Which engine for Colorado passes?

[Rodeoflyer]

Modern air and fuel delivery systems are designed to help compensate for changes in air density, as are forced induction add-ons such as turbo and superchargers.

maybe the air is different in CO than Maryland..

Sponsored

 

[ML7]

put a cold air intake on it that actually increases airflow in and a cat-back that increases airflow out, then the engine can breathe as best it can

 

[Geos7812]

Modern air and fuel delivery systems are designed to help compensate for changes in air density, as are forced induction add-ons such as turbo and superchargers.

maybe the air is different in CO than Maryland..

You are absolutely correct. Less air density = less fuel injected. It compensates for sure. You have already lost 15% in Denver compared to sea level. Again, my 3.6 is awesome. #dieselin2022

 

[rickinAZ]

I lived for years in a small foothills town (Evergreen) at 8,200'. I've been up over 10,000' feet many times. Even the old 3.8 liter minivan engine would make it just fine, but it wouldn't roar up the hill. I'd recommend one of the two turbos

 

[rickinAZ]

It's IMPOSSIBLE that I'm losing 80hp at 10k feet but no arguing with these guys so yeah whatever. I really think they're calculating for a carbureted engine.

And i'm running heavy 35x12.5 tires (toyo mt).

It's very possible.

As long as it's naturally aspirated, carb or F.I., the loss will be basically the same. It's lack of air as opposed to sophistication of fuel metering. Only forced induction will help stave off the thin air, and even turbos lose power as they go up in elevation - just not as much.

The 3% per 1,000' has always been the metric to use.

p.s. Just to be clear, your 80 bhp loss is from sea level. From your house, the loss up to Eisenhower is more like 10%.

 

[Chupacabra]

It's IMPOSSIBLE that I'm losing 80hp at 10k feet but no arguing with these guys so yeah whatever. I really think they're calculating for a carbureted engine.

And i'm running heavy 35x12.5 tires (toyo mt).

Fuel injection is better than a carb at altitude, but neither one can compensate for the fact the air density at 10,000 feet is less than at sea level. Less air=Less fuel=Less power, you can't change physics - unless you go forced induction. Whether the loss of power is noticeable to you or not is another issue, but you *are* losing power at 10,000 feet.

 

[word302]

I have not owned both, but I did test drive a 2.0L and the new 3.6 with eTorque Rubicons that were exactly the same as far as options on a stretch of almost 8,000' elevation. Locals to Denver will know of the route I took from Denver 470 to 70 and up over Lookout Mountain pass. There is a fairly quick elevation gain in this stretch and the speed limit is 75 MPH. I just did not notice enough of a difference between the two. I reset the odometer after leaving the stealership and oddly enough the mileage was nearly identical. Not sure if it was because the 2.0l had to work a bit harder or not. It was a short trip so I would not put too much weight into that part. The 2.0l sounds like it is faster, from start to 60, but seat of pants, again I could not tell the difference. Not sure if the eTorque helped on the 3.6 with that as I did not test a non eTorque 3.6. I did feel like the 3.6 had smoother shift points. In fact, they were hardly noticeable with normal driving. The stealership was at 5,800' elevation and around town I could not notice the difference at all between the two other than the turbo noise. Quiet honestly, the turbo noise sounded like it was being overworked and a bit like a ricer. That was the determining factor for me, the 3.6 sounded better and I know an exhaust upgrade would make it even throatier... I just don't know that too many people spend a ton of time at these high elevations. If you are off roading at these elevations you will be at low speeds and I bet the difference is further diminished at that point.

Anyway, I went with the 3.6 and in the month I have owned it, I have driven to the top of Estes, Pikes Peak, and over to Moab with it. Had no problem keeping up with traffic, but do wish it had shift paddles on the steering wheel for downshifting on the decents...

I wish I could have driven a 3.6 without the eTorque to see if there was really any difference with it.

As others have mentioned, I think you will be happy with either engine. Time will also tell on how the 2.0 holds up compared to the 3.6.

Why would you expect the odometer reading to be different between the 2 motors?

 

[oceanblue2019]

Why would you expect the odometer reading to be different between the 2 motors?

Because stupidity.

 

[jason0341]

Why would you expect the odometer reading to be different between the 2 motors?

I think he was referring to gas mileage.

 

[JeepinJason33]

Why would you expect the odometer reading to be different between the 2 motors?

Because stupidity.

I think he was referring to gas mileage.

Yes, was typing on my phone and not paying attention. I meant MPG, give me a break...

 

[Chupacabra]

I have not owned both, but I did test drive a 2.0L and the new 3.6 with eTorque Rubicons that were exactly the same as far as options on a stretch of almost 8,000' elevation. Locals to Denver will know of the route I took from Denver 470 to 70 and up over Lookout Mountain pass. There is a fairly quick elevation gain in this stretch and the speed limit is 75 MPH.

That's probably less than 1,000 feet of elevation change from I70/C470 to the top of Lookout Mountain. You're not going to feel that. Even from 5,280 in Denver, it's only about a 2,000 foot change. 3-6% difference in power isn't likely to be felt.

When you live in Denver, you're down about 20% in power from sea level with a NA vehicle. But if you bought the car here and live here all the time, you just accept the power as is and don't really notice it. But if you were to take a road trip to sea level you'll notice how much more power your car has.

I drove my previous BMW X1 to South Carolina earlier this year and even though it was a turbo, it was noticeably faster in SC than in Denver - especially when you took off from a stop before the turbo had time to kick in.

 

[Hayseed_JLUR]

Yes, was typing on my phone and not paying attention. I meant MPG, give me a break...

Odometer fluid viscosity does change with elevation and temperature.

 

[roaniecowpony]

In a naturally aspirated engine, air density is the direct effect on engine output. It gets a little fuzzier when you throw in supercharging (turbo or positive displacement) and hybrid electric systems.

Any electric assist from hybrid systems should be constant power at any altitude.

Turbo or positive displacement supercharging power at altitude is dependent on the design as to how much, if any, loss of power occurs.

The modern electronic fuel injection systems are a great thing for people driving in high altitudes as they don't have to re-jet the carburetors to optimize air/fuel ratio to get proper engine function. You can do the same thing with a carbureted engine by re-jetting. But EFI or re-jetting a carburetor can't make up for the loss in air density at high altitude.

However, the cold air of winter gives some of that air density back and we get some horsepower back.

 

[roaniecowpony]

Odometer fluid viscosity does change with elevation and temperature.

Granted. Also, blinker fluid thickens significantly at lower temperatures.

 

[Rodeoflyer]

It's very possible.

p.s. Just to be clear, your 80 bhp loss is from sea level. From your house, the loss up to Eisenhower is more like 10%.

100% agreed. This is true, I live at 6000ft so a 10% loss is hardly noticeable.

Time to take the jeep on a beach trip!

Sponsored