Professional Documents
Culture Documents
793B V.S. 793C
793B V.S. 793C
793B V.S. 793C
Performance Report
May 1997
Study
Location
Material
Blasted waste and ore rock with an estimated density of 2,700 lb/LCY
Field Data
Executive Summary
Equipment Summary
Rated Gross Machine Weight
Gross Horsepower
Engine
Average Empty Weight
Average Loaded Weight
Body Volume
Tires
Machine Hours
Study Description
793C
830,000 lb.
2,300 hp
3516B
321,200 lb.
836,800 lb.
193 yd3
40.00R57
<2,000 smu
793B
830,000 lb.
2,160 hp
3516A
321,500 lb.
820,800 lb.
193 yd3
40.00R57
<8,000 smu
Uphill
5,541 ft
505 ft
Downhill
5,621 ft
505 ft
Flat
4,916 ft
28 ft
Engineers in the cab logged all delays, breaks, or wait times and
eliminated those times from analysis. Observers on the ground in
the load and dump areas recorded data in those parts of the cycle.
All scale weights were matched to each cycle and included related
weight, time, and on-board fuel meter data. Prior to the test,
engineers conducted a review of the haul roads to determine the
location of speed traps used to calculate grade horsepower. They
also verified the horsepower settings of the engine and overall
performance of the trucks. Both trucks checked out to be within
3% of nominal specifications during the test. The 793B was
2% above and the 793C was 1% above nominal specification.
This report is based directly on the measured data from the truck
study with no adjustments. Due to the moving face and dump area
an average of the load and dump times were assumed for each
truck to minimize impacts on either truck during the cycles.
The following tables indicate actual production as it occurred
during the study. Due to dump and face movement an average
was used for each of these areas for both the 793C and 793B. By
removing these areas of the cycle, only the segment of the haul and
return were examined. Production figures are shown in tons per hour.
Haul Condition
Downhill
Uphill
Flat
793C
1,261.1 t/hr
1,039.9 t/hr
1,820.5 t/hr
793B
1,098.2 t/hr
990.7 t/hr
1,739.7 t/hr
793C
16.56 t/gal
33.06 t/gal
45.65 t/gal
793B
15.61 t/gal
30.44 t/gal
44.10 t/gal
Discussion of Results
Actual Production
Advantage
15%
5%
5%
Fuel Consumption
Advantage
8%
6%
4%
Conclusions
Appendix A
Cycle Times and Fuel
Consumption
Flat Loaded
Load Area
Haul
Dump Area
Return
Total
Payload (tons)
Production (ton/hr)
793B
0.93
3.05
1.32
1.23
6.53
44.2
38.2
Fuel (gal)
793C
Index
10.93
13.11
102
11.32
11.39
113
16.75
103
46.34
105
38.21
100
The 793C had faster cycle times and moved more material per hour. The increased production could be
attributed to higher run out speeds in 6th gear. The increased production was produced with no additional
fuel consumption when looked at on a tons per gallon basis.
Load Area
Haul
Dump Area
Return
Total
Payload (tons)
Production (ton/hr)
793B
0.93
0.11
1.32
5.84
8.2
36.1
30.44
Fuel (gal)
793C
Index
10.93
0
11.32
15.55
95
7.8
95
38.14
106
33.06
109
In the downhill cycle the results demonstrated faster cycle times and more tons moved per gallon of fuel. The
793C was able to maintain one gear faster going downhill than the 793B. This improvement is attributed to
the improved efficiencies of the design of the hydraulic circuits and increased air flow through the radiator
due to faster fan speeds.
Load Area
Haul
Dump Area
Return
Total
Payload (tons)
Production (ton/hr)
793B
0.93
13.55
1.32
0.19
15.99
63.5
15.61
Fuel (gal)
793C
Index
10.93
13.28
98
11.32
10.04
21
15.57
97
62.78
99
16.56
106
The results demonstrate faster cycle times and more tons moved per gallon of fuel. The 793C numbers were
as expected in relation to the 6% increase in horsepower. The fuel consumed was less than expected and
attributed to the improvements of the 3516 B Series engine.
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.
TEXR0269
May 1997
1997 Caterpillar
Printed in U.S.A.