-
Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!
Deere Lock-Up Torque Converter Blows 4-Spd Away
- Thread starter CEwriter
- Start date
Tigerotor77W
Senior Member
farm_boy -- have you seen anything on this?
diggn4alivn
Member
The only way I could keep up to our gravel crusher last year was to keep the loader locked up. You sure can cruise but staying in that mode full throttle for 68 hours a week gets to you after awhile. It was an 08 Komatsu 500-6.
ldex86
New Member
A few reasons why you dont hear more about Liebherr.
1. Liebherr does not have a strong dealership network getting machines out to potential customers.
2.With the Hydrostatic drive the machine takes some time to get used to. A two-three day demo sometimes is not enough to convince an operator. I have seen one operator "forget" to record the fuel usage because he did not want anything except a Cat. We have one operator who took over a week to really be able to use the machine properly, now he would not go back to his Cat 980GII.
3. There has been job studys done in magazines on their wheel loaders.
4. I have heard that Liebherr's PR564 which is the same size as a D9 is burning 40% less fuel.
We run 7 Liebherr wheel loaders. Since we bought our first loader in 2005 we have saved over $350,000 in diesel costs. We have also cut down on tire wear due to the hydrostatic transmission. Our company has tried just about every machine out there. The Liebherr has been the best overall package.
komatsukid
Well-Known Member
When Deere introduced the 844j and announced its intentions to compete in the 7 yard market we were at the Con Expo and got a good look at this machine. Simply put, "Its not built heavy enough". I dont see what all the hype is about, The lockup torque converter has been around for 30+ years. Big damn deal the machine is fast. Lets see how it holds up working in a pit with stoney natural banks and blow sand as a footing. Here are some pics where a lockup torque doesnt help much.
Attachments
komatsukid
Well-Known Member
Ill try to post a video, I need computers for dummies
Last edited:
farm_boy
Senior Member
What is it about the 844J/K that you feel isn't "heavy" enough? The whole point in a machine that maximizes tons of material moved per gallon of fuel burned is building a machine that will last without having a pig of tractor that can be the poster child for Queen's song Fat Bottomed Girls. All that extra "heavy" weight being pulled around empty means more fuel consumed. Period.
Tigerotor77W
Senior Member
You mean the PR764, but there's something else here, too. I don't want to pretend like I know more than you do, so don't take this the wrong way. While saving fuel is a good thing, *just* saving fuel doesn't mean much. I can putter around at 30 mph to drive 30 miles and do it in an hour, but if I drive at 60 mph and do it in a half hour, does the half hour my engine is OFF offset the lower fuel burn at 30 mph? Just burning less fuel isn't the whole picture if production is also a consideration. (It's not always a consideration, to be sure.)
I'm wondering if he thinks the 844 won't cut it as a face loader? Maybe as a bank loader it'll be fine, but start having it work a face and it won't make it? I don't know.
That being said, I'm not sure how much money I'd put on material moved per gallon per hour anymore. Each manufacturer seems to do its own tests that say its own machines are the best or most efficient.
ldex86
New Member
Regarding the PR764, these are numbers i have been told. I have not seen this in person. However everything Liebherr has told me has been true. Fromm their fuel savings, tire wear and excavator performance. I have no reason to doubt them.
Our compnay owns several quarries and gravel plants. We have traditioanlly run Cat 980's and Komatsu WA500's. Five years ago we replaced two WA500's with Liebherr L580's in two different locations. The L580 is more equivalent to a WA480 in size, however it can carry a 6.6 cubic yard bucket compared to a 6 cubic yard bucket with the WA480. With the WA480 we would have to add an extra pass to load trailers. The Liebherr L580 was loading the trailers in 4 passes, the same as the WA500. So our experience is that the slightly smaller L580 was doing the exact same work as the WA500 and Cat 980 we owned. We also own one L586 that is the same size as a WA500/980. With the L586 we are only seeing 22%-35% fuel savings compared to competition. This machine is able to produce more than our Komatsus and Cats
Our compnay owns several quarries and gravel plants. We have traditioanlly run Cat 980's and Komatsu WA500's. Five years ago we replaced two WA500's with Liebherr L580's in two different locations. The L580 is more equivalent to a WA480 in size, however it can carry a 6.6 cubic yard bucket compared to a 6 cubic yard bucket with the WA480. With the WA480 we would have to add an extra pass to load trailers. The Liebherr L580 was loading the trailers in 4 passes, the same as the WA500. So our experience is that the slightly smaller L580 was doing the exact same work as the WA500 and Cat 980 we owned. We also own one L586 that is the same size as a WA500/980. With the L586 we are only seeing 22%-35% fuel savings compared to competition. This machine is able to produce more than our Komatsus and Cats
komatsukid
Well-Known Member
There are points where a machine should be built stronger than outhers. The bucket is one example, The geometery of the bucket is correct on the Deere but it had a "Tin" feel to it. When using a wheel loader to dig natural banks the machine must have enough "ASS" to penitrate a bank. The Deere loader felt light in that regard.
YouTube - Volvo OptiShift - 20% lägre förbrukning hos Cemex Materials Ltd., England volvo optishift video