Cat Nomenclature - model names and numbers.
Hi, Wyoming.
Cat's model naming policy was that the letters and numbers would not mean anything specific. F'rinstance, there never was an 80hp D8. The closest model to that would be the Diesel Seventy Five at 83 dbhp and 95 belt hp. This tractor soon became the RD8 in 1935, with very little change. The original series of RD8, the 5E series, only saw 35 tractors built before it was changed. The next RD8 was the 1H series, which was the first of the RD8/D8 line to have the D13000 engine at 95 dbhp and 110 belt hp. The 'R' was dropped from the name in 1937 and they became simply, 'D8'. (The 'R' was dropped from all the other model designations at about the same time.)
By the time the 1H D8 ended its production run in 1941, power had been increased to 113 dbhp and 131 belt hp.
I am not sure anything can equal a Cat (I am a big cat fan) but that would be a close comparison.
The Euclid with 2 671 inline Detroit diesel engine is rated at 238 horsepower X 2 = 476 HP
'D8' originally stood for stood for Diesel with 80 horsepower compared to a D8T shows 347 gross horsepower
The logic behind the policy of the model names not meaning anything was so that they would not have to change model names every time they upgraded a model in horsepower, weight, capacity or any other variable.
Also, as a matter of interest, to the best of my knowledge, the Euclid TC12 only ever made it to a total of 440 hp from both engines combined. I don't know if the Terex 82-80 made it beyond that rating.
One of the big reasons why the TC12/82-80 didn't really catch on was that, with 2 engines and 2 separate drive trains, it was a pretty high-maintenance tractor. If the maintenance wasn't done and done properly, they tended to fall apart. Many companies who bought them so that they had a BIG dozer could not or would not keep the maintenance up to them.
Another problem with them was that their track width left them riding high on the outside edges of a scraper's cut, thus reducing their ability to put grunt on ground and increasing track wear because they spent a lot of time running on the outside half of the track shoes. They were a better bulldozing tractor than a push-loading tractor for this reason.
Their basic design with two frames oscillating on one shaft running right across the width of the machine also did not lend itself very well to the rough-n-tumble of working in rock, especialy HARD rock. It was only this cross shaft and, I think, 3 sliding guides that kept everything all nicely lined up through all the oscillations of the 2 otherwise rigid frames. The cross shaft and the guides gave their fair share of trouble, especially if they were not properly maintained and a close watch kept on them.
From what I can gather, the basic concept was quite good. It was largely implementation and engineering that let it down. I'd still love to get my ample butt on one for a few hours, especially if I had a good set of ear-muffs with me.
