Let's Talk 'Kummagutsa'?
Hi, Eric.
I have yet to run a 'Kummagutsa' machine that I didn't enjoy running, at least since they progressed beyond the old, OLD D60A's and D80A's that were my first contact with them back in the 1960's. (Where were you then? Did your father even have a twinkle in his eye? LOL.)
Having said that, I will also reiterate what I have said here and elsewhere several times in the past. Parts and service for 'Kummagutsa' machines are hard to come by around this part of the world and 'Kummagutsa' machines in general, in my experience at least, seem to have only about 2/3 of the service life to first re-build of a similar Cat machine in the same work and only about 2/3 the life between subsequent re-builds too.
John C., many years ago. I worked with a company which owned 5 Kato excavators, 3 'Kummagutsa's' and 3 Cats. One of the Kato's was a 1220 Mark 2 and I would still rate it the smoothest and most powerful excavator that I have ever run on a pound for pound basis. It had NO computers and NO electronics.
The same company also had a Kato 1880 Mark 2 and a 'Kummagutsa' PC400-3. Everybody reckoned the 1880 was a slow pile of pus 'cos it spent almost all of the first 6,000 hours of its life running a set of demolition shears at about 1/2 throttle. It didn't matter how much force you used on those shears, the V8 Mitsubishi 'donk' just purred along with the same relaxed sound.
They bought the PC400-3 when the 1880 had 2,500 hours up. By the time they first got to work side by side with buckets on both, the PC400-3 had 3,000 hours up and the 1880 had 6,000 hours. Everybody reckoned the PC400-3 was the 'ant's pants', quick stable and powerful. When we put the two side by side on the same job, the Kato 1880 was wearing a slightly bigger bucket, by about 1/3 of a cu. yd. Turned out the Kato 1880 would dig 5 buckets to the PC400's 4 buckets all the time and would often dig 4 buckets to the PC400's 3. The only function on that slow old Kato that the PC400 did faster was walking.
In addition, the Kato just sat there and dug dirt while the poor 'Kummagutsa' operator was forever sliding around and having to get himself back into his digging position and he wasn't a mug operator. He was generally reckoned to be better than me, even by me, and I was running the Kato.
A large part of the difference was in sheer digging force. The Kato could sock its bucket half bucket depth into the tightly packed topsoil and simply roll it up for a full bucket. The PC400 had to dig only about 8" deep and keep working the bucket and dipper to fill his bucket. And it was still sliding all over the place just doing that. I also got the chance to run the PC400-3 in the same digging as the Kato on another job a couple of months later. I was using the Kato 1880 to load trucks with shale fill straight out of the face, un-ripped and un-shot. I had no trouble keeping 5 semi-tippers on the road. Then I blew a hydraulic hose and they gave me the PC400 for a couple of hours while the hose was repaired. I found myself working my 'fundamental orifice' trying to keep those same 5 semi-tippers on the road on the same haul. I was very pleased to have that 'slow old' Kato back.
The PC400 also cost somwhat more than the Kato 1880 in initial purchase price too. In its first 7,000 hours, the Kato had a new radiator, a new planetary gear set for the drive to the hydraulic pumps and routine maintenance. Oh, and a couple of windscreens due to flying debris from the shears. The PC400 only had 4,000 hours on it when I left that company, so no real contest there.
Just my 0.02.