Excavator Showdown: Cat 320/330 vs Komatsu PC200/PC300 (Operator's Guide)
Mid-Size Excavators: Cat 320 vs Komatsu PC200
- Bucket capacity: Cat 1.3–2.0 cy | Komatsu 1.4–2.0 cy
- Operating weight: Cat 19t | Komatsu 19.5t
- Fuel consumption (full duty): Cat ~12 L/hr | Komatsu ~11 L/hr
- Dig depth: Cat 5.8m | Komatsu 5.9m
- Swing speed: Cat 9.8 rpm | Komatsu 10.2 rpm (Komatsu slightly faster)
- Boom breakout force: Cat 23 kN | Komatsu 22 kN (Cat edges it)
- Hydraulic system: Cat—tighter controls, smoother digging | Komatsu—responsive, good in wet trenching
When to pick: Cat if you're on rocky material. Komatsu if you need faster cycle times (trenching).
Larger Excavators: Cat 330 vs Komatsu PC300
- Bucket capacity: Cat 2.0–3.0 cy | Komatsu 2.1–3.1 cy
- Operating weight: Cat 30t | Komatsu 30t
- Fuel consumption (full duty): Cat ~18 L/hr | Komatsu ~16 L/hr (11% savings)
- Dig depth: Cat 7.2m | Komatsu 7.3m
- Swing speed: Cat 10.3 rpm | Komatsu 10.8 rpm
- Boom breakout force: Cat 28 kN | Komatsu 27 kN
- Resale value: Cat typically 3–5% higher after 3–5 years
When to pick: Cat if you're in hard rock. Komatsu if fuel budget is tight.
Real-World Example: 5-Year Fuel Cost
Daily fuel cost difference (PC300 vs Cat 330):
- Komatsu: 16 L/hr × 8 hrs/day × 250 days/yr × 5 yrs = 16,000 L = ~$16,000 fuel savings
- Cat 330: 18 L/hr × 8 hrs/day × 250 days/yr × 5 yrs = 18,000 L
That $16K difference can pay for transmission repairs.