An unusual question relating to 567 series engines received this week, sharing the answer here.

Question:

Could a 16-567C crankcase be used to build a replacement 16-567D3A engine?

My response to this:

The 16-567C engine was designed for 1750HP (for traction) applications while the 16-567D3A was applied at 2500HP (for traction). There were power generating applications where the 16 cylinder “D” crankcase was rated up to 2800HP continuous service. There are significant differences in the design strength of the engine top decks and the crankshaft supporting “A” frame structures. The 16-567C crankcase used ¼-inch (nominal) welds where the crankshaft supporting “A” frames are attached to the lower stress sheet and base rails, the 16-567D3A has 3/8-inch (nominal) welds at these points. There are also machining and threaded fastening differences at the front and rear end sheets. An existing 567C crankcase in good condition might provide many years of additional service at the intended ratings. It might not last very long if customized for a much higher power output. It could end up as an expensive and needless sacrifice of an otherwise good and useful crankcase. With many 645E3 engines around that could be adapted to a 567D3A application, why risk failing a good 567C crankcase that would be more valuable for a preservation project.

NOTE: EMD did use 567C engine crankcases to develop the turbochargers for the 567D series engines, but those were brand new components, used before the 567D was ready. They were not too concerned whether they had a crankcase failure in the test program at that time, the object was testing of the turbocharger design.

Disclaimer:

This is my opinion only, it does not represent any official position of EMD or Progress Rail.

PC