Power at High Altitude

[~el~jefe~]

Originally Posted by Lelandjt

I don't think I'll be able to test drive a new BRZ/86 above 6000ft, and that would require a 2hr drive each way to a dealer. I do nearly all my driving between 9,000 and 11,000ft. My last sports car was a turbo and my NA cars (2.2l Impreza, 3.6l Ford Transit, 2.0l Mazda 3) have all felt torqueless. In the videos of the new twins (shot near sea level) we see them effortlessly powersliding out of turns, presumably in 2nd gear, but I'd love to hear that these are done in 3rd gear. What kind of power loss can I expect above 9,000ft? Will this car have the power to slide around and can it accelerate as well as the average mom-mobile? I really don't want to do aftermarket forced induction. I want a sub-3000lb sports car with enough power to hoon and not feel slow relative to the average modern car but I suspect I need a turbo and that means either a 3000+lb Por$che or a 3400+lb Nissan.

you live at too high of an elevation to buy a 2022 BRZ.


I just will say that here and get it over with. At 5,000 feet it takes a toll on a naturally aspirated car. Youre cranking above that.

Turbo or supercharged a v8 beast i would only suggest

[Baldeagle]

If you want to be the drag race king up there, Tesla all the way.

[stilesg57]

I have a family cabin in Park County near Breck that I grew up with, about 8,700’.

I’ve owned and driven a lot of cars in my life; at that altitude turbo cars like WRXs, Ecoboost Mustangs, EA888 VWs and 335/340 BMWs or LARGE displacement NA motors (4+ liters) work so much better than the small atmosphere-breathers. I don’t think I’d do a stock engine’d BRZ/86 as my fun DD in the Breck area frankly.

[Lelandjt]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

If you want to be the drag race king up there, Tesla all the way.

No interest in drag racing and I think I have a firm 3500lb limit, but I want enough power to use the throttle to steer and not feel slow when accelerating. My '04 STi made great power after some parts and a tune. The stock turbo was putting out 15psi, so no reduction in power compared to sea level, just longer spool-up time.

[Sasquachulator]

If you live at high altitude, you'll be used to the high altitude and you'd notice absolutely nothing about the high altitude power deficit unless you've actually driven or lived in a low altitude area.

Cuz how are you even supposed to know what the difference feels like?
Someone can tell you what the difference is but what do you have to compare it with?

[stilesg57]

You’d think that would be the case but it’s not. And there’s enough altitude change around CO that you’ll feel your wheezy car in Breck suddenly become a thoroughbred in Denver, then back to a wheezy couch potato again as you head back up the hill.

Had a ‘95 Impreza I drove all across the country and it was a GREAT car on the west and east coasts and I couldn’t get it to break 40mph on I-70 near Vail pass. Dangerously underpowered.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

If your desire is to be a be able to throw the back end around, why not just use less grippy or slightly worn tires?

[humfrz]

I felt that my N/A Miata lost about 25% of it's power near the top of Pikes Peak (14,000 ft).

However, on the way down, it was quite fast -

[Lelandjt]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

If you live at high altitude, you'll be used to the high altitude and you'd notice absolutely nothing about the high altitude power deficit unless you've actually driven or lived in a low altitude area.

Cuz how are you even supposed to know what the difference feels like?
Someone can tell you what the difference is but what do you have to compare it with?

Uh, I travel frequently and drive other vehicles. Half the year I live across the street from the ocean. That doesn't matter though. What matters is when I exit a hairpin on Hoosier Pass (approx 10,500') and I put my foot down I want a sports car that steps out the back end. Either the engine has the torque or not. My guess and others here agree, this car will not.

[Lelandjt]

Anybody else see that press release on Ford's new 280hp electric crate motor (Jalopnik)? I'm thinking pull the new BRZ's engine with only double digit mileage and sell it to a Gen 1 owner. Hook up the crate motor to the stock gearbox so I can use 3rd most of the time or 2nd when I want crazy torque. Replace the gas tank with only enough batteries (weight) to get 150mi range cuz that'll do. I think there's shops in Denver that'll do the work. Violà, altitude immune BRZ!

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by Lelandjt

Anybody else see that press release on Ford's new 280hp electric crate motor (Jalopnik)? I'm thinking pull the new BRZ's engine with only double digit mileage and sell it to a Gen 1 owner. Hook up the crate motor to the stock gearbox so I can use 3rd most of the time or 2nd when I want crazy torque. Replace the gas tank with only enough batteries (weight) to get 150mi range cuz that'll do. I think there's shops in Denver that'll do the work. Violà, altitude immune BRZ!

I love ideas like this. Forge new ground! My only concern would be cost and value. Is all the labor, cost, destruction to resale value for that electric swap worth it for only 281hp?

I like your other idea more. Buy a 400 hp Nissan Z. According to the media so far, the Z's curb weight will be around 3,250 pounds, still relatively lightweight for nimble handling and drifting. It will have a lot of altitude resistant turbo torque, MT option, RWD, very reasonable price tag, proven engine in the Q50, full warranty (perhaps valuable if you do intend to beat on it), aftermarket tunes if willing to sacrifice warranty, several dealerships in the Denver area. I thought that option was brilliant for your wants.

[Yoshoobaroo]

Originally Posted by Baldeagle

I love ideas like this. Forge new ground! My only concern would be cost and value. Is all the labor, cost, destruction to resale value for that electric swap worth it for only 281hp?

I like your other idea more. Buy a 400 hp Nissan Z. According to the media so far, the Z's curb weight will be around 3,250 pounds, still relatively lightweight for nimble handling and drifting. It will have a lot of altitude resistant turbo torque, MT option, RWD, very reasonable price tag, proven engine in the Q50, full warranty (perhaps valuable if you do intend to beat on it), aftermarket tunes if willing to sacrifice warranty, several dealerships in the Denver area. I thought that option was brilliant for your wants.

If the Z is 3250lbs i will eat my hat.
More like 3520lbs.

[Baldeagle]

Originally Posted by Yoshoobaroo

If the Z is 3250lbs i will eat my hat.
More like 3520lbs.

On second review, you may be right that 3,250 lbs is too optimistic. But even if the Z comes in at a realistic 3,400 lbs, that would equal the I-6 Supra. And yes, while both of those cars may not be quite as toss able as the lighter twin, we all know both of those cars will still have great handling. And if they can both smoke the tires at 10,000 ft, perhaps these cars will still be acceptable.

If lightweight is an absolute priority, another option may be the 2.0T Supra. It weighs about 3,190 pounds. No MT option, but with 255hp and almost 300 lbs-ft. of torque, it might provide enough thrust at 10,000 feet and still be light enough on its feet. The 2.0 Supra may be the lightest RWD car available with sufficient power at high elevation.

[stilesg57]

If the Supra or new M240i would just come with a damn manual transmission that would be my next car. I do not care for the ZF tranny that everyone (who’s never driven a PDK anyway) seems to gush for. Argh.

That said you make a good point about the 2.0 Supra IF you can stomach that trans.