I own two Volvo EC210BLC excavators. The first unit (“No. 1”) was purchased in April 2007, and the second (“No. 2”) was purchased in July 2007. Since both machines have been used at the same time under similar conditions, the feedback is quite representative.

Below is a summary of the issues encountered so far:

1. Water Pump Problems

• No. 1 Excavator:
  At 200 operating hours, we found the radiator low on coolant; inspection revealed the water pump was at fault. At 1,100 hours, the pump failed completely and was replaced under warranty. However, the replacement pump failed again at 1,900 hours — again covered by warranty. Now, at 5,300 hours, the water pump has failed once more, so we had to pay out of pocket for a new one.
• No. 2 Excavator:
  This machine had its water pump replaced at 300 hours due to a fault, then again at 1,600 hours — both within the warranty period and covered by Volvo. At 3,100 hours, the pump failed once more and we replaced it at our own expense through an authorized dealer. Since then, up to 6,100 hours, the pump has been working fine.

Based on this, I feel that the typical service life of a Volvo excavator’s water pump is about 3,000 hours, which is relatively short and not ideal for owners.

2. Piston Seal Issues

• No. 1 Excavator:
  At 1,200 hours, the arm cylinder started leaking; the dealer replaced the seals under warranty. At 4,600 hours, the boom cylinder began leaking, and by 5,100 hours, the right cylinder was leaking so badly that the whole cylinder was replaced. The arm cylinder started leaking again at 5,200 hours, and the bucket cylinder began leaking at 5,000 hours — we haven’t replaced it yet but will need to soon. The machine currently shows about 5,500 hours.
• No. 2 Excavator:
  Everything was fine until about 4,500 hours. By 5,000 hours, all cylinders began to leak. The boom cylinder seals were replaced at 5,500 hours due to severe leaks, and both the arm and bucket cylinder seals were replaced at 6,000 hours. The current operating time is about 6,200 hours. In my opinion, the average lifespan of Volvo’s piston seals is roughly 5,000 hours.

3. Hydraulic System Issues

• No. 1 Excavator:
  At 800 hours, a small hose on the control valve started leaking badly and was replaced under warranty. At 2,000 hours, there were multiple leaks throughout the hydraulic system. At 3,800 hours, the inlet hose for the arm cylinder burst. At 4,200 hours, the swing motor’s main hose ruptured. At 4,600 hours, a main inlet hose to the pump leaked heavily and we paid to replace it ourselves.
• No. 2 Excavator:
  Similarly, after 2,000 hours, we saw multiple leaks in the hydraulic system. At 3,600 hours, the boom’s inlet hose burst. At 3,800 hours, the arm cylinder’s inlet hose burst, which we also had to replace at our own expense.

4. Other Component Issues

• No. 1 Excavator:
  Currently has a track roller still leaking oil.
• No. 2 Excavator:
  At 6,000 hours, the machine suddenly lost all hydraulic function during operation and required a new solenoid valve, which cost 1,500 yuan.

Summary:
Both excavators have now worked over 6,000 hours. Apart from the above issues, there have been no major breakdowns. However, spare parts for Volvo are much more expensive than those for brands like Doosan or Hyundai, which many local operators find hard to understand. In terms of speed, power, and responsiveness, both machines perform similarly and show no significant differences.

Our family’s used Kobelco SK200-1 excavator was purchased in June 2007. Before that, we were in the trucking business, but when the old Dongfeng trucks were phased out, my father switched to excavation work. I was just in middle school at the time, and when I heard that my dad was buying an excavator, I was over the moon — I’d always loved construction equipment, especially excavators and dump trucks!

This Kobelco SK200-1 cost us 420,000 yuan back then. It was originally bought in Hong Kong and resold locally, so technically it was a third-hand machine. Many people thought the price was a bit high for its age, but now, after almost three years of use, it has never let us down. It has really earned its keep on job sites and given me a lot of pride. Among machines of the same model, this old SK200-1 can easily outperform others. Its advantage is obvious when loading trucks. Once, we worked side by side with a newer SK200-5. By the end of the day, my excavator had loaded more trucks than the newer one. The other owner didn’t believe it at first, so I asked my operator to demonstrate on the spot. He watched and then admitted, “Your machine really is faster!” That moment felt as sweet as honey to me.

Regarding maintenance:

• We change the engine oil every 300 hours.
• The hydraulic oil has never been changed since purchase — our mechanic says it’s still fine.
• In over two years, we’ve only replaced the center pump seals twice. The bucket pump seals have never needed replacement.
• We changed the boom pump once.
• One travel hydraulic hose was replaced because it got corroded by mud over time.
• One control lever hose was replaced after it swelled.
  All other parts have remained original under my care — the boom still uses the original hydraulic lines, and the original air conditioner still works perfectly, both heating and cooling.

Overall, this Kobelco SK200-1 excavator is fuel-efficient, powerful, has quick swing speed, fast travel speed, and simple electronics — definitely better than the SK200-3 or SK200-5 in my opinion. The only downside is that the control levers feel a bit heavy, but otherwise, everything works great.

To sum it up in one sentence:
A machine is like a person — treat it well, and it will treat you well in return!

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of individual members of our platform and do not represent the official stance of any specific construction machinery website.

I have had this machine for a while now, and here are my thoughts after using it:

What I like about this machine:

1. The dashboard looks much improved compared to the previous -7 and -5 models.
2. The cab seat is very comfortable, unlike the harder seats on the old -5 model. There are several storage compartments inside the cab to conveniently hold small items like cigarettes and other personal belongings.
3. The Hyundai R215-7C uses a Cummins engine, different from the Mitsubishi engine in the R215-7, offering more power while fuel consumption remains about the same.

Areas I think could be improved:

1. Although the control handles are different from before, they feel more like decoration than practical tools.
2. The speed of the dipper arm has increased, but the boom and bucket speeds are still quite slow.
3. When digging hard soil, the boom and dipper arm make a buzzing noise; I’m not sure why. Even applying grease twice a day doesn’t stop the noise. Hyundai technicians have inspected the machine multiple times but the issue remains unresolved.
4. The combined hydraulic movements aren’t smooth; the actions lack fluid coordination.
5. The fuel tank is too small—much smaller than the tank on the old -5 model—resulting in more frequent refueling, which is inconvenient.

I have been using three Komatsu PC400-7 excavators for about two months. When purchased, the hour meters were around 2,000, and now they have all reached about 2,500 hours. The machine numbers are 5, 8, and 9. Below is a summary of each machine’s condition for reference by others interested in purchasing a 40-ton class excavator.

Excavator #5:

Mainly used with a ripper for loosening soil. The ripper cost 9,800 RMB when purchased. Initially, we used bucket teeth from a Liugong 225 excavator, but the teeth broke 5 or 6 times per day. It was a miracle if the tooth holder lasted two days without breaking.

The plan was revised multiple times, and finally, we switched to Komatsu 400 (Diamond brand) bucket teeth, which improved the situation. Because the PC400-7 uses an electronically controlled fuel injection engine, when we first took over this machine, the fuel quality at the previous site was very poor, causing severe damage to the machine.

We replaced a fuel injector nozzle, costing 13,500 RMB.

Excavator #8:

After less than 100 hours of use, the main drive belt broke once. Later, we combined the belts into one large belt driving two smaller belts, costing 1,300 RMB.

Excavator #9:

The most stable machine of the three and also the fastest in operation. It is equipped with a 2.1 cubic meter bucket, and loading is easy—even faster than the Doosan DH500 with its 3.2 cubic meter bucket.

Overall:

The Komatsu PC400 excavator has noticeably more power than the PC360 and weighs nearly 10 tons more. However, the price is about 400,000 RMB higher than the PC360.

Due to its boom length and bucket depth, the PC400 is better suited for cutting weathered rock. The Doosan 500, with its large bucket, often gets stuck when digging weathered rock, while the PC360’s bucket is too wide to easily penetrate the weathered rock.

In terms of loading speed, the PC400 is significantly faster than the PC360—on a completely different level.

Fuel consumption:

This was somewhat surprising. Now, we operate at full throttle in A mode, with fuel consumption around 50 liters per hour. In E mode, consumption is about 40 liters per hour. Previously, when digging soil in A mode, consumption rarely exceeded 42 liters. Loading weathered rock has indeed increased fuel consumption significantly.
(This can serve as a reference for those planning contracts on mining sites.)

Some drawbacks of the Komatsu PC400 found so far:

1. Surprisingly, there is no dedicated grease fitting location (the grease gun must be used openly on the rotating platform).
2. Overweight transport issues: The domestic PC400 weighs 38,500 kg, the domestic PC400CSE weighs 42,000 kg, and the imported PC400 weighs 42,300 kg. Transporting two trailers plus three units also exceeds limits, with fines of tens of thousands of RMB. Crossing provinces can result in 5,000 RMB fines each time, making highway transport risky.

This Caterpillar 330D excavator arrived at the construction site on January 2, 2008. It has currently clocked 7,928 operating hours (I’ve mentioned this before, but some people didn’t believe it, so let me state it again — this is absolutely accurate. As an operator, I have no reason to exaggerate my work; I’m sharing this sincerely with fellow professionals).

I have been the sole operator of this machine, so here’s my honest summary of its issues and strengths. Caterpillar is a leading brand in the construction equipment industry, and its excavators are among the best worldwide — consistently ranking at the top in sales and resale value. Enough with the background — let’s get to the real points.

Issues and Maintenance History

• Engine Oil Consumption:
  This machine has used engine oil at a noticeable rate since new — about one barrel every 100 hours. This is not due to a fault but rather a characteristic of the 330D design; nearly all 330Ds behave this way. I recommend changing the oil every 1,000 hours (or even longer if you monitor it closely). Over 1,000 hours, it will use about 10 barrels — equivalent to five standard oil changes. The oil filter is changed every 500 hours.
• Hydraulic Cylinder Seals:
  At 3,000 hours, the arm cylinder had its seals replaced under warranty at no cost. At 6,000 hours, the same cylinder cracked and the cylinder body was replaced — cost about 4,500 RMB.
• Fuel Injection Pump:
  At 6,500 hours, the unit pumps were replaced — all six at once. Each cost about 8,000 RMB. This was mainly due to the poor fuel quality in China.
• Water Pump:
  Replaced at 7,000 hours for around 10,000 RMB.
• Other:
  Currently, the fan pump area has a minor oil leak that I haven’t addressed yet. The boom cylinder needs a new seal kit. Fuel consumption is a bit high but reasonable considering the machine’s productivity.

Operating Experience

There are two versions of the 330D sold in China, differing mainly in the arm length and bucket size:

• Long arm: arm is 50 cm longer, bucket capacity about 1.67 m³
• Short arm: arm is 50 cm shorter, bucket capacity about 1.87 m³

I operate the short-arm version. On site, this machine easily stands out compared to other 40-ton-class excavators. It has powerful digging force, precise controls, and quick response.

Comfort and Cab

One drawback is that the cab door seals are not very tight, so dust gets in. Also, it didn’t come with a radio — you have to install one yourself. This is a minor flaw but worth mentioning.

Overall Impression

Overall, the Caterpillar 330D lives up to its reputation: strong performance, reliable power, precise operation, and high productivity, with some predictable maintenance needs mostly due to local fuel conditions. Despite a few small shortcomings, it’s still a very good choice for heavy-duty excavation work in China.