No you just don't actually read and continue to regurgitate your opinion. The 3.6 begins to struggle, yes off-road (unless you're constantly in low range), at altitudes that aren't even that high. It hesitates and stumbles, but you don't seem to want to hear it. Yes I plan a re-gear very soon, but for you to pretend that more low-end torque wouldn't be beneficial off-road is laughable.
No that's not a power vs altitude chart, that's compares air pressure at altitude. Your fine, spin your tires. Let us know how you like your new 392 and post picture.
"NO OFF ROAD BENEFIT" Anyone can modify their vehicle and make it more off road capable, but that takes MODIFYING a stock vehicle. "NO OFF ROAD BENEFIT OVER A 3.6L RUBI"
You're wanting HP vs. altitude? That's not going to happen, unless someone has specifically had the 3.6 on a dyno at various elevations. Best I'm willing to do is state that pressure is directly related to potential power, and 0 PSI = 0 HP.
"NO OFF ROAD BENEFIT OVER THE RUBI 3.6l"
Or you can calculate it using SAE J1349: https://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm
No i'm not wanting a HP vs Altitude chart. But if you are going to use a chart to prove your point about air pressure and how it relates to power at altitude then its best to have a chart that represent that. The chart you used does not.
"NO OFF ROAD BENEFIT OVER THE RUBI 3.6l"
I wasn't trying to prove any point about power at all, other than what I'm sure everyone already knows (that there is less power at altitude). I was specifically posting a chart with altitude vs. pressure because I thought some forum members might find it useful or interesting. That's why I only said "Also to add to the power at altitude discussion... Like boost but negative:"
It makes the vehicle go faster.
A squad car is en route to your location.
Donāt go beating up TJ on the trails. Or anywhere else.
That is very ill and annoying.
Nobody wants to know.
