BHolm said:
Punish my vehicles???? No, actually I run them as designed, thank you. Jetboy, you really are making a HUGE deal out of this and I think you are wrong anyway. Nowhere in your posts do I see any real evidence that your statements are correct.
Jetboy? I doubt you'd have the sack to call me that to my face. As far as evidence, look at everybody chiming in saying that their EGTs are higher and the turbo response is laggy at altitude. HELLO!!!! Why do you think that is? Turbo response is dependent on exhaust gas flow and the compressor's ability to do it's job, both of which are affected by change in elevation, temperature, humidity, and ambient pressure. Turbines have been my life for almost 15 years, I pretty GD sure that I know what I'm talking about. Whether or not you're man enough to admit that maybe you don't. . . . that's another question, one that you yourself have to find the answer to.
NA engines lose power due to less dense air and lower pressure.
So do turbocharged and supercharged ones.
The NA engine has to "suck" air in where a turbocharged engine has a force feeding system that eliminates the pressure problem at as low as 1psi.
NO. Any piston engine works the same way, compressing an inlet charge that flows into the cylinder due to a pressure gradient into a combustable condition and turning the rise in cylinder pressure into mechanical energy. Simple. Why are you so hung up on this 1psi bs?
Yes the air is less dense so it takes a larger charge to provide the same amount of oxygen for the given amount of fuel.
This is only true if you measure the charge by volume. The necessary MASS stays the same. Having to match that charge MASS under lower inlet density conditions means having to have considerably greater pressure and heat, which cost HP. It takes energy to do the work of transforming 'thin air' into a dense air charge, thus, a decrease in inlet density always results in loss of power. PERIOD.
To say that a turbo doesn't compensate for this is ignorant IMO.
Well, that's just
your ignorant opinion. Turbocharged engines ARE NOT immune to the effects of high elevation, there's no way around it. If they WERE, there would be no increase in EGTs, no loss in turbo response, and no loss in fuel economy. Sadly, all three of those things is a fact of life when operating in high elevations. Again, you haven't a leg to stand on saying anything to the contrary.
It most certainly does, and rather effectively in my experience (and that of everyone else living in the mtns that has replied). So I guess we are all wrong.
Really? What about all these people who are saying their EGTs are higher and their turbos are laggy? They're certainly not building a case for what you insist is true.
If you have some eveidence that can show the loss of power, I would love to see it. Anybody know of a dyno located at high altitude?
Look at it this way. . . . . if the truck doesn't have the same response at a high altitude as it does at a lower altitude, your BUTT DYNO oughta be telling you there's a difference in power. Jeeze, it's funny on this forum how some people insist that dynos don't mean anything, then you come in and insist that they'll prove your case. Comedy gold!!!
Tell you what I'll do, smart guy. You can come test on my dyno at 550 feet, then we'll drive to Colorado to a shop at high elevation, set up my dyno there, and I bet you $1000 that your truck WILL NOT make the same power. You can't sandbag at low alt and then turn up your box in Colorado, that's bullshlt pantywaist cheating. What do you say? I'll even let you operate the dyno so you can't say I was somehow skewing test results. Are you sure enough of your position to go for this? My phone number is in my signature, give me a call and we'll set this up.
Just a quick anaology for forced induction at altitude. I drag race my old Buick at 7000ft. My buddy runs a supercharged engine that dynos at less power than my NA car at sea level. His is about 450hp and mine 485hp, cars are similar enough in wieght. His car runs 1. 5 seconds faster in the QM than my car at altitude. My car runs 1 second faster than his at (near)sea level. The only changes made are in carb jetting, mine far more drastic than his. Forced induction works to virtually eliminate the effects of altitude in real life. It appears that in the lab I am all wrong though :-{}
You are all wrong. Where's your scientific data? You didn't give exact atitudes where you race and had those differences in time, you didn't say where these supposed HP figures came from, your story is as verifiable as a Harry Potter book. Forced induction engines make more power than a similar NA engine regardless of altitude. Big friggin deal!?!?!?!? So what???? The point I'm making that you seem to be either afraid to admit or unable to understand, is that a change in altitude affects ALL air burning engines, regardeless of if they're forced induction OR NOT.
Gimme a call, I look forward to making your wallet $1000 lighter.
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
