To you. You need to just accept that not everyone feels the same way you do about this...we all agree on the numbers, we just don't agree that they matter. You're not going to change that by arguing about it.
He can’t help himself He just keeps changing his story and argument when he is wrong to try to bring something else.
Is there some percentage drop of performance where you think you'd notice? I mean, do you think you'd notice at the top of Pikes Peak with a 42% reduction in power?
Never once said I was an expert. Just said most people don't spend time driving at elevations higher than 5,000' so it really does not matter to the vast majority as much as it clearly matters to you.
It's not assumptions, it's facts based on physics from years of testing, you know science? It's universally accepted that NA engines lose 3%/1k feet of elevation gain and forced induction engines lose 1%/1k feet of elevation gain. It's not made up numbers It's facts and simple math. No calibrated butt dynos involved. Having lived in Fresno, I'm sure you're aware that the city is at 308' and you can drive to well over 10k without leaving the county or pavement.
You have to be nearly 50 years old if you have 30 years of driving experience as stated in one of your posts…. You must have taken science class. Unfortunately, you obviously did not pay attention. Your statement of hp numbers at 10,000’ is a theory based on assumptions and opinion. You could be right or you could be wrong. In order to prove out your theory, you must run tests. Tests would include a dyno of the 2.0 and 3.6 engines at sea level, which it looks like there are plenty of, and then, tests of those same engines at 10.000’ which you don’t have. So, your theory that you have 50 hp more is not factual or science. If you said the 2.0 will have more power at 10,000’, that is factual. Putting an untested number to it is not. That is how science works.
I have no doubt there is. And it's probably not a static number, it almost certainly will depend on conditions and what i'm doing at the time. But you illustrate my point well - if I have to drive up Pikes Peak to notice it, it's not a big deal.
You're arguing you have to test these 2 engines like they are unique? It's accepted, tested millions of times, and the formulas exist for that reason. Both automotive and aerospace engineers have tested, verified, and agree that the formulas are accurate. I don't care if you believe it any more than I care if you believe 2+2=4. It is fact that an NA engine loses 3Ă— the power period.
He's right, you would have to test the engines...because those numbers you cite are relative. Those numbers are "accurate" if you understand all the variables involved. This is why we engineers call this a "rule of thumb".
Which would make testing 2 specific engines even more pointless due to standard deviations which is why the rule of thumb exists. If you took the worst performing 3.6L at altitude and compared it to the best preforming 2.0t out of 10 you'd likely see far more than the 2% difference. The average difference over thousands of samples would be 2% which is why the formula exists. It's a thread about power loss in the 3.6L where the OP experienced it 1st hand. No the computer won't relearn and make up for the lack of air. Yes it is substantial period. Nobody said he should sell it and buy a turbo. We literally shared the numbers behind what he felt and how significantly less you'd feel it with forced induction. If you are going to wheel, tow, or run your Jeep hard at high elevations the turbo is better. Those are facts.
You might have a different perception if you lived at high altitude (like many of us do). Hell, even my EcoDiesel can feel like a dog when attempting to go over these passes like I'm doing this morning.
I can agree with that - the turbo will give you better power at elevation, I don't think anyone disagrees. The point that many of us are trying to get through is that that's a relatively small thing in comparison to things like longevity, fuel mileage, refinement and noise, and ease of maintenance. For the vast majority of buyers, it's not even on their list.
I imagine I would. Nonetheless, the factors I listed above in response to Zach still matter even at altitude - some even more if i'm going to be regularly working the engine hard at said altitude. So then it's a question of how those other factors weigh out in comparison.
You just listed fuel economy as a factor in choosing the 3.6L over the 2.0t, which proves you have 0 experience with the 2.0t. Driven easy or driven hard, stock or lifted on big tires, the 2.0t always provided significantly better fuel economy.
I did not. Those were factors in the engine decision, not specific to one or the other. Also, I owned a 2018 2.0 before my current 3.6.
