|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/13/2006
Posts: 2,508
Location: PA
|
would this be a bad time to point out that the whole body is longer too?  
regards, Jim "Once again, concussion by safety" -Mike Rowe
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 2,559
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
966: Honnestly, I don't understand a thing of what you just wrote. Could you be clearer?
Jimi: Just what I said earlier about the paint, I also thought this the first time I've seen it, but then I realised there was no black paint on the right side.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/27/2007
Posts: 2,647
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
|
Antho wrote:
Just had about a feet and a half of black paint on the righ hand side and it doesn't look longer at all. Also, both undercarraige seem to have 10 bottom rollers. What would be the advantage to have the undercarriage of a 330 on a 345?
Do you guys need a picture of a 345C or D to compare the shape of the boom?
Look at the hood, it is a different style, look at the shape and height of what should be the hydraulic tank, it is higher on the unmarked machine, and maybe recount the rollers, there are 10 on the unmarked machine and only 9 on the 336E. If you want to get into the boom, then check the profile of the boom, it is a thicker section on the unmarked machine than the 336E. If you doubt that, then look at the size compared to the undercarriage, you can see the thickness of the boom is more on the unmarked machine than the 336E. I'm not sure why you think these are the same machines, anyone can see there are significant differences between the two. Brian
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/16/2007
Posts: 2,707
Location: Staten Island, New York
|
The engine cover is higher and longer on the 349 and the 349's engine cover also goes on the c/w and the 336's doesn't
-Vinny http://www.heavytruckphotos.com/
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 2,559
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Greasemonkey wrote:Antho wrote:
Just had about a feet and a half of black paint on the righ hand side and it doesn't look longer at all. Also, both undercarraige seem to have 10 bottom rollers. What would be the advantage to have the undercarriage of a 330 on a 345?
Do you guys need a picture of a 345C or D to compare the shape of the boom?
Look at the hood, it is a different style, look at the shape and height of what should be the hydraulic tank, it is higher on the unmarked machine, and maybe recount the rollers, there are 10 on the unmarked machine and only 9 on the 336E. If you want to get into the boom, then check the profile of the boom, it is a thicker section on the unmarked machine than the 336E. If you doubt that, then look at the size compared to the undercarriage, you can see the thickness of the boom is more on the unmarked machine than the 336E. I'm not sure why you think these are the same machines, anyone can see there are significant differences between the two. Brian The one at Bauma was the L version, the one in the field was the short undercarriage version. That's why you have 9 rollers. Anyway, I'll probably never cahnge my mind, I'm as crazy as that and I wouldn't be surprised that a few modifications were done on the 336 showed at Bauma. Anyway, I'll stop here before I am thought a fool 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 2,559
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Cat 966f wrote:The engine cover is higher and longer on the 349 and the 349's engine cover also goes on the c/w and the 336's doesn't LMAO That's what I said just before your non-understandable post. The counterweight was just beefed up, that's not the engine cover. Stability issue probably.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/16/2007
Posts: 2,707
Location: Staten Island, New York
|
If there are differences, why are they the same machine?
-Vinny http://www.heavytruckphotos.com/
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/27/2007
Posts: 2,647
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
|
Antho wrote:The one at Bauma was the L version, the one in the field was the short undercarriage version. That's why you have 9 rollers. Anyway, I'll probably never cahnge my mind, I'm as crazy as that and I wouldn't be surprised that a few modifications were done on the 336 showed at Bauma. Anyway, I'll stop here before I am thought a fool You kind of just proved what I am saying. The 336E L at Bauma has 9 rollers on the undercarriage. The unmarked machine we are calling the 349 has 10 rollers. Do you understand what I am saying? Brian
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 2,559
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
For 966: It's just esthetic differences! A little counterweight was added at the top of the big one, handrail difference and the engine cover changes. The boom stays the same, the body does, the CW does (except for the black part as I said), the undercarriage is the same... These are minor differences!
And who knows, maybe they modified the engine a bit, that would be the reason of the new cover.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 2,559
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Greasemonkey wrote:Antho wrote:The one at Bauma was the L version, the one in the field was the short undercarriage version. That's why you have 9 rollers. Anyway, I'll probably never cahnge my mind, I'm as crazy as that and I wouldn't be surprised that a few modifications were done on the 336 showed at Bauma. Anyway, I'll stop here before I am thought a fool You kind of just proved what I am saying. The 336E L at Bauma has 9 rollers on the undercarriage. The unmarked machine we are calling the 349 has 10 rollers. Do you understand what I am saying? Brian The 345's have 9. Would it be a 375E then? 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/21/2010
Posts: 184
Location: Grandville, Mi
|
and if they were the same why is it unmarked and why are the hiding it i guess you could say but i know im probally wrong in some way but thats just my 2 cents.
Do it in The Dirt
CATERPILLAR
2000 F-250 7.3 Diesel CCSB 8in lift, 37" Toyo M/Ts
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/16/2007
Posts: 2,707
Location: Staten Island, New York
|
Cat345DL_boy wrote:and if they were the same why is it unmarked and why are the hiding it i guess you could say but i know im probally wrong in some way but thats just my 2 cents. \ Thats actually a really good point
-Vinny http://www.heavytruckphotos.com/
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 2,559
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Ok ok that's fine, it's a damn 349E, or what so ever..
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/27/2007
Posts: 2,647
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
|
Antho wrote:For 966: It's just esthetic differences! A little counterweight was added at the top of the big one, handrail difference and the engine cover changes. The boom stays the same, the body does, the CW does (except for the black part as I said), the undercarriage is the same... These are minor differences!
And who knows, maybe they modified the engine a bit, that would be the reason of the new cover. The "little" bit of counterweight that was added is actually quite a significant amount. Especially when you consider the counterweight looks thicker as well. The boom does not stay the same, you can see the boom is thicker on the 349. The body does not stay the same, the whole shape of it is differnt on the 349. The undercarriage is clearly not the same. These are not minor differences. Antho wrote:The 345's have 9. Would it be a 375E then? You do realise that you are trying to compare two totally different series of machines, right? Brian
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 2,559
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Greasemonkey wrote:You do realise that you are trying to compare two totally different series of machines, right?
Brian Yes I do.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/27/2007
Posts: 2,647
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
|
Antho wrote:The 345's have 9. Would it be a 375E then? So, you're saying a 336E L has a nine roller undercarriage, the unknown machine has a ten roller undercarriage, and a 345 only has a nine roller undercarriage. So this has to be a 336E because it has a longer undercarriage than a 345....that makes it a smaller machine.......and you're saying other people are not making any sense. Brian
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/19/2006
Posts: 2,474
Location: Minnesota
|
Antho, you've got a PM. - Chris 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/25/2006
Posts: 4,275
Location: Woodland, WA
|
349 eh? sound's like Cat's getting dangerously close to making a real excavator again 
Eric W. Pioszak, Operating Engineers Local 701, Portland, OregonMETAL TRACKS AVAILABLE AGAIN! Cab guards Available again! Grapples Available again! Industrialscalemodels[at symbol]Gmail.com
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/27/2007
Posts: 2,647
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
|
Eric, do you see the irony in the word scrap being associated with that 350?
Brian
(by the way, the melting pot is warming up as we speak)
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 2,559
Location: Edmonton, AB
|
Greasemonkey wrote:Antho wrote:The 345's have 9. Would it be a 375E then? So, you're saying a 336E L has a nine roller undercarriage, the unknown machine has a ten roller undercarriage, and a 345 only has a nine roller undercarriage. So this has to be a 336E because it has a longer undercarriage than a 345....that makes it a smaller machine.......and you're saying other people are not making any sense. Brian What do you want me to say after that?
|
|
|
Guest |
