|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/8/2002
Posts: 789
Location: Clevedon UK
|
Is the new Liebheer Hi Drive bulldozer about the size of a Cat D9 or D10? Is it any good in the field?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2002
Posts: 4,827
Location: New Jersey
|
CAT D9
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/10/2002
Posts: 498
Location: attnang puchheim
|
Hello Mark
The PR776 is a little bit bigger than the D10T and also as the D10T2. The performance is the same as by the D10T but the PR776 pushes more than the D10T .The fuel consumtion is around 20% better than by the D10T.
Best regards
KLaus
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2002
Posts: 4,827
Location: New Jersey
|
I concede to mayrklaus, thought I read an article saying it compared to the D9, real world experience rules.
Sorry for the incorrect information.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/8/2002
Posts: 789
Location: Clevedon UK
|
Perhaps it will takes sales from Cat, just what they need
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/15/2003
Posts: 1,144
Location: North America
|
mayrklaus wrote:The fuel consumtion is around 20% better than by the D10T. Wow, over 150 more horsepower with 20% less fuel? That's hard to imagine. But maybe another interesting question is; how much more expensive is the Liebherr to purchase compared to the Cat?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2014
Posts: 184
Location: Perth, Australia
|
digggerr wrote:mayrklaus wrote:The fuel consumtion is around 20% better than by the D10T. Wow, over 150 more horsepower with 20% less fuel? That's hard to imagine. But maybe another interesting question is; how much more expensive is the Liebherr to purchase compared to the Cat? Life cycle costings would be interesting too.. I cant imagine the hydraulic components are cheap nor readily available for the PR776
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/10/2002
Posts: 498
Location: attnang puchheim
|
Hello
The price is always different to the countries you are using the machine.
The price for the parts are nearly the same and the machine runs the same time as the cat also depending on the side where the machine run.
Best regards
Klaus
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/14/2008
Posts: 247
Location: Germany, CE
|
digggerr wrote:mayrklaus wrote:The fuel consumtion is around 20% better than by the D10T. Wow, over 150 more horsepower with 20% less fuel? That's hard to imagine. But maybe another interesting question is; how much more expensive is the Liebherr to purchase compared to the Cat? Hi Digggerr, both CAT D10T2 and the PR 776 offer variable horsepower - increased HP in reverse: D10 447kW/538kW - PR 776 440kW/568kW. So they are quite comparable. Same with weight. AFIK, stress for transmission is much less in reverse as compared to forward pushing. You can cut cycle time by backing up the dozer much faster. I think, this will be a major improvement in slot dozing applications. What I don't understand is the much slower top speed of the Liebherr: 10.5 km/h back and forth equal as compared to 15.8 km/h in reverse offered by the D10T2. We are talking about 50%! Liebherr states that the increased HP is just for these mining applications, so I just don't get the point by cutting max speed at 10.5... The situation may be different in ripping applications. Probably you just don't back up a dozer on a steep hill full of rough ripped rock at max speed... A major advantage of the Liebherr system - at least in my eyes - is greater freedom in designing the main frame. With an Hystat you just don't have to align the whole drivetrain as in tractors equipped with TCs and powershift transmissions. Don't get me wrong here: I don't say that the Liebherr frame will bend and flex like crazy. But have a look at the spec sheet and you will see that the PR 776 main frame offers very good access to the hydraulic drivetrain: https://www.liebherr.com/external/products/products-assets/257913/Product%20Brochure%20PR%20776.pdf Could be a important point for maintainance or overhauls.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/27/2016
Posts: 93
Location: Milwaukee
|
A lot of time top gear is locked out in reverse to greatly reduce track wear. So in real world application that high speed is not used.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/27/2016
Posts: 93
Location: Milwaukee
|
rare ss wrote:digggerr wrote:mayrklaus wrote:The fuel consumtion is around 20% better than by the D10T. Wow, over 150 more horsepower with 20% less fuel? That's hard to imagine. But maybe another interesting question is; how much more expensive is the Liebherr to purchase compared to the Cat? Life cycle costings would be interesting too.. I cant imagine the hydraulic components are cheap nor readily available for the PR776 I don't know about this. The large shovels use Rexroth (I don't know exclusively) and Liebherr doesn't do enough fiddling to where the parts won't interchange and are difficult to look up. Can't be saying the same thing about Cat rebrands.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/15/2003
Posts: 1,144
Location: North America
|
Mr. Scholz wrote:Hi Digggerr, both CAT D10T2 and the PR 776 offer variable horsepower - increased HP in reverse: D10 447kW/538kW - PR 776 440kW/568kW. So they are quite comparable. Same with weight. AFIK, stress for transmission is much less in reverse as compared to forward pushing. You can cut cycle time by backing up the dozer much faster. I think, this will be a major improvement in slot dozing applications. What I don't understand is the much slower top speed of the Liebherr: 10.5 km/h back and forth equal as compared to 15.8 km/h in reverse offered by the D10T2. We are talking about 50%! Liebherr states that the increased HP is just for these mining applications, so I just don't get the point by cutting max speed at 10.5... The situation may be different in ripping applications. Probably you just don't back up a dozer on a steep hill full of rough ripped rock at max speed... A major advantage of the Liebherr system - at least in my eyes - is greater freedom in designing the main frame. With an Hystat you just don't have to align the whole drivetrain as in tractors equipped with TCs and powershift transmissions. Don't get me wrong here: I don't say that the Liebherr frame will bend and flex like crazy. But have a look at the spec sheet and you will see that the PR 776 main frame offers very good access to the hydraulic drivetrain: https://www.liebherr.com/external/products/products-assets/257913/Product%20Brochure%20PR%20776.pdf Could be a important point for maintainance or overhauls. Thanks for your post! Please see the images of webpages from both manufacturers below the body of this post and you will see how I got the big HP difference? It is curious that more HP is needed in reverse, and I admit that I don't really understand that philosophy. Surely the engine is working hardest when going forward and pushing material? With regard to the hydrostatic transmission, if I understand the hydrostatic concept correctly the fluid can only flow back and forth at the same rate? I agree that the hydro drive allows a lot more options for designers and we will just have to wait and see how the PR776 does in the field over the years.  
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2014
Posts: 184
Location: Perth, Australia
|
Mr. Squote wrote:
Hi Diggg With regard to the hydrostatic transmission, if I understand the hydrostatic concept correctly the fluid can only flow back and forth at the same rate?
Not so, with the use of variable displacement pumps and motors you can control the flow rate to match demand, either high flow (high speed) low torque or low flow (low speed) and high torque But, you're correct in what you're saying, top speed would be governed by the max flow rates so forward would be the same as reverse, compared to a mechanical drive where reverse speeds are faster through the use of different ratios of the transmission
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/15/2003
Posts: 1,144
Location: North America
|
Thanks for your post! I guess I should have put a "maximum" in the text somewhere, but you understood my meaning.
Can you offer any information on the difference of price to purchase between the two dozers? Considering Australia as the destination, I don't think there would be a huge difference in the cost of shipping. I'd like to know if my suspicion that the Liebherr is considerably more expensive regardless of location has any merit.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/10/2002
Posts: 498
Location: attnang puchheim
|
digggerr wrote:Thanks for your post! I guess I should have put a "maximum" in the text somewhere, but you understood my meaning.
Can you offer any information on the difference of price to purchase between the two dozers? Considering Australia as the destination, I don't think there would be a huge difference in the cost of shipping. I'd like to know if my suspicion that the Liebherr is considerably more expensive regardless of location has any merit. Hello I think that you will not get a real price here because erverybody is the best by discussing the price. For a real price you should ask a user or the dealers. Best regards klaus
|
|
|
Guest |
