The engine runs in closed loop and is constantly recalibrating. The manual states 91 octane is recommended under heavy loads and hard use, which I'm pretty sure mountains fall under but yes the Jeep will run on low grade fuel.
So what you're saying is I'm meeting @DonH63 on Mt Denali (20k ft, gotta make sure I've got a clear advantage - and if there's not a road, we'll make one) and we're dragging for pinks?
I'd pay to see it.
Hmm, @DonH63 - I smell a business opportunity.
Mount blue sky is over 14k and it would be much easier to set up a race there logistically...although watching 2 Jeeps race up Pike's peak would be awesome.
Let's be clear here, I'm looking for a race that's so tipped in my favor it's basically cheating.
Something interesting came up in this dumpster fire thread: Going off of this video at 14:47 at 0.25 playback speed, I recorded the RPM vs. speed, and was able to approximate torque converter slip. The 2.0 seems to slip the torque converter less starting at about 3500 RPM, while the 3.6 keeps slip at a somewhat steadily diminishing rate.
Don't take this is accurate, a true datalog will likely get better results.
My 3.6L 2020 JLUR was insanely anemic here, but it was a manual. Yeah, I stupidly assumed that Wranglers were like all the other vehicles I bought where the manual was more performant.
I think it's just a different discussion when it's "Does it happen" or "Does it matter that it happens".
But, I've also not experienced the 3.6 in the JL at those altitudes. Closest I've come is when I did drive my 3.6 JK from NC to Louisiana and then up through TX, NM, and the corner of CO to get to Moab (had a buddy in New Orleans I met up with and convoyed, thus the ridiculous route), but that's apples and oranges given the 5 speed Merc box in my JK vs the 8 speed in the JL. That JK, with 4.10s and 35s, was chugging along at like 10MPG and the engine wailing with stiff winds in flat ass Texas, so when we hit NM and CO it wasn't apparent if it was to do with any elevation changes or if it just was what it was.
The slope of the decline is linear. You're apparently just noticing it as the drop in power accumulates.
You seem to love to accuse people of using the straw man fallacy, but you might not be aware of the situations where you use it yourself.
Then why the hell did you feel the need to chime in? You obviously care deeply.
I have a 392 so don't know what the manual says for others. I read an article from an engineer a few years ago in some engineering magazine (do not recall which one, was not a car magazine) that said it could take a few tanks of gas for the algorithm to adapt (recalibrate). Feedback from the knock sensors and such will act "instantly" but the power curve algorithm intentionally takes some time to average out short-term variations. I was told the same thing about my 392 when I asked but I'm an EE, not an ME, so rely on others. I do understand feedback. My point was not that it will run on low-grade fuel, but rather that I personally stick with whatever octane I usually run when going on trips. YMMV.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the stage, the straw man!
