Caterpillar 966B loader

[nevilley]

Hi just wondering if any one on this great site can tell me about the Caterpillar D333 engines in the 966B loaders. Any common problems etc. I have had a lot to do with the Cat 966C using a 3306 engine but I know little about the D333. I am also wanting to purchase a service manual ( workshop manual) for a 966B with a D333 engine. Thanks for any replys.

 

[kshansen]

Been many years since I saw or touched one but as I recall the two D333 and 3306 while not the same engine I would say they are very close relatives! So close that at times one could forget what is different. As I recall the most outside noticeable difference would be how water pump is mounted.

Common problems for either engine would be, in my opinion, more a result of poor maintenance than poor design, things like not changing coolant causing erosion of liners or not fixing glow plugs and damaging pistons and rings with to much "go juice"! Other than those water or crap in fuel would be another thing to deal with causing problems.

If I was looking for something to use in the "outback" I would much rather depend on a 966B or C over a 966K or something like that! Might not have all the fancy bells and whistles but to me every bell and whistle is about a dozen places for something to go wrong!

 

[ol'stonebreaker]

I ran quite a few B's over the years and IMO they are one tough, dependable machine.
Mike

 

[kshansen]

I ran quite a few B's over the years and IMO they are one tough, dependable machine.
Mike

Yes as were the guys who ran them for 8 to 10 hours a shift! That said if someone was to offer me a machine that I had to keep and not sell I would lean towards a pre-ROPS 966C. Just like the transmission set up in the "C"s a little better. I say pre-ROPS just because at least on the ROPS versions we had the ROPS mounts made working on things like hydraulic pumps a pain.

 

[RZucker]

Been many years since I saw or touched one but as I recall the two D333 and 3306 while not the same engine I would say they are very close relatives! So close that at times one could forget what is different. As I recall the most outside noticeable difference would be how water pump is mounted.


Common problems for either engine would be, in my opinion, more a result of poor maintenance than poor design, things like not changing coolant causing erosion of liners or not fixing glow plugs and damaging pistons and rings with to much "go juice"! Other than those water or crap in fuel would be another thing to deal with causing problems.

If I was looking for something to use in the "outback" I would much rather depend on a 966B or C over a 966K or something like that! Might not have all the fancy bells and whistles but to me every bell and whistle is about a dozen places for something to go wrong!

The 333 was an overhead cam engine, basically the 6 cylinder half of that miserable D348 that cat used in the early 992's, D-10's and a few haul trucks. Whole different animal than a 3306.

 

[Bluox]

D333is an early 3306 they even share the same service manual.
Bob

 

[kshansen]

The 333 was an overhead cam engine, basically the 6 cylinder half of that miserable D348 that cat used in the early 992's, D-10's and a few haul trucks. Whole different animal than a 3306.

Not to start an argument but I think you are confusing the D333 with the D343!

The D333 is a simple over head valve engine just like the 3306.

The D343 is the double overhead cam engine that was used in machines like the 988 loaders and 769 haul truck and there were even versions used in over the road trucks.

 

[RZucker]

Not to start an argument but I think you are confusing the D333 with the D343!

The D333 is a simple over head valve engine just like the 3306.

The D343 is the double overhead cam engine that was used in machines like the 988 loaders and 769 haul truck and there were even versions used in over the road trucks.

Yeah, I think I was thinking 988... not 966. I hated the early 988's. You couldn't get to anything around the engine.

 

[kshansen]

Yeah, I think I was thinking 988... not 966. I hated the early 988's. You couldn't get to anything around the engine.

Yea, one of the "fun" jobs was changing the trans. pump with the model that had the axial piston pump above it!

 

[nevilley]

Thanks for all the info replys.wondering now if anyone knows where I can buy a service manual for the cat 966B. Serial number is 75A1243. And on the plate it says Traxcavator. Not sure why its called that and not wheel loader.

 

[kshansen]

Thanks for all the info replys.wondering now if anyone knows where I can buy a service manual for the cat 966B. Serial number is 75A1243. And on the plate it says Traxcavator. Not sure why its called that and not wheel loader.

Who knows why Cat had to invent names like that but that was the "in name" back then. Don't have access to the old books we had at the quarry, but if you are not able to find anything after awhile I could check with a shop near me that does work on older Cat equipment.

Some of those older Cat manuals were not as inclusive as the newer ones but still worth having.

 

[d9gdon]

Traxcavator was the brand name of a stand alone company that built track loading attachment buckets until about the 1950's until Cat purchased them and integrated their stuff into the Cat design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traxcavator

 

[kshansen]

Traxcavator was the brand name of a stand alone company that built track loading attachment buckets until about the 1950's until Cat purchased them and integrated their stuff into the Cat design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traxcavator

Interesting! First I head of that. Guess I can go to bed as I learned something today!

 

[DMiller]

I loved the Cat 1693, the 343 was a boat anchor. One an exemplary design the other nothing but trouble.

 

[Bluox]

I loved the Cat 1693, the 343 was a boat anchor. One an exemplary design the other nothing but trouble.

It's the same motor.
bob

 

[RZucker]

It's the same motor.
bob

There is one major difference,,, 1693 in a truck handled 80,000lbs, a 343 in a 631 scraper handled about 160,000 lbs. loaded.

 

[Bluox]

There is one major difference,,, 1693 in a truck handled 80,000lbs, a 343 in a 631 scraper handled about 160,000 lbs. loaded.

Never saw a 343 in a 631 scraper.
Bob

 

[kshansen]

Never saw a 343 in a 631 scraper.
Bob

Tried checking on SIS but they only show parts information on the 631C and what they show sure looks like the D343 that was used in the 988 loaders I worked on. The parts break down does not give the model of the engine.

Here's a picture of the cam arraignment, if that's not a D343 I don't know what it would be:

 

[DMiller]

Exactly bluox, the 1693 was the redesign of the 343, much better application also almost 500-800# lighter but still heavy. Thus D343 Boat anchor, asked to much from it where as a 1693 dependable and durable.

First 343 I saw was brand new replacement in St. Charles quarry loader, coming out of a spoil pile headed up ramp after a blast and the turbo shot an impeller thru the hood. Were these engines not relegated to Marine not long after the late 60's early 70's?

 

[Bluox]

Tried checking on SIS but they only show parts information on the 631C and what they show sure looks like the D343 that was used in the 988 loaders I worked on. The parts break down does not give the model of the engine.

Here's a picture of the cam arraignment, if that's not a D343 I don't know what it would be:

View attachment 174049

It's also not in a 631 scraper, it's in a 631 wheel tractor. 631 scrapers never had motors.Some 657 scrapers had D-343 motors.
Bob