The integrated retardation system on the CAT AD55's is brilliant. Not only can you lock gears out, but the computer can apply the brakes at any speed you set, (computer, not accessable to the operator). On the B models, the system also applies the brakes if you attempt to coast in angel gear or if engine revs are not kept above 1100.
As far as I know, the Copco's can only lock out gears and automatically apply their retarder in an engine over speed condition. The Copco tub hoists are pretty weak too - you have to distribute the load exactly right or the hoist won't lift the tub. The 27L V12 in the Cat seems to use less fuel than the 19L QSK Cummins in the Copco's, despite having around 50HP more power.
I guess it's pretty obvious by now that I like the CAT's much better than the Copco's.
I know what you mean about the AD30 being bouncy. I think my helmet imprint is still in the roof of the one I operated!
There were a couple of interesting variants of the AD55 at the Rosebery mine. One was an AD55 A model with a 50,000L water tank and hydraulic driven pump and sprays for washing the walls and backs of the decline and keeping the roadway moist for dust suppression. The other was an AD55 A model with tub removed and a 10 cubic meter agitator bowl fitted for delivering shotcrete and CRF. In order to get the bowl down low, the rear wheels were spaced out each side by nearly one wheel width. I didn't like the agitator version much as they were terrible at ripping down vent bags and damaging services. An issue not helped by the fact that all that particular contractors operators were green, mostly on their first job underground.
The AD55 A models had a Cat C18 motor fitted, punching out 680HP from memory. When these engines failed, they failed in spectacular style, usually with daylight visible from one side of the block to the other. My employer, Barminco, would not rebuild C18's, instead fitting brand new engines as needed. Their belief was that there had been too many failures in engines that they had rebuilt.