Cat's problem with drive motors and engine replacements when particulate devises rereplaced

I learned that the CAT compact tracked loaders have a drive motor problem in that at around 2600 hours they have iron filling in them; any one know the story behind this.
Also i learned that when the particulate cleaner is replaced the engine soon after has to be replaced, because the high RPM's needed to operate the particulate cleaner overwlem the old engine. To the point contractors are installing new engines when they change out the particulate devise.
Any comments on this, any first hand experience?

Which bar were you imbibing at?
Did they cut you off?

Talking to another owner operator, he traded in a 279D3 with the 2600 hours on it, other local area dirt contractors having problems.
Just trying to get a felling if it is a common problem.

I worked pretty much exclusively on Cat skid steers when I worked for the dealer.

Yes the drive motors are a common failure. Usually the shims on the flushing spools get pounded out and jam up. There was an update, no idea if it increased the reliability or not.

The engines needing to be replaced after a DPF cleaning is a massive load of bull**** IMO. There is no logic behind the engine having to work harder whatsoever. I've changed a couple dozen DPFs on Cat skid steers and NEVER had the machines come back with a failed engine.

lake side bob said:

I learned that the CAT compact tracked loaders have a drive motor problem in that at around 2600 hours they have iron filling in them; any one know the story behind this.
Also i learned that when the particulate cleaner is replaced the engine soon after has to be replaced, because the high RPM's needed to operate the particulate cleaner overwlem the old engine. To the point contractors are installing new engines when they change out the particulate devise.
Any comments on this, any first hand experience?

Click to expand...

Statements like this are called hear-say and really shouldn't be acceptable on a forum of this size and reach. You are implying without any proof that the manufacturer is deliberately producing a defective product. Have you experienced a failure of either type on any of these products. Do you own any of these products? Are you looking to purchase any of these products? Maybe asking the question in that vein would be a better way to obtain any information on the topic.

Here is a term to remember when making posts.

Libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's or company's reputation; a written defamation.

John C. said:

Statements like this are called hear-say and really shouldn't be acceptable on a forum of this size and reach. You are implying without any proof that the manufacturer is deliberately producing a defective product. Have you experienced a failure of either type on any of these products. Do you own any of these products? Are you looking to purchase any of these products? Maybe asking the question in that vein would be a better way to obtain any information on the topic.

Here is a term to remember when making posts.

Libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's or company's reputation; a written defamation.

Click to expand...

That would mean this website is liable since they are the “publisher”.

At this time, internet sites are exempt from that law. This is social media which means the site has little to no control over what is published on the site. The issue is being discussed in congress that the ruling be changed because of the past issues of disinformation and outright lies to inflame the public. The proposals being made are to make social media subject to the same regulations that news media is subject to. That means any media site could be held responsible for all content posted on their site.

My post has to do with individuals writing on any internet media may face consequences for statements that are considered defamatory towards any company that wants to make an example of them.

If the concerns raised were a big problem I'm sure on this site especially, there would be dozens of similar complaints.

John C. said:

At this time, internet sites are exempt from that law.

Click to expand...

Not over here they aren't. The site administrators can be sued by any "aggrieved party" who has allegedly been defamed in some way.

I've seen anti trust stuff but nothing targeting any of the social media sites for defamation. Do you have any examples.

John C. said:

I've seen anti trust stuff but nothing targeting any of the social media sites for defamation. Do you have any examples.

Click to expand...

There are a couple of cases that apparently provide legal precedent in the UK in answer to the question "Surely, as an organisation you can’t be held liable for defamatory comments made by others, ........or can you?"

Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd confirmed that liability for defamatory material extends to any person who participates in or authorises its publication. Of course, this will include persons such as authors and editors, but it may also apply to those who were involved in disseminating it, despite it not coming from them originally. Therefore, there is a potential risk that an organisation could become liable for the content posted on their site by a third party.

In Tamiz v Google Inc. the Court of Appeal found that it could be inferred that once the host (which would potentially include an organisation who has any sort of social media presence) is made aware of defamatory material, or if by the exercise of reasonable care, they should know that the material is defamatory, they become responsible for the continued publication of that material if they refrain from removing it. However, before ‘notification’, the host is not considered to be a publisher.

I assume that legally a "social media presence" would extend beyond such things as Facebook groups and would also include an internet forum.

One cannot make assumptions at this point. The case was decided against the plaintive on appeal and has not set any precedent at this point. An explanation of the case can be found here: https://www.scl.org/news/2725-tamiz-v-google-court-of-appeal-judgment-on-defamation-claim

The protections afforded to technology companies in the US are bestowed under Section 230 in federal law. An explanation can be found at the following link; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

I think we are talking at cross-purposes John. Earlier you stated "At this time, internet sites are exempt from that law" to which my response was "Not over here they aren't" - meaning in the UK. I was highlighting the differences between the opposite sides of The Pond.

The extracts I posted after that were summaries of cases in UK courts that have since formed legal precedent regarding UK-based social media sites which show that the site owners/administrators can in certain cases be held liable for comments made by others on their sites.

I completely agree with you on people posting heresay statements such as the one that started this thread. They have no place on a site such this one.

The point was that persons who commit defamation can be a target no matter where it is committed. But so far the people in social media providing a public place where people can screw up their's and other people's lives get a free pass.

Neither case set a precedent in law in either Great Britain or the United States. First case involve news media which never gets a pass. Second case was appealed and overturned.

There is so much misinformation and wrong information out there now that the internet has become a wasteland of bad intel.
Wow I sound like an old guy.
I think the biggest problem is that the people who know what they are talking about don’t take the time to post anything .

Mobiltech said:

There is so much misinformation and wrong information out there now that the internet has become a wasteland of bad intel.
Wow I sound like an old guy.
I think the biggest problem is that the people who know what they are talking about don’t take the time to post anything .

Click to expand...

I don't think you're far off the mark. I've noticed a "brain drain" of sorts in the last year or so on other forums I used to frequent. Anyone with knowledge just up and left because they were tired of the constant fighting with the ones posting BS. Just easier and less stressful to walk away and keep to yourself these days.

Back to the original assertion of the original post.
One of the other members has confirmed that drive motors are common failure, and I'd want my drive motors to Outlast my tracks by a ratio of two or three to one with rubber tracks. If that's not the case, then it is a problem!!

As I recall one member stated there were updates on early units and didn't lump all the models of an entire line of machines together. A person stating the motor in their 289D went bad and asked if it happened to anyone else is totally legit. Posting I know people who say all Cat skid steers have weak motors is inviting trouble.

Yeah would not do that. If you told me your ISB Cummins in your ram truck blew up, I can say with confidence that the #5 or #6 piston broke some rings, based on the carnage that I have seen. Early 6.7? Valve seat came loose, maybe. That's legit. If your new overhaul seized up I'd say look for a piece of junk in the #6 piston cooling jet, because been there seen that. It's the end of an oil passage and trouble comes to rest there.

Well, I bought a “good condition” 2016 cat 259d with 1900hrs last year and found out:
-It had a bad track motor (now at 2100hrs the other track motor is showing signs of developing issues!)
-the motor was tanked (thought the head gasket was bad but pulled the head and two cylinders had pretty bad scoring) so I had to replace it.

so in my experience I’d say buy new if you can and unload the machine before 2,000hrs?
Or be prepared to do some serious wrenching on high hour used machines.