Factory HP ratings

Stock FSJ Tech Area
User avatar

FSJunkie
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by FSJunkie »

Huh...

I consider my stock 360 to be quite powerful. Never has disappointed me, except for one time, and that was only because the girl of my fancy was riding in the other guy's passenger seat and his car had nitrous and 40 more cubic inches. But he burned all his valves to beat me and I had him until he flipped the switch, so I definitely put up a good fight.

Still hurt a lot. I've sworn off racing now because that experience ruined it for me. never race anybody out of spite or anger. Christ almighty I wanted to strange him... Never been so mad in my life.
1972 Wagoneer: 360 2V, THM-400, D20, D30 closed knuckle, D44 Trac-lok 3.31.
1965 Rambler Ambassador: 327 4V, BW M-10 auto, AMC 20 3.15.
1973 AMC Ambassador: 360 4V, TC-727.
1966 AMC Marlin 327 4V, T-10 4 speed, AMC 20 Powr-lok 3.54.
User avatar

Topic author
Dr. Marneaus
Posts: 1718
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:04 am
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Dr. Marneaus »

Stuka wrote:
Dr. Marneaus wrote:
Renodemona wrote: She's got more oomph than my skinny pedal really needs to put out all the time ;)
I wish i could say that! Pedal to the floor on them mountain roads and barely pushin' 50mph.
What axle gears do your new axles have? 3.54's? I know my Cherokee, even with a manual, was no speed demon when it had 33's or 34's and 3.54 gears. But with 31's it ripped pretty good, it could actually smoke the tires with 31's (With the detroit even).
yeah. 3.54. Used to have 3.31's
Well it ain't just the smoke and the traffic jam that makes me the bitter fool I am But this four-wheel buggy is A-dollaring me to death.
For gas and oils and fluids and grease, And wires and tires and anti freeze....And them accessories, Well honey, that's something else.
User avatar

Topic author
Dr. Marneaus
Posts: 1718
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:04 am
Location: Reno, NV

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Dr. Marneaus »

FSJunkie wrote:Huh...

I consider my stock 360 to be quite powerful. Never has disappointed me, except for one time, and that was only because the girl of my fancy was riding in the other guy's passenger seat and his car had nitrous and 40 more cubic inches. But he burned all his valves to beat me and I had him until he flipped the switch, so I definitely put up a good fight.

Still hurt a lot. I've sworn off racing now because that experience ruined it for me. never race anybody out of spite or anger. Christ almighty I wanted to strange him... Never been so mad in my life.
165hp is powerful? lol.
Well it ain't just the smoke and the traffic jam that makes me the bitter fool I am But this four-wheel buggy is A-dollaring me to death.
For gas and oils and fluids and grease, And wires and tires and anti freeze....And them accessories, Well honey, that's something else.

Nikkormat
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:45 pm
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Nikkormat »

My 401 isn't fully stock, the cam isn't really bigger. But its a different pattern. The intake isn't better than the stock one, but it has been changed. Other than those two things its stock 74. Up here at 7 to 8 thousand feet there isn't a whole lot if air either.

We've got a couple of big long steep grades up here. Floyd hill on I70 from Idaho Springs to Bergen park is one that give people alot of trouble. An average of a 7.7% grade and a few short sections hitting 10-12%. The speed limit is 65 but most folks manage to pull about 50 if there willing to run there car hard.

With the Jeep fully loaded I can pull that hill at 75 no problem.

Hills, these things like hills.

I've done monarch pass in Wyatt's 91 sans speedometer just going by feel. He could not keep up in my 2004 Sierra. His 91 has the 2:72 gears. The Sierra has a 5.3 and 3:73's.
That night I also received a firm verbal beating after we arrived in Buena vista. Allegedly, I reached speeds in excess of 100 mph. I had no idea, the Jeep didn't break a sweat.

I don't spend alot of time racing away from traffic lights, mainly because of altitude and vapor lock. But when I'm down in town on a cool night I like to take the side streets. Two nights ago on Colfax I was able to let the 401 out to run. Racing up to the speed limit. Sit at the light, hold 1500 RPM, flash the converter when the light changes and chirp the tires. Had some other kid in a scion ?frs? play along at three lights. Even when we hit the 45 mph speed limit section he couldn't nail me from a stop.

I believe that these motors were under rated by AMC.
Gabe, "reformed" Jeep hoarder.

Charles Kline
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 8:00 am
Location: Golden, Co

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Charles Kline »

FSJunkie wrote:Compression dropped in 1971. That took roughly 10% off the top.

Rating methods changed in 1972, and so did the posted numbers, but the engines did not. The 360 from 1972-1974 carried three different ratings, ranging from 175 horsepower to 220 horsepower depending on 2 barrel or 4 barrel carburetor, and single or dual exhaust. It wasn't for emissions.

1975-1980 used the early pellet-type catalytic converters that were very restrictive, and the posted ratings assumed you had a California engine with 3 converters on it. Not all engines received converters, so the output of you own engine might have been much higher, matching the 1972-1974 numbers for that particular carburetor/exhaust system configuration.

1980-1991 received the newer monolithic converters that were less restrictive, so the ratings jumped back up to nearly their 1972-1974 level. The new converters still restricted a little... Still, it was only 35 horsepower behind the same configuration (2 barrel, single exhaust) of 360 from 1972. Considering all that changed in that decade and yearly changes in rating requirements, I say they did pretty good.

Aside from those things, the differences you see in the ratings were minor. Ignition timing and carburetor calibration changed slightly over the years, but practical impact on power output was less than 5%....negligible. The bolt-on emission controls (EGR, smog pump, TCS, etc.) are mostly part throttle controls that do not affect full throttle power output. In other words, they are harmless. Again, less than a 5% impact. Nothing to worry about.

Much of the perceived loss in performance in the emissions era 1970's and 1980's wasn't the engine's fault. The cars got much heavier. More options, heavy 5 MPH crash safety bumpers, side impact beams in the doors, etc. Plus they geared them lower for improved fuel economy and high-speed cruising on the then-new interstate highways. Performance fell in those years, but there was a lot more to it than just the engine, and especially more than just the vacuum lines and EGR valve....
Quoted for great post!


Is the pellet type converters easy to ID? I'm sure my 79 has one since it falls in the date range.

It seems like my Honcho's 360 has good power it just doesn't have the pedal response I think it should... I need to check what gears I have.
User avatar

Stuka
Site Admin
Posts: 11789
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:53 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Stuka »

Charles Kline wrote:
FSJunkie wrote:Compression dropped in 1971. That took roughly 10% off the top.

Rating methods changed in 1972, and so did the posted numbers, but the engines did not. The 360 from 1972-1974 carried three different ratings, ranging from 175 horsepower to 220 horsepower depending on 2 barrel or 4 barrel carburetor, and single or dual exhaust. It wasn't for emissions.

1975-1980 used the early pellet-type catalytic converters that were very restrictive, and the posted ratings assumed you had a California engine with 3 converters on it. Not all engines received converters, so the output of you own engine might have been much higher, matching the 1972-1974 numbers for that particular carburetor/exhaust system configuration.

1980-1991 received the newer monolithic converters that were less restrictive, so the ratings jumped back up to nearly their 1972-1974 level. The new converters still restricted a little... Still, it was only 35 horsepower behind the same configuration (2 barrel, single exhaust) of 360 from 1972. Considering all that changed in that decade and yearly changes in rating requirements, I say they did pretty good.

Aside from those things, the differences you see in the ratings were minor. Ignition timing and carburetor calibration changed slightly over the years, but practical impact on power output was less than 5%....negligible. The bolt-on emission controls (EGR, smog pump, TCS, etc.) are mostly part throttle controls that do not affect full throttle power output. In other words, they are harmless. Again, less than a 5% impact. Nothing to worry about.

Much of the perceived loss in performance in the emissions era 1970's and 1980's wasn't the engine's fault. The cars got much heavier. More options, heavy 5 MPH crash safety bumpers, side impact beams in the doors, etc. Plus they geared them lower for improved fuel economy and high-speed cruising on the then-new interstate highways. Performance fell in those years, but there was a lot more to it than just the engine, and especially more than just the vacuum lines and EGR valve....
Quoted for great post!


Is the pellet type converters easy to ID? I'm sure my 79 has one since it falls in the date range.

It seems like my Honcho's 360 has good power it just doesn't have the pedal response I think it should... I need to check what gears I have.
I highly doubt it still has it. Unless you have a pretty low number of miles. They don't make that style anymore, so if it was replaced, it was with a newer style.
2017 JKU Rubicon
Pevious Jeeps: 1981 J10, 1975 Cherokee, 2008 JK, 2005 KJ, 1989 XJ
User avatar

FSJunkie
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by FSJunkie »

Dr. Marneaus wrote: 165hp is powerful? lol.
First of all, everything I say below is in SAE Net power rating, or converted to SAE Net from SAE Gross.

Actually I was factory rated 175 horsepower, the same as you, unless you had the 4bbl (195 HP). I've done a few choice modifications that probably get me close to 195.
All of my engines are in the 100-220 horsepower range, so yeah, 195 sounds great. I keep up with traffic just fine with power left to spare. Even my 100 HP Hornet can do that... Anything more is just fun to play with.

It's all perspective.

We live in the most insane period of high performance ever. Cars have never gone so fast, speed limits have never been higher, and people's foots have never been heavier. These days the average family sedan is 200-300 horsepower, so in the eyes of modern drivers, anything under 200 horsepower (360 Wagoneer) is slow as heck. Things are not even considered to be "fast" until they reach 300+ horsepower these days.

But from my perspective (1950-1980 views), the average family sedan is 100-200 horsepower, so in my eyes anything over 200 horsepower is fast. The 426 Street Hemi was one of the fastest engines on the 1960's muscle car era, one I consider to be insanely fast, yet when rated in SAE Net like a modern engine (or our 360's) it is only around 300 horsepower, and barely qualifies as "fast" in the eyes of modern people.

The way I see it, a 360 Wagoneer is not slow, it is on the upper end of average, boarderline fast. I just think everything else on the road is STUPID INSANE UNNECESARILY fast.

Funny how old car buffs always say the original 426 Street Hemi was FAST at ~300 Net HP, yet you guys complain about your AMC 360's at ~200 Net HP being SLOW. It's amazing that there is only a 33% difference be FAST and SLOW.
1972 Wagoneer: 360 2V, THM-400, D20, D30 closed knuckle, D44 Trac-lok 3.31.
1965 Rambler Ambassador: 327 4V, BW M-10 auto, AMC 20 3.15.
1973 AMC Ambassador: 360 4V, TC-727.
1966 AMC Marlin 327 4V, T-10 4 speed, AMC 20 Powr-lok 3.54.

Cheap Hobby
Posts: 649
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:53 pm
Location: Central Valley

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Cheap Hobby »

IIRC the pellet converters have a sealed plug on the body for filling after the housing was welded together. Original should have burned out front all the different gas formulas and been replaced
79 Cherokee WT QT Golden Eagle white with gold windows "Pigger" only blows hubs the night before a road trip or the clodest night of year. Has only been towed cause of stupid.
User avatar

Stuka
Site Admin
Posts: 11789
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:53 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Stuka »

FSJunkie wrote:The way I see it, a 360 Wagoneer is not slow, it is on the upper end of average, boarderline fast. I just think everything else on the road is STUPID INSANE UNNECESARILY fast.

Funny how old car buffs always say the original 426 Street Hemi was FAST at ~300 Net HP, yet you guys complain about your AMC 360's at ~200 Net HP being SLOW. It's amazing that there is only a 33% difference be FAST and SLOW.
There is an ever so slight difference between weight and aero with a 426 Challenger and a Wagoneer. Power does not make something "fast" in itself, its power to weight that does.

My '75 Cherokee had a 195hp 360, tipping the scales at just over 5000lbs (weighed multiple times) it was no fast by any stretch of the imagination. It would struggle on grades, but got up to speed at an acceptable speed. It was not dangerously slow like some vehicles. It was certainly NOT borderline fast. I don't even consider my Mustang to be fast, but simply quick. Even thought it will hit 60mph almost 3 times faster than an FSJ.
2017 JKU Rubicon
Pevious Jeeps: 1981 J10, 1975 Cherokee, 2008 JK, 2005 KJ, 1989 XJ

Charles Kline
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 8:00 am
Location: Golden, Co

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Charles Kline »

Stuka wrote:I highly doubt it still has it. Unless you have a pretty low number of miles. They don't make that style anymore, so if it was replaced, it was with a newer style.
She spent much of her life in a garage in California (there 'Non operation vehicle registration in the glove box) From mid 90's to 2006. The odo says 81k
I'll have to get under it and check for the pellet refill plug.

-Charles

Nikkormat
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:45 pm
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Nikkormat »

I would not be surprised if you still had a pellet converter Charels.
Gabe, "reformed" Jeep hoarder.

csuengr
Posts: 1290
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:24 am
Location: Sterling, CO

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by csuengr »

FSJunkie wrote:
Dr. Marneaus wrote: 165hp is powerful? lol.
Funny how old car buffs always say the original 426 Street Hemi was FAST at ~300 Net HP, yet you guys complain about your AMC 360's at ~200 Net HP being SLOW. It's amazing that there is only a 33% difference be FAST and SLOW.
The street Hemi's had closer to 430 hp net. They were underrated from the factory and actually were ~470 hp gross. Hemi cars weren't available with AC and I don't think power steering also.
1977 Cherokee S, Ford 5.0, 5 speed, BW 1356, 33 x 10.50 BFG's. No longer my DD.
2007 Mercury Milan, 2.3L, 5-speed, now my DD. 29 mpg average.

Nikkormat
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:45 pm
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Nikkormat »

FSJunkie wrote:
Dr. Marneaus wrote: 165hp is powerful? lol.
It's all perspective.
And driving habits.

Our Jeeps are heavy, but not unnecessarily so. Most real modern SUVs have a curb weight of around 5000 too.

We also have to remember modern SUVs are geared much much deeper. Most have around a 3:1 first gear and the Audi Q7's that I'm familiar with have a 4.32:1 axle gear on 31 ish inch tires. So acceleration from a stop happens very quickly. The tires are wider, suspensions tighter, gears more tightly spaced and more available.

Our Jeeps do a whole lot with very little. And compared to there competition, up to about 1987, they easily out haul out climb out corner and out run Blazers Broncos Ramchargers and scouts. While the competition was stuck with half assed 5.0's we had the brick shithouse reliable 360. They had TTB and ten bolts we had 44's.

And everyone complains about how un aero dynamic our Jeeps are. Out Jeeps are way way more aero dynamic than the competition. Especially with late style grilles. A Wagoneer on 33's lifted 4 inches is the same height as a stock blazer on 32's. Even now with 31's my Cherokee is a foot shorter than an 89 bronco on 235's. And it's more than a foot shorter than a 2004 Sierra on a 33 ish inch tire.

You aren't driving an underpowered brick. Your driving one of the greatest multi use automobiles to ever exist. Period. And certainly the best looking one.
Gabe, "reformed" Jeep hoarder.

Charles Kline
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 8:00 am
Location: Golden, Co

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Charles Kline »

Nikkormat wrote: And driving habits.

Our Jeeps are heavy, but not unnecessarily so. Most real modern SUVs have a curb weight of around 5000 too.

We also have to remember modern SUVs are geared much much deeper. Most have around a 3:1 first gear and the Audi Q7's that I'm familiar with have a 4.32:1 axle gear on 31 ish inch tires. So acceleration from a stop happens very quickly. The tires are wider, suspensions tighter, gears more tightly spaced and more available.

Our Jeeps do a whole lot with very little. And compared to there competition, up to about 1987, they easily out haul out climb out corner and out run Blazers Broncos Ramchargers and scouts. While the competition was stuck with half assed 5.0's we had the brick shithouse reliable 360. They had TTB and ten bolts we had 44's.

And everyone complains about how un aero dynamic our Jeeps are. Out Jeeps are way way more aero dynamic than the competition. Especially with late style grilles. A Wagoneer on 33's lifted 4 inches is the same height as a stock blazer on 32's. Even now with 31's my Cherokee is a foot shorter than an 89 bronco on 235's. And it's more than a foot shorter than a 2004 Sierra on a 33 ish inch tire.

You aren't driving an underpowered brick. Your driving one of the greatest multi use automobiles to ever exist. Period. And certainly the best looking one.
Image
User avatar

Lumpskie
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 4:33 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Lumpskie »

Nikkormat wrote: Floyd hill on I70 from Idaho Springs to Bergen park is one that give people alot of trouble. An average of a 7.7% grade and a few short sections hitting 10-12%. The speed limit is 65 but most folks manage to pull about 50 if there willing to run there car hard.

With the Jeep fully loaded I can pull that hill at 75 no problem.
I can hold 75 on Floyd Hill but just barely fully loaded. The hill that gets me is coming from the western slope up to the Eisenhower tunnel. (Is that the Roosevelt tunnel?) Usually it will stick in 3rd for a while and slowly bleed speed. When it gets down to 65, I'll drop down to second and get back up to 75. For some reason, the Jeep has more problems with that hill than Monarch!
1989 Grand Wagoneer - Rebuilt 360, 2" Alcans, 10" travel Gabriel Guadian shocks.
1996 Land Cruiser - 1HD-T Diesel, Gturbo (23psi), Wholesale Automatics 442f, F/R ARBs, 35" Duratracs, ARB Rear Bumper, OME 2" lift, home built sliders and aluminum belly skid
2000 Honda Civic - Integra GSR engine, transmission, shift linkage and axles, 200hp, 33 combined mpg
2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 9 - 437hp/447ft-lb
User avatar

Stuka
Site Admin
Posts: 11789
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:53 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Stuka »

Lumpskie wrote:
Nikkormat wrote: Floyd hill on I70 from Idaho Springs to Bergen park is one that give people alot of trouble. An average of a 7.7% grade and a few short sections hitting 10-12%. The speed limit is 65 but most folks manage to pull about 50 if there willing to run there car hard.

With the Jeep fully loaded I can pull that hill at 75 no problem.
I can hold 75 on Floyd Hill but just barely fully loaded. The hill that gets me is coming from the western slope up to the Eisenhower tunnel. (Is that the Roosevelt tunnel?) Usually it will stick in 3rd for a while and slowly bleed speed. When it gets down to 65, I'll drop down to second and get back up to 75. For some reason, the Jeep has more problems with that hill than Monarch!
The Ike tunnel is over 11k ft altitude, so lot of lost power up there.
2017 JKU Rubicon
Pevious Jeeps: 1981 J10, 1975 Cherokee, 2008 JK, 2005 KJ, 1989 XJ
User avatar

FSJunkie
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by FSJunkie »

"Fast" by our modern standards is not what "fast" was by historical standards. You cannot compare a classic car to a modern one. That is removing it out of context and is an unfair comparison.

Compare a 360 Wagoneer to other vehicles of its time before you call it slow. Forget the horsepower numbers. Take a trip back to 1975, or 1980 or whatever and pretend you're test driving new cars. If you do that, you will find that a 360 FSJ was a pretty powerful and fast vehicle, especially for a truck.

If you try to compare it to modern cars you will be disappointed every time. It is better to completely forget and ignore the modern cars and just drive your FSJ for what it is. You will be much happier, and you will find that you can keep up with modern traffic in all but the worst conditions. They're no THAT bad. Not like driving a Volkswagen Beetle....

Historical context. Model T owners don't expect their cars to haul 75 MPH up the Eisenhower tunnel, and they don't look down on their cars for it. They see their cars for what they are and enjoy them in that. Why not you guys? Just let your Jeeps be what they are and be happy in that.
1972 Wagoneer: 360 2V, THM-400, D20, D30 closed knuckle, D44 Trac-lok 3.31.
1965 Rambler Ambassador: 327 4V, BW M-10 auto, AMC 20 3.15.
1973 AMC Ambassador: 360 4V, TC-727.
1966 AMC Marlin 327 4V, T-10 4 speed, AMC 20 Powr-lok 3.54.
User avatar

Lumpskie
Posts: 1320
Joined: Wed May 14, 2014 4:33 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Lumpskie »

I was using my tunnel reference to say that I was pretty impressed on the hill climbing ability of my Wagoneer. Another funny thing. Check out the Wikipedia page for the Eisenhower Tunnel, down in the history section. There's a picture of a wagoner about to enter it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhowe ... l_1978.jpg
1989 Grand Wagoneer - Rebuilt 360, 2" Alcans, 10" travel Gabriel Guadian shocks.
1996 Land Cruiser - 1HD-T Diesel, Gturbo (23psi), Wholesale Automatics 442f, F/R ARBs, 35" Duratracs, ARB Rear Bumper, OME 2" lift, home built sliders and aluminum belly skid
2000 Honda Civic - Integra GSR engine, transmission, shift linkage and axles, 200hp, 33 combined mpg
2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 9 - 437hp/447ft-lb
User avatar

FSJunkie
Posts: 657
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by FSJunkie »

Lumpskie wrote:I was using my tunnel reference to say that I was pretty impressed on the hill climbing ability of my Wagoneer. Another funny thing. Check out the Wikipedia page for the Eisenhower Tunnel, down in the history section. There's a picture of a wagoner about to enter it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhowe ... l_1978.jpg
Don't worry, I wasn't aiming at you in any way and I knew what you meant. You just reminded me of the Eisenhower tunnel as a good example of testing vehicle for power. I actually know guys who climb the Eisenhower tunnel in Model T's. :D

I would honestly be surprised by any vehicle that can haul 75 MPH through it. At 11,000 feet above sea level any engine, carbureted, EFI, turbo, Diesel, whatever, will automatically be down roughly 50% on power.

I grew up at 7000 feet above sea level, and my Wagoneer never failed to haul any speed I wanted up any hill I pointed it, even up to 9500 feet, but 11,000 feet is asking a lot.
1972 Wagoneer: 360 2V, THM-400, D20, D30 closed knuckle, D44 Trac-lok 3.31.
1965 Rambler Ambassador: 327 4V, BW M-10 auto, AMC 20 3.15.
1973 AMC Ambassador: 360 4V, TC-727.
1966 AMC Marlin 327 4V, T-10 4 speed, AMC 20 Powr-lok 3.54.
User avatar

Stuka
Site Admin
Posts: 11789
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:53 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: Factory HP ratings

Post by Stuka »

FSJunkie wrote:
Lumpskie wrote:I was using my tunnel reference to say that I was pretty impressed on the hill climbing ability of my Wagoneer. Another funny thing. Check out the Wikipedia page for the Eisenhower Tunnel, down in the history section. There's a picture of a wagoner about to enter it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhowe ... l_1978.jpg
Don't worry, I wasn't aiming at you in any way and I knew what you meant. You just reminded me of the Eisenhower tunnel as a good example of testing vehicle for power. I actually know guys who climb the Eisenhower tunnel in Model T's. :D

I would honestly be surprised by any vehicle that can haul 75 MPH through it. At 11,000 feet above sea level any engine, carbureted, EFI, turbo, Diesel, whatever, will automatically be down roughly 50% on power.

I grew up at 7000 feet above sea level, and my Wagoneer never failed to haul any speed I wanted up any hill I pointed it, even up to 9500 feet, but 11,000 feet is asking a lot.
The TFL Truck channel on you tube does a towing test called the "Ike Gauntlet" where they tow heavy loads with various model trucks. Loads vary on class. But the gooseneck tests on new HD's are damn impressive. A new Ram 3500 will pull 21k lbs up that grade without losing speed.

For 1/2 ton trucks the F150 EcoBoost does amazing. You aren't right about any vehicle being down on power at that altitude. A properly done turbo will still reach max boost meaning you lose no power at all.

My Mustang with a turbo is not bothered by altitude at all. I would be surprised if it loses any power at 10k feet. It doesn't feel like it does anyway.


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
2017 JKU Rubicon
Pevious Jeeps: 1981 J10, 1975 Cherokee, 2008 JK, 2005 KJ, 1989 XJ
Post Reply