Caterpillar® Product Information

Performance Report
December 2005

Caterpillar®
325D L
vs.
Caterpillar
325C L

Job Study Purpose Productivity comparison of the Caterpillar 325D L versus

the Caterpillar 325C L

Study Dates September 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® 325D L Cat 325C L
Engine C7 with ACERT™ Technology 3126B ATAAC HEUI™
Horsepower kW (hp) 152 (204) 140 (188)
Flow L/min (gal/min)  2 235 (62.0) 235 (62.0)
Weight kg (lb) 29,592 (65,240) 28,704 (63,280)
Track Shoes mm (in) 800 (32) 800 (32)
Stick Force kN (lb) SAE 124 (27,876) 116 (26,200)
Boom m (ft/in) 6.15 (20'2") 6.15 (20'20")
Stick m (ft/in) 3.2 (10'6") 3.2 (10'6")
Machine Hours 55 10

Bucket Specifications
Cat 324D L/322C L
Trenching Tests Bucket – Heavy Duty Power
Capacity m3 (yd3) 1.38 (1.70)
Tip Radius mm (in) 1550 (61.0)
Width mm (in) 1219 (48.0)
Weight kg (lb) 1080 (2,380)
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 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). 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

14.27 13.67
500 16
14
400 12 2.42 2.39
10 1.82 1.73
300
370.5 8 2.27 2.06
200 346.8 6
4 7.76 7.49
100 2
0
0 325C L 325D L
Cyd/Hour

Load Lift & Swing Dump Return

325C L 325D L

Fuel Consumption Fuel Efficiency

12 50
10 40
8
30 38.3
6 9.67 39.4
8.8 20
4
2 10

0 0
Gal/Hour* Cyd/Gal

325C L 325D L 325C L 325D L

Fill Factors: 325C L = 81%; 325D L = 83%

3
 Shallow Trenching Results
The trenching test was conducted by digging a single bucket
wide – 1219 mm (48") trench that was 2.1 m (7'0") and 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

500 16
14
400 12
300 411.0 10
8 12.42 12.52
394.4
200 6
4
100 2
0
0 325C L 325D L
Cyd/Hour

325C L 325D L
325C L 325D L

Fill Factors: 325C L = 80%; 325D L = 83%

Trenching Results Summary

Due to the increased horsepower of the 325D L, it was able to
show productivity advantages of 7% in deep trenching and 5%
in shallow trenching over the 325C L. The 325D L also showed
a 4% cycle time advantage in deep trenching while carrying 2%
more fill factor than the 325C L. In shallow trenching, the 325D L
spent more time in the load segment, which slightly increased its
cycle times over the 325C L. The 325D L ended up carrying more
material as evidenced by the fill factors, which led to its
productivity advantage of 4% over the 325C L.

Due to the increased productivity and higher horsepower, the

325D L did consume more fuel, but overall fuel efficiency
(material moved per liter/gallon) was 97% of the 325C 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'). 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

18.43 17.43
800 20

16 3.78 3.69
600 741.4
12 2.76 2.73
705.2
400 6.03
8 5.46

200 4
5.94 5.55
0
0 325C L 325D L
Cyd/Hour

Load Lift & Swing Dump Return

325C L 325D L

Fill Factors: 325C L = 173.5%; 325D L = 172.5%

Truck Loading Summary

The 325D L was able to show a 5% overall productivity
advantage over the 325C L primarily due to its faster cycle times.
The biggest impact on the cycle times was in the Lift & Swing
segment, where the 325D L was able to demonstrate a 9% advantage
over the 325C 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 325D 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, 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.

325C L 325D L
Test #1 Load Height m (ft/in) 3.81 (12'6") 4.4 (14'5")
Distance m (ft/in) 6.35 (20'10") 7.11 (23'4")
Test #2 Load Height m (ft/in) 2.44 (8'0") 2.44 (8'0")
Distance m (ft/in) 8.73 (28'7") 8.79 (28'10")
Test #3 Load Height m (ft/in) 2.44 (8'0") 2.44 (8'0")
Distance m (ft/in) 8.23 (27'0") 8.23 (27'0")
Test #4 Load Height m (ft/in) 3.76 (12'4") 4.27 (14'0")
Distance m (ft/in) 7.09 (23'3") 7.14 (23'5")

6
 Lift Chart Comparison
325C L vs. 325D L Lifting Capacities
R3.2C (10'6") Stick – 800 mm Shoes
Pressure – 325C L = 497 psi; 325D L = 5,220 psi (Heavy Lift)
Bucket Weights 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 113% 113% 84%
20 ft 106% 98% 109% 109% 90%
15 ft 104% 100% 103% 99% 91% 97% 105% 105% 94%
10 ft 104% 100% 104% 100% 105% 99% 103% 99% 103% 103% 97%
5 ft 104% 100% 104% 100% 106% 99% 105% 99% 101% 101% 99%
Ground 105% 105% 104% 99% 107% 99% 106% 99% 105% 98% 99% 97% 102%
-5 ft 104% 104% 105% 105% 104% 99% 107% 99% 106% 98% 95% 92% 105%
-10 ft 105% 105% 105% 105% 104% 99% 107% 99% 106% 98% 91% 86% 111%
-15 ft 104% 104% 104% 99% 103% 99% 117% 93% 122%
Overall 102% 102%
= Advantage for the 325D L
= No Difference (± 1%) Over Front 104%
= Advantage for the 325C L

Lift Tests Summary

Due to the increased hydraulic pressure, the addition of the heavy
lift option and two additional track links, the 325D L is able to
demonstrate better lift performance than the 325C 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 vs hydraulically limited.

The above chart is an overlaying of the lift charts for each machine
with the bucket weights equalized. Overall there is a 2% advantage,
but in the Working Range, typically 6.1 m – 7.6 m (20-25 ft),
there are advantages for the 325D L near 7% over the front.

7
Technical Specification
Comparison
325C L 325D L
Engine
Engine Model Cat 3126B C7 with ACERT™
ATAAC HEUI Technology
ISO 9249 kw (hp) 140 (188) 152 (204)
SAE J1349 kw (hp) 139 (186) 151 (202)
EEC 80/1269 kw (hp) 140 (188) 152 (204)
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) 28,600 (63,100) 29,240 (64,460)
Service Refill Capacities
Fuel Tank Capacity L (gal) 500 (132) 520 (137)
Cooling System L (gal) 30 (7.9) 30 (7.9)
Engine Oil L (gal) 34 (9.0) 30 (7.9)
Swing Drive L (gal) 10 (2.6) 10 (2.6)
Final Drive (each) L (gal) 6 (1.6) 6 (1.6)
Hydraulic System (inc. tank) L (gal) 310 (82.0) 310 (82.0)
Hydraulic Tank L (gal) 145 (38.3) 145 (38.3)
Hydraulic System
Main Implement System – L/min (gal/min) 235 (62.0) 235 (62.0)
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) 4.12 (597) 3.9 (566)
Boom Cylinder – Bore mm (in) 140 (5.51) 140 (5.51)
Boom Cylinder – Stroke mm (in) 1407 (55.0) 1407 (55.0)
Stick Cylinder – Bore mm (in) 150 (5.91) 150 (5.91)
Stick Cylinder – Stroke mm (in) 1646 (65.0) 1646 (65.0)
C/CB Family Bucket Cylinder – Bore mm (in) 130 (5.12) 135 (5.31)
C/CB Family Bucket Cylinder – Stroke mm (in) 1156 (45.3) 1156 (45.3)
Drive
Maximum Travel Speed kph (mph) 5.3 (3.3) 5.3 (3.3)
Maximum Drawbar Pull kN (lb) 244 (54,853) 249 (55,977)

8
 Technical Specification
Comparison
325C L 325D L
Swing Mechanism
Swing Speed rpm 10.2 rpm 10.2 rpm
Swing Torque kN-m (lb ft) 82.2 (60,628) 82.2 (60,628)
Dimensions
Shipping Height mm (ft/in) 3320 (10'11") 3180 (10'5")
Shipping Length mm (ft/in) 10 340 (33'11") 10 410 (34'2")
Shipping Width [813 mm (32") TG shoes] mm (ft/in) 3390 (11'1") 3390 (11'1")
Tail Swing Radius mm (ft/in) 3050 (10'0") 3080 (10'1")
Length to Center of Rollers mm (ft/in) 3800 (12'6") 3990 (13'1")
Track Length mm (ft/in) 4660 (15'3") 4860 (15'11")
Ground Clearance mm (ft/in) 480 (1'7") 490 (1'7")
Track Gauge mm (ft/in) 2590 (8'6") 2590 (8'6")
Working Ranges
Maximum Reach @ Ground Level m (ft/in) 10.51 (34'6") 10.66 (35'0")
Maximum Digging Depth m (ft/in) 7.09 (23'3") 7.28 (23'11")
Minimum Loading Height m (ft/in) 2.45 (8'0") 2.26 (7'5")
Maximum Loading Height m (ft/in) 7.11 (23'4") 6.91 (22'8")
Maximum Vertical Wall Digging Depth m (ft/in) 6.40 (21'0") 6.14 (20'2")
Maximum Cutting Height m (ft/in) 9.95 (32'8") 10.11 (33'2")
Maximum Depth Cut for m (ft/in) 6.92 (22'8") 7.13 (23'5")
a 2.4 m (8 ft) Level Bottom

9
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.
TEXR0423
December 2005
www.cat.com
© 2005 Caterpillar
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.