Can we use EMD 710G turbocharger in EMD 645 locomotive ?
And 645 turbocharger in 710 engines ?
Will it be able accomodate wrt
1. Flow/Performance requirement
2. Fitment requirement
3. Room requirement
4. Life requirement
If this is possible, huge money can be saved by utilising common resources !!!
Any information on this ???
What's the part number on the turbo on the engine now? The best thing would be to look up the utex part number for the model engine you have now. A utex turbo is a remanufactured turbo so you have to send the a core back.
I am not having any part numbers, it is just an idea... i just want to know if the two turbochargers can be replaced in the engines, between EMD 710G 16V and EMD 645E 16V without afftecting more functionally?? & How will it fit??
Abiyukthan I am not having any part numbers, it is just an idea... i just want to know if the two turbochargers can be replaced in the engines, between EMD 710G 16V and EMD 645E 16V without afftecting more functionally?? & How will it fit??
You can do virtually anything - how much do you want to pay for fabrication and engineering to get it to work properly?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It is a good though, 710G turbocharger price is around 10 to 20% more than 645E turbocharger.
It will be worth, only if we can match their performance by spending 2 to 3 % of the cost of turbocharger ie around 800 to 1200 $.
This may not also be a huge saving. It is not a question of tooling and fitting the turbocharger. It is a question of using the common machinery and turbocharger for both of locomotive engines.
Definitely there will be some deviation or loss in the performance. The question is "what will be the effect of losses?" - If the effects are acceptable, we can use a common turbocharger for both of them.
There is only a minor deviation in the flow range (710/645 = 1.1 ~ 10%) and the duty cycles are almost same. so there must be some way to match these...
I think there is a fundamental error in the question at the basis of this thread.
Each of the EMD turbocharged engines has a a turbocharger tailored for its specific needs, including delivering the required air as a shaft driven blower at each throttle notch until the turbo overruns the drive.
On blower type engines, there are two gear ratios and one or two blowers to match the blower load to the particular engine and the equivalent turbo engines should have similar matching.
Given that a twelve cylinder 710G develops the same power as a sixteen cylinder 645E, it would seem that it is unlikely that the turbocharger units for a given number of cylinders for the two types would have the same performance.
If a larger turbo were fitted, (say a 16-710G unit on a 16-645E) the additional load on the crankshaft up to notch 6 would reduce power and increase fuel consumption, and the heavier turbo might transition to exhaust turbine drive later, again increasing fuel consumption.
Unless a very small number of spare turbos were required, I can't see how having a single type would save much money. As indicated in the posts above, a unit exchange turbo program is in place, although outside the USA shipping times might suggest spare turbos be held on site.
EMD would surely take advantage themselves of any cost savings available if a single turbo could perform both duties....
M636C
M636C I think there is a fundamental error in the question at the basis of this thread. Each of the EMD turbocharged engines has a a turbocharger tailored for its specific needs, including delivering the required air as a shaft driven blower at each throttle notch until the turbo overruns the drive. On blower type engines, there are two gear ratios and one or two blowers to match the blower load to the particular engine and the equivalent turbo engines should have similar matching. Given that a twelve cylinder 710G develops the same power as a sixteen cylinder 645E, it would seem that it is unlikely that the turbocharger units for a given number of cylinders for the two types would have the same performance. If a larger turbo were fitted, (say a 16-710G unit on a 16-645E) the additional load on the crankshaft up to notch 6 would reduce power and increase fuel consumption, and the heavier turbo might transition to exhaust turbine drive later, again increasing fuel consumption. Unless a very small number of spare turbos were required, I can't see how having a single type would save much money. As indicated in the posts above, a unit exchange turbo program is in place, although outside the USA shipping times might suggest spare turbos be held on site. EMD would surely take advantage themselves of any cost savings available if a single turbo could perform both duties.... M636C
Completely agree! At the very least, the turbine and compressor performance need to be matched to each other and the engine in order to provide the proper air flow and stable performance (surge margin). Things like the turbine blades and turbine inlet scroll design can have a big impact.
You may be able to get a 710 turbo to bolt up to a 645, but...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Not going to work. The turbos are physically different. Aerodynamically not a good fit either, as the turbine nozzle ring is sized for a particular gas volume on each model to overrun the gear drive at ~75% rated load. The compressor diffuser is also sized according to the nozzle. The impeller is larger, and there are more turbine blades on the "G" rotating assembly (53 vs 47). Finally, the "G" uses an external clutch in place of the E & F engine's spring drive gear.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.