S2000 Talk Discussions related to the S2000, its ownership and enthusiasm for it.

S2000 at altitude sucks...

Thread Tools
 
Old Aug 29, 2002 | 05:16 PM
  #11  
scottrnelson's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 944
Likes: 0
From: Pleasanton, CA
Default

Originally posted by steve c
Overall I am left with the impression that cars like the S2000 which require high revs and have low torque are not meant for 5200 feet of elevation.
It's really bad at 10,000 foot elevations. Last year when I drove around the West I got up that high in the Colorado mountains and it was really tough starting out while pointed uphill.

I stayed at high altitude for a few days and it was quite obvious when I dropped back down below 3000 feet. Suddenly I had power again.

I enjoy the car much more at my home altitude of 350 feet.
Reply
Old Aug 29, 2002 | 05:32 PM
  #12  
bash's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
From: Littleton
Default

Isn't the ECU supposed to compensate for this or is that too much to ask? Since being mile high is my only frame of reference, it never occurred to me that perhaps I should have it adjusted for altitude. As I mentioned earlier, my trip up Mount Evans seemed to go quite smoothly and I even think the two 911s I was driving with suffered more of a performance hit (but both had passengers). Anything short of a turbo that can get back some of the performance? I guess it's all relative, though, since every automobile is puffing a bit in the lower oxygen levels.
Reply
Old Aug 29, 2002 | 05:43 PM
  #13  
ultimate lurker's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 1
From: You wish
Default

Nope, gotta have a turbo (the latest 911 turbo apparently can maintain optimal peak power all the way up to 8000 feet or so - takes longer to build peak boost, but its a small price compared to an NA car).

I suspect the reason that the S2000 transitions to VTEC at higher rpms at higher altitude relates to the power curve. With less atmosphere, you're moving less air for a given rpm point. Which means that the smaller cam may be o.k. to a higher rpm point. Certainly doesn't feel any more abrupt or like the power takes a downturn when the transition point moves up. Might be referenced to manifold vacuum, which would be higher at altitude and look the engine like it was not quite at full throttle relative to sea level.

UL
Reply
Old Aug 30, 2002 | 12:15 AM
  #14  
RedHead's Avatar
Registered User
Gold Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Default

Yup. There is a reason why the turbo chargers were first used by the aeronautic engineers before they were borrowed by the automotive engineers

Originally posted by ultimate lurker
Nope, gotta have a turbo ...UL
Reply
Old Aug 30, 2002 | 03:55 AM
  #15  
W6DAN's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,208
Likes: 0
From: Bournemouth
Default

Even at altitude, the S2000 looks gorgeous !
Reply
Old Aug 30, 2002 | 07:57 AM
  #16  
Mirror's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,142
Likes: 5
From: Aurora
Default

Originally posted by W6DAN
Even at altitude, the S2000 looks gorgeous !
Yes I would have to agree with that.
Reply
Old Aug 30, 2002 | 10:33 AM
  #17  
Intrepid175's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 0
From: Texas City
Default

Originally posted by bash
Isn't the ECU supposed to compensate for this or is that too much to ask? Since being mile high is my only frame of reference, it never occurred to me that perhaps I should have it adjusted for altitude. As I mentioned earlier, my trip up Mount Evans seemed to go quite smoothly and I even think the two 911s I was driving with suffered more of a performance hit (but both had passengers). Anything short of a turbo that can get back some of the performance? I guess it's all relative, though, since every automobile is puffing a bit in the lower oxygen levels.
Hi Bash,

Yes, the ECU is supposed to compensate and guess what, it "is" compensating! It's adjusting the fuel flow so that the engine is still getting a proper mixture as the air thins out at higher altitudes. Unfortunately, it can't do anything about the air thinning out. The only thing that will help that is a supercharger or turbocharger.

If you think the S is bad at altitude with fuel injection, you should try it with an old fashioned carburator. It could definitely be worse.

Drive Safe,
Steve R.
Reply
Old Aug 30, 2002 | 11:29 AM
  #18  
SilverS2KAZ's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
From: Chandler
Default

I have a solution- don't drive the car in high altitudes. Here in the arid desert we live in, called Phoenix, we get plenty of punch.
Reply
Old Aug 30, 2002 | 11:59 AM
  #19  
Silver Bullet's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
From: Tracy
Default

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SilverS2KAZ
[B]I have a solution- don't drive the car in high altitudes.
Reply
Old Aug 30, 2002 | 12:36 PM
  #20  
nEVERCLEAR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
From: Myrtle Beach
Default

I have not been to 5200 in it, but Asheville and the twisties around there seem more responsive and powerful in the S2000 than at home in Myrtle Beach, SC when its 100 degrees and 100% humidity.

Cooler weather wins out atleast for me...
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:34 PM.