Caterpillar Product Information

Performance Report
January 2006

Cat 330D L
vs. Cat 330C L

Job Study Purpose A performance study was conducted at the Peoria Proving Grounds
to compare the new 330D L against the 330C L. Each machine was
measured in hard trenching and truck loading in a controlled test
environment. The report summarizes the overall test detail and results.

For Dealer Sales Personnel

www.cat.com
Results of Trenching Tests Test Description
The trenching test was conducted by digging a single bucket
wide 1219 mm (48") trench that was 3.35 m (11'0") deep and
approximately 30.5 m (100') long. Cycle times were recorded using
a computer program that was specifically designed for productivity
tests. Depths of the trenches were measured at several intervals to
ensure accuracy of the trench depths. Fuel, when measured, was
measured using portable day tanks that were weighed prior to the
test, and then weighed upon completion of the test. All results are
based on 60 minute work hours.

The material was a well-compacted mixture of topsoil and clay

with a material density of 1660 kg/m3 (2,800 lb/yd3). Side-cutters
on the buckets were utilized. Machines were alternated after each
trenching run to ensure consistency of the field.

Productivity Results Deep Trench Cycle Times

600 16 13.61 (100%) 12.99 (95%)
14
500 2.76
12 2.62
1.38 1.48
400 10
2.76 2.62
503.7 539.9 8
300 (107%) 6
(100%)
200 4 7.44 6.8
2
100 0
330C L 330D L 330C L 330D L
0
CYD/HR Load Lift & Swing Dump Swing Empty

Fuel Consumption Fuel Efficiency

14 50
45
12
40
10 35
8 30
12.93 43.5
11.59 25 41.8
6 (112%) (100%)
(100%) 20 (96%)
4 15
10
2
5
0 330C L 330D L 0 330C L 330D L
GAL/HR CYD/GAL

2
Trenching Results Summary
Each machine was equipped with an identical D-linkage (C-series)
48" HD bucket with heavy-duty sidecutters. With the increased
horsepower and breakout forces (see graphs below) of the 330D L,
it was able to show productivity advantages of 7% in deep trenching
over the 330C L. The 330D L also showed a 5% cycle time advantage
in deep trenching while carrying 2% more fill factor than the 330C L.

Bucket and stick forces were increased 4% and 5% respectively with

the HD bucket installed. As a result the 330D L was able to spend
9% less time in the load cycle than the 330C L and carrying more
material as evidenced by the fill factors, which led to its
productivity advantage over the 330C L.

Due to the increased productivity and higher horsepower, the

330D L did consume more fuel, but overall fuel efficiency
(material moved per liter/gallon) was 96% of the 330C L.

Bucket Forces (SAE) Stick Forces (SAE)

3.9 m Stick 3.9 m Stick
Thousands 330C L 330D L Thousands 330C L 330D L
50
35

40 30

25
Force (lb)

Force (lb)

30
20
45.0 46.9 33.2 32.6 32.8
40.6 42.4 43.0 31.5 30.9 30.1
20 (100%) (104%) 38.1 (113%) 15 (100%) (105%) (100%) (105%) (109%)
(100%) (104%) (100%) (100%)
10
10
5
0 0
HD-P HD GP HD-P HD GP
Bucket Family Bucket Family

3
Truck Loading Tests Results Test Description Loose Material
This truck loading test was conducted using loose re-handled material
which was a mixture of soil and clay. The tests were same level
loading, swinging 90. The depth was approximately 4.3 m (14'0").
Every test consisted of each machine loading 9 off highway
articulated trucks. Machines were alternated between each run to
ensure the consistency of the material between runs. Each machine
was equipped with a 60" (2.43 yd3) bucket. Cycle times were taken
using a computer program specifically designed for truck loading
tests. Fuel results were measured for the full test duration including
idle time. Results are based upon a 60 minute work hour.

In the loose-material loading, the increased horsepower and forces

were not sufficiently taxed on the 330D L with 60" HD bucket.
Fill Factors: 330C L = 173%; Therefore, productivity was equal relative to 330C L.
330D L = 170%

Productivity Results Cycle Times

22.6 (100%) 22.4 (99%)
700 25

600 5.46 5.28

20
500 2.64 1.92
15
400 667 665 6.84 6.18
300 (104%) (100%) 10
200 5 9.96
8.76
100
330C L 330D L 0
0
330C L 330D L
CYD/HR
Load Lift & Swing Dump Swing Empty

330D L Fuel Consumption 330C L Fuel Consumption

16 14
14 12
12 10
10 13.96
15.52 8
8 (100%) (100%)
6
6
7.53 6.81
4 4
(49%) (49%)
2 2
0 0
Fuel Consumption (gal/hr) Fuel Consumption (gal/hr)
Loading Only Loading with Truck Wait Time Loading Only Loading with Truck Wait Time

4
Test Description Hard-Bank Material
These truck loading tests were conducted using virgin material
excavated from a three bucket wide by 4.3 m (14'0") trench.
The tests were same level loading, swinging 90. Each test
consisted of each machine loading 9 off highway articulated trucks.
Machines were alternated between each run to ensure the consistency
of the material between runs. Cycle times and fuel were recorded
identical to the Loose Material test.

The 330C L experienced stick stalling in these tougher digging/

loading conditions, which resulted in a lower productivity and lower
cycle time compared to the 330D L. The 330D L cycle times remained
consistent between hard-bank and loose-material loading. The 4%
and 5% increase in 330D L bucket and stick forces respectively
became apparent with the HD60" bucket in the hard-bank test.

330D L Cycle Times Comparison 330C L Cycle Times Comparison

25 22.4 (100%) 21.2 (95%) 30 22.6 (100%) 25.0 (110%)

20 5.28 4.86 25
5.40
1.92 5.46
1.98 20 2.40
15 2.64
6.18 5.46 15 5.82
10 6.84
10
5 9.96 9.96 12.42
5 8.76

0 0
Loose Material Hard-Bank Material Loose Material Hard-Bank Material
Loading Loading Loading Loading

Load Lift & Swing Dump Swing Empty Load Lift & Swing Dump Swing Empty

5
 Truck Loading Summary
The 330D L was able to maintain the productivity benchmark set by
the 330C L. With the increased lift and forces the 330D L was able
to slightly reduce the load times. The improvement came specifically
in the lift and swing cycle. Overall the 330D L was not taxed in
the loose-material application, therefore not highlighting the
increased horsepower and forces.

The 330C L was over matched by the HD 60" bucket in the tough
hard-bank application, but the 330D L had enough stick and
break-out force improvement to maintain productivity from
loose-material to hard-bank material truck loading.

Load Cycle Comparison

14
12
10
8 12.42
6 8.76 (142%) 9.96 9.96
4 (100%) (100%) (100%)
2
0
330C L 330D L

Loose Material Loading Hard-Bank Material Loading

6
Test Description Lifting Tests Results
Four different lift tests were conducted to demonstrate any lifting
differences as a result of the addition of the heavy lift circuit for the
330D L. The weight used in all of the tests was a fabricated weight,
which weighed approximately 6800 kg (15,000 lb). Distances measured
were from the center point of the swing bearing to the distance of the
load point. Load heights were measured from the ground level up to
the load point, which was the bucket lift eye.

Test #1 Over the Front The boom was pulled all the way up and
the stick was then extended out as far as it could reach, before coming
off its rollers or was hydraulically limited.

Test #2 Over the Front The load was held at a constant lift point
and was extended to its maximum reach using both boom and stick
until the machine either tipped (came off its rollers) or was
hydraulically limited.

Test #3 Over the Front The load was held at a constant lift point
and was extended over the front using the boom, until the boom was
hydraulically limited (stalled).

Test #4 Over the Side The boom was pulled all the way up and
the stick was then extended out as far as it could reach before coming
off its rollers, or was hydraulically limited.

330D L 330D L
330C L
(Heavy-Lift On) (Heavy-Lift On)
Load Height m (ft/in) 5.97 (19'7") 6.22 (20'5") 8.26 (27'1")
Test #1
Distance m (ft/in) 8.05 (26'5") 8.08 (26'6") 6.83 (22'5")
Load Height m (ft/in) 2.51 (8'3") 2.29 (7'6") 2.29 (7'6")
Test #2
Distance m (ft/in) 9.96 (32'8") 10.13 (33'3") 10.9 (33'4")
Load Height m (ft/in) 2.49 (8'2") 2.34 (7'8") 2.34 (7'8")
Test #3
Distance m (ft/in) 8.81 (28'11") 8.99 (29'6") 9.86 (32'4")
Load Height m (ft/in) 2.59 (8'6") 2.44 (8'0") 2.44 (8'0")
Test #4
Distance m (ft/in) 7.67 (25'2") 7.77 (25'6") 7.77 (25'6")

7
Lift Chart Comparison
330D L vs. 330C L Lifting Capacities
330C L, Reach Boom, 3.9D Stick 800 mm Shoes
330D L, Reach Boom, 3.9D B Stick 800 mm Shoes, Heavy Lift ON
Bucket Weight Equalized
Load Radius
Lift
Point 5.0 ft 10.0 ft 15.0 ft 20.0 ft 25.0 ft 30.0 ft Max Reach
Height Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side ft
30 ft 105% 105% 102%
25 ft 105% 105% 101%
20 ft 103% 103% 105% 100% 106% 106% 101%
15 ft 104% 101% 104% 101% 105% 101% 101%
10 ft 102% 102% 103% 101% 104% 100% 104% 101% 105% 98% 101%
5 ft 103% 101% 103% 100% 104% 100% 100% 100% 105% 98% 101%
Ground 113% 113% 104% 100% 104% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 104% 98% 101%
-5 ft 106% 106% 106% 106% 105% 99% 103% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 104% 98% 101%
-10 ft 104% 104% 104% 104% 105% 99% 104% 99% 99% 99% 97% 97% 102% 97% 101%
-15 ft 102% 102% 101% 101% 106% 99% 106% 99% 108% 99%
-20 ft 109% 109% 109% 104% 112% 99%

= Advantage for the 330D L

= No Difference ( 1%)
= Advantage for the 330C L

Lift Tests Summary Due to the increased hydraulic pressure and the addition of the
heavy lift, the 330D L is able to demonstrate better lift performance
than the 330C L over-the-front. The 330D L also maintained the
lift performance of the 330C L in over-the-side tests.

The above chart is an overlay of the lift charts for each machine
with the bucket weights equalized. Overall there is a 4% advantage
in over-the-front and 2% in over-the-side lifting application. In the
Key Working Range of ground line to 20 feet in the vertical direction
and 10 to 30 feet in the horizontal direction, the 330D L has a 3% lift
advantage over-the-front versus the 330C L.

Over-Front Lifting Over-Side Lifting

Thousands Key Working Range Key Working Range
25 Thousands

15
20
Lift Capability (lb)
Lift Capability (lb)

15
10
21.2 21.9 15.3 15.5 15.8 16.0
19.8 20.4
10 (100%) (104%) (100%) (101%) (100%) (102%)
(100%) (103%)
5
5

330C L 330D L 0 330C L 330D L

0
3.9 m Stick 3.2 m Stick 3.9 m Stick 3.2 m Stick

8
 Machine Specifications
Cat 330D L Cat 330C L
Engine C9 with ACERT Technology C9
Horsepower kW (hp) 200 (268) 184 (247)
Flow L/min (gal/min)
2 280 (74.0) 280 (74.0)
Weight kg (lb) 36 151 (79,700) 35 100 (77,400)
Track Shoes mm (in) 800 (32) 800 (32)
Stick Force kN (lb) SAE 145.0 (32,597) 138.0 (30,900)
Bucket Force kN (lb) SAE 188.5 (42,376) 181.0 (40,600)
Boom m (ft/in) 6.5 (21'4") 6.5 (21'4")
Stick m (ft/in) 3.9 (12'10") 3.9 (12'10")
Machine Hours 55 10

Cat 330D L/330C L Bucket Specifications

Trenching Tests Bucket Heavy Duty
Capacity m (yd )
3 3
1.41 (1.84)
Tip Radius mm (in) 1779 (70.0)
Width mm (in) 1219 (48.0)
Weight kg (lb) 1395 (3,069)
Truck Loading Tests Bucket Heavy Duty
Capacity m3 (yd3) 1.87 (2.45)
Tip Radius mm (in) 1779 (70.0)
Width mm (in) 1524 (60)
Weight kg (lb) 1620 (3,564)

9
Technical Specification
Comparison
330C L 330D L
Engine
Engine Model Cat C9 C9 with
ACERT Technology
ISO 9249 kw (hp) 184 (247) 200 (268)
SAE J1349 kw (hp) 182 (244) 188 (252)
EEC 80/1269 kw (hp) 184 (247) 200 (268)
Bore mm (in) 112 (4.4) 112 (4.4)
Stroke mm (in) 149 (5.86) 149 (5.86)
Displacement L (in3) 8.8 (537) 8.8 (537)
Emissions Tier 2 Tier 3
Weights
Operating Weight kg (lb) 35 100 (77,400) 36 151 (79,700)
Service Refill Capacities
Fuel Tank Capacity L (gal) 620 (163) 620 (163)
Cooling System L (gal) 40 (10.5) 40 (10.5)
Engine Oil L (gal) 40 (10.5) 40 (10.5)
Swing Drive L (gal) 19 (5) 19 (5)
Final Drive (each) L (gal) 8 (2.1) 8 (2.1)
Hydraulic System (inclosed tank) L (gal) 410 (108) 410 (108)
Hydraulic Tank L (gal) 175 (46.2) 175 (46.2)
Hydraulic System
Main Implement System Max Flow (2
) L/min (gal/min) 280 (74.0) 280 (74.0)
Maximum Pressure Implement Normal MPa (psi) 34.3 (4,980) 35 (5,076)
Max Pressure Implement Heavy Lift MPa (psi) N/A 36 (5,221)
Pilot System Maximum Flow L/min (gal/min) 36 (9.5) 43 (11.3)
Pilot System Maximum Pressure MPa (psi) 4.12 (597) 3.9 (566)
Boom Cylinder Bore mm (in) 150 (5.9) 150 (5.9)
Boom Cylinder Stroke mm (in) 1440 (56.6) 1440 (56.6)
Stick Cylinder Bore mm (in) 170 (6.69) 170 (6.69)
Stick Cylinder Stroke mm (in) 1738 (68.4) 1738 (68.4)
D/DB Family Bucket Cylinder Bore mm (in) 150 (5.9) 150 (5.9)
D/DB Family Bucket Cylinder Stroke mm (in) 1151 (45.3) 1151 (45.3)
E/TB1 Family Bucket Cylinder Bore mm (in) 160 (6.3) 160 (6.3)
E/TB1 Family Bucket Cylinder Stroke mm (in) 1356 (53.3) 1356 (53.3)

10
 Technical Specification
Comparison (continued)
330C L 330D L
Drive
Maximum Travel Speed kph (mph) 5 (3.1) 5 (3.1)
Maximum Drawbar Pull kN (lb) 294 (66,094) 300 (67,442)
Swing Mechanism
Swing Speed rpm 10.2 rpm 10.2 rpm
Swing Torque kNm (lb ft) 108 (79,657) 108.7 (80,142)
Dimensions
Shipping Height mm (ft in) 3630 (11'11") 3630 (11'11")
Shipping Length mm (ft in) 11 200 (36'9") 11 200 (36'9")
Shipping Width (32" TG shoes) mm (ft in) 3390 (11'1") 3390 (11'1")
Tail Swing Radius mm (ft in) 3500 (11'6") 3500 (11'6")
Length to Center of Rollers mm (ft in) 4040 (13'3") 4040 (13'3")
Track Length mm (ft in) 5020 (16'6") 5020 (16'6")
Ground Clearance mm (ft in) 450 (1'6") 450 (1'6")
Track Gauge mm (ft in) 2590 (8'6") 2590 (8'6")
Working Ranges
Maximum Reach @ Ground Level m (ft in) 11 640 (38'2") 11 714 (38'5")
Maximum Digging Depth m (ft in) 8090 (26'7") 8185 (26'10")
Minimum Loading Height m (ft in) 2010 (6'7") 1911 (6'3")
Maximum Loading Height m (ft in) 7640 (25'1") 7542 (24'9")
Maximum Vertical Wall Digging Depth m (ft in) 7350 (24'1") 7152 (23'6")
Maximum Cutting Height m (ft in) 10 810 (35'6") 10 749 (35'3")
Maximum Depth Cut for an 2.4 m
(8 ft) Level Bottom m (ft in) 7740 (25'5") 8052 (26'5")

11
Study Date November 2005

Location Peoria Proving Grounds East Peoria, IL

Participants J. Shurts WLED Excavator Commercial Group

M. Barden WLED Excavator Commercial Group
T. Masayasu HEDC, Design Center
D. Muller PPG Engineer

Written By J. Shurts WLED Excavator Commercial Group

Operator R. Fauber Edwards Demonstration Center

R. Hiett PPG Operator

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, ACERT, their respective logos, and Caterpillar Yellow, as well as corporate and product identity used herein, are trademarks of
Caterpillar and may not be used without permission.
TEXR0431
January 2006
www.cat.com
2006 Caterpillar
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.