iddaa tahminleri banko tahmin gaziantep escort ankara escort ankara escort 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
   
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

    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
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    87
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 27 Times in 20 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
    NY
    Posts
    544
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 239 Times in 184 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/nero cinema, go pedal, LED headlights and reverse, Osram amber DRL, carbon fiber shift gate, ST T9 wheels, PIAA wipers, '17 motor mounts, K&N

  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
    188
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked 63 Times in 44 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 Passione, 1.4T/M6, 18 O.Z. 45th Anniversary wheels, H&R springs, Momo shift knob...
    13 500 Abarth, Bianco Gellato, 17" M5, (Wife's)

  6. #5
    Senior Member PLP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Haslett, MI
    Posts
    485
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 101 Times in 87 Posts
    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.
    2016 KIA Forte5 SX 1.6 T-GDI, A/T (sold - CARMAX now has it)
    2014 FIAT 500e
    2016 FIAT 500X Trekking Plus AWD with Roof and Beats
    2016 Audi Q5 Premium

Posting Permissions

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