3.6 power loss at elevation

[Strommen95]

Sponsored

 

[jeepingib]

So in summary, the OP felt power loss as they went higher. This has then been argued back and forth about what they felt, being substantial enough to be felt, even though they felt it, by people who weren't there for about 12 pages.

 

[Terrymo]

Beating a dead horse was back around page 5. Now here we are today. RIP

 

[JeepinJason33]

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 3× the power period.

You must test two engines to get the exact HP, yes that is what I am saying. You stated that you would have 50 hp more than a 3.6l at 10,000'. 2+2=4 has been proven. The 50 HP difference between the 2.0 and 3.6l at 10,000' has not been proven. Again, it could be 50, but there is no data that proves it is 50. Only data that shows assumed losses, not the losses of these two engines at 10,000'. And yes again, to prove it is any HP, you have to take the same two engines at sea level and then test those same two engines at 10,000'. That is how you prove out your theory. Please, don't take my word on any of this, show this thread to any scientist, scholar, engineer, etc. and get their view on the difference between opinion, theory, and fact.

Now you are stating an NA engine loses 3x the power period. Same thing you have done in every reply, change the original statement and make up another unproven statement. Not every turbo is the same so not every turbo engine is going to have a 3x advantage. But that is OK, you keep believing whatever you want.

You can also have the last word, I am done. The amount of BS that you state and then completely changed the topic once someone shows that you were wrong instead of just leaving it alone or admiting you had your facts incorrect, is ridiculous. You clearly don't understand the difference between a fact and an assumption or even real world data as you have spewed so many wrong points over these 12 pages that it is hysterical to anyone else reading this other than you.

Have a nice night.

 

[CarbonSteel]

This whole thread would be non-existent if the 3.6L made 310-330HP and 400-420lb-ft of torque instead of its Singer sewing machine numbers.

Laughable that Stellantis continues to state the 3.6L is the "stalwart" of the Wrangler line.

 

[Ratbert]

You must test two engines to get the exact HP, yes that is what I am saying. You stated that you would have 50 hp more than a 3.6l at 10,000'. 2+2=4 has been proven. The 50 HP difference between the 2.0 and 3.6l at 10,000' has not been proven. Again, it could be 50, but there is no data that proves it is 50. Only data that shows assumed losses, not the losses of these two engines at 10,000'. And yes again, to prove it is any HP, you have to take the same two engines at sea level and then test those same two engines at 10,000'. That is how you prove out your theory. Please, don't take my word on any of this, show this thread to any scientist, scholar, engineer, etc. and get their view on the difference between opinion, theory, and fact.

Now you are stating an NA engine loses 3x the power period. Same thing you have done in every reply, change the original statement and make up another unproven statement. Not every turbo is the same so not every turbo engine is going to have a 3x advantage. But that is OK, you keep believing whatever you want.

You can also have the last word, I am done. The amount of BS that you state and then completely changed the topic once someone shows that you were wrong instead of just leaving it alone or admiting you had your facts incorrect, is ridiculous. You clearly don't understand the difference between a fact and an assumption or even real world data as you have spewed so many wrong points over these 12 pages that it is hysterical to anyone else reading this other than you.

Have a nice night.

Hopefully you realize that when someone tests a vehicle or engine on a dyno they adjust the numbers based on altitude as well as climate criteria. And that the equalization adjustments used for forced inducted and naturally aspirated engines are significantly different.

They do not take the engines to various altitudes to test them. Those multipliers are already known and verified.

 

[2nd 392]

Hopefully you realize that when someone tests a vehicle or engine on a dyno they adjust the numbers based on altitude as well as climate criteria. And that the equalization adjustments used for forced inducted and naturally aspirated engines are significantly different.

They do not take the engines to various altitudes to test them. Those multipliers are already known and verified.

And any 2 dynos don’t necessarily show the same numbers, their could easily be a substantial difference between the indicated numbers of the sea level one and the 10K ft one invalidating the results. The percentage difference would be similar but not exact, the same percent drop of the higher powered one would be a higher number.
mfg’s don’t dyno every engine produced to verify numbers, the same vehicle with the same drivetrain are sometimes a Dog, or a runner compared to the average.

 

[Remorseless]

Wow! An 11 page pissing contest

It just makes you feel ALIVE doesn't it?

 

[Remorseless]

This whole thread would be non-existent if the 3.6L made 310-330HP and 400-420lb-ft of torque instead of its Singer sewing machine numbers.

Laughable that Stellantis continues to state the 3.6L is the "stalwart" of the Wrangler line.

Out of curiosity, what's your experience with the 4.0 (or 4.2 or 2.5/2.4) and 3.8 that were in Jeeps previously?

 

[JeepinJason33]

Hopefully you realize that when someone tests a vehicle or engine on a dyno they adjust the numbers based on altitude as well as climate criteria. And that the equalization adjustments used for forced inducted and naturally aspirated engines are significantly different.

They do not take the engines to various altitudes to test them. Those multipliers are already known and verified.

Yes, they can adjust the air to fuel ratio at any altitude. Does not change the fact that there is not a current dyno sheet with testing for 10,000’ for the 2.0 and 3.6 on the same dyno to back up his claim of 50 hp difference.

 

[Ratbert]

Yes, they can adjust the air to fuel ratio at any altitude. Does not change the fact that there is not a current dyno sheet with testing for 10,000’ for the 2.0 and 3.6 on the same dyno to back up his claim of 50 hp difference.

I'll quote you to make sure we have a history of what you just said.

Are you under the impression that nothing is real until all possible combinations are tested? That we can't use all the previous tests to get an accurate approximation of reality?

 

[Remorseless]

I'll quote you to make sure we have a history of what you just said.

Are you under the impression that nothing is real until all possible combinations are tested? That we can't use all the previous tests to get an accurate approximation of reality?

Stoichiometry doesn't exist

 

[AnnDee4444]

Finally! Now I can unwatch this thread.

August 5, 2024

Mar 27, 2024

August 14, 2023

July 31, 2023

June 12, 2023

May 19, 2023

Mar 29, 2023

Feb 22, 2023

Jan 12, 2022

Jan 11, 2022

Jan 19, 2021

Dec 10, 2020

Sep 23, 2020

Aug 16, 2020

Jan 31, 2020

Nov 29, 2019

 

[Remorseless]

Finally! Now I can unwatch this thread.

August 5, 2024


Mar 27, 2024


August 14, 2023


July 31, 2023


June 12, 2023


May 19, 2023


Mar 29, 2023


Feb 22, 2023


Jan 12, 2022


Jan 11, 2022


Jan 19, 2021


Dec 10, 2020


Sep 23, 2020


Aug 16, 2020


Jan 31, 2020


Nov 29, 2019

Don't lie, someone will raise a curious point again in one of the reimaginings of this topic and you'll want to see if the data can be examined.

 

[Terrymo]

So many horses’ lives lost tragically and needlessly

Sponsored