I live in Albuquerque, NM. In less than an hour of driving, the elevation changes from 5,000ft in ABQ to 7,000ft in Santa Fe, NM. Assuming crank horsepower most say:

Horsepower Loss = (Elevation/1000) * 0.03 * Horsepower@sealevel

I’m sure it’s far more complex than that, but that’s what I’m using for these upcoming numbers.

The Jeep’s 360hp becomes 306hp in ABQ and drops to 285hp @ the crank by the time I make it to Santa Fe. So the 6.4L HEMI in Santa Fe would perform slightly better than the 5.7L HEMI at sea level.

The 200hp Amanti becomes 170hp @ 5,000ft and 158hp @ 7,000ft

My old 110hp Rio would be 93hp @ 5,000ft and 87hp @ 7,000ft

I hear that forced induced engines would be:

Horsepower Loss = (Elevation/1000) * 0.015 * Horsepower@sealevel

A 333hp Audi S5 would be 308hp in Albuquerque and 298hp in Santa Fe. Always a slight edge over what I’m used to in the Jeep (power wise) even though the claim is nearly 10% down.

Advertisement

Seems as if I am always missing out since all the paper stats are pretty far off up here. It’s like you need the next engine up to experience the engine below it. I would say my city runs right on the average for everything financially. So V8 Mustangs and Camaros are very aspirational buys, and it’s weird to think that there is a world of performance I can’t live in that others get to experience daily to the point where it’s considered nothing special. Know what I mean?

Nice thing is that everyone is impacted by this, so performance you have relative to others around you is the same experience at any elevation. I just think it would be neat to actually experience the sub-6 second Camrys and Accords people point out, but they are in the low to mid 7 second range depending out here. Still quick relatively out here, but to feel sub-6 second acceleration, I would need something set up sportier or with enough power that it’s rated in the sub-5 second range.