Won’t the controller run into a turbo RPM limit, depending on the altitude? Particularly at high engine RPM, there just won’t be enough turbo speed to make up for the lack of molecules. Say 35% thinner at 12000 feet. Different OEMs build in some excess turbo speed into programming to compensate — and hence, we can all utilize tuners to get more power at sea level-ish altitudes.How much power do we lose at altitude compared to sea level, or is the car capable of maintaining the same stock 17 PSI (on a stock car)? Is the O2 percentage still the same?
Whoa! So when someone quips about a stage 1 tune that "it should've come like this from the factory," one reason it shouldn't have is that it would result in high altitude customers making less power than sea level customers, stock? That actually makes a ton of business sense. It would lead to disappointment, complicated spec sheets, or maybe even lawsuits, depending on how conspicuously it's communicated. But on the other hand, wouldn't it just put forced induction into the same situation as NA in terms of altitude-based performance degradation?and hence, we can all utilize tuners to get more power at sea level-ish altitudes.
They don't release it with "more" power for market segmentation (if they released a 400hp golf for 45K, they would poach sales from the 65K RS3/TTRS...etc).Whoa! So when someone quips about a stage 1 tune that "it should've come like this from the factory," one reason it shouldn't have is that it would result in high altitude customers making less power than sea level customers, stock? That actually makes a ton of business sense. It would lead to disappointment, complicated spec sheets, or maybe even lawsuits, depending on how conspicuously it's communicated. But on the other hand, wouldn't it just put forced induction into the same situation as NA in terms of altitude-based performance degradation?