mobil onay değerli oranlar izmir escort antalya escort izmir escort porno porno izle bursa escort escort porno havalandirma sistemleri izmir escort bursa escort izmir escort izmir escort istanbul escort
2.4 ltr and altitude
500 Madness
   
 

KONI Shock Value Sale

 
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 2.4 ltr and altitude

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    2.4 ltr and altitude

    Login to stop seeing this advertisement

    Hi All Have a 2.4 trekking at sea level and love it. stays on the east coast though looking for a little mountain runner great deals on leftover 18s hs anyone experienced this engine in the mountain west and am i better spending the extra 5k for the 19 and its 1.3 liter turbo
    thanks

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    123
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 32 Times in 24 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeB View Post
    Hi All Have a 2.4 trekking at sea level and love it. stays on the east coast though looking for a little mountain runner great deals on leftover 18s hs anyone experienced this engine in the mountain west and am i better spending the extra 5k for the 19 and its 1.3 liter turbo
    thanks
    Back in December, went to the smoky mountains with mine. FWD, 3 people, and cargo. I was impressed how well it drove. I can say that the performance was pretty much the same!

  3. #3
    AWD enthusiast Lifetime Member 5port's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    602
    Thanks
    409
    Thanked 264 Times in 203 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeB View Post
    Hi All Have a 2.4 trekking at sea level and love it. stays on the east coast though looking for a little mountain runner great deals on leftover 18s hs anyone experienced this engine in the mountain west and am i better spending the extra 5k for the 19 and its 1.3 liter turbo
    thanks
    Given a choice I would choose a turbo at altitude as a N/A engine can lose up to 20% power. If you don't mind a stick a used 2016 1.4L Pop is another choice.
    2016 Fiat 500X Easy

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to 5port For This Useful Post:

    Mikeyjm1 (08-23-2019)

  5. #4
    Mikeyjm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Creedmoor, NC
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    309
    Thanked 93 Times in 68 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 5port View Post
    Given a choice I would choose a turbo at altitude as a N/A engine can lose up to 20% power. If you don't mind a stick a used 2016 1.4L Pop is another choice.
    Plus faster anyway and on a whole different level of more enjoyable to drive.
    16 500X Pop, Rosso, 1.4T/M6, 18 O.Z. 45th Anniversary wheels, H&R springs, Momo shift knob, MPX Throttle Body, Magnaflow (Renegade) cat-back...

    13 500 Abarth, Bianco, M5,
    17, Koni shocks, Eibach Prokit, CFP Hats, ES/EC bumpstops and seats, Powerstop rotors and pads. (Wife's)

    95 Wrangler, Aqua, 4.0/Auto,
    33 on 15x8, 4 lift, too much to list here (Also Hers)

  6. #5
    Senior Member PLP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Haslett, MI
    Posts
    566
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 117 Times in 101 Posts

    Login to stop seeing this advertisement

    Depends what you want to accomplish.

    Definitely the low end torque from turbo is AWESOME. Besides, possibility of tuning are far better than NA engines.
    However, if you are expecting the torque to hit you right away the moment you push the pedal - nope, ain't gonna happen. Turbo needs time to spool.

    I come from 1.6T in KIA. Stock is rated 201 HP and 199 lb*ft at 1750 rpm. When tuned, allegedly it was pushing about 230 and 250 respectively. I could definitely feel the difference. Also, the power curve was changed, so overall experience was awesome.

    Now, the first one I had was 2015 with MT. I love MT, but found turbo and MT are not really great match after driving 2016 AT. Same car, all same, but tranny different.

    If I ever did it again - I'd go with AT for turbo and MT for NA.
    Going uphill - no need to drop the gear, just push the pedal (keep the gear locked) and it will pull like crazy.


    On the other hand, though. For NA engine to significantly drop power due to altitude, you would really have to go quite high. And even though, the power you lose is the MAX power, not the whole power band.
    https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/a...ure-d_462.html
    At 5000 feet you drop 2 psi (14.4 vs 12.2).

    If you are planning on going over 10'000 feet - yes, power drop will be significant. Other than that - not so much to notice on normal driving.



    As for NA engines - power delivery is instant, meaning the power and torque that is available at a certain RPM is accessible upon request. For turbo - you may need to wait for turbine to spool up and pressure to build up. Depending on the design, temperature, and engine speed, it may take less than 1 second, but sometimes even more, like low rpm.
    Also, FI engines have limited power when cold.


    If you can, drive both for a day and see how you like it.

    I disliked having to wait for boost to build up with each shift. Hence, I went for AT and 85% did not regret. Exception was highway when I would go WOT and torque converter would unlock. Car seemed slower, of course. If it was DCT, or like FCA 9 speed when the torque converter is almost always locked - it would be just fine.
    Current rides: 2019 Chevy Bolt LT, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium
    Previous rides: 2014 FIAT 500e, 2016 KIA Forte5 SX 1.6 T-GDI, A/T, 2016 FIAT 500X Trekking Plus AWD, 2015 KIA Forte5 SX 1.6 T-GDI, M/T, and many more...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •