AgTalk Home
AgTalk Home
Search Forums | Classifieds (136) | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Gas/NA engines: elevation, engine timing, and humidity
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forums List -> Machinery TalkMessage format
 
beh
Posted 1/18/2011 21:25 (#1557530)
Subject: Gas/NA engines: elevation, engine timing, and humidity


Heil Harvesting, Ulysses KS/Limon CO
Referring to thread:
http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=201490&posts=6...

The discussion following this post:
http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=201490&mid=148...

Highplainsnotillr - 12/16/2010 09:39


On gas vs. diesel for your situation -- you do spend some time here in the summer and fall (5000 ft. alt.) and over the passes to the valley as well. The diesels are all turbo while the gassers are not. At altitude that makes a bunch of difference. I have a 5 liter mustang that will pretty easily spin the tires in the first three gear shifts at or near sea level but here it takes some effort to get wheel spin in 1st and you would probably be hard pressed to get any at all shifting to 2nd and impossible going to 3rd. Anyway my point is the gasser is going to give up a lot of power when you are pulling that 30 ft. header or whatever over the mountains.






My question is this: Doesn't advancing the timing and a generally lower relative humidity somewhat offset the loss of power due to elevation?

I live at 3600 or so feet. I went to school at 1000 feet. When I was at school, I would retard my timing to eliminate engine ping. When I came back to higher elevation, I would advance the timing to gain performance. I have no scientific data. Not timed up, the pickup had noticeably less performance at elevation. With the timing advanced it really ran again. How much does advancing the timing offset the lack of power at higher elevations?

Secondly, how much does a reduction in RH help, if any? At 50% RH of course your water content of air is higher than at 10% RH. To my novice mind, I would think the less water 'burned' the better. RH is a measure of water in the air. The air is compressed and burnt by the engine. So shouldn't an engine have more performance at a lower RH?


In answer to my own question, I believe the first question to have some merit. The second question I cannot wrap my head around completely because I have no 'data/experience' to base my question on. It makes sense, but is it relevant?
Top of the page Bottom of the page


Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)