3.6 power loss at elevation

[JeepinJason33]

More BS! Please link the source where the AHA states 100 million people visit over 5,000’ elevations each year. Even if true (which it is not) it is still not most people in US! The AHA says 100 million people has high blood pressure. Does every one of those people go above 5,000’ on a regular basis, of course not. Try again.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/...n-americans-have-high-blood-pressure-aha-says

You reference to Mt. Mitchell does nothing but help my point as it is the highest road you can travel East of the Mississippi! Does half the country drive that road on a regular basis, no!

And now you are changing the statement you said was “categorically wrong.” The statement was, most people in the US do not regularly see elevations of over 5,000’ and that is true! Getting back to the original topic that loss of power at altitude is really not that big of a deal as most people rarely drive above 5,000’ and it’s not a big deal outside of Colorado because that is where more people than any place else in the US live above 5,000’ and have to deal with it on daily basis.

Please continue as this is so easy.

Sponsored

 

[autotragic]

Not saying it didn't run good, just slow on the responce. Need more rpm to gain.
No complaints, just sharing.

I once got to drive a Ford Expedition up in CO around Ft. Carson...Holy smokes. Those old 2v 5.4s weren't exactly barn stormers at sea level but at just 5,000ish feet....HAHAHA It was the tired old dog that never left the porch kind of slow. Utterly terrible.

 

[Zandcwhite]

More BS! Please link the source where the AHA states 100 million people visit over 5,000’ elevations each year. Even if true (which it is not) it is still not most people in US! The AHA says 100 million people has high blood pressure. Does every one of those people go above 5,000’ on a regular basis, of course not. Try again.

https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/...n-americans-have-high-blood-pressure-aha-says

You reference to Mt. Mitchell does nothing but help my point as it is the highest road you can travel East of the Mississippi! Does half the country drive that road on a regular basis, no!

And now you are changing the statement you said was “categorically wrong.” The statement was, most people in the US do not regularly see elevations of over 5,000’ and that is true! Getting back to the original topic that loss of power at altitude is really not that big of a deal as most people rarely drive above 5,000’ and it’s not a big deal outside of Colorado because that is where more people than any place else in the US live above 5,000’ and have to deal with it on daily basis.

Please continue as this is so easy.

"More than 100 million people travel to high-altitude, mountainous regions in the U.S. for work or pleasure each year,"
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2021/...be-dangerous-for-people-with-heart-conditions
Which part is easy, not knowing how to read or use a simple Google search? Enjoy your 150-180 wheel horsepower from an engine rated at 285 and keep telling yourself it's not a big deal.

 

[TheRaven]

Enjoy your 150-180 wheel horsepower from an engine rated at 285 and keep telling yourself it's not a big deal.

I was really hoping this wasn't the core of your argument but I had a feeling it was. You're bench racing to justify the 2.0 for some reason.

WHY DO SO MANY 2.0L OWNERS HAVE LITTLE MAN SYNDROME?!

You don't have to defend the 2.0. In the slate of motors that FCA offers for the JL, It's a fine motor. The real kicker here is that NEITHER the 2.0 or 3.6 are impressive motors in the big picture. We should all be yelling at FCA because they gave us meh motors, not yelling at each other over which underpowered option is better!

 

[MaybeRubi]

All I know is: I WIN!

Wyoming 0.5m,

 

[Zandcwhite]

I was really hoping this wasn't the core of your argument but I had a feeling it was. You're bench racing to justify the 2.0 for some reason.

WHY DO 2.0L OWNERS HAVE LITTLE MAN SYNDROME?!

You don't have to defend the 2.0. It's a fine motor. It does some things better than the 3.6l and some things not as well. The real kicker here is that NEITHER the 2.0 or 3.6 are impressive motors. We should all be yelling at FCA because they gave us meh motors, not yelling at each other over which underpowered option is better!

I own 2 pentastar powered rigs, it's not bench racing when you have run both for tens of thousands of miles. At sea level the 2.0t is slightly quicker. At 10k plus it's night and day period. At 10k the pentastar is barely adequate, but still better than the 4.0L ever was at those altitudes. In my opinion if you're going to frequent high altitudes you want forced induction or power to spare like the 392. If they hadn't swapped to the gpec5 my JT would already have an inhaler for high altitudes.

 

[TheRaven]

I own 2 pentastar powered rigs, it's not bench racing when you have run both for tens of thousands of miles. At sea level the 2.0t is slightly quicker. At 10k plus it's night and day period. At 10k the pentastar is barely adequate, but still better than the 4.0L ever was at those altitudes. In my opinion if you're going to frequent high altitudes you want forced induction or power to spare like the 392. If they hadn't swapped to the gpec5 my JT would already have an inhaler for high altitudes.

Bench racing is bench racing no matter what you own. The 3.6l vs 2.0l argument needs to die, it's dumb. These engines are so frikin close in real world results that getting in internet wars with fellow Jeepers over them is just ridiculous. At sea level, both engines are just adequate. At 10k feet, they're still just adequate. You cry over the 3.6 losing 100hp like it was winning anything to begin with. It wasn't. Neither was the 2.0. So why?

 

[Zandcwhite]

Bench racing is bench racing no matter what you own. The 3.6l vs 2.0l argument needs to die, it's dumb. These engines are so frikin close in real world results that getting in internet wars with fellow Jeepers over them is just ridiculous. At sea level, both engines are just adequate. At 10k feet, they're still just adequate. You cry over the 3.6 losing 100hp like it was winning anything to begin with. It wasn't. Neither was the 2.0. So why?

Weird that they aren't winning anything in your calibrated butt dyno, both run 0-60 quicker than a base 5.0L fox body from the 90s. While also being the most capable off road vehicle ever offered from the factory and weighing nearly 5k lbs. With the 8 speed auto, we are all winning for sure. It's no sports car, but it's quicker than most built before the early 21st century. Like I said, they are so close in the real world unless your real world exists above 10k. One retaining 20%+ more power than the other is obvious.

 

[TheRaven]

Weird that they aren't winning anything in your calibrated butt dyno, both run 0-60 quicker than a base 5.0L fox body from the 90s. While also being the most capable off road vehicle ever offered from the factory and weighing nearly 5k lbs. With the 8 speed auto, we are all winning for sure. It's no sports car, but it's quicker than most built before the early 21st century. Like I said, they are so close in the real world unless your real world exists above 10k. One retaining 20%+ more power than the other is obvious.

LOL yeah they're faster than a 30 year old car. So is a Chevy Traverse.

And i'm sorry you struggle so much with the power loss. That sucks for you.

 

[Tncdrew]

Wow! An 11 page pissing contest

 

[TheRaven]

Wow! An 11 page pissing contest

Lets be real - this is one of the shorter ones. I mean, the thread is young and could live on for many years. But as of now, this one really ain't that bad. I'd be surprised if there's ever been a 3.6l vs 2.0l thread that hasn't been as least twice as long.

 

[Terrymo]

I'm not dragging out this dead horse again.

 

[JeepinJason33]

"More than 100 million people travel to high-altitude, mountainous regions in the U.S. for work or pleasure each year,"
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2021/...be-dangerous-for-people-with-heart-conditions
Which part is easy, not knowing how to read or use a simple Google search? Enjoy your 150-180 wheel horsepower from an engine rated at 285 and keep telling yourself it's not a big deal.

Sorry to original OP that this has gotten so off topic and that I can't just back down to someone that said my true statement was not factual. It is just me and I have extra time on my hands as I have been on planes most of the last 24 hours.

ZandC It's not a big deal because everything looses some kind of power at altitude. A turbo may be effected less, but it is still effected, so most anything you buy and above 5,000' is going to be different than it is at sea level. I never stated that a 2.0l was not effected less, all I said was that most people in the US never get above 5,000' on a regular basis. You called me out and unfortunately, I bit and love a debate. You have tried numerous times to prove my statement wrong and have failed. Clearly unable to admit you are wrong.

Look through all of the references AHA documented at the bottom of their story and show the reference that has a data table or any documentation to show 100 million people visit high altitude on a yearly basis. There is not a single document proving that. Just because they say it does not make it true without data to back it up. Again, even if the number was right, that is less than 1/3 of US citizens and not MOST people in the US and certainly not on a REGULAR basis so my statement is still accurate. You seem to keep trying to throw more stupid numbers . You just don't get it, there is 335 million or so people in the US.

And now you are bumping it up to 10,000'! There are not that many roads in the US that are above 10,000' and once you get there, generally you are going right back down again as you are at the summit. According to the unofficial list below 5,000 people live in cities above 10,000' and guess what, all in Colorado. Feel free to add cities in there if you find it, but you should get the picture that this is more a Colorado thing than anywhere else in the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_communities_in_the_United_States

 

[JeepinJason33]

I was really hoping this wasn't the core of your argument but I had a feeling it was. You're bench racing to justify the 2.0 for some reason.

WHY DO SO MANY 2.0L OWNERS HAVE LITTLE MAN SYNDROME?!

You don't have to defend the 2.0. In the slate of motors that FCA offers for the JL, It's a fine motor. The real kicker here is that NEITHER the 2.0 or 3.6 are impressive motors in the big picture. We should all be yelling at FCA because they gave us meh motors, not yelling at each other over which underpowered option is better!

Especially a guy that lives (at least according to his bio) lives in a city at 115' elevation trying to tell people that live and breath every day above 6,000' that it is night and day / life changing to have a 2.0l turbo.

 

[Zandcwhite]

Especially a guy that lives (at least according to his bio) lives in a city at 115' elevation trying to tell people that live and breath every day above 6,000' that it is night and day / life changing to have a 2.0l turbo.

And also owns property at 4800' in AZ. But I'm bench racing because the expert who never sees more than 80% of his horsepower and the other guy who's never been to high elevation says so. You may not notice the extra 9% loss when you go up 3k more feet. Now drive around at sea level for days and then drive up to shaver lake to run the dusy and tell me you don't notice the 30% power loss. On that same 3 hour drive from the valley to 10k feet, a forced induction engine will lose 10%. You talk about it like they'll lose similar amounts of power, they won't at all. 1 will still be close to 200hp to the wheels and the other will be at 150hp. They feel like completely different vehicles as I do all of this often and have been for 30 years. You mistaken believe living at elevation makes you the expert on power loss, you have to drive for over 1000 miles to get back the power you don't notice that you don't have because you live without it every day. There are dozens of places in CA where you can literally go from sea level to 10k on a tank of gas. This is where you'll really notice that 30% because it's not gradual and it's not the norm you live with everyday. As far as rapid elevation changes go, the highest place in the lower 48 and the lowest place are 2hrs apart from death valley to mount whitney.

Sponsored