|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/23/2006
Posts: 133
Location: Statesboro, GA USA
|
I received the D10 push dozer from CCM yesterday and I am really pleased. This is my first push dozer and first model from CCM. I had to have this model just like I'll have to have the Cat 666 from CCM as well. Just a couple of comments I have about this model. I am disappointed that CCM did not put the engine fan on the front of the engine. With the price of this model you would think they would a least put the fan. There is a gap or hole in front of the engine. I'm not trying to be ungreatful or difficult, I'm just expressing my opinion. The other comment is on the box CCM labeled this model Cat D10 push dozer with push blade and push block. I might be wrong and If I am I apologize, but the push block is at the rear of the dozer,right, at the rear of the D10 is what appears to be a push block, but it has a hitch there. Obviously if you are going to use tandem push dozers the hitch would be in the way and simply get bent when the rear push dozer makes contact. If I'm wrong just overlook me. Other wise great model.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/27/2007
Posts: 2,647
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta
|
I'm not familiar with the original D10, but am familiar with the later D11N and the newer R and T models. The fan was not mounted on the front of the engine on the N and newer, but in with the radiators. So it's likely that this is the case with the D10 as well. Basically, it's not visible unless you look through the rad or grill in the front of the machine. Not sure if it's there on the model or not, mine haven't arrived yet.
Also, that's not actually a push block on the back of the dozer. That's why there's a hitch on it.
Brian
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/23/2006
Posts: 133
Location: Statesboro, GA USA
|
thanks greasemonkey, I didn't know that about the fan on the D10, I've never even seen a real D10, I figured I was wrong and I take my hat off CCM. I never doubted them, actually I have seen the hull of a D10R on back of a truck going to Savannah to the ports once but just the hull. I wished they would have put a rear push block on the D10 for tandem pushloading.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/2/2006
Posts: 224
Location: Clarence
|
CAT621 wrote:thanks greasemonkey, I didn't know that about the fan on the D10, I've never even seen a real D10, I figured I was wrong and I take my hat off CCM. I never doubted them, actually I have seen the hull of a D10R on back of a truck going to Savannah to the ports once but just the hull. I wished they would have put a rear push block on the D10 for tandem pushloading. I could not agree more on the push block. This was a real big mistake in my mind. I have no clue why CCM would have opted to do a counterweight drawbar rather than a push block. Unless they will be doing a limited run with actual push block in the future?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/22/2008
Posts: 214
Location: Columbia, MD
|
I had sent an email to CCM about the rear push-block a while ago, hoping that one would be included, since it was advertised in the ad-copy. Although the promotional pics showed a counterweight with hitch, I was hoping the proper rear push-block would be on the production models. I also wanted to perhaps buy a second pushcat for tandem pushing the 666 when it becomes available. I guess it'll have to be scratchbuilt. With all due respects to CCM, who otherwise have done (and continue to do) excellent models, the omission of the rear push-block on the D10 was a boo-boo on CCM's part.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/27/2003
Posts: 1,628
Location: Australia
|
CAT621 i can confirm the fan detail is correct on the CCM model as it resides in front of the rad and behind the trans & hyd coolers which are accessed by opening the grills at the front.
With the pushblock there are none shown as available on SIS, only the rear counterweight with towhook as depicted on the CCM model. While many D10T/R/N & D9L,s are set up as pure pushcats with C-blades and pushblocks and can be seen double pushing large scrapers i have never seen or heard of 84W or 76X machines needing to be tagged up together, the 700HP beastie has enough grunt to get the job done on it's own and it was the reason the DD9H dropped off the radar.
If there is a mistake with the CCM D10 it is only the wording on the box, no big deal as the machine is accurate and with the individuals behind these fine creations lovers of classic big iron of the correct yellow variety are in very, very good hands and as hard as it may be to believe this series will get even better than what we have already been blessed with.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/14/2006
Posts: 753
Location: Southern California
|
Gavin is right abou the lack of a factory rear push block on the D-10. I have heard of someone years ago who was doubling up with these beasts here in SoCal, former scraper capital of the world. Never seen it first hand though, but it would not surprise me. I have seen triple pushes with D-9L, D-10N, and D-375 Komatsu's, so double D-10 is still less power than those combo's.
Jerry
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/29/2007
Posts: 21
Location: Cape Cod
|
I have a question for you D10 experts. Is this a model of the original D10 that was created in the mid to late 70's and then became the D11 or is it a model of a newer D10. I noted that CCM did not add a letter suffix such as T or N after the D10 model number so I am guessing that this model is of the original.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Walt
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/24/2007
Posts: 630
Location: Germany
|
It´s a model of the original.
Leo
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/14/2006
Posts: 753
Location: Southern California
|
Yes, it is the original D-10, with no series letter. That was the first high drive Cat dozer. It later was upgraded, basically completely redesigned, and became the D-11N
Many people incorrectly (IMO) call it a D-10L, due to its smaller brothers being "L" series at the time, the D-8L and D-9L. There never was a D-10L, just D-10. Newer series became D-10N, which was an upgrade of the D-9L, and then D-10R, and the current, which is a D-10T
Jerry
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/23/2006
Posts: 133
Location: Statesboro, GA USA
|
Thanks for all the replies, I hope I haven't upset anybody about my complaining. I am very thankful for CCM. I love the old iron and very thankful CCM are producing models of the old machines. Can't wait to see what else they have up there sleeves. Would love to see a 631 or 621 scraper with a D9 pusher.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/17/2006
Posts: 1,628
Location: Hebron, In
|
CAT621 wrote:Thanks for all the replies, I hope I haven't upset anybody about my complaining. I am very thankful for CCM. I love the old iron and very thankful CCM are producing models of the old machines. Can't wait to see what else they have up there sleeves. Would love to see a 631 or 621 scraper with a D9 pusher. Although not an older machine, I would love to see CCM produce a 1/48 Cat D8T from the pipelayer. It would make a great lowboy load.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/2/2006
Posts: 224
Location: Clarence
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/2/2006
Posts: 224
Location: Clarence
|
Yeah, now that I look at the pics, definitely a D9H cushion block on that 10 for sure. Looks cool though.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/3/2007
Posts: 1,463
Location: washington
|
I got mine in the mail just the other day and I must say it is a great looking model I asked about the 666 Cat scaper but as of yet they are still working on it and no price is know yet....
William.....
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/27/2003
Posts: 1,628
Location: Australia
|
jdofmemi wrote:Many people incorrectly (IMO) call it a D-10L, Not just your opinion Jerry but anyone who knows there stuff will tell you there has never and was never a D10L, no such machine-period and if you here anyone calling it that give them a quick education!!! This reference and non genuine decals on machines would rate as some of the biggest pet hates of mine in the industry and the way i see it is if you are gunna put cheap incorrect decals on the outside where i can see them what are you going to put on the inside of the engine, trans etc when you repair it and i cant see it!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/14/2006
Posts: 753
Location: Southern California
|
Gavin
You are right, and here are a few more that never existed:
988A
992A
824A
834A
631A
641A
651A
Basically the list contains any machine that was followerd up with a "B" model. The D-10L is the worst case in my opinion though.
Jerry
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 12/27/2003
Posts: 1,628
Location: Australia
|
Going a bit off topic here Jerry but some other pet hates for the traditionalists like us are the current 772 & D7E, modern day machines using former model numbers, 993 wheel loader-should be a large track loader as even numbers were wheel loaders and odds track loaders and here is the cardinal sin of all time, s/n prefix for the current AWD 140M? D9G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/14/2006
Posts: 753
Location: Southern California
|
I hear you Gavin.
Probably going to be more and more of these for us to hate as more machines get introduced, and there are only so many number combinations to go around.
I think the 993 problem got caused back when the 994 was introduced. Did no one have the foresight to think that there may be a future machine in between the 992 and the 994?????? Especially when the 994 was double the size. There was plenty of room in the lower size classes, and some of it got used even, but to not leave room at the top was a big mistake.
Trucks have the same problem, as they get bigger, there are less numbers available. Only room for one bigger than a 797. Whatever happens after that will be a travesty for sure.
I didn't know about the 140M sn glitch. You would think there would be enough combinations available for that not to happen, but I am sure there will be more.
Jerry
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 5,046
Location: B-town
|
jdofmemi wrote:I hear you Gavin.Trucks have the same problem, as they get bigger, there are less numbers available. Only room for one bigger than a 797. Whatever happens after that will be a travesty for sure. Perhaps an 801???????????( < Aussie tongue-n-cheek) Chris
|
|
|
Guest |
