3.6 power loss at elevation

[TheRaven]

Read the entire thread, need a aspirin,

learned high octane 91 high altitude, under load, if can afford it, if own a Jeep affording should not be a determinant.

still don’t know what a straw man is, former knowledge of straw man was in the wizard of oz.

I apologize that you had to endure all this, and wonder why you even stuck around. But I can help with the straw man - it's a debate term that describes when a debate opponent responds to an extreme version of your claim rather than your actual claim.

Not that it matters, but 61 million snow skiers, 15 million lake Tahoe visitors, 6 million yellowstone visitors, 4 million Yosemite visitors, 5 million big bear visitors, 30 million plus hikers, there's 120 million just in activities/ destinations I could think of off the top of my head. Add in 10s of millions of vehicles that cross I-80 from NV, I-5 from OR, tens of millions of tourists traveling to/ through ID, Montana, Wyoming, etc and I'm confident in saying that more than 170 million people see 5k feet or higher every year. It's not like it's a statistic that easily searched, but virtually everyone that drives out west be it truck drivers, tourists, etc all see 5k. It's not at all rare.

That's a whole lot of guessing. I think if you would step back and ponder this you would realize how ridiculous it is to claim that HALF THE US POPULATION travels to the mountains in like 5 US states. No. Half the US population has never even set foot in those states. 80% of the US population lives east of the Mississippi, and less than 50% of the US population has the money to travel in the way you describe. The AHA says that 100M Americans have traveled to elevations over 5000ft...logic dictates that far fewer do that frequently.

So no. Whole heartedly disagree...I think you're going a bit crazy here.

Sponsored

 

[Zandcwhite]

I apologize that you had to endure all this, and wonder why you even stuck around. But I can help with the straw man - it's a debate term that describes when a debate opponent responds to an extreme version of your claim rather than your actual claim.



That's a whole lot of guessing. I think if you would step back and ponder this you would realize how ridiculous it is to claim that HALF THE US POPULATION travels to the mountains in like 5 US states. No. Half the US population has never even set foot in those states. 80% of the US population lives east of the Mississippi, and less than 50% of the US population has the money to travel in the way you describe. The AHA says that 100M Americans have traveled to elevations over 5000ft...logic dictates that far fewer do that frequently.

So no. Whole heartedly disagree...I think you're going a bit crazy here.

It would be stupid to assume the only people in those tourist destinations are American citizens? Ever been to Tahoe? Yellowstone? Yosemite? There's visitors from around the world. As far as what you consider frequently, doesn't matter. If you've driven above 5k feet once, you know what iit s like. If you've driven near 10k, you know how dramatically different it is. 30% power loss is glaring, especially in a heavy jeep that isn't exactly over powered at sea level.

 

[Ratbert]

It would be stupid to assume the only people in those tourist destinations are American citizens? Ever been to Tahoe? Yellowstone? Yosemite? There's visitors from around the world. As far as what you consider frequently, doesn't matter. If you've driven above 5k feet once, you know what iit s like. If you've driven near 10k, you know how dramatically different it is. 30% power loss is glaring, especially in a heavy jeep that isn't exactly over powered at sea level.

Do you realize how foolhardy it is to argue with someone that thinks their "butt sensor" has been calibrated?

 

[TheRaven]

Do you realize how foolhardy it is to argue with someone that thinks their "butt sensor" has been calibrated?

I'm a little worried over how obsessed you are with my butt.

 

[Ratbert]

I'm a little worried over how obsessed you are with my butt.

How many people are you aware of that are so proud of their butts that they have them calibrated? If mine was calibrated I'd be proud of it too!

But poor me; all I have to count on is math, science, and personal observations.

 

[longfiredragon]

Read most of this, have to chime in here. Wasn't going to because as long as a person is happy with their jeep, then I personally don't care.

But, same old crap from the same person. So I am going to share my recent experience. Just got through wheeling Moab, and Colorado trails with a friend I met out there. He has a 2016 JLUR hard rock addition (nice jeep) V6, and yes with out going into a lot of details his jeep was heavier than mine. I'm not going to speculate exactly, because we both had refrigerator's, recovery gear, two dogs, two adults, a lot of stuff.

But he also had steel bumpers and a winch.

But I am going to tell you right now it would not have mattered, because I messed around with him a couple times. There is really no comparison. My 2.0L turbo blew his doors off in every area. Up the steep grades, I would just walk away like he was going backwards.

He would punch it up the hills and it would just make more noise and go nowhere.

It just kills me when some talk about turbo engines, and obviously don't know what there talking about.

If you are climbing even a small grade, 2,3 percent, your already spooling boost, especially loaded down. At that point boost is right there, zero lag, boom instant. In fact on flat roads above certain speeds your spooling boost.

Torque deficit? What? The 2.0 makes more torque at a lower RPM.

I could go on about how the V6 and the 2.0 were diff. On the trails also. Instead I will just say this. The 2.0 keeps up with the V6 in every way off road, in some cases it did better.

A person also may not think they care about extra power at altitude or not, but I will tell you what, you can get to the trail head quicker.

I'm shutting up with this. The 2.0 eats the V6 for breakfast, lunch and dinner, at altitude or not.

Oh, let's not forget gas mileage to. On metal masher we both filled up at the same gas station in the morning. When we got back to the RV park, his V6, slightly over 3/4 of a tank, my 2.0, less than half a tank.

 

[Flip]

I dunno man, if you're at elevation you're going to spend a lot of time holding revs where the 2.0 is definitely in the turbo. Max torque at 2500ish RPM. At least 50 wheel torque more than the 3.6. No deficit there.

Wow, check out the 3.0 diesel stats, cool.

 

[Zandcwhite]

Wow, check out the 3.0 diesel stats, cool.

Too bad it falls off a cliff before 4k and the fuel pump explodes shortly after

 

[Zandcwhite]

How many people are you aware of that are so proud of their butts that they have them calibrated? If mine was calibrated I'd be proud of it too!

But poor me; all I have to count on is math, science, and personal observations.

One more point on the personal observations, we've all seen dozens of ice jeep owners on here posting their 20+ mpg trips. Of course when you do the math from their trip computer pics their average speed is usually low 40s over hundreds of miles. Having owned 2 JLUs and a JT, I know for a fact the only way you see those numbers is by driving like a little old lady. If you never use more than 30% of the throttle (and therefore 30% of the horsepower) of course you won't notice a 30% loss in power from the 70% you never use anyway. Drive it hard at sea level, drive it hard a 10k plus, and then tell me you don't notice the power loss. It's arguing for the sake of arguing. If you're happy with the 100hp you ever actually use, you can afford to give up the 42% you are guaranteed to lose at 14k and "not notice it".

 

[TheRaven]

One more point on the personal observations, we've all seen dozens of ice jeep owners on here posting their 20+ mpg trips. Of course when you do the math from their trip computer pics their average speed is usually low 40s over hundreds of miles. Having owned 2 JLUs and a JT, I know for a fact the only way you see those numbers is by driving like a little old lady.

Yeah the fuel mileage comparisons are pretty silly because theres so much variation in how we drive and where we drive. It's easy to get great fuel mileage when you don't have mountains. I got 29mpg driving on a perfectly flat, straight road, at 50mph, for an hour once. That was the first and only time i've seen over 23mpg...because it's also the first and only time I drove on that road.

 

[siggy]

Read most of this, have to chime in here. Wasn't going to because as long as a person is happy with their jeep, then I personally don't care.

But, same old crap from the same person. So I am going to share my recent experience. Just got through wheeling Moab, and Colorado trails with a friend I met out there. He has a 2016 JLUR hard rock addition (nice jeep) V6, and yes with out going into a lot of details his jeep was heavier than mine. I'm not going to speculate exactly, because we both had refrigerator's, recovery gear, two dogs, two adults, a lot of stuff.

But he also had steel bumpers and a winch.

But I am going to tell you right now it would not have mattered, because I messed around with him a couple times. There is really no comparison. My 2.0L turbo blew his doors off in every area. Up the steep grades, I would just walk away like he was going backwards.

He would punch it up the hills and it would just make more noise and go nowhere.

It just kills me when some talk about turbo engines, and obviously don't know what there talking about.

If you are climbing even a small grade, 2,3 percent, your already spooling boost, especially loaded down. At that point boost is right there, zero lag, boom instant. In fact on flat roads above certain speeds your spooling boost.

Torque deficit? What? The 2.0 makes more torque at a lower RPM.

I could go on about how the V6 and the 2.0 were diff. On the trails also. Instead I will just say this. The 2.0 keeps up with the V6 in every way off road, in some cases it did better.

A person also may not think they care about extra power at altitude or not, but I will tell you what, you can get to the trail head quicker.

I'm shutting up with this. The 2.0 eats the V6 for breakfast, lunch and dinner, at altitude or not.

Oh, let's not forget gas mileage to. On metal masher we both filled up at the same gas station in the morning. When we got back to the RV park, his V6, slightly over 3/4 of a tank, my 2.0, less than half a tank.

You blew the doors off a 2016 JLU? What kind of vehicle is this? Assuming one of those is a typo. If it’s a 2016, it’s a JKU. Furthermore, you don’t mention which transmission. If it’s an automatic, then it’s an inferior transmission to the auto in your JL. JL didn’t start until 2018. You should really leave the street racing to the high schoolers.

This thread is going nowhere and has been on a crash course and burning since page one. But there’s a strong contingent keepin er alive!

 

[Flip]

Too bad it falls off a cliff before 4k and the fuel pump explodes shortly after

 

[JeepinJason33]

Not that it matters, but 61 million snow skiers, 15 million lake Tahoe visitors, 6 million yellowstone visitors, 4 million Yosemite visitors, 5 million big bear visitors, 30 million plus hikers, there's 120 million just in activities/ destinations I could think of off the top of my head. Add in 10s of millions of vehicles that cross I-80 from NV, I-5 from OR, tens of millions of tourists traveling to/ through ID, Montana, Wyoming, etc and I'm confident in saying that more than 170 million people see 5k feet or higher every year. It's not like it's a statistic that easily searched, but virtually everyone that drives out west be it truck drivers, tourists, etc all see 5k. It's not at all rare.

This is getting ridiculous but since you continue spewing BS, I will play along as you have not proven that most people in the US do not regularly go above 5000” the statement I made that you called out as “categorically wrong.” Man, you like making stuff up. You never are able to show where you get your ridiculous stats. 18.46 million people went skiing last year, not 61 million. While you are at it, show the data that says all hikers go above 5,000’. Now, you are trying to throw tourist from other countries in as well? What’s next cows? You also need to take out all of the visitors to Yellowstone and the other National parks that you mentioned that are skiers, hikers, or drove over one of the passes you mentioned to get there. I could go on and on, you clearly don’t understand statistics and that is OK.

You also stated earlier that 30,000 vehicles go over 80 a day and that math is still under 11 million vehicles and many are the same people commuting or semi-trucks. Not everyone is a unique driver. Plus, you are double dipping as some are the hikers and skiers you want to count as well. Some of those hikers and skiers already live above 5,000’ and would be capture in the population data of the cities you called out already. All the numbers you make up to try to prove your point still does not change the fact that none of the groups you are pulling in go up on a frequent or regular basis and most US citizens never see above 5,000’ on even a yearly basis.

Not sure why you want so badly to prove my fact based statement wrong…: there is not another person agreeing with you. It is OK to admit you are wrong or to just drop it instead of digging yourself deeper.

Published by Statista Research Department, May 14, 2024
A total of 18.46 million U.S. Americans went skiing in 2023, which was an increase of about four percent over the figure reported in the previous year. Out of that number, approximately 5.32 million went cross-country skiing specifically, up from 4.85 million in 2022.

 

[2nd 392]

Wow, check out the 3.0 diesel stats, cool.

Pssst— look at the green line, and the broken green line , they both stay Way up there until over 6K RPM.
don’t show it to @Tredsdert , his feelings will be hurt with his diesel’s torque getting bettered by twice the RPM range.

 

[Zandcwhite]

This is getting ridiculous but since you continue spewing BS, I will play along as you have not proven that most people in the US do not regularly go above 5000” the statement I made that you called out as “categorically wrong.” Man, you like making stuff up. You never are able to show where you get your ridiculous stats. 18.46 million people went skiing last year, not 61 million. While you are at it, show the data that says all hikers go above 5,000’. Now, you are trying to throw tourist from other countries in as well? What’s next cows? You also need to take out all of the visitors to Yellowstone and the other National parks that you mentioned that are skiers, hikers, or drove over one of the passes you mentioned to get there. I could go on and on, you clearly don’t understand statistics and that is OK.

You also stated earlier that 30,000 vehicles go over 80 a day and that math is still under 11 million vehicles and many are the same people commuting or semi-trucks. Not everyone is a unique driver. Plus, you are double dipping as some are the hikers and skiers you want to count as well. Some of those hikers and skiers already live above 5,000’ and would be capture in the population data of the cities you called out already. All the numbers you make up to try to prove your point still does not change the fact that none of the groups you are pulling in go up on a frequent or regular basis and most US citizens never see above 5,000’ on even a yearly basis.

Not sure why you want so badly to prove my fact based statement wrong…: there is not another person agreeing with you. It is OK to admit you are wrong or to just drop it instead of digging yourself deeper.

Published by Statista Research Department, May 14, 2024
A total of 18.46 million U.S. Americans went skiing in 2023, which was an increase of about four percent over the figure reported in the previous year. Out of that number, approximately 5.32 million went cross-country skiing specifically, up from 4.85 million in 2022.

Why wouldn't you count tourists? You didn't say most Americans outside CO and UT, you said folks? As raven found, the AHA says 100 million Americans visit elevations above 5k every year. And again, the entire point of my initial response was you implied that only those 2 states have people who regularly deal with elevation and it's pretty obvious from the numbers that more people see 5k feet outside those states every year than within them even if the entire east half of the country doesn't know what a mountain is and never travels. Of course. Mount Mitchell in NC is 6600'+ so I wouldn't count out half the country to make yourself feel better. And like I said, of course people living at elevation won't notice power loss, because to them <85% is 100% of the power they have every day. The numbers are way closer than you seem to believe, but who cares if it's only 1/3 of the population that sees those elevations? Who cares if the majority of those that do aren't in UT or CO? The power loss is still real and substantial.

Sponsored