3.6 power loss at elevation

[AnnDee4444]

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.

So true. Different viewpoints are sometimes useful, so I'll always try to consider them. Confidently stating things you're ignorant in should always be challenged.

And I like adding to my dead horse beating gif collection.

Sponsored

 

[Remorseless]

So many horses’ lives lost tragically and needlessly

Most of them due to elevation-related asphyxiation and oxygen deprivation?

 

[Terrymo]

Most of them due to elevation-related asphyxiation and oxygen deprivation?

 

[AnnDee4444]

Most of them due to elevation-related asphyxiation and oxygen deprivation?

Clearly only the naturally aspirated horses.

 

[Remorseless]

Clearly only the naturally aspirated horses.

The horses on mechanical ventilation did seem to be slightly less deceased

 

[AnnDee4444]

Basically an astronaut.

 

[Zandcwhite]

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.

Well the 3.6L in either of my Jeeps has never been on the dyno, so maybe they make 10k hp, maybe they make 10hp. It's not proven so it doesn't exist right? I'd be willing to bet they'd both be within 10 hp of 225 at the wheels at sea level and within 10hp of 160 at 10k feet. I don't need to put them on the dyno because thousands already have. I don't need to dyno them at every elevation because it's been proven and the formulas exist.

 

[AnnDee4444]

Well the 3.6L in either of my Jeeps has never been on the dyno, so maybe they make 10k hp, maybe they make 10hp. It's not proven so it doesn't exist right? I'd be willing to bet they'd both be within 10 hp of 225 at the wheels at sea level and within 10hp of 160 at 10k feet. I don't need to put them on the dyno because thousands already have. I don't need to dyno them at every elevation because it's been proven and the formulas exist.

Schrödinger's dyno

 

[Remorseless]

Schrödinger's dyno

Schrodinger doesn't use dino, Schrodinger only uses Amsoil full synthetic

 

[AnnDee4444]

Schrodinger doesn't use dino, Schrodinger only uses Amsoil full synthetic

Schrödinger is thought to use both conventional and full synthetic at the same time. Only upon draining the oil will we know its true state.

 

[Remorseless]

Schrödinger is thought to use both conventional and full synthetic at the same time. Only upon draining the oil will we know its true state.

We'll have to wait for the UOA, but OP disappeared and hasn't updated

 

[KCSgtMaj]

I was going to pick up parts in another town this weekend and wanted to share about power/ response decreases in the 3.6 MT.
I have had the Jeep for almost five years and it has always been about 2 up to 400 ft above sea level. This weekend we were between 4k and 6k in heavy wildfire smoke for 175 miles. I felt a slower response to the pedal, but when it got wound up it did good. Very strange to feel this and after we got back down under 1k it was right back to normal. Snappy and the back end broke loose on wet pavement.
Nice trip, just never dealt with that much elevation rise so fast.
Will the 3.6 re-learn the O2 loss if I lived there? Self adjusting or need a recalibration.
Just wondering....

Totally normal.

 

[YJdude]

I just got back home (600ft elevation) after another week in the San Juans, CO...(aka The Most Beautiful Place On The Planet)
Things to note with the 21 Willys 2d 6mt:
1. I was too busy soaking up the views, air, etc and trying not to fall off the ledge roads to notice any losses.
2. I didn't really give a shit if I lost over 50% power as long as the dual batteries didn't screw me and the clutch didn't explode.
3. Having to return home from CO makes me sad AF.

 

[Zandcwhite]

I just got back home (600ft elevation) after another week in the San Juans, CO...(aka The Most Beautiful Place On The Planet)
Things to note with the 21 Willys 2d 6mt:
1. I was too busy soaking up the views, air, etc and trying not to fall off the ledge roads to notice any losses.
2. I didn't really give a shit if I lost over 50% power as long as the dual batteries didn't screw me and the clutch didn't explode.
3. Having to return home from CO makes me sad AF.

That's a dyno I'd really like to see being the Stellantis fix for exploding clutches was to detune the V6. How much of its power is left when detuned by the factory and then driven at altitude. I would not be surprised if your 50% was accurate.

 

[2nd 392]

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?

some are just

“Stuck in the Mud”

Sponsored