Engines at Altitude

[ejkre]

Hi all. Apologies if this has already been covered - I searched around but couldn't find anything. I'm in Indiana, so I didn't have any concerns with the 2.3, but I'm considering a move to the Colorado Springs area. I'd be driving at high altitude a lot, and I wondered if I should have any concerns. Obviously, it's not naturally aspirated, so that's good. I don't know if modern cars have made big improvements in regards to handling altitude: like I said, I'm from Indiana. I believe the highest point in the state is ~900 feet. I'd like to hear from some of you who have dealt with these powertrains at altitude. Would I need to upgrade to the 2.7? I would also really like a manual, so that's my other reservation toward the upgrade aside from the cost. From what else I've read on the subject, it doesn't seem like it should be much of an issue, but I'd still like to hear some opinions.

P.S. If anyone has some opinions of CO Springs, I'm all ears. That's taking it way off topic, but oh well. I've visited before, but not for any meaningful amount of time.

Sponsored

 

[rtaylor]

Hi all. Apologies if this has already been covered - I searched around but couldn't find anything. I'm in Indiana, so I didn't have any concerns with the 2.3, but I'm considering a move to the Colorado Springs area. I'd be driving at high altitude a lot, and I wondered if I should have any concerns. Obviously, it's not naturally aspirated, so that's good. I don't know if modern cars have made big improvements in regards to handling altitude: like I said, I'm from Indiana. I believe the highest point in the state is ~900 feet. I'd like to hear from some of you who have dealt with these powertrains at altitude. Would I need to upgrade to the 2.7? I would also really like a manual, so that's my other reservation toward the upgrade aside from the cost. From what else I've read on the subject, it doesn't seem like it should be much of an issue, but I'd still like to hear some opinions.

P.S. If anyone has some opinions of CO Springs, I'm all ears. That's taking it way off topic, but oh well. I've visited before, but not for any meaningful amount of time.

Turbocharger does a lot to compensate for altitude. It won't have the same power loss as normally aspirated engine. It shouldn't be an issue.

Note that unlike normal aspirated engine, this means that you need to stick with higher-octane fuel for best performance. For normal aspirated, lower octane gas can be used at higher elevation without performance loss or ping.

 

[sjp]

P.S. If anyone has some opinions of CO Springs, I'm all ears. That's taking it way off topic, but oh well. I've visited before, but not for any meaningful amount of time.

I've been here 23 years. Great climate, 300+ days of sunshine a year, good central location for access to the Front Range and the Sangre de Cristo Range (if you're into mountaineering), hot housing market.

If you work west of I-25, live west of I-25; if you work east of I-25, live east of I-25. If you work from home, live wherever you want.

Looking for any specific info?

 

[Jakethesnake]

Hi all. Apologies if this has already been covered - I searched around but couldn't find anything. I'm in Indiana, so I didn't have any concerns with the 2.3, but I'm considering a move to the Colorado Springs area. I'd be driving at high altitude a lot, and I wondered if I should have any concerns. Obviously, it's not naturally aspirated, so that's good. I don't know if modern cars have made big improvements in regards to handling altitude: like I said, I'm from Indiana. I believe the highest point in the state is ~900 feet. I'd like to hear from some of you who have dealt with these powertrains at altitude. Would I need to upgrade to the 2.7? I would also really like a manual, so that's my other reservation toward the upgrade aside from the cost. From what else I've read on the subject, it doesn't seem like it should be much of an issue, but I'd still like to hear some opinions.

P.S. If anyone has some opinions of CO Springs, I'm all ears. That's taking it way off topic, but oh well. I've visited before, but not for any meaningful amount of time.

ranger 2.3 towing a 5000 lb trailer up and down mountain. Don’t think you’ll have any issues

 

[VelocityBronco]

As a general rule, a naturally aspirated combustion engine will lose 3% of its power for every 1,000 ft of elevation gain. If you have 100 horsepower at sea level by the time you get to 5,000 feet of elevation your engine is making 85 horsepower.
Turbocharging at elevation is an efficient way to minimize horsepower loss due to elevation and lower air density. At high elevations turbochargers compress more air into the engine cylinders making up for the lower air density allowing the engine to produce power as if it was at sea level. This extra tunability is found only in turbocharged applications.

 

[ejkre]

I've been here 23 years. Great climate, 300+ days of sunshine a year, good central location for access to the Front Range and the Sangre de Cristo Range (if you're into mountaineering), hot housing market.

If you work west of I-25, live west of I-25; if you work east of I-25, live east of I-25. If you work from home, live wherever you want.

Looking for any specific info?

Nothing very specific, no. Good tip to live on the same side of the interstate. I just kind of wanted to get people's general opinion on it. I will enjoy being closer to the ski areas in the winter.

 

[ejkre]

ranger 2.3 towing a 5000 lb trailer up and down mountain. Don’t think you’ll have any issues

That is encouraging.

 

[Mattwings]

You already mentioned turbos are good, they can "manufacture" their own atmosphere. That being said, there is still less O2, so the ultimate amount of power is reduced. Bottom line, higher altitude =less power, but mitigated to an extent by Turbo and Fuel injection.

 

[ItsAfram]

91 octane is premium gas for most stations in CO. So if you are looking to tune the 2.3, make sure whoever is doing the tune knows you will be running on 91 and not 93.

 

[Blksn955.o]

As a general rule, a naturally aspirated combustion engine will lose 3% of its power for every 1,000 ft of elevation gain. If you have 100 horsepower at sea level by the time you get to 5,000 feet of elevation your engine is making 85 horsepower.
Turbocharging at elevation is an efficient way to minimize horsepower loss due to elevation and lower air density. At high elevations turbochargers compress more air into the engine cylinders making up for the lower air density allowing the engine to produce power as if it was at sea level. This extra tunability is found only in turbocharged applications.

superchargers, specifically centrifugal ones that basically use the compressor side of the turbo and are belt driven would be in the same ballpark, Roots superchargers also compress the air to make a denser charge. Nitrous Oxide is often noted as atmosphere in a bottle...although it would be limited as only a WOT and limited supply.

 

[Bronco4lyfe85]

Turbo makes up for most of it.

Example: my NA 2019 scat pack Challenger runs 13.3 as a best at Bandimere Speedway, roughly 6,500 ft above sea level and this is at very good weather. At sea level it should run about a 12.4-12.6, big difference.

Challenger red eyes should go 10.8 in a 1/4 mile and I’ve seen guys hit 11.2 stock at altitude.

 

[Blksn955.o]

Generally you want to use the lowest octane that does not cause detonation. On newer more advanced knock sensor applications on turbo engines things are more adaptive...20yrs ago if ran 14lbs of boost and 13:1 on 91 you were put in a straight jacket.

Octane rating is the resistance to burn or ignite. The reason you have lower octane at altitude is in part with less air it can be harder to ignite so a lesser octane is available.

The MAF measures the air, volume and density. It does this by heating two wires that are being cooled by the air flowing over it. The meter measures the voltage it takes to keep the wires at x temp...more air more volume/mas. Hence the Mass Air Meter. Using this air information and other inputs it changes timing and fuel tables accordingly. Think of it as several ven diagrams to find targets and set limits.

 

[Flourman]

While not the 2.3/2.7, I have the 3.5EB in my F150. I regularly tow our 19-foot bunkhouse RV (with full water tank) with a bed loaded with various camping items and dirt bikes through the mountains in CO. The turbo plus the 10-speed make it a pleasure to drive anywhere in CO.

I can and have passed people up grades through several passes. The turbos really help. The only time I had anything close to an issue was this summer, pulling a grade and passing someone. Classic idiot, would speed up going up hills and slow down on the flats and downhill. It was about 100 degrees outside and I pulled the pass. I could watch the water temp gauge climb in the 1/4 mile it took to pass going uphill. I went from 60mph to 75mph on that grade. I’m guessing the EGT’s got pretty toasty. This was pulling my camper.

The turbos make a ton of difference here, I’m glad I went with the 3.5 vs the Coyote.

 

[Rogues Gambit]

Can't provide anything, but good luck with the move and everything!

 

[BearWithMe]

The turbo(s) on the 2.3 and 2.7 are sized for fast turbo response (building boost pressure fast). The stock setup will probably compensate 90% of the horsepower loss a naturally aspirated engine would suffer, up to about 6500 feet elevation.

Beyond that elevation, small turbos lose efficiency = won’t be able to compensate for, say, 11000’ elevation. But you’ll still be doing better than a naturally-aspirated engine.

Sponsored