Comparison · Wheel loader
Caterpillar 938 vs Caterpillar 980
The Caterpillar 980 is about 87% heavier than the Caterpillar 938 (30,335 vs 16,229 kg), which usually means more stability and lifting capacity but higher transport weight.
The Caterpillar 980 has about 109% more engine power (293 kW (393 hp) vs 140 kW (188 hp)).
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Operating weight | 16,229 kg (35,800 lb) | 30,335 kg (66,900 lb) |
| Engine power | 140 kW (188 hp) | 293 kW (393 hp) |
| Net power | ≈140 kW (188 hp) | — |
| Bucket capacity | 2.5–5.0 m³ (3.3–6.5 yd³) | — |
| Static tipping load, full turn | ≈9,860–9,950 kg (21,737–21,934 lb) | — |
| Drive | Hydrostatic | — |
| Emissions | US EPA Tier 4 Final / EU Stage V | US EPA Tier 4 Final / EU Stage V |
| Net power (ISO 9249) | — | 293 kW (393 hp) at 1,700 rpm |
| Breakout force | — | 227 kN (51,008 lbf) |
| Static tipping load, full 40° turn | — | 19,700 kg (43,432 lb); 20,960 kg without tyre deflection |
| Max. travel speed | — | 39.4 km/h (24.5 mph) |
| Hydraulic cycle time (total) | — | 10.1 s |
| Engine model | — | Cat C13, 12.5 L |
| Gross power (SAE J1995) | — | 317 kW (425 hp) |
| Net torque | — | 2,087 N·m (1,539 lbf·ft) at 1,100 rpm |
| Overall length without bucket | — | 8.18 m (26 ft 10 in) |
| Height to top of ROPS | — | 3.83 m (12 ft 7 in) |
| Width over tyres (loaded) | — | 3.28 m (10 ft 9 in) |
| Standard tyres | — | 29.5R25 L4 radial |
| Fuel tank | — | 426 L (112.5 US gal) |
| DEF tank | — | 21 L (5.5 US gal) |
| Hydraulic tank | — | 153 L (40.4 US gal) |
| Strengths |
|
|
| Watch-outs |
|
|
| Full 938 review | Full 980 review |
Specifications are typical figures for standard configurations and may be measured differently by each manufacturer (for example net vs gross power). Always confirm with the manufacturer or dealer. Build another comparison.