Cat made a lot of noise about the release of the G series. To date I'm not impressed. Our sister company runs a 938F which at 12,000 hrs is still as tight as a drum. A 938 is the ideal size for us as the work is varied. We recently hired a 924G and a 938G..not really impressed. Fuel consumption was horrible and I found the 924 too light in the front and both neither were able to dig as well as the "F" when it came to mining some sand. They were fast mind you but overall I couldn't see any serious productivity gain or advantage. I'd just like to hear how the "G II's" are going.
The poor fuel economy is due to the new emission requirements, it's being reported throughout the diesel industry. The EPA and the industry are playing a cat and mouse game with emissions, due to the way the EPA measures emissions, the industry can meet their requirements by actually burning more fuel. I'm told they measure percentages rather than total emissions output. It seems silly to me to believe there are less pollutants in the air by burning more hydrocarbon fuel. Squizzy, are the machines sold in your country required to meet the same standards, and if not, do American machines come delivered with the EPA required emissions package?
They are not yet "required" but they do and our legislation has "followed" California for the last 10 or 12 years. This means that at the moment you could bring an asian machine here that does not make the grade in the US but does meet the Aus standard. However, the grandfather clauses are getting less and less and the legislation has been quicker to catch up. Also on some equipment/machinery they write an import specification to cover the hole until the legislation is through...which they are quick enough to do on heavy equipment and trucks but a lot of lawn mowers and gensets seem to be exempt??.
Before anyone jumps in about Volvo machines having much better fuel consumption, I'd like to make a few points about the Cat machines. Generally speaking, the Cat wheel loaders are more productive in most circumstances than their competition. I'm not sure why the 938 and 924G you ran were so oddly balanced; if you rented them, it is possible they weren't specced correctly, or had the wrong bucket, or something that wasn't on-par with Cat's recommended settings for the machine. The 924G-z should be more productive than the 924F, no matter how you look at it; the 924G (with VersaLink) is also a more productive and stable machine than the 924F. The 938G shows similar improvements. That being said, the relative difference in fuel economy isn't entirely a Tier or Stage situation. The Volvo and Deere loaders (and Komatsu and everyone else, for the most part) do currently meet Tier II standards, just as the G-II machines did, and even so, there is still a difference in fuel economy -- very large in some circumstances. Most importantly, Cat knows this and the H-series attempts to fix it. The primary difference of the G-series was to offer an increase in production, but another very important aspect was to improve the operating ergonomics of the machine. The operator's station is larger, offers two-door ingress and egress, and has better sight lines, particularly to the rear and attachment. I'm not sure how the fuel economy took a plunge for the worse, but somewhere in there, production came first. Now. As far as not digging well goes, it depends on the material being moved. The G-series shows increases in breakout force -- but this may not be noticable if you dig in sand, as sand doesn't have very high cohesion (it doesn't really stick to itself unless wet). Therefore, unless the cycle times were also sped up appropriately, which they may not have been, the loader may seem slower or even more sluggish. Finally, the material being moved will again impact your fuel economy. In hard digging, the Cat wheel loaders will just about meet Volvo's fuel economy (+/- 2%). However, the measure used for this comparison isn't simply "gallons per hour" or "gallons used." The measure is something of the nature "gallons per cubic yard," which means that production is factored in. Again, in sandy material, Volvo may have lower fuel consumption -- the engine isn't really being worked, and the easiness of moving the material nullifies any brute-force performance advantage the Cat has. However, in heavy, sticky, bank-loading, I will argue that the Cat does hold its own in several size classes, though the 938G is not a strong contender. Overall, I think the H-series will address what you have seen, Squizz... it's been a long time coming, but hopefully it'll get you what you want.
Xing, I think you have misunderstood my post but you have, as always, provided an informative response. Firstly, I'm not bagging the G series just saying I was a bit disappointed with the machine. It wasn't significantly better in any performance regard, was worse on fuel, but I'll give you the cab and vision improvements. The "F" is sometimes a bit of a slug compared to these new machines but I don't see a significant performance increase...nice but no big gains. The 924 used more fuel than the 938F working in the same conditions. That said, Cat rarely makes a quantum leaps but just tweaks away giving steady improvements. The "G" certainly looks the part. BTW, the machines we hired were from Cat rental (brand spankers) and I wouls say that tyres are an issue. Neither of the machines put the power to the ground as well as the "F" when digging in gravel, hard limestone rubble or sand. To be honest they felt more like a Komatsu (too light). I did find it easier to "find the level cutting edge" which takes some feel and skill in the "F". Nothing like roaring across a big level pad and spearing in . My comments where kept to myself until a much more experienced operator said the same thing after spending a couple of days in the "G's". I suspect that my comments are partly due to the refinements in controls and your isolation from the outside in these new machines. I'm much more used to "feeling" my way steady steady with loaders. I was really just after some feedback from some who have actually been running them for awhile and have got used to them. If I was just loading trucks I'd grab the "G" for sure - they are very smooth and controlled in that task.
You should have written: "Xing, I think you have misunderstood my post as is always the case," since I tend to overreact sometimes re: issues with Cat machines. :bouncegri Anyhow, I do see your point -- hopefully someone with that experience can shed more light...
We've got a couple of 824G (966G chassis) Rubbertire dozers and they are AWFUL, not so much with power issues, but with a total lack of control (electronic ½ steering wheel thing is a BAD idea!!), and a wierd powerband. Normally they don't come alive until you're much closer to the shovel's counterweight than you really want to be. They're also much sloppier in the blade/trunnions than their older forebears.
The 824/5/6 is based on the 980. The 814/5/6 is based on the 966.
I can't believe there is not more people out there on a "G"???
OK...Now I really am bagging the 938G II. We hired another from our local Cat rental, low hours, new cutting edge, nice and cleaning. Well after 3 days and two experienced operators trying every which way known we decided to call this thing the "Kangaroo" cause it sure hops around like one. We are cutting into the side of a hill and had to shift about 1000 m3. Its all sand, no clay, and was all to be stockpiled on site. We ended up running with only about 25 psi in the tyres to try and get this machine to dig but it bucked and bitched all the way. The only way to get a full bucket was to charge the face...not "best practice" but we got sick of the dam thing digging holes and bouncing around. Real nice loader for loading trucks just about useless at digging though. Too light in the front end and it used $380.00 worth of diesel in two days ...the old F would have used half the fuel and done it in less time for sure. We tried everything but it just wouldn't sit down and push...just wanted to spin the wheels. In the F I would come in steady, take a bit in the bucket, lift slightly to load to front wheels, push forward and lift/crowd up for a full bucket easy peasy, not this kangaroo, if you came in steady it would just sit there and you'd only get half a bucket at best. I am convinced now that its not us but I do think these tyres are too narrow. What do you guys reckon?
Could it be that the tires were a compromise based on the machine generally being used on footing other than sand? Something that would be less likely to spin out from beneath the tires so easily? Maybe a wider tire would make a world of difference in your application there, but prove less than ideal elsewhere. It'd be interesting to hear a report on the same machine in a different application.
Digger, they call us West Australians "SandGropers" for good reason...the whole bloody place is one big sand pit. To be fair, the hill we are digging into used to be the beach...about 40 million years ago...so its pretty soft. However, we have worked one of these in other conditions without much joy. I am sure you could improve things with some better tyres for our application but...well....it just feels light in the front end and performs that way. I thought it was just me but after a couple of days you'd think you would work it out. Great load out machine from a stockpile..don't get me wrong (and that is all a lot of operators do) but for digging....lord send me the 938F back please!
Ah, well...it was a thought anyway. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I have very little seat time on rubber tired loaders--a ton of time on 2WD rubber tired hoes, but not loaders. On a two wheel drive hoe, digging with the front bucket isn't ever very rewarding either. I honestly never really considered a rubber tired loader to be the right machine for digging either, but I can't consider myself really qualified to say. Any serious digging I've done with the front bucket has been on tracked loaders.
Did you try switching to a higher gear to minimize the tire spin? I don't know if that would have made any difference in getting a full bucket load, but it could help with spinning.
Its the tires those are not loader tires they are offroad truck tires meant for articulated trucks. To be digging into a bank the machine should be in second gear take a good run at the bank and keep pressure on the bank with the throttle while lifting the bucket. All it takes is practice and you should have a spade bucket on the machine for digging into a bank but its not good for grading because the cutting edge isn't square.
We tried every gear and ran in second. We have plenty of practice over the years and the F would take a good bucket with minimal power digging into a bank...not this machine. The tyres are the main problem I believe.
Squizzy, I'm thinking now it's the machine as well. I think Cat knows that its 938GII isn't capable of taking over the Deere 624J or the Volvo L90E, but I believe that the Volvo will have the same problems of uncontrollable tire spin as the Cat. The Deere, however, with locking diffs front and rear, should probably do a better job -- in this situation. I'm sorry the darned thing didn't leave a good impression. Someone had a similar situation of tire spin (it was mud, though, not sand. Even so, the Deere walked through it and the Cat just spun its tires), and I passed it on to Cat, but they are very busy. I hope to see the issue addressed significantly in the next generation whenever it comes out for Tier-III updates. Ford LT -- those tires are standard tires for the 938G II as far as I know.
Teeth on the bucket would help too. I see the same type tires on most new loaders around here, even big quarry loaders.
Funny you bring this up for my first time I ran a 938G II for 2 days. Exporting and cutting grade with it on a layer of clay over beach sand. And the same thing was happening to me with the same tires when I would get into the sand, but mine has some sorry excuses for teeth (even new one too) on it. I was able to get full buckets, but really had to work at it. Dropping the tire pressure a lot and putting lots of water down will be the most helpful not that I got to do either. The design of the tire is not the problem you can't beat radials in the sand, put a set of by-ply’s on there and you would really be digging holes with your tires.
Would it make any difference it the tires were loaded? I know some companies will not use this method because the calcuim is hard on the rims, but it would probally give you better traction in those conditions.
What gets me is that the "F", which is a literal snail compared to the "G" will dig so well in these conditions (even with cross ply tyres). We are supposed to be going forwards???? How could the King of wheel loaders get it so wrong???. I loaded 11 dump trucks with this machine and it was very good. I like the steering and dump-to-dig recover time.....if the damn thing would dig in virgin ground..or even push a little. Yep, thats what Cat tells me too. Michelin radials We had the tyres right down to about 25 psi and have had irrigation on this site for days. The cross plys on the "F" are terrible in the sand but still better than the "G" with radials. Teeth would help if the machine could push a bit...None of the 988's in our sand pits have teeth.
If I really had to operate this machine for a period and it didn't have to be roaded then I would put some oil or water in the tyres so you could get some productivity.
Guys, I'm a bit confused and concerned. I have all of my experience with the large loaders, and none with what we call "medium (938-980). However, I looked at our service info system and found the Traction Control Switch info below. Do you not have it in your 938GII? Our large loaders actually have a great Rimpull Control system, with varied %s of reduction to select from. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operation and Maintenance Manual IT38G Series II Integrated Toolcarrier and 938G Series II Wheel Loader Media Number -SEBU7581-07 Publication Date -08/01/2005 Date Updated -08/25/2005 i01884873 Traction Control System (TCS) - If Equipped SMCS - 4801 Traction Control System - The traction control system monitors the rpm at each of the wheels. When a wheel starts to spin, the brake is applied at that wheel in order to reduce tire slippage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Illustration 1 g00866830 The switch is located on the console to the right of the seat. Press the top of the switch for normal slippery conditions. Press the middle of the switch in order to deactivate the traction control system. Press the bottom of the switch for extremely slippery conditions or press the bottom of switch in order to enter the test mode. Note: The system is in test mode for the first five seconds after the switch is activated. Allow time for the system check to occur. After the initial five seconds, the traction control system will return to normal operating conditions. The switch for the traction control system has an indicator light which shows if the traction control system is activated. Note: If the indicator light is inactive, the traction control system has been deactivated by self-diagnoses of the machine. Reference: More complete information is available from your Caterpillar dealer. Reference: Refer to Specifications, Systems Operation, Troubleshooting, Testing and Adjusting, SENR6719, " IT38G and IT38G Series II Integrated Toolcarriers and 938G and 938G Series II Wheel Loaders Traction Control System".
I'm not sure why you are confused and concerned about this discussion. TCS is an optional extra and not fitted to the two 938G's I have rented. I do not own a 938G but our 938F digs just fine without TCS. I will not discuss the merits of TCS in this thread.
Like I said, I'm in the large loader side. Just trying to help and better understand the issue.
Squizzy -- as Racinrick mentioned, he's trying to help you out. I have a hunch as to what company he works with, , and I think he's also bummed that your rental machine didn't please you. You bring up a valid point, however -- I was aware that there is a traction control system on the G-II machines, but I am not sure why the F would do better. I'll take a look into it; I don't remember if I have F-series literature or if my collection starts at the G. Racinrick, please don't get discouraged. There are three manufacturer reps of some sort of these forums, and it's great to have you all around.
Right on. These are concerns I can only hope that someone in the design group for the G is aware of........Voice of the Customer...... I love it!
The F only does better in digging firm ground. The rest is chalk and cheese for the G. Interestingly I was talking to an operator today who pulled up at the site. Describing our experience he said "G series right" without me telling him what model. So I guess I'm resigned to the fact that for our sand work the G may not be the best setup. We rarely see JD loaders here (there's a few JD Graders starting to appear) but I'd love to run one in this coarse sand for comparison. If I had to live with the 938G then I'm sure a better tyre could be found and perhaps some weighted cast steel rims for the front. I thought about wether the bucket was lighter but I don't think so. Yep x 2. I wasn't being sarcastic just very disappointed in my favourite brand of loader (lets not mention the fuel bill either..that still smarts) and also having to run the machine in a manner that contradicts the very principles of how I was taught to drive a wheel loader - wheel spin is the devil. I once went to a pit for a driver test for a job...with 12 others. The pit boss told the other guys what he wanted done and set them to it (950's in that pit)..but he didn't tell them how (the manner) he wanted it done. So off they went three at a time roaring around showing us what wonderful loader drivers they were, and they were good too. I walked over to the pit boss and asked him how he wanted his loaders driven. He looked at me and then said the driver that runs the steadiest, with the least wheel spin and bucket always close to the ground will get the job. I got the job along with a young bloke who had never driven a 950 before...and we were the slowest and least experienced guys there.
I'll find out in two years whether this is true in college as well. Seriously, though, you raise some valid points. Perhaps we'll see it addressed when emissions forces a Cat loader update.
Sadly, I'd wager that things will just continue getting worse. Again using our 824G's as a model of "progress", we're just going to see more gadgets that bring "ease of operation", that will have a negative effect on function and availability. The G models we have run on about 20% availability, at less than 25,000 hours, compared to around 70% availability (unfortunately) on 824C's that have seen more than one 50,000 hour rebuild. Emission updates will likely result in increased fuel consumption, more lightweight construction to offset the fuel issue, more marginally functioning electronics, and that annoying STIC control will eventually work it's way down to even the compact models. Not saying that the STIC is entirely useless, but it's really only suited to more or less improved surfaces - never had fun until you've fought one of those electonic steering machines down a relatively rough 11% ramp in 3rd gear. It's a sad, but true fact, heavy equipment technology has outpaced it's necessity. The simple, reliable machines that most of us cut our teeth on are going by the wayside to bring on machines that are more "user friendly". Granted, those of us who have been around a while and seen a few updates have a certain favoritism toward the older machines. I started my (paid) dozer career on a D9G, and still think it was a far superior machine to most, with exceptions only for D10 and D11N's. We'll always be leery of new gizmos, regardless of how useful they may seem to the engineers (and advertising department) that dream them up.
D10N: I'm going to stick my neck out here and ask if I can help. 20% availability on a 824G scares the crap out of me. I don't have the 824 under my Product Support responsibility, but the guy who does sits 10 feet from me. If you would PM the serial number or numbers to me, or any other comments, I'd at least like to see if we're getting data through the system or not. With 33 years, I too have asked if we're "over-killing" with sensors and such. However, being on the service side, we now get good diagnostic data in seconds, vs. hours of trouble shooting. There is some good to it. But, I am more concerned with customer perception. Best regards
Next time I get one of the clunkers foisted on me, I'll get the numbers off it. They've been taken off the "assigned" list due to the fact that nobody really wants to mess with them. When I run rubbertire, I FAR prefer my normal assigned 834B (which also, has seen more than one 50K hr rebuild). I'll also gather a list of our biggest issues with them.
We got 950 G and 980 G which doing well with fuel efficiency
I spend 10hrs a day in a 980G series 2. This loader is a completely different animal than a F or C series machine. Operator comfort, productivity, and safty are the big selling points for the G loader. We have a 980G series 1 with 24000hrs on it. Its on its second engine and trans. Both loaders have proven to be vary durable and productive for us. oh by the way the WA500-6 loaders are weighing in at around 74,000 lbs. almost 7,000lbs heavier the 980G.
i thnk the g series loaders are nice except the loaders that have the mono boom they are horrible
Fuel consumption The 988G series for all their faults are far more reliable, have better power and on average burn around 7-9 litres of fuel per hour less than the 988H series. There is no way we would get the same lifespan from the H loaders as we have from our G's!
i have a 938g, with about 12000 hours, it has oil pushing out of the bleader/vent in the front end. Does anyone have an idea what a common reason is for this to occur. thank you, frank.
Hi Frank, Check your oil level if it overfull which if its pushing oil out axle vent more than likely brake piston seals are leaking.and with 12000 hrs on machine brake discs are worn out which lets pistons travel out of there bores and the seals leak
All depends on the operator and operating conditions. We have a 980G with 24,000+ hours on it and about a year ago I pulled a wheel to inspect brakes thinking they had to be getting worn. To my surprise the discs all measure with in spec's for new parts. On the other hand we inherited a slightly newer 980G from a sister plant and shortly after we got it at 16,400 hours due to some noise in one of the brakes we took one apart to find discs not only worn but many broke and some of the discs had actually managed to change places! Two internally splined plates next to each other and two externally splined next to each other or parts there of! It actually took some talking to convince upper management to let us take the other brakes apart. Needless to say they all looked about the same as the first one. The one thing that did not happen was brake oil getting into axles at least not enough to show. Can't say the same for a 980 F and a 970 at two other plants.