Brand New Cat Undercarriage Problems

[John C.]

There is no selling point in a pin and bushing turn anymore. Three thousand hours and more was a normal life for undercarriage in 1965. It's actually kind of funny that Cat is marketing this.

 

[big ben]

This took a bit of tracking down. First up, General Duty track is grease-lubricated, not the oil lubrication used in Heavy Duty (SALT) tracks. It's somewhat like an excavator track in a lot of respects

Should be oil lubricated. Curious if I missed it but where did you find they are calling it grease lubricated tracks ?

I won't swear to it but I heard they used the same grease seals as excavator tracks?

Nope. Exact same seals as the HD std track

 

[big ben]

FYI - You can get from D11 down in general duty UC for dozers now. Cat does not sell any repair parts for general duty tracks (HEX or TTT). They are the exact same fit and size as STD/HD.

That way Cat has 2 (plus more but we won’t get into that) product lines in GD and HD but only has to stock 1 part number repair parts. So you break a link on this D6 and just order up the readily available D6 HD link and away you go. The difference is in the metal - heat treat and such on links and pins. This competes with the ITR, Berco, ACE etc of the world.

 

[big ben]

As well the GD links are not polished/coated in the seal area like HD so GD bushing turns are possible but not always worth it for the extra you would get. It’s meant to be run to destruction like all the aftermarket brands they compete with.

 

[Nige]

The part about grease lubrication was in one of the links I looked at. I tried to find it again but couldn’t. There are a number of links for GD specifically related to excavator undercarriage so maybe it could’ve been in one of them and related only to excavator U/C. Certainly looking at the link group the plugs & stoppers in the ends of the pins are the same part numbers as used on SALT links.

 

[Terexcat]

Sounds like an alignment issue of the track frame to the sprockets. There are shims that go on the ends of the pivot shaft that spaces the track frame so that the idlers are dead in line with the sprocket. The other issue has been stated already which is the condition of the equalizer bar. Are all three joints intact and not allowing the track frame to shift side to side and out of alignment with the rest of the machine.

The issue of the freight is pretty normal now days. Dealers don't have the kind of people that can take care of the problem in the field and most have taken the position that warranty work is to be done in the shop so the owner's can't see what kind of stupid mistakes were made. Start climbing the management ladder to find someone who has the ability to say yes. They did the work, the person that came out there acknowledged that, so they should be negotiating some on the freight at a minimum if not paying the whole thing.

Yes Equalizer bar is good
Wondering if they forgot/ wrongly installed the pivot shaft shims

 

[Terexcat]

Did they check for deflection in the pivot bar?

Does that have to do with making sure the shims are correct concerning the track alignment?

 

[Terexcat]

Undercarriage is basic and not rocket science so it shouldn’t be hard to figure out once you have their attention. Who quoted the job, a PSSR or the shop ? Tell them you want the PSSR to come out and measure/check everything and then a game plan can be figured out.

The salesman quoted the undercarriage (if that’s the same thing as PSSR) he has mysteriously “moved to another area”-and so has the guy they sent out to look at it after I told them something was wrong.

 

[Terexcat]

MTO simply means that the Track Gp is not kept in Cat Parts Stock. If a dealer orders a pair of that P/N the factory will manufacture them - keeps inventory down.

This took a bit of tracking down. First up, General Duty track is grease-lubricated, not the oil lubrication used in Heavy Duty (SALT) tracks. It's somewhat like an excavator track in a lot of respects.

The 397-9556 Segments were the clue. They are only used in two Undercarriage Arrgts, 433-0303, & 433-0304. You have the 433-0303 installed in your machine. There is no documentation that I can see anywhere regarding these two Arrgts except the parts listing below. The only difference is the single flange rollers are listed as 417-3770 compared to your 310-4912 and I can find no apparent relationship between the two part Numbers. I wonder if it's sold as a "set" for the HD to General Duty undercarriage conversion.?

View attachment 234540

So on the face of it everything appears to match up correctly Part Number-wise, or at least very close to it, so back to an alignment issue.

Can you run the tractor on an area of hard level ground (concrete if possible). Run the tractor flat out in 1st gear forward then flick the gear selector into neutral and let the tractor stop on it's own without touching the brakes. Set the park brake but don't drop the blade/ripper. Take a look at whether the track links are running tight against the inside or the outside of the sprocket on both LH & RH sides. Also take a look to see if there is any difference in the wear pattern on the inside and outside surfaces of both sprockets, idlers, & carrier rollers.

The rep they sent out did this,but I was running the dozer so I didn’t see what he looked at- but I am heading out there tomorrow I will find level ground and do that and maybe take some pictures.
as far as 34 inch pads I specifically asked them before hand if I need them or could I get away with something narrower- I asked if the wider pads was harder on the undercarriage and if I would get more life out of it with a narrower pad- he said no and they recommended staying with 34

I am on hard ground 80% of the time other than pushing pads across water and sloughs the other part of the time
Thank you for your time on this I want you to know it’s much appreciated

 

[Welder Dave]

The salesman quoted the undercarriage (if that’s the same thing as PSSR) he has mysteriously “moved to another area”-and so has the guy they sent out to look at it after I told them something was wrong.

This does seem suspicious. I would be talking to someone higher up. Maybe Finning knew there was problem and wants to make it difficult for you to find out what happened?

I had a lawyer write a letter and give me advice. At a pre-trial meeting (she wasn't present) a judge made very condescending comments and even racist comments about her. It was a large law firm and all of a sudden she's moved to a different area and wouldn't take my calls. I wanted to inform her what the old judge said about her. I went to trial and won my case.

The comments the judge made after reading the letter she sent to the other party... I don't know who this Dina Pred** is but she looks to be Italian. On a different matter I told another lawyer about it and he said it was definitely out of line and should have been reported to the law society.

 

[Nige]

..... as far as 34 inch pads I specifically asked them before hand if I need them or could I get away with something narrower- I asked if the wider pads was harder on the undercarriage and if I would get more life out of it with a narrower pad- he said no and they recommended staying with 34

I am on hard ground 80% of the time other than pushing pads across water and sloughs the other part of the time
Thank you for your time on this I want you to know it’s much appreciated

IMO you have been sold a direct replacement (forget the GD/HD differences for the moment) to what was installed when your tractor originally left the factory. It was shod with 34" shoes back in 2006 when it was built and therefore it's a "like for like" replacement as regards ground pressure.

Your machine ALY02934 was originally built as a Low Ground Pressure (LGP) machine which only lists 28" & 34" track shoe width options. The track frames on most LGP tractors are set further away from the chassis to accomodate the wider shoes to prevent them rubbing on the chassis.

The track shoe width options available for a non-LGP D6N tractor are 22" or 24".

I have no experience of "re-shoeing" an LGP machine to operate on a narrower width of track shoe than the factory lists in the Parts Manua (28" in your case)l. On the face of it I can't think of an obvious reason why it couldn't be done. I'd like to hear other members' thoughts on that though.

When it comes to track shoe width this thread may interest you. FWIW I'd be looking at possibly 28"-wide shoes on the D6N for your application as described, possibly you could even go down as far as 24". Whether shoe width is anything related to your problem is debatable but I certainly wouldn't rule it out at this point.
https://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/threads/track-group-width.87680/

Some typical photos of the 20% of the time where the tractor is not on hard ground might be useful.
Also a question. When you are operating on the "sloppiest" ground you have, what sort of marks do the track shoes leave in the ground.? In other words how far does the machine sink.? Again photos might be useful, along with something in the shoe imprints to give an idea of scale.

 

[Nige]

as far as 34 inch pads I specifically asked them before hand if I need them or could I get away with something narrower- I asked if the wider pads was harder on the undercarriage and if I would get more life out of it with a narrower pad- he said no and they recommended staying with 34.

Wider track shoes can be the death of undercarriage in harder ground conditions.
The dictum is to always use the narrowest shoe width that will give adequate flotation.

 

[Bluox]

This does seem suspicious. I would be talking to someone higher up. Maybe Finning knew there was problem and wants to make it difficult for you to find out what happened?

I had a lawyer write a letter and give me advice. At a pre-trial meeting (she wasn't present) a judge made very condescending comments and even racist comments about her. It was a large law firm and all of a sudden she's moved to a different area and wouldn't take my calls. I wanted to inform her what the old judge said about her. I went to trial and won my case.

The comments the judge made after reading the letter she sent to the other party... I don't know who this Dina Pred** is but she looks to be Italian. On a different matter I told another lawyer about it and he said it was definitely out of line and should have been reported to the law society.

Dave did you help write the scrip for " my cousin Vinny" ?
Bob

 

[Welder Dave]

No, just shocked when the old geezer said that.

 

[Bluox]

So what exactly needed machine work? Is the pivot shaft worn, frame bores worn? Did you decline to have machine work done before it was assembled? It doesn't seem likely that the dealer would go to the work of installing new bushings in a worn out bore and then bring up that fact after the machine was fully assembled. Especially if the bores or shaft are worn enough to cause what you say is going on. There are no shims on the pivot shaft. Just one spacer that sets the depth of the frame on the pivot shaft. The track rails don't fit tight on the sprockets, there is supposed to be room between them to allow movement. Did the sprocket segments get installed correctly? Sounds like you need to get someone out to look at this that knows what they are looking at and has actually seen an undercarriage on a D6

Bob

 

[Welder Dave]

That's what I questioned earlier. If you spend 46K on D6 undercarriage a couple thousand more for machining doesn't seem like it would/should be a deal breaker. The people involved suddenly moved to different area's does seem suspicious. I wouldn't think running narrower shoes on an LGP would hurt anything. I would imagine the rails are the same. Have heard of some operations having 2 sets of tracks for different conditions.

 

[5.9Jon]

We have swapped out wide pads for narrower ones on a D6M without any issue. Helped prevent shoe breakage.

 

[wildcat1]

IMO you have been sold a direct replacement (forget the GD/HD differences for the moment) to what was installed when your tractor originally left the factory. It was shod with 34" shoes back in 2006 when it was built and therefore it's a "like for like" replacement as regards ground pressure.

Your machine ALY02934 was originally built as a Low Ground Pressure (LGP) machine which only lists 28" & 34" track shoe width options. The track frames on most LGP tractors are set further away from the chassis to accomodate the wider shoes to prevent them rubbing on the chassis.

The track shoe width options available for a non-LGP D6N tractor are 22" or 24".

I have no experience of "re-shoeing" an LGP machine to operate on a narrower width of track shoe than the factory lists in the Parts Manua (28" in your case)l. On the face of it I can't think of an obvious reason why it couldn't be done. I'd like to hear other members' thoughts on that though.

When it comes to track shoe width this thread may interest you. FWIW I'd be looking at possibly 28"-wide shoes on the D6N for your application as described, possibly you could even go down as far as 24". Whether shoe width is anything related to your problem is debatable but I certainly wouldn't rule it out at this point.
https://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/threads/track-group-width.87680/

Some typical photos of the 20% of the time where the tractor is not on hard ground might be useful.
Also a question. When you are operating on the "sloppiest" ground you have, what sort of marks do the track shoes leave in the ground.? In other words how far does the machine sink.? Again photos might be useful, along with something in the shoe imprints to give an idea of scale.

My D6H was built as an LGP dozer and was switched over to 20 inch tracks before I bought it. I can't see any issues with the narrower tracks, those are the ones I wanted. An advantage is, I can get between the tracks and the engine compartment to work on things there. Otherwise you have to lay on the tracks if it was an LGP, or if it came from the factory as a narrow track machine. My.02.

 

[Terexcat]

That's what I questioned earlier. If you spend 46K on D6 undercarriage a couple thousand more for machining doesn't seem like it would/should be a deal breaker. The people involved suddenly moved to different area's does seem suspicious. I wouldn't think running narrower shoes on an LGP would hurt anything. I would imagine the rails are the same. Have heard of some operations having 2 sets of tracks for different conditions.

Well that would make sense, other than the fact that the Machining quote was over $20,000-( yes that's another zero!)
I couldnt believe it- and couldn't afford it to be honest. I'm working on pics and a response to Nige

 

[Nige]

I went back and looked at your OP, especially the part where you said "..........but the whole time I ran it, it would work fine going straight forward, but in a slight turn left or right, there was a constant clunk, clunk, clunk - which was at about 11 oclock each revolution, the rails would crawl/hang up on the sprocket segments, and then flop back down at about 1 oclock."

Is there any chance you can take a video of the above and post it up to YouTube.? You can then link it direct to here and everyone can see what it's doing.

Also why not take a photo from each side and let's all have a look what the track tension looks like.