I know this is 4 years ago, but I hope you are operating one now. I've got to operate a 992k at a gold mine up here in Nunavut. Comfy!

Yes and it can make some great cellars for others too! 😁

Thank you !

gb_2000 ya

@@syncopowerstations ㄘㄡㄙㄧㄚㄥㄚㄘㄛ

@gb_2000 rock n roll & caterpillar, I'm in heaven lol🤘

I know. I want to hear the machine.

I doubt it. Letourneau now komatsu is the only loader brand that can load up to the 400 ton class

@@Bowiiihowdy Sure would be nice to see the R&D put into it though!!

full tank is 3.4k and lasts 24 hours

Its larger physically but still less capable than the first generation wa1200 and yeah it cant load ultra class

@@S70AMG well it sorta can. It's tricky and a pain in the ass but it is do able. Our 994H sometimes had to load 930s or T282Bs.

If the engineers know EXACTLY what they're doing, there will never be a need to improve. Lets just say they did their best under the circumstances and relative budget restrictions. A machine that large should have a greater load capacity.

@@petebutler5139 Another dumb reply

Pete Butler you would definitely think so

نرجو.الرد

No Neil the machine isn't as "light as it can be". Do you even understand the physics of how these machines work? There built heavy for a damned good reason and that weight helps gain needed traction on all 4 tires that are working to drive the bucket into the pile and help fill it. Reducing weight would be exactly the opposite of what you want. Don't try to compare fuel efficiency with how modern cars are built, light weight does nothing but make earth moving equipment far less efficient. Fuel efficiency for earth moving equipment is calculated on tons per hr moved per gallon used not how much the machine weighs and the distance it travels. Wheel spin alone while trying to load the bucket is a major operating cost when each tire is $20k-$30k+++. So lightening the machine would also increase that. If the engineer's did there job the whole drive train is more than capable of handling the machine weight plus a fully loaded bucket for multiple years. Cat has a well proven service life for each component and most well run mines swap out those components at the recommended service intervals. When a core charge for an engine is over $100k it pays to do so. The machine is designed to have a safety margin on it's balance with a fully loaded bucket. Loaders and the hydraulic rams, pumps, valves etc are built within that designed tonnage range. If you managed to completely fill a coal bucket on this machine with rock the hydraulic system would just bypass and refuse to lift it because the weight would be far outside those design limits.

One of the best wheel loader operators I've seen sure helps that load time. Pretty much zero wasted travel between the dig face and the truck.

prihanto dn what are the difference between them?.

Like trying too pee to fill a pool

thats the l2350

i think these machines cost more than 3 million dollars

0

Hey mate, they've always only used the 3516 in a 994 as a counterweight as they're heavily derated from factory running about 13psi boost instead of 26psi you would get in a 793 or 789 so putting a c175 would be a waste of money. But the 3516 in these are common rail

Is 3516 have high pressure pump? I saw it with unit injectors (pump injectors)

It will do if it's common rail. Unless that's just a rumour. Then it'll just have unit injectors again

I agree the bucket looks way too small for the sheer size of the loader itself.

Nicolas Orozco 1850hp

And it has about 240 ampps

Cat 3516 1300kw

@@curtisdurfee6392 Engine HP?

@@manuelforero2116 Engine HP?

Might be bigger than the 1850 but the 2350 no.. that loader still and probably will always hold largest wheel loader

61 each wheel :)

Georgia Duckworth He forgot to tell you that was for the fastest scoop and load. How about the other multiple scoops. If you need more than 3 scoops to fill a truck you are killing your productivity as a manager of your equipment and personal considering neither are cheap!

but the 994k is much better and bigger

Liking the LeTourneau is fine. But having to dig with one, well that is not so fine. LeTourneau loaders are easy on the operator, but simply do NOT move the yardage compared to the Cat and Komatsu loaders. Letourneau hydraulics are primitive in response and power and wheel torque simply isn't there.

@@DEVASTATOR478 994k is smaller than the 1850 lmfao let alone 2350

+rafael souza pedrosa maybe you need to learn something a bit about mining machines. Bucket looks small, but it is big. It is small in comparison to machine that is necessary to move that amount of dirt. LeTourneau have bigger buckets, and it is much bigger machine. If You will look at the draglines, the bucket compared to machine is ridiculously small, still that was biggest machines to move dirt ever created.

+jestestuman There is also a ratio, depending on what material the loader is working in you will want to adjust the bucket size. You only have so much hydraulic power and if you're moving heavy material you want a smaller bucket for maximum efficiency.

Ryan Lowe tambem acho que para um material leve pode sim aumentar o tamanho da caçamba .pois nao força tanto o hidraulico ,já o material pesado rochas etc.. ja pesa um pouco ,ou seja um balde menor trabalha com mais eficiencia!!!

Smaller buckets also concentrate the force differently. Those rock buckets are somewhat pointed too. :D

Coal buckets bigger depends on what it's loading. Like the 793 c or d can get 150 tons of coal fully loaded but with rock and dirt 240 on up in tons. Coal. is lighter and 994 comes with a 75 cubic yard bucket for light material