corrosion prevention alone would not cause the frame to be a new Part Number. As for wiring, that's in a separate group and not part of the frame, as are the centre hitch pins/bearings and also the rear axle articulation. I dug a bit deeper. The 5R-4414 rear chassis is actually a modified 1V-4939 which is the standard rear chassis from a 988B of S/N 50W1-6040. The parts involved in the modification lead me to believe that it may be something to do with additional support for the large counterweights on the rear bumper both sides of the radiator cowl that can be seen in one of the photos. The 5R-4425 front chassis is most definitely not a modified 7V-0065 standard front chassis. It shares a few common parts but they are limited to bosses, gussets, and brackets. The main plates of the frame, including significantly the lift lower cylinder mountings, are different. I also took a look at the front chassis of the 834B wheel dozer and the 5R-4425 is not a modified version of that frame either.
Hey Nige, great info and appreciate your investigation. We did some research back a few months ago and I found an article http://www.military-today.com/engineering/caterpillar_rtch.htm explaining how Cat modified the 988B slightly to receive the container forklift arrangement by replacing the front end frame of the 988B - 988 F series loaders to receive the forklift arrangement for DOD spec. they went on to sell the DOD hundreds of these 988B units starting in 1981 to 1985 and also 988 F series 2 models in 1997 which they ..DOD.. have the 2ZR s/n prefix, which is the same as the civilian models we use today. What caught my attention with these DOD spec machines was when we had Cat rebuild our 988B back in 2004 , and we walked into the shop to see the unit split in two with the rear main frame separated form the front loader frame. That experience back then lead me to my current way of thinking of splitting the DOD spec machine that the article above states "Basically the RTCH it is a modified commercial Caterpillar 988B wheeled loader without lifting arms and bucket, mated with a forklift mast." So my mind says this. Convert the unit back to its original form from which it came. The question is...... The arrangement/ parts s/n to repair / replace as needed. Nige is on the trail of that question and we are eternally grateful. Asking Cat this question will get us a flurry of answers and quotes. They will nudge us towards a new machine at 1 million plus with a wink and nod. Us small guys have to be creative and complete / compete with the boys with unlimited funds / contacts. We have been very successful and will continue to do so. Nige you know your stuff. And all others who have commented I hear your concerns and take note. For now, overworked, tired, and going to bed. Love this forum G' Night
Yes desertwheeler, I worked in the engineering labs both in the forestry lab in St. Thomas, Ontario and the construction equipment lab in Benton Harbor, Mi., where we built the first 675 Michigans and a prototype 475 container handler for bid to the Army, we also built a front end and several attachments that coupled up to the front end and the were parachute dropable and could be assembled on the ground and each attachment hooked up with a large ring gear and quick connect hydraulics and wiring. In Canada we built skidder prototypes, a tree harvester and the World's largest skidder, the 880, with a 13.5 foot tilt dozer blade in front and a 12 foot anchor blade at the rear to drop when winching in with the Carco G80 winch. Part of my job was to field test the new products and make field mods to make them work better and last longer. I did supervise setting up one of the first 675 24 yard loaders at Drummond Coal in Jasper, Al., it came in on 9 tractor trailers. Went from there to field rep in The South West, then moved to Atlanta in '78 to take over the South East territory from East Texas to Florida. I really enjoyed the challenging work, Then Volvo partnered with Clark to introduce the Artic Dump trucks to the US market. In '93 Volvo, laid off most of us old hands, I had 23 years service. from a grinder in the St. Thomas factory to a District Manager in the Southeast. Went back to Active duty for special work, fixing up equipment from Desert Storm where were deployed for 4,1/2 months. Then went to work as National Service Manager for Bell Equipment in '94. Retired in 2003.
W Do you have any info or pictures on the 880 skidder. It interests me very much.
Engine 8V71 Detroit or VT- 903 Cummins V8, 5421-51 transmission, C-5602, with GM Engine, C-5502, Lockup Convertor with Cummins only. Axles 175B size, I may have some old pictures in storage (I'm in the process of moving), you can Google 880 log skidder,and see some pictures, I know that Crown Zellerbach in Bogulosa, La. updated one site prep 880 with an 280 rubber tired dozer 8 speed trans in place of the 4 speed loader trans, gave them a better choice of gears to work with.
Thumbs up x 100.
oldseabee, when I started working at the quarry back in 1968 the main pit loader was a 475IIIA. As I recall it was the machine that was used as the display model for a big equipment show out in LasVegas a couple years before. Had chrome ladders and exhaust stacks.
1968 I started at the St. Thomas plant as a laborer grinding slag off cut parts. Machines for equipment shows had lots of chrome and fancy paint, we had a major logging equip show every 2 years that alternated between New Orleans and Atlanta. Somebody made a rule that we could only show machines with stuff that could be ordered out of the factory, so there went all the chrome. we could only bondo the major welds to look better. The 474IIIA had been to the Con-Expo show in Chicago, the next Con-Expo we showed the new 675 24 yard loader.
Well 1968 was a few years back so I guess my memory was off a little. I know that machine made lots of money for the oil company, seemed to blow an oring or hose at least once a week! I know we kept a few clean oil drums around so we could drain out the oil to do repairs and then pump it right back in. Many years latter someone from the Hough dealer showed us how to make a vacuum tool to hold the oil in the tank on those to save draining it every time they sprung a leak. That tool would have been a lifesaver on the 475!
Those Michigans forklifts I referred to were rear wheel steer 380's converted to forklifts. I'll try to get the pictures off my computer I have of one of them.
I have some experience converting civilian machines to military spec from my time at Lull & Sky Trak. Ended up changing about 80% of the part numbers! 12 to 24 volt electric, coaxial battery jumper socket, convert to mil standard batteries, electro-magnetic radiation limiting mods to electrical system, M16 holder in cab, lifting hooks for helicopter, seperate tie down hooks for rail/truck, tow bar provisions, ability to shunt one steer cylinder to allow self-steering while being towed, hand pump to release brakes while being towed, pintle hitch, onboard air compressor, standard mil blackout lights, diesel filler neck for a 2" nozzel, new quick attach to use existing fork carriages, extended axle breathers, ability to run jet A/JP8 jet fuel, etc, etc. Civilian off the shelf except....... ISZ
Oldseabee, it must have been pretty exciting working on the 675. Just outside of Edmonton at Atcheson Industrial park there used to be 2 old Letourneu L700's (1st Let. hydraulic loaders). The cabs were removed and they were just sitting in a field. No buckets but 1 had some big H beam arrangement on the boom I'm guessing for lifting something high. A few years ago there was only 1. Not sure if it's still there. I think they were 15yd machines. I climbed up on one. I can only imagine how big a 675 is. There is a good video from Clark on a vintage machinery site of the 675 development. I knew a guy that had a new 175B (Cummins) and 75B. He said you couldn't hurt the 175B. I Used to have a brochure on the C series but my brother threw out all my old brochures I had picked up. I remember it mentioned the biggest bite on wheels with buckets up to 36yds. What's interesting is the C's were rebuilt B models purchased back by Clark. Do you know if Clark was hoping there'd be more interest and produce some new machines since only 2 C models were made?
It was a great time to be part of the changes in the equipment world from crude straight frame machines in the '50's and '60's to articulated machines with more sophisticated hydraulics and the start of computer controlled systems, a difficult time for old sledge hammer mechanics like me that could fix anything with a little bailing wire and a bigger bolt, now with the electronic controls, they had to go to school to keep up or stick to working on old equipment, the young coming out of factory schools, were book smart but if it wasn't in their book, they had to go to the old hands for a dose of common sense and advice that is being lost as they die, retire, and a few that end up on the internet forums to try to pass on a little knowledge to the guys that are trying to get started in business with 40 year old machines. 675 had twin 1710 Cummins engines, feeding one 16,000 Clark trans., one engine had drop box converter that drove through the reverse clutch shaft, boom was 20 tons raised by 4 10 1/2" inch cylinders, bucket was another 20 tons, in the days before robots, they took a lot of welding, 6" fillet welds cutting edge to end plate. Also offered a 36 yard coal bucket. If you bought one at $1 Million+, you got a 45B loader to clean up any loose rocks around to protect the 675 tires which were specially made 5 1/2 foot wide, 9 feet tall if I remember correctly, or assign a dozer to the job site for clean up. I ramble too much.