Caterpillar® Product Information

Performance Report
October 2005

Caterpillar® 324D L
vs.
Caterpillar 322C L

Job Study Purpose Productivity comparison of the Caterpillar 324D L versus the
Caterpillar 322C L

Study Dates August 8-12, 2005

Location Peoria Proving Grounds – East Peoria, IL

Participants E. Smola – WLED Excavator Commercial Group

S. Power – WLED Excavator Commercial Group
T. Masayasu – HEDC, Design Center
D. Muller – PPG Engineer

Written By E. Smola – WLED Excavator Commercial Group

Operator R. Fauber – Edwards Demonstration Center

For Dealer Sales Personnel

www.cat.com
Machine Specifications
Cat ® 324D L Cat 322C L
Engine C7 with ACERT™ Technology 3126B ATTAC HEUI™
Horsepower kW (hp) 140 (188) 125 (168)
Flow L/min (gal/min)  2 220 (58.1) 220 (58.1)
Weight kg (lb) 24 793 (54,660) 24 300 (53,600)
Track Shoes mm (in) 800 (32) 800 (32)
Stick Force (SAE) kN (lb) 123 (27,651) 118 (26,600)
Boom m (ft/in) 5.9 (19'4") 5.9 (19'4")
Stick m (ft/in) 2.95 (9'8") 2.95 (9'8")
Machine Hours 40 10

Bucket Specifications
Cat 324D L/322C L
Trenching Tests Bucket – Heavy Duty Power
Capacity m3 (yd3) 1.38 (1.80)
Tip Radius mm (in) 1550 (61.0)
Width mm (in) 1219 (48.0)
Weight kg (lb) 1080 (2380)
Truck Loading Tests Bucket – Heavy Duty
Capacity m3 (yd3) 1.55 (2.03)
Tip Radius mm (in) 1638 (64.5)
Width mm (in) 1372 (54)
Weight kg (lb) 1110 (2,450)

2
Deep Trenching Test – Test Description Results of Trenching Tests
The trenching test was conducted by digging a single bucket
wide – 1219 mm (48") trench that was between 2.9 m (9'6")
and 3.05 m (10'0") 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). Sidecutters
on buckets were removed prior to testing. Machines were alternated
after each trenching run to ensure consistency of the field.
Deep Trenching Cycle Times
Deep Trenching Results

14.28 13.91
500 16
14
400 12 3.21 3.00
300 10 1.86 1.70
386.9 8 1.89 1.93
200 353.1 6
4 7.32 7.22
100 2
0
0 322C L 324D L
Cyd/Hour

Load Lift & Swing Dump Return

322C L 324D L

Fuel Consumption Fuel Efficiency

12 50
10 40
8
30 41.8
6 9.2 42.2
8.4 20
4
2 10

0 0
Gal/Hour* Cyd/Gal

322C L 324D L 322C L 324D L

Fill Factors: 322C L = 75%; 324D L = 83%

3
 Shallow Trenching Results
The trenching test was conducted by digging a single bucket
wide – 1219 mm (48") trench that was between 1.9 m (6'3")
and 2.0 m (6'6") 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.

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

with a material density of 1660 kg/m3 (2,800 lb/yd3). Sidecutters
on buckets were removed prior to testing. Machines were alternated
after each trenching run to ensure consistency of the field.
Shallow Trenching Cycle Times
Shallow Trenching Results

12.48 12.84
500 16
14
400 12
2.76 3.03
300 428.8 10
8 1.65 1.59
406.6 1.74
2.01
200 6
4 6.06 6.48
100 2
0
0 322C L 324D L
Cyd/Hour

Load Lift & Swing Dump Return

322C L 324D L

Fill Factors: 322C L = 79%; 324D L = 85%

Trenching Results Summary

The 324D L was able to show productivity advantages of 10%
in deep trenching and 5% in shallow trenching over the 322C L.
The 324D L also showed a 3% cycle time advantage in deep
trenching while carrying 8% more fill factor than the 322C L.
In shallow trenching, the 324D L spent more time in the load
segment, which increased its cycle times over the 322C L.
The 324D L ended up carrying more material as evidenced by the
fill factors, which led to its productivity advantage over the 322C L.

Due to the increased productivity and higher horsepower,

the 324D L did consume more fuel, but overall fuel efficiency
(material moved per liter/gallon) was nearly equal to the 322C L.

4
Test Description Truck Loading Tests Results
The truck loading tests were conducted using re-handled material
from the trenching tests, which was a mixture of soil and clay.
The tests were same level loading, swinging 90°. The depth
was approximately 3.05 m (10'0"). Each test consisted of each
machine loading 10 trucks, which were on highway dump trucks.
Machines were alternated between each run to ensure the
consistency of the material between runs.

Cycle times were taken using a computer program specifically

designed for truck loading tests. Fuel consumption was not
measured for these tests. Results are based upon a 60-minute
work hour.
Truck Loading Cycle Times
Truck Loading Results

18.24 17.48
800 20

16 3.69 3.69
600 755.4
12 2.52 2.31
705.2
400 6.09
8 5.58

200 4
5.94 5.91
0
0 322C L 324D L
Cyd/Hour

Load Lift & Swing Dump Return

322C L 324D L

Fill Factors: 322C L = 163%; 324D L = 166%

Truck Loading Summary

The 324D L was able to show a 7% overall productivity advantage
over the 322C L primarily due to its faster cycle times and larger
payload. The biggest impact on the cycle times was in the
Lift & Swing segment, where the 324D L was able to demonstrate
a 9% advantage over the 322C L.

5
Lifting Tests Results Test Description
Four different lift tests were conducted with the two machines
to demonstrate any lifting differences as result of the addition of
the heavy lift circuit for the 324D L. The weight used in all of the
tests was a manufactured 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,
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
& 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,
or was hydraulically limited.

322C L 324D L
Test #1 Load Height 11'3" 11'8"
Distance 16'6" 18'4"
Test #2 Load Height 8'0" 8'0"
Distance 25'0" 26'2"
Test #3 Load Height 8'0" 8'0"
Distance 20'9" 24'2"
Test #4 Load Height 12'1" 12'2"
Distance 18'1" 18'7"

6
 Lift Chart Comparison

324D L vs. 322C L Lifting Capacities

322C L, Reach Boom, 2.95S Stick – 800 mm Shoes
324D L, Reach Boom, 2.95CB1 Stick – 800 mm Shoes, Heavy Lift ON
Bucket Weight Equalized
Lift Load Radius

Point 5 ft 10 ft 15 ft 20 ft 25 ft 30 ft Max Reach

Height Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side Front Side Feet
25 ft 108% 108% 101%
20 ft 108% 106% 108% 108% 101%
15 ft 115% 110% 116% 109% 108% 109% 101%
10 ft 114% 108% 115% 108% 113% 109% 108% 110% 101%
5 ft 115% 108% 115% 109% 108% 110% 108% 110% 101%
Ground 99% 99% 115% 108% 107% 109% 108% 109% 107% 110% 101%
-5 ft 96% 96% 99% 99% 116% 108% 107% 109% 108% 109% 106% 109% 101%
-10 ft 99% 99% 99% 99% 117% 108% 107% 109% 79% 107% 102%
-15 ft 119% 119% 118% 107% 115% 106%
108% 108%
= Advantage for the 324D L
= No Difference (± 1%)
= Advantage for the 322C L

Lift Tests Summary

Due to the increased hydraulic pressure and addition of the
heavy lift option, the 324D L is able to demonstrate better lift
performance than the 322C L over the front. In the over the
side test we performed, we did not see a measurable difference
in performance, as over the side lift is generally stability limited
instead of hydraulically limited.

The above chart is an overlaying of the lift charts for each

machine with the bucket weights equalized. Overall there is an
8% advantage, but in the Working Range [typically 4.6 m-6.1 m
(15-20 ft)], there are advantages for the 324D L near 15% over
the front, and close to 10% over the side.

7
Additional Test The following tests were run in addition to the standard tests.
These tests were run with the 324D L only.

Short Stick/Coupler Test

The 2.95 m (9'8") Stick was changed out to the 2.5 m (8'2") Stick
and the CB linkage cast coupler was installed. Two trenches using
the same bucket were run to compare productivity between the
standard set up and the short stick with coupler.
Short Stick Trenching Results Cycle Times

500
20 13.80 13.89
400
16
300 419.8
410.2 12 2.94 2.61
1.8 1.59
200 8 1.86 2.13
100 4 7.20 7.56
0 0
Cyd/Hour 2.95 no coupler 2.5 w/coupler

2.95 no coupler 2.5 w/coupler Load Lift & Swing Dump Return

Fill Factors: 2.95 = 87%; 2.5 = 89%

There was a 2% production difference between the two

configurations and nearly the same cycle times. Fill factors for
the machines can account for the slight difference in cycle times
as the 2.5 w/coupler configuration was in the load segment longer.

8
 Technical Specification
Comparison
322C L 324D L
Engine
Engine Model Cat 3126B C7 with ACERT™
ATTAC HEUI Technology
ISO 9249 kw (hp) 125 (168) 140 (188)
SAE J1349 kw (hp) 124 (166) 139 (186)
EEC 80/1269 kw (hp) 125 (168) 140 (188)
Bore mm (in) 110 (4.33) 110 (4.33)
Stroke mm (in) 127 (5.0) 127 (5.0)
Displacement L (in3) 7.2 (440) 7.2 (440)
Emissions Tier 2 Tier 3
Weights
Operating Weight kg (lb) 24 300 (53,600) 24 790 (54,660)
Service Refill Capacities
Fuel Tank Capacity L (gal) 500 (132) 520 (137)
Cooling System L (gal) 38 (10.0) 31 (8.2)
Engine Oil L (gal) 34 (9.0) 30 (7.9)
Swing Drive L (gal) 8 (2.1) 10 (2.6)
Final Drive (each) L (gal) 5 (1.3) 6 (1.6)
Hydraulic System (inc. tank) L (gal) 245 (64.7) 300 (79.3)
Hydraulic Tank L (gal) 145 (38.3) 145 (38.3)
Hydraulic System
Main Implement System – L/min (gal/min) 220 (58.1) 220 (58.1)
Maximum Flow (2x)
Maximum Pressure – Implements MPa (psi) 34.3 (4,980) 35/36 (5,076/5,220)
Pilot System – Maximum Flow L/min (gal/min) 36 (9.5) 32 (9.0)
Pilot System – Maximum Pressure MPa (psi) 3.92 (568) 3.9 (566)
Boom Cylinder – Bore mm (in) 130 (5.12) 135 (5.31)
Boom Cylinder – Stroke mm (in) 1305 (51.4) 1305 (51.4)
Stick Cylinder – Bore mm (in) 140 (5.51) 140 (5.51)
Stick Cylinder – Stroke mm (in) 1660 (65.4) 1660 (65.4)
S/CB Family Bucket Cylinder – Bore mm (in) 130 (5.12) 130 (5.12)
S Family Bucket Cylinder – Stroke mm (in) 1115 (43.9) X
CB Family Bucket Cylinder – Stroke mm (in) X 1156 (45.3)
Drive
Maximum Travel Speed kph (mph) 5.5 (3.4) 5.5 (3.4)
Maximum Drawbar Pull kN (lb) 223 (50,132) 227 (51,032)

9
Technical Specification
Comparison
322C L 324D L
Swing Mechanism
Swing Speed rpm 10 rpm 10 rpm
Swing Torque kN-m (lb ft) 73.4 (54,137) 73.4 (54,137)
Dimensions
Shipping Height mm (ft/in) 3120 (10'3") 3170 (10'5")
Shipping Length mm (ft/in) 9960 (32'8") 10 060 (33'0")
Shipping Width [813 mm (32") TG shoes] mm (ft/in) 3390 (11'1") 3390 (11'1")
Tail Swing Radius mm (ft/in) 2970 (9'9") 3000 (9'10")
Length to Center of Rollers mm (ft/in) 3830 (12'7") 3830 (12'7")
Track Length mm (ft/in) 4640 (15'3") 4640 (15'3")
Ground Clearance mm (ft/in) 470 (1'7") 470 (1'7")
Track Gauge mm (ft/in) 2590 (8'6") 2590 (8'6")
Working Ranges
Maximum Reach @ Ground Level m (ft/in) 10.01 (32'10") 9.83 (32'3")
Maximum Digging Depth m (ft/in) 6.71 (22'0") 6.85 (22'6")
Minimum Loading Height m (ft/in) 2.51 (8'3") 2.37 (7'9")
Maximum Loading Height m (ft/in) 6.73 (22'1") 6.59 (21'7")
Maximum Vertical Wall Digging Depth m (ft/in) 5.70 (18'8") 6.07 (19'11")
Maximum Cutting Height m (ft/in) 9.68 (31'9") 9.95 (32'8")
Maximum Depth Cut for m (ft/in) 6.40 (21'0") 6.67 (21'11")
an 2438 mm (8 ft) Level Bottom

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.
TEXR0420
October 2005
www.cat.com
© 2005 Caterpillar
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.