[95 imp]

Originally Posted by Spaceme1117

Any mods that get more air in and out of the engine will help.

But the only way to get the same amount of oxygen into the engine as at sea level is with boost.

This is why in WWII, nearly every fighter plane had a supercharger.

They also used nitrous oxide in WW2....

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by 2SS Capt

Nope... A turbo would mitigate it... (Turbo Normalized)

Generally no. I had a turbo car at that altitude and higher where I lived. Cars are not turbo-normalized, airplanes are often turbo-normalized. What that means is that turbo car engines work inherently different and do lose performance for altitude. They may not lose quite as much as a NA, but they definitely lose and miss out on a significant amount of power as they raise in altitude (as evidence when I would take my turbo car down near SL).

For an airplane, engine is going to be rated at say 300hp without the turbo, as it raises in altitude to the critical altitude, the turbo does more more and more until at the critical altitude, it's providing the max "boost" it can, but the engine never produces over 300hp. That critical altitude is often up around 14,000' or so. After that critical altitude, it starts decreasing, although not as much as NA. This is what people often mistakenly think car turbos are doing. A 300hp aviation engine is typically 520-550 cubic inches, whether it has a turbo or not. I've flown a variety of turbo aircraft, really, you fly them all about the same, it's just the workload you have as a pilot. If you don't keep manifold pressure below max, you'll blow the engine, so in the ones with out automated turbo-normalizing, you become the turbo-normalizer.

With a turbo car, the usual setup is that the engine WITH the turbo going full bore makes 300hp at SL, in other words, the critical altitude is SL, it's already doing max work. Without the turbo, the engine block would probably be good for 50%-60% of the power, since most turbo engines fairly very low compression (to make up for the compression added by the turbo).

So a turbo car does not "make up for" altitude. I was finding ways to increase my boost and performance to make it "like SL", which obviously made it that much faster at SL.

The CAI removes intake silencing, so most people think they are making more power/going faster because it's louder. These generally do not make any gains and can even introduce some losses across the powerband. If it was that easy for the designers and engineers to make more power, they would do it from the factory.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

So a turbo car does not "make up for" altitude.

I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here. The boosted version of an engine will make more power than the N/A version of that engine, regardless of elevation.

If he dyno'd his n/a engine at sea level, made 400whp, drove to Denver and dyno'd it again, it would not make 400whp unadjusted for altitude. If he then took it off the dyno and added either type of boost, the car would make more power than it did in its n/a form.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by JSH

I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here. The boosted version of an engine will make more power than the N/A version of that engine, regardless of elevation.

If he dyno'd his n/a engine at sea level, made 400whp, drove to Denver and dyno'd it again, it would not make 400whp unadjusted for altitude. If he then took it off the dyno and added either type of boost, the car would make more power than it did in its n/a form.

A "boosted" version of a N/A engine will use internal parts meant for high pressures and to deal with increased heat/wear. This often means forged pistons, forged crank, etc., in N/A cars, not as many components are forged. Then there's the compression ratio, it's usually lower, because the turbo supplies so much "help", then there's the fuel system, which has to operate at high pressure and provide more fuel, to not only support combustion, but to provide more cooling effect. So much higher pressure and fuel flow capability are common with turbo cars. In short, you disconnect the turbo and run the turbo car N/A and it's lousy, far lousier than a N/A engine not designed to be turbo.

There is no "a boosted version of an engine will always make more power". The engines are designed for different things, they are different engines. It is possible to have the same displacement making more power N/A.

Having a "turbo car" does not make one immune to power loss due to altitude. The power still tapers off.

Perhaps you are talking about slapping on some aftermarket turbo/kit onto a car? That's generally a bad idea unless you do all the supporting mods and work, because going to my first point, the engine is generally rated for the HP it produces, making more is going to over-stress those components that are not intended to see that kind of stress. Classic example, the LT4 differences from the LT1. So again, at SL you'd be making "more power", but it would taper off with altitude. There are other ways you can make "more power", like headers, cams, etc. FI is usually an easier method to do so, but adds weight, still requires a lot of consideration to do properly, etc. If you want to do this right, you usually have to consider the full system, fuel delivery to include injectors, pumps, etc., forged internals, intake, exhaust, etc. Lastly, those bolt-on turbo kits are going to usually have a ton of lag associated with them due to not benefiting from being designed into the system, unlike modern systems tapping directly off of/next to the exhaust valves, hot-v setups, etc. The trouble you get into is if you exceed what the safety margins are on these and other components. If your system allows for more power than stock and you go down in altitude where it's making more power than stock, you will start breaking things when you exceed the design limitations. With an engine, this can be very expensive.

I mean, if you are just going for "more power" across the board (I guess that's what you mean?), well, there's more that can be done to add more power than just a turbo. It's probably arguably easier and better to do a supercharger, since the factory ZL1 is set up that way with the same engine bottom-end and it works out far better for space/installation. But cams/headers/intake etc., would also do it. Using your own criteria then, any mod increasing power would "make up for altitude"?

The reason why I go over this is too many people think a turbo-car works like a turbo-airplane, that the turbo "makes up for altitude" like it does in an airplane. It does not. It's a fundamentally different function.

[L78toLT1]

Originally Posted by JSH

Denver density altitude (DA) is often in the 23-24 range versus sea level of 30-31, which for purposes of this post, basically translates into a loss of power for a naturally aspirated engine of approx. same % difference between the two DAs.

I don't believe you should add a power adder (turbo, supercharger, N2O) to an engine designed to run at atmospheric pressure. A custom valve train would be my first choice for you.

No disrespect intended, but as a lifetime 61yr hotrodder who has built more motors than I can remember, I would not push cam/valvetrain swaps on newbies without extensive wrenching experience, or on anyone who daily drives their Camaro. Granted, I don't know if the op falls into either of these categories, but I'm sure plenty of others reading this thread do.
An entry level pd blower on an otherwise stock LT1 will provide more power than the addition of a cam and supporting valve train mods. It will also prove to be much more reliable. Unless you spec a cam with little or no additional lift than stock, it's not going to last over 50k miles at best and the failure could well be catastrophic

[FarmerFran]

Ok ok... has anyone mentioned the altitude vs planes?

Just look it up and read about it. Same principle applies to cars. "GM" incorporated a turbo because of planes back in the 50s

Altitude needs boost to maintain power - sort of.

Someone pull up the video

[JSH]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

There is no "a boosted version of an engine will always make more power".

You're making this topic much more complicated than it is. I can take any n/a motor (but we're talking mainly about LT1) and add additional atmospheric pressure by driving the car to a lower elevation or adding a pound of mechanical boost and it will make more power. This is basic internal combustion engine science 101 and is beyond rebuttal. That's all I'm saying here. I'm not referring to the gazillion ways that you can add that pound of boost or whether it should be added.

Example: Take an Lt1, properly add an Eaton 1.7L SC, and it will make more power than stock.

[2SS Capt]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Generally no. I had a turbo car at that altitude and higher where I lived. Cars are not turbo-normalized, airplanes are often turbo-normalized. What that means is that turbo car engines work inherently different and do lose performance for altitude. They may not lose quite as much as a NA, but they definitely lose and miss out on a significant amount of power as they raise in altitude (as evidence when I would take my turbo car down near SL).

For an airplane, engine is going to be rated at say 300hp without the turbo, as it raises in altitude to the critical altitude, the turbo does more more and more until at the critical altitude, it's providing the max "boost" it can, but the engine never produces over 300hp. That critical altitude is often up around 14,000' or so. After that critical altitude, it starts decreasing, although not as much as NA. This is what people often mistakenly think car turbos are doing. A 300hp aviation engine is typically 520-550 cubic inches, whether it has a turbo or not. I've flown a variety of turbo aircraft, really, you fly them all about the same, it's just the workload you have as a pilot. If you don't keep manifold pressure below max, you'll blow the engine, so in the ones with out automated turbo-normalizing, you become the turbo-normalizer.

With a turbo car, the usual setup is that the engine WITH the turbo going full bore makes 300hp at SL, in other words, the critical altitude is SL, it's already doing max work. Without the turbo, the engine block would probably be good for 50%-60% of the power, since most turbo engines fairly very low compression (to make up for the compression added by the turbo).

So a turbo car does not "make up for" altitude. I was finding ways to increase my boost and performance to make it "like SL", which obviously made it that much faster at SL.

The CAI removes intake silencing, so most people think they are making more power/going faster because it's louder. These generally do not make any gains and can even introduce some losses across the powerband. If it was that easy for the designers and engineers to make more power, they would do it from the factory.

I'm well aware which is why I said Turbo (normalized), I've flown several Turbo Normalized aircraft, I realize cars don't do this, but he was asking what it would take to regain the power... Hell, even the jet engines I fly today lose power as we climb...

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

Ok ok... has anyone mentioned the altitude vs planes?

Just look it up and read about it. Same principle applies to cars. "GM" incorporated a turbo because of planes back in the 50s

Altitude needs boost to maintain power - sort of.

Someone pull up the video

It doesn't. Cars don't use to turbos/boost to "maintain power" at altitude. Airplane engines do.

[JSH]

Back to SS.Sanchez', the OP, question, the answer to which is yes, you can make up the lost power.

When the OP drove his Camaro away from the Chevy dealer in San Diego the N/A engine enjoyed 14.7 psi in atmospheric pressure. Sadly, when he drove to Denver he found only 12 psi, a 17% loss of atmospheric pressure and corresponding engine power. He can make up his loss in a number of ways most notably by adding 2.7 psi of pressure to his combustion chambers via some mechanical forced induction method such as an Eaton 1.7L supercharger. In fact, he could use small enough pullies to only gain the lost 2.7 psi if he so chose.

Of course there are other ways to make up your lost power and searches of this site will reveal most or all of those.

[2SS Capt]

Originally Posted by JSH

Back to the OP's question, the answer to which is yes, you can make up the lost power.

When the OP drove his Camaro away from the Chevy dealer in San Diego the N/A engine enjoyed 14.7 psi in atmospheric pressure. Sadly, when he drove to Denver he found only 12 psi, a 17% loss of atmospheric pressure and corresponding engine power. He can make up his loss in a number of ways most notably by adding 2.7 psi of pressure to his combustion chambers via some mechanical forced induction method such as an Eaton 1.7L supercharger. In fact, he could use small enough pullies to only gain the lost 2.7 psi if he so chose.

Of course there are other ways to make up your lost power and searches of this site will reveal most or all of those.

Exactly, while he would certainly lose his warranty, he would gain back the lost power with very little risk to the internals because he'd simply be back to sea level...

"Turbo-Normalized"...

[95 imp]

Bottom line "theoretically"...

He can optimize his turbo supercharger for high altitude use and never take it down to sea level, or, with the proper wastegate settings/design, prevent the extra boost at sea level.

A mechanical super charger would need pulley changes (or a device to blow off extra pressure) as he descended to SL.

Or, a nitrous system for use in high altitude areas.

In the mean time, to answer the OP's question, yes a CAI will help. Just like any motor, the more air in and out is the key to HP. No matter what you do though apple to apple NA mods will NEVER match a car HP/ET at SL.

[JamesNoBrakes]

Originally Posted by 95 imp

Bottom line "theoretically"...

He can optimize his turbo supercharger for high altitude use and never take it down to sea level, or, with the proper wastegate settings/design, prevent the extra boost at sea level.

A mechanical super charger would need pulley changes (or a device to blow off extra pressure) as he descended to SL.

Or, a nitrous system for use in high altitude areas.

In the mean time, to answer the OP's question, yes a CAI will help. Just like any motor, the more air in and out is the key to HP. No matter what you do though apple to apple NA mods will NEVER match a car HP/ET at SL.

Except for the 'fish oil" CAI, sure. If it was that easy to just "make more power" the cars would come stock like that. The fact is the intake is optimized to take into account various factors and the engine/ECU is limited by other things. On a turbo car, you can often get up to ~20% "more power" with just a tune that goes into the conservative margins of fuel and air mixture, injector pulse width, boost, etc. In some cases, this will fry out the engine and significantly decrease longevity, but in some cases, there's enough margin to do it with relatively few problems. That is forcing more air and fuel into the engine...key word forcing. A N/A engine needs a hell of a lot more to make more power. CAIs are sold because people think the louder noise means they are making more power. Independent testing shows that the "CAIs" do not "make more HP", the companies promoting them just cherry-pick the dyno tests that show more %, as it's rare for any two tests to show the exact same results.

They aren't even "cold air", as in "colder" than the stock.

Realistically, no one sets up a turbo on a car like you claim. Is there even a mechanism to do it on a camaro? I've never heard of one. There isn't any good way I've ever heard of to "keep SL power" on a turbo-car. Maybe someone that runs Pike's Peak knows of one? The other big issue with doing this is that you are also decreasing performance by hanging a bunch of extra parts on the car, turbo, intercooler, exhaust and intake piping (requires a new exhaust anyway, see below). Same with with a supercharger too.

Send the OP in the right direction at least. Headers+exhaust+tune if you want to make a bit more power than stock.

I'm not against FI to make more power, a supercharger would be a good idea. Turbo is just dumb though, virtually all the setups I've seen run excessive lag with the turbos mounted far from the engine. These are ok for a drag racing, but as a DD and for anything else, it's a dumb setup. Turbos on cars are not set up to "retain SL manifold pressure/power". The idea that he might hack something together to do so is pretty far fetched.

[95 imp]

The purpose of a waste gate is to automatically limit boost pressure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wastegate

Perhaps, all the lag is caused by improperly sized turbos/systems....

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/what...g%20situation.

A factory air intake is limited by several factors. The EPA has noise restrictions, the factory has restrictive filters for longevity reasons, packaging issues, etc.. Although, I will admit the factory is getting way better at optimization of their motors reducing the need/gains of a CAI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_...c_right-of-way
"This provision is an objective emission control. It applies maximum sound levels to various categories of moving vehicles and for several vehicle speeds. It is the backbone of vehicle sound emission regulations. It generally requires a measurement of A-weighted sound level of a moving vehicle at a specific distance from the vehicle path (normally 50 feet)."

The reference to "cold air" is air from the exterior of the heated air in the engine compartment. Back in the day, most/all manufacturers took "under hood air" hence "cold air intake". Again, the manufacturers have been optimizing their designs (within applicable regulations/design goals) to improve power numbers.


As far as dyno tests of CAI's, name two dyno's that measure ANY performance upgrade accurately. They are all over the board, relatively speaking, even from the same manufacturer.