Cat 988K VS Komatsu WA600-6R Wheel Loader

Price Available Soon^*

Cat 988K

Engine

Cat 580 HP
Bucket

4.7-13 m³
Weight

51062 kg
Fwd. Speed

34.7 km/h
Dump Height

3595 mm
Tripping Load

24980 kg

Large (>30 Ton)

Price Available Soon^*

Komatsu WA600-6R

Engine

Komatsu 530 HP
Bucket

6.4 – 7.0 m³
Weight

52900 Kg
Fwd. Speed

33.8 km/h
Dump Height

3995 mm
Tripping Load

28500 kg

Large (>30 Ton)

Add Equipment

The comparisons provided are based on the technical specifications published by the respective OEMs on their official websites and brochures. Please confirm these details directly with the OEMs before macking any final decision.

Key Highlights	Cat 988K	Komatsu WA600-6R

Cat 988K VS Komatsu WA600-6R Wheel Loader

Cat 988K

Price Available Soon

Komatsu WA600-6R

Price Available Soon

Particulars	Cat 988K	Komatsu WA600-6R

Overview Summary

Comparing the Cat 988K and Komatsu WA600-6R wheel loaders reveals subtle distinctions in engine power, emission standards, transmission, and utility. The Cat 988K focuses on heavy-duty material handling with its greater engine torque and multitude of capacities, while the Komatsu WA600-6R is tailored for mining with a slightly higher speed and larger hydraulic system.

Cat 988K

Pros:

Higher engine power of 580 HP for greater work efficiency
4-stroke, turbocharged and aftercooled Cat C18 ACERT™ engine meets U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final/EU Stage IV emission standards
Exclusive Cat Planetary Power Shift Transmission enhances drivetrain efficiency
Impressive maximum torque of 2852 Nm at lower rpms for strong pushing power
Comprehensive safety with oil-cooled, multi-disc service brakes compliant with ISO 3450:2011
Has a larger bucket capacity range of 4.7-13 m³, providing versatile options for material handling
Heavier operating weight may result in increased stability during heavy operations

Cons:

Slightly lower top speed in reverse compared to the Komatsu WA600-6R
Engine displacement is less than Komatsu's offering which may impact engine durability and life span
Lacks clear specification on width over tyres and turning radius, which could be deciding factors in maneuverability

Komatsu WA600-6R

Pros:

Features a Komatsu SAA6D170E-5 engine which complies with EPA Tier 3 and EU Stage IIIA standards
Slightly higher top forward and reverse speeds, which might offer better maneuverability and cycle times
Includes a double-acting, piston-type pump which can deliver optimized pump flow control
Hydraulically actuated, wet disc service, and parking brakes provide reliable stopping and holding capabilities
Larger fuel and hydraulic system capacities than the Cat 988K, possibly ensuring longer operational periods between refills
Greater dumping height and max hinge pin height potentially allows for dumping over higher edges

Cons:

Lower engine power of 530 HP might affect heavy-duty material handling efficiency
The omission of key specifications such as payload, maximum torque, and turning radius, which are essential for full comparison
Older engine emission standards could pose limitations in increasingly stringent regulatory environments

Closing Recommendation

The optimal choice between the Cat 988K and Komatsu WA600-6R will hinge on the specifics of the intended application. If the focus is on emission compliance and better maneuverability, the Komatsu WA600-6R could be more suitable. However, if you prioritize higher torque, versatile bucket capacity, and enhanced brake safety, the Cat 988K may be the preferable option.