>an incredible 6500 rpm redline!!
>tfw can rev to 9k
>>13847865
>tfw I can't rev past 5,800
>wanting more than 7K
Ricers and benchracers detected
>tfw no redline
>>13848087
>buttmad he bent a pushrod trying to rev high
>>13848096
>buttmad he doesn't have any torque
>>13848083
V8 detected
>>13848100
>he thinks torque is important
>>13848108
>>13848096
>he only gets power when he rapes the throttle
Faggot
>>13848108
Trks r mportnt.
Doucsh.
>>13848111
>be you
>stumps the gas pedal
>goes over his 5000 rpm redline
>KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK
>bent 3 pushrods again
>>13848124
thats why all sports cars have marien diesel engines, faggot
>>13848108
>he doesn't think torque is important
HAHAHAHA
even benchracers care about torque
It's like you don't want to overtake people in 6th gear
>>13848136
if you geared it right you'd have massive acceleration, but no top end speed
>>13848170
>he thinks it is
this just in, people should use truck diesel engines to power racecars instead of lightweight high revving engines
>>13848190
>implying they dont use diesel engines to power racecars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuNtw5XbxJg
research a bit, please
>>13848229
>implying that is a truck engine that cannot rev
1/10
>mfw when my "high reving" inline turbo 4 cylinder is 6900rpm.
>only a scant 900rpm above an old pushrod V8
>>13848238
>gets corrected
>switches topic
w-we're only talking about trucks here g-guys!!
diesel is useless guys!!!!
go back to stancenation
>>13848253
>diesel is useless guys
except I never implied that
learn to read
>>13848252
>mfw not all inline 4s are high revving
>mfw turbo inline 4s don't need to rev high
>tfw 7500 redline
>>13847865
>high output
fucking 70s bs
>>13848083
its a good thing
low piston speed keeps the bearings fresh and gives you some torque to work with
>>13847865
>tfw redline is 6500 but it makes almost no power past 5000 so there's no point in revving that high
>>13848094
[Revs infinitely]
>>13848327
>tfw redline is 6500 but theres no power at all so flooring it is the only way to get up to speed without driving slower than a dead grandma
> redline is 5k
> spin it to 6 when sliding in the rain
DEVILISH
>>13847865
ITT: smallblocks that think revving high is impressive
>mfw I've revved my car 2-3k past generally considered safe RPMs once
Having no rev limiter is a hell of a thing.
>>13848316
> revs to 9000 rpm
> makes 125hp/l out of an N/A 2.0l 4 banger.
> still lasts 300,000 miles.
It's what happens when good engineers make an engine.
http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/917028-s2000s-and-high-mileage/
http://www.s2ki.com/s2000/topic/1020373-high-mileage-s2ks/
>>13847865
>tfw redline is 3,000 rpm
> not being able to rev past 15k+
Cagers lel
>>13848647
>tfw mr2 idles at 4k rpm
>>13848542
>only 9000 rpm
no wonder it lasts for ever
>>13848662
> happily donating your organs to a nigger
Bikers lel
>>13848662
at least I dont die in a fender bender
![VetteTailLights1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qiBJcXr.jpg "VetteTailLights1[1].jpg")
>>13848679
>>13848681
>I-Ill survie in a crash!
>DD has 7.5k redline
>Would trade it for more low-end torque in a heartbeat
eh
>>13848691
At least two wheels are still standing.
>>13848691
Whenever I see that pic,I think of the caption that says "The driver's head was found in the back seat" and then I laugh because Corvettes don't have back seat.
>>13848691
How are those cherries?
>>13848679
>>13848681
> moving goal posts
Impressive!
>>13848727
> Bringing up le cagers maymay
> defend my point
> N-nice strawman A-a-Anon
>>13848739
> my point
What was your point? It was about how high you can rev, not if you die when you crash lmao
>>13848751
By bringing up cagers? Last time I checked, this thread was about how high you can rev, not bringing up names
>lmao
>>13847865
>>tfw all my OHC engines have had a lower redline than my LS2.
Except the SHOs.
>>13848778
Weabs BTFO.
>>13847865
>>shitposting thread.
Reving high is like bragging about how you can thrust faster and longer than niggercock when the brother can make her cum in less than 30 seconds.
>>13848793
Are you projecting your interracial, incestuous fantasies?
>>13848691
>implying that isnt the driver's fault
>>13848100
buttmad you only make peak torque at low rpm, rather than at high rpm where you could make more power
>>13848751
"yeah my engine only revs to X"
"hurrrr cager kekekeke"
jesus you bike faggots have your own "daily" thread 3 times a day, stay there
>>13848170
muh torque isnt important. power is.
>but muh overtaking
then why is muh pushrod v8 TEN SECONDS SLOWER to accelerate a measly twenty mph in top gear?
>tfw dorito
>>13848083
Dieselfag.
>>13848170
>only benchracers care about torque
Corrected that for you.
>>13848848
lol, you jap faggots will literally reach for any possible bench mark where the z06 is worse off.
L-LOOK IT TAKES LONGER IN 6TH!!!
Admittedly it takes substantially longer, but why is this an important if the 0-60 is comparable?
>>13848681
>impglgynyigiyng
>mfw i bended a fender of a car with my bike
>the car required bodywork fixes
>bike requires nothing at all
>driver got whiplash
>all I had is a sore hip
Based Honda
>>13849482
>any possible benchmark
>burgerking, wallow springs, lel bull ring
>n-nitpicking
At this point we're just kicking a man that is down because we like it
i dont know what my redline is
tfw no tach and manual
>>13849504
what's up with that bridge?
>>13849482
>damage control
sorry m8 but 10 seconds longer to cover 20mph is fucking pathetic
>>13849551
its a single lane access bridge.
(and yes the bike is shopped in)
>>13849551
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alva5k54mvg
>>13849571
>>13848691
I'm pretty sure I read something the other day about how the US needs to improve the regulation of underride bar strength on semi trailers, and how Canadian approved trailers are much less lifely to have cars end up under them.
>>13849504
>needing a redline to tell you when to shift
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWrg3cFod7Q
only 3600 rpm redline
>>13849482
Lol push rods and 16 valves haha what a joke go back to 1960s.
>>13847865
>tfw a 6500 rpm v8 is equivalent to a 13,000 rpm 4 cylinder
>most 4 cylinders don't even go to 8k
>>13849987
15% lower piston speed given the same volume
>>13849987
Well that's quite ironic because the main reason you'd pick a v8 over an inline four with the same displacement is because it can rev higher
>>13848702
Mfw if it was a bikefag hed have no wheels standing
>>13847876
In your RX-8? No ones impressed with your honda civic-tier torque.
>>13847865
>current car redlines at 7200rpm
>makes me giggle everytime
>>13850171
>tfw my honda has all of 22 Nm torque
Not redlining at 13000rpm
Why aren't you on two wheels if you like rpms?
Ladies ladies
Redline is why we have transmissions
>shift
>>13849432
I'd be impressed if he had a diesel that could rev to almost 6k
>>13849735
What's the third pedal for?
>>13850249
my m3 revs to 8k. enuf 4 me.
that's a lot of revolving metal
>>13850007
More strokes/rpm = smoother and more usable power delivery
>>13848828
Nah brah, white girls love the bore, stroke, and low rpm torque too.
>>13848087
>wanting more than 3K
Ricers and benchracers detected
>>13849735
That car clearly has a redline
>>13850222
>Tfw my 4 cylinder honda has 122ft-lbs of torque at 4000 rpm with a flat torque curve
>>13849558
>2 twin turbo 6 speed cars vs 1 supercharged 8 speed car
>go 50 to 70 in top gear
>2 twin turbo cars accelerate faster due to turbos and shorter gear ratios
>supercharged car takes forever due to supercharger not making peak boost at lower rpm and lol quadruple overdrive totally made for max acceleration
>HURR DUUR MERKIA BTFO LOL 6 VS 8 TOTALLY EVEN COMPARISON PUSHRODS TRUCK ENGINE CANT TURN LOLOLOLXDXDXD
>>13849432
Nope. 'Murican pushrod V8
>>13849987
>tfw a 6500 rpm v8 is equivalent to a 13,000 rpm 4 cylinder
>beliving the forces and stress involved in an engien revving are linear
top kek
go back to school you inbreed hick
>>13851223
you kinda reinforced his point, but you're too autistic to know this
or even know his point
well done anon
>tfw can overtake someone at 2k RPM
Hows the not having any torque treating you Honda boys?
>>13851245
>at 3k rpm at highway
>need to pass someone
>drop a gear
>pass
It's that easy nobody is jealous of your can't rev veeate
>>13851245
Pretty good actually
>have Honda
>0-80 mph in first gear
>>13851284
>>13851292
>mfw when his V8 has more power than both of your lawnmower engines combined
>>13851235
>his point is 6500 rpm v8 is equivalent to a 13,000 rpm 4 cylinder
>implying this is correct in the first place
>>13851245
>cant rev
>cant change gears
let me guess, it also cant turn
>>13851306
>tfw i still have the faster vehicle because of his pigfatness
>>and also get over 40 mpg
>>13851307
depends what you're counting
>>13851315
funny AND original
bravo anon
>>13851306
>mfw it's a turd gen
>it doesn't even make 150hp
>>13847865
>an incredible 1/10 bait
>>13851331
>tfw you're stupid enough to believe this
>tfw you're poor enough to care
>>13851341
>100 posts
>countless pushrod kuks mad
>1/10
>>13851344
>mfw your veeate car weighs 3500lbs
>Honda weighs over 1000lbs less
>faster because not pig fat
>>13851341
>pushrod fag mad
>"lol your bait aint even good senpai"
>tfw it is
![dba4c7ee0848f8a65c5eb5d3eebbd2ac.400x400x1[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QrlnsNT.jpg "dba4c7ee0848f8a65c5eb5d3eebbd2ac.400x400x1[2].jpg")
>>13851353
>40% more weight vs 100% more power
>drops zero panties
>>13851353
>1000 lbs less
Try 3000 lbs less
>>13851367
>mfw this guy owns a smogged v8
>140 hp 6 liter
Plebs
>>13851392
>>13851367
>mfw you own a turd gen
>50% more weight and 0% more power than a CRX
![64098548[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dldDD2P.jpg "64098548[1].jpg")
>>13851384
>mfw i own a turbo i6
>300hp 2.5 litre
>same power as your bus
>mfw people sperging the fuck out about pushrods in this thread
Don't you faggots have something better do do?
>mfw my pushrod v8 revs to 7k
>mfw my dorito revs to 9k
>mfw my I4 revs to 14.5k
>>13851400
>power/litre
the important tmeasure in this thread is rpm
>>13851408
>mfw i'm responding to hp/l with hp/l
your important measure is the price of your bus pass
>>13851402
>Don't you faggots have something better do do?
>>13851419
>this butthurt
i am not that poster you inbreed dumbass
>>13851428
you sound mad as fuck bro, to me one bus riding retard is as good as another
>>13851392
>>13851433
>ARGH I HATE SHITPOSTERS YOU RIDE THE BUS!
>calling anyone mad
>>13851400
>not a pushrod V8
>can rev
>not relevant to this thread
>>13851445
hahahahaha you've literally lost the ability to think straight, go have a lie down and let the asspain flow through you
>>13851449
>has a 6500rpm redline
>has low end like a mad cunt
>can laugh at retards with 1.4 vtech
>not relevant
>>13850663
>the test is not done at the highest gear, but with the 1:1 gear
>on all cars
>>13851457
>all this butthurt he cant rev
KEK
>Retards that thing a high redline means absolutly anything
>looking at anything other than horsepower and the shape of the horsepower curve.
If you know the horsepower and the shape of the horsepower curve, things like rpm and torque are meaningless.
From there the only reason you need to know the rp plot on a horsepower graph is to know how to correctly set gearing.
Once you know the horsepower, torque means nothing.
At what rpm an engine makes XYZ amount of horsepower means absolutely nothing unless you're talking about shape of the curve.
>>13851223
>>beliving the forces and stress involved in an engien revving are linear
>believing they're not.
Pray tell what stress is non-linear when you rev an engine.
This ought to be good.
>>13850249
>13k
>my bike revs to ~16k
Do you even rev?
>>13851571
>this nigga comin in here actin all smart like
baka get out senpai
>>13851600
I always get a kick out of non-engineerfags talking about semi-technical shit they complete do not understand.
>tfw 7.5k rev limit
>makes no power past 6k
>>13851584
Pray tell me which ones are
if you belive a piston from a square 1 liter 1 cylinder engine moving at 15 m/s creates just twice the amount of force as a square 500cc 1 cylinder engine moving at 15 m/s you are retarded
>>13851611
>creates just twice the amount of force
That's not what linear means you fucking idiot.
![d74cf9044ffc156dad69163612ffe9e0569c4263_hq[2].gif](https://i.imgur.com/5Vkn5b8.gif "d74cf9044ffc156dad69163612ffe9e0569c4263_hq[2].gif")
>>13851567
>being this upset he only makes 65whp
>>13851617
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearity
>two quantities that are directly proportional to each other
>twice the displacement
>twice the forces
you are fucking retarded
>>13851611
TIL some anons actually think a 1:1 linear relationship is the only type of linear relationship.
fite me
>>13851626
>being this upset I make the same power as him and rev higher
>>13851629
>thinking other type of ratios in linear increases is relevant to the conversation
>thinking the forces and stree when revving an engine high is linear, whatever the ratio
>>13851637
>being this upset I make the same idle hp as him at peak
>>13851649
>being this upset my engine takes the same time to get to redline as his lolcantrev engine to get just over 100 rpm above idle
>>13851648
>>thinking other type of ratios in linear increases is relevant to the conversation
>implying they are not directly relevant.
If you throw a ball at a wall, then throw that same ball twice as fast at that same wall, then throw that same ball three times as fast at that same wall.
You really don't think there is a linear relationship between the forces exerted between the ball and the wall each time it's thrown?
You have a yo-yo you are swinging over your head, you then swing that yo-yo over your head twice as fast, you then swing that yo-yo over your head three times as fast.
You don't think there is a linear relationship between the application of force and the speed the yo-yo swings? You don't think there is a linear relationship between the tension on the string and the speed the yo-yo is swinging?
Have you ever taken physics?
>>13849575
indirect nanner posting
/b/ plz go
![Unknown-1[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cGY5nMI.jpg "Unknown-1[2].jpg")
>>13851659
>being this mad I can shadow him going flat out all day just using 1/2 throttle
>yfw i end up getting better fuel economy and don't look like a pleb while doing it
>>13851670
>beliving the forces a crankshaft has to endure are the same as throwing a ball or swinging a yoyo
learn what Pi is and why everything that involves it isnt linear pls
>>13851683
>>beliving the forces a crankshaft has to endure are the same as throwing a ball or swinging a yoyo
>implying those two situations aren't exact examples of the type of primary forces an engine's rotating assembly experiences during rotation.
6K redline.
Gas engine, I4, multipoint injection.
Hardly goes over 4K in any gear, redline is buttery smooth tho.
>>13851691
what engine
>>13851676
>implying that's true at all in any way
![QIZCyHQ[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6buvMmp.jpg "QIZCyHQ[2].jpg")
>>13851683
>this nigga
>>13851700
VW AEX 1.4
>>13851690
>rotating a circle, in this case a crankshaft is the same as throwing a ball to a wall
no it isnt
centrifugal and centripetal force calculation involve exponents, making it a non linear force
![ZN3T9Y8[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/s17uOov.jpg "ZN3T9Y8[1].jpg")
>>13851706
go have a cry about it kid
>>13848096
>bent a pushrod
This is something I have literally never heard of happening. Rockers will break before pushrods will bend.
I've broken all kinds of shit in my time on this planet. But even when I snapped a timing chain at 6500 RPM and lunched half the valves, the pushrods were all just fine and got reused in the next build. Protip: Don't run without a harmonic balancer, no matter how much weight it saves.
I have snapped rockers on OHC engines from just plain overreving, though.
>>13848848
>>13850663
Cropped out of the image is that the 'vette was the only manual transmission in the test. The automatics downshifted, the 'vette stayed in overdrive. That's how C&D does their passing tests. Manuals stay in high gear, Automatics get left in Drive.
>>13849625
https://youtu.be/C3MPKLy9qHU
>>13851676
>making up bullshit because he is this mad he cant rev
>>13851723
I thought they would at least put the "auto" into manual mode
>>13851731
>implying your claims are remotely true
seems like you're cracking again my man
>>13851746
>craking
just like your rotating assembly after trying to rev above 4000 rpm
>>13851735
For 0-60 / 1/4 mile tests, they do it both ways and take whatever gives them the best time. But for the passing test they just use Drive.
It's stupid, and it means that you can't compare the results between automatics and manuals, but that's how they've been doing their testing since 1955, so why change now.
>>13851755
>tfw perfectly balanced finest quality FORGED STEEL
I think I can handle it.
>>13850589
>@4000
Wow so impressive
>>13849482
0-60 only happens once in a race so it's not that relevant either
>>13851636
>fuel R
Replace fuel?
>>13851786
He's king of Honda Tech with those numbers
>>13847865
>an incredible 6500 rpm redline
Am I literally killing the engine (of said redline) if I rev it to 5-6K few times a 100 km drive? 1.3 liter but 22yo engine, revved when fully warm.
>>13850569
On the speedometer, for...some reason. It's not quite where the actual rev limit on the Boss 302 engine is, but it's close.
>>13851830
No you dumb fuck. It's been said time and time again that a redline on a warm engine is GOOD. It clears the carbon
>redlining before 18k
Dont know how you do it.
Wouldn't mind some power below 10k though
>>13851898
>same displacement
>half the revs
B-but you have no torque, fagget
I should have mentioned it's NOT a rotary, but an inline 4, but:
>>13851886
thanks.
>>13851889
Thank you, too. Sleep tight, cunt. :^)
>>13851830
I rive a 1.4T Cruze as a company car and I literally redline the shit out of that thing and floor it all day every day. 50,000 miles of this in a year and it's still running like a top.
>>13847865
>an incredible 6500 rpm redline
Sure puts my 30 year old scooter to shame with it's paltry 11.5k rpm redline...
>>13852008
>non-usd 35mm forks
Fucking disgusting, how do you even ride that ancient pile of shit?
If your engine can't do at least 8000rpm you're a VERY feminine man
>>13851913
I love my whole 15ft/lb personally
>>13852016
But pretty much the only engines that can do that are in bikes, S2000's, or RX-7's.
All of which are well known favorites of effeminate homosexual men.
>he doesn't drive a 1.0L inline 3
>>13852024
my rb20 has seen 8500 a few times
that's a mans engine
>>13852024
>all of which are hated by overly manly, over compensating secretly gay men
>>13852015
>non-usd 35mm forks
37mm actually
>how do you even ride that ancient pile of shit
I crank that throttle open and make that V4 roar to red line, duh. Definitely an old bike in terms of suspension, but she still can show some newer bikes a thing or two about speed.
>>13852038
>muh engine makes this arbitrary number bigger than your engine!
>not some faggot compensating
nice try.
>>13852026
dat sum speed triple hmmm
>>13848518
I killed my engine that way, spark plug got blown up, I revved it 4,5k over redline tho
>>13852045
Stop jamming it in 2nd when you were aiming for 4th.
>>13852061
Did you quote the wrong person?
>>13852044
>muh engine makes this arbitrary number bigger than your engine!
you mean like torque?
>>13848518
>>13852057
What car and engine?
My Mustang revs to 6k RPM and that's high for me coming from Jeeps that have a 5.5k red line.
>>13850171
you realize that the only important measurement of a car's acceleration is a function of torque and RPM, right?
Also, a car that revs to 9k has that much more ability to take advantage of gearing, so the torque issue is essentially moot unless you're towing thousands of pounds.
>>13852081
>yfw torque alone or rpm alone are meaningless numbers for the performance of the engine.
All you need to know is horsepower. It does not matter what rpm that horsepower is made.
>>13852081
>what is gearing
>>13852083
beetle, 1500cc single port, revved to at least 7k
>>13852083
BMW e36 2.0 (m50), had to swap the engine because a cylinder was rekt beyond repair
>>13852098
>what is rpm and torque are equally pointless with gearing
>what is they really aren't
>>13852090
>Also, a car that revs to 9k has that much more ability to take advantage of gearing
No, An engine that revs to 9000rpm is no more capable of "taking advantage of gearing" than an engine that revs to 1900rpm.
That's not how gearing works.
>so the torque issue is essentially moot
High torque is just as meaningless as high RPM numbers.
>>13848292
i know this feel
>>13852125
> That's not how gearing works.
are you purposefully being stupid for the sake of being absolutely correct?
Yes, that's true, but for practical purposes, I can reasonably use more gears if I have a greater rev range.
>>13852116
High torque doesn't mean shit in a vacuum.
Reving to high RPM also doesn't mean shit in a vacuum.
Having high horsepower DOES mean something. It doesn't matter what rpm that horsepower is made at.
The idiots that say:
>Hurr TORQUE MATTERS!
and the other idiots that say:
>Durr High RPM IS BEST
Are both equally stupid. Neither means anything without the other and when you factor them both together you are talking about horsepower.
>want to rev higher
>completely pointless since power drops off at 6.5k anyway
>>13852144
Obviously both are cruical, but in an absolute sense more than enough RPM is better than more than enough torque, because assuming a real engine, and everything else being then same, the high RPM engine can trade RPM for torque to the wheels if it needs to, but you can't trade excess torque for anything (other than wheelspin kek)
>>13852139
>for practical purposes, I can reasonably use more gears if I have a greater rev range.
Again, this is wrong. Gearing doesn't work the way you think it does.
Did you know that semi-trucks have 12-18 speed transmissions? and their diesel engines rev to less than 3000rpm usually?
More gear ratios can be used regardless of the maximum rpm of the engine and a larger range of rpm does not equate to more possible or necessary gears.
You simply do not understand how gearing works. Number of gears and gear spacing has more to do with the size/width of the powerband than anything else.
>>13852169
> You simply do not understand how gearing works. > Number of gears and gear spacing has more to do with the size/width of the powerband than anything else.
Of course that's true, and I understand gearing, but it seems to me that you cannot use as many gears as easily in a smaller rev range.
Then again, if your engine has a lot of mass, it takes a lot longer to go up or down 200rpm than in a smaller car, so the closeness of each gear doesn't matter as much.
>>13852168
>Obviously both are cruical, but in an absolute sense more than enough RPM is better than more than enough torque
No. This is wrong.
>assuming a real engine, and everything else being then same, the high RPM engine can trade RPM for torque to the wheels if it needs to
This is also wrong. You don't understand how gearing works.
For a given amount of hrosepower at high rpm an engine can be geared down to produce XYZ amount of torque to the wheels for a given wheel speed.
The same can be said for an equal amount of horsepower as above produced at a lower engine speed that can be geared up to produce XYZ torque at the wheel for a given wheel speed.
You seem to think gearing only works one way which is incorrect.
>>13852095
>It does not matter what rpm that horsepower is made.
uhh yes it does.
>>13852144
youre fucking retarded
>It doesn't matter what rpm that horsepower is made at
really dude? really? you telling me that area under the curve doesnt matter? fuck off kid you dont know shit
Who 3:1 hp:ft lb here
>>13852206
You're correct, I made a mistake in my thinking.
>This is also wrong. You don't understand how gearing works.
You should stop saying this though, gearing is about the simplest thing in a car, and you make it sound like you're 10 years old and just discovered something you thought was amazing.
>>13852215
>you telling me that area under the curve doesnt matter?
Bench racers have arrived
>>13852199
>it seems to me that you cannot use as many gears as easily in a smaller rev range.
You are basing your understanding of rev ranges and engine speed from your first hand experience with driving cars in a relatively uniform rev range (typically 800rpm to 6500rpm or so) on a tachometer.
Forget all of this.
Imagine every vehicle, from a 3000rpm redline big rig to a 9000rpm S2000, to a 16,000rpm motorcycle having their rev range scaled to a single uniform engine speed indicator labeled 1 (idle) to 10 (redline). Each engine's redline (be it 3000rpm, or 16,000rpm) is indicated by the 10 place on our readout. Every engine is scaled to the same Y plot regardless of RPM.
Now overlay every engine's horsepower curve and compare them. This is how engine output really is compared. More RPM does not matter, More torque is not even factored. All that matters is the horsepower over the span of the rev range. This is true because gearing equalizes engines relative to wheel (output) speed.
>>13852168
god damn you are retarded
>>13852239
>peak horsepower is literally all that matters, not how broad the curve is
youre the bench racer, kid
now you got any reason at all why area under the curve doesnt matter?
>>13852232
>simplest thing in a car
>yet you fucked it up
tbf he has a point
>>13852215
>uhh yes it does.
No it doesn't.
Horsepower is horsepower, be it at 1000rpm or 10,000rpm. In either case either of these engines is capable of accomplishing the same amount of work over time.
>youre fucking retarded
No, you're just shit at physics.
>really dude? really?
Yes, really. Horsepower is horsepower regardless or the RPM it's made at.
>you telling me that area under the curve doesnt matter?
What the fuck are you talking about? You don't even know what you're talking about.
"Area under the curve" is in reference to power spread and indicating a "powerband". A high rpm moor and a low rpm motor can bot have lots of "area under the curve" and is highly dependent on the setup of each engine being talked about. But in no case does the rpm at which a given amount of horsepower is made dictate "area under the curve".
>>13852259
You're stupid. You need to read and understand this:
>>13852242
Before you type any more bullshti again.
>>13852276
>No it doesn't.
okay, we have two engines
both rev to lets say 5k, both make a peak of 300hp. look at pic related and tell me what rpm horsepower is made at doesnt matter
>But in no case does the rpm at which a given amount of horsepower is made dictate "area under the curve"
not really but it helps very much, more power being made at an earlier rpm is gudder. so i guess it does matter at what rpm power is being made.
>>13852242
this.
You do not compare powerbands on an rpm per rpm basis between different motors with different rev ranges. Gearing equalizes rev ranges. That's why horsepower matters and not torque. Torque changes with gearing, horsepower stays the same.
>>13852300
>All that matters is the horsepower over the span of the rev range
Yes just like I say. So why did you disagree like a fag girl?
>>13852319
the engine on the left is probably way smaller, thus having better power/weight
you guys have got quite good at high school physics
well done :3
>>13852337
>left
hurr durr right
>>13852160
Something about my >>13851691. You want to rev? Rev to 3-3.5K. Above there's a shithole of no torque up to about 4K where it backs to accelerating (slowly) until redline.
sum ting wong
>>13852319
>both rev to lets say 5k, both make a peak of 300hp.
At peak power both engines are capable of accomplishing the same work for a given amount of time. both engines would have roughly the same accelerative capabilities with appropriate gearing. The engine on the left would just be easier to drive and have a 'seat of the pants' feeling of being faster and would be faster out of it's powerband taller gears.
But this is besides my point. The rpm that horsepower is made at at each point on a y plot is inconcequential. The horsepower is what matters.
In your example the engine on the left makes more horsepower over a wider net range. It doesn't matter if the engine on the left redlines at 3000rpm and the engine on the right redlines at 10,000rpm. The RPM doesn't matter.
Reread:
>>13852242
>Imagine every vehicle, from a 3000rpm redline big rig to a 9000rpm S2000, to a 16,000rpm motorcycle having their rev range scaled to a single uniform engine speed indicator labeled 1 (idle) to 10 (redline). Each engine's redline (be it 3000rpm, or 16,000rpm) is indicated by the 10 place on our readout. Every engine is scaled to the same Y plot regardless of RPM.
>Now overlay every engine's horsepower curve and compare them. This is how engine output really is compared. More RPM does not matter, More torque is not even factored. All that matters is the horsepower over the span of the rev range. This is true because gearing equalizes engines relative to wheel (output) speed.
>>13852327
I've been saying this the whole thread. You're the idiot who jumped ionto the thread and disagreed with me.
RPm or torque doesn't matter.
All that matters is horsepower over the span of the engine's rev range. Regardless of rpm or torque.
You disagreed with this and you are wrong.
>>13851514
>implying all cars have a 1:1 gear
>>13852392
Dyno a first gen miata in first gear and it makes like 2200lb-ft at the wheels
>>13852353
what do you mean 'appropriate gearing'? engine a would be significantly faster because its making more power for a longer amount of time.
>At peak power both engines are capable of accomplishing the same work for a given amount of time
yes but cars dont take off from the line at peak power and stay there while a cvt changes gears a hundred times, retard
>>13851392
GM DIESEL
>tfw 8k redline
>>13852430
>what do you mean 'appropriate gearing'?
Gearing appropriate for the size and amount of power the engine makes versus the mass and operating speed of the vehicle.
>engine a would be significantly faster because its making more power for a longer amount of time.
This is not true. This would only be true if engines relied on a single gear ratio for acceleration, but they don't.
Engine's accelerate in the lowest gear that will allow a given speed for the given amount of power. Meaning for engine A, it doesn't make sense to accelerate in 3rd gear from 2000rpm, just because it makes more power than engine B down there. It would accelerate in a lower g ear, say 1st or 2nd which would put the engine closer to it's power peak. That would equate to more acceleration that lugging it in the fat, yet weaker portion of the power band. You would do the same thing with Engine B, and with equivelent power rowing through the gears Engine B would net the same approximate acceleration.
The only time engine A would be "faster" is when accelerating in an inappropriate gear (sub-maximal acceleration) or when starting off in first. Which is why I said Engine A might FEEL faster (and would be easier to drive at 7/10th's pace), but in reality, under maximal acceleration conditions, Engine A would have small advantage in first gear, but after that both engines would have the same amount of acceleration force through the gears because of the equivalent power.
>yes but cars dont take off from the line at peak power
Taking off from the line is a very small and ultimately inconsequential regime of operation. Most acceleration occurs in gear in motion.
If all you care about is how your car gets off the line in first, yes a fatter power spread will net better results.
But this is independent of, and does not contradict, my earlier point that rpm itself and torque itself does not matter.
stop arguing you faggots, higher revving IS an advantage. Period.
>4 cylinder
>6000 rpm redline
>6200 rpm fuel cut
>peak power at 4300
>peak torque at 3500
>not much past 5000
I want revs ;_;
>>13852934
>stop arguing you faggots, higher revving IS an advantage. Period.
No it fucking isn't.
Explain exactly how, all things being equal, a higher redline is better.
>tfw when I don't know what my redline is because my car doesn't have a tach
>>13852964
(RPM * T) / 5252=HP
>>13852975
>implying the calculation for horsepower tells us how making the same power at a higher rpm is in any way better.
Try again retard.
>>13852987
clearly you are fucking stupid, so stupid you dont even understand shat you type
>same power
thats wrong, with everything else being equal you will make more power at higher RPM until the point where your engine cannot physically rev any higher or cannot make any more power
>>13853001
>clearly you are fucking stupid, so stupid you dont even understand shat you type
No, you can't fucking read.
>thats wrong, with everything else being equal
Everything else being equal, INCLUDING power you fucking retard.
> you will make more power at higher RPM
That's wrong. Simply spinning an engine faster does not produce power. You must produce the requisite torque at that rpm to produce power at that RPM. meaning your engine must be mechanically capable of holding together and able to flow enough air/have high enough VE% for that rpm.
We are talking about the RPM at which power is made. Higher RPM power is no better than lower rpm power and indeed, the RPM does not even matter (nor the torque). The horsepower produced does.
You are sayin:
>HURR DURR MORE POWER IS BETTER
Which is blatantly fucking obvious and no one is arguing.
You are then equating higher rpm alone to more power which is fucking wrong.
Just as wrong as trying to equate more torque alone to more power.
Stop being militantly wrong you fucking retard.
From what I see there is 3 ways to make power
>rev up high
>displacement
>forced induction
Which is your favourite?
>inb4 all
Just play along
>>13853026
>No, you can't fucking read.
yes i can
>Everything else being equal, INCLUDING power you fucking retard.
no you dumb ass nigger
the power is not equal, because the power changes when you rev higher
the power cannot remain equal, the power is the result of everything but the redline bing higher being equal
meaning they make equal torque, meaning the one who spins faster makes more power
>That's wrong. Simply spinning an engine faster does not produce power. You must produce the requisite torque at that rpm to produce power at that RPM. meaning your engine must be mechanically capable of holding together and able to flow enough air/have high enough VE% for that rpm.
what I said
>We are talking about the RPM at which power is made.
thats irrelevant since you said " everything else being equal"
if you have two engines, with the only difference being the redline, the one with a higher redline will make more power until the point where it cannot physically make more power
>>HURR DURR MORE POWER IS BETTER
it is, it is an advantage
Stop being mad you are autistic and wrong
>>13853042
turbo and displacement because im poor
high revs if I were rich
>>13853042
revs>turbo>displacement imo
revs or turbo preference depends on the car tbqh
couldnt care less about muh big engine shit
>>13853045
>>13853045
>the power is not equal, because the power changes when you rev higher
No it doesn't. Not automatically. an engine does not simply make more power because it spins faster, like I said it must produce the requisit torque at that rpm to produce more power. Most engines cannot do that.
>the power cannot remain equal
Yes it can. Most engines taper off their peak power until readline. Pretty much no production engines make peak power at redline. Raising the redline will not produce more power.
>the power is the result of everything but the redline bing higher being equal
Not only is that wrong, but it makes absolutly no fucking sense.
>meaning they make equal torque
Are you talking peak torque or instantaneous torque at redline? Most engines are far past tapering of peak torque by their power peak. And they continue to taper off to redline, Spinning the engine faster does not magically produce more power when torque is already tapering.
>meaning the one who spins faster makes more power
That's fucking wrong. Engines do not produce more power by spinning faster unless they have the requisite flow requirements met for the higher rpm.
>thats irrelevant since you said " everything else being equal"
You said spinning an engine faster nets more power. This is wrong and stupid.
>thats irrelevant since you said " everything else being equal"
I did, including power. This discussion has always been about the rpm at which power is made.
>if you have two engines, with the only difference being the redline, the one with a higher redline will make more power until the point where it cannot physically make more power
That's fucking wrong on so many counts as to be absolute idiocy.
>it is, it is an advantage
More power being better is so obvious it is assumed to not even be a point of debate. You claiming such in a debate just shows you do not understand the conversation.
>>13853045
The conversation is not about whether more power is better than else power you fucking idiot. It is about whether having a higher rpm engine is better than having a lower rpm engine.
You claimed:
>>13852934
>higher revving IS an advantage.
Which is false. Higher revving or lower revving is meaningless. What matters is how much power is produced regardless of the RPM it is produced at.
>>13853080
>Not automatically.
irrelevant, in the case of everything being equal, an engine like, for example a Ford 5.0 v8 will make more power at 6k rpm than at 3k rpm
>Raising the redline will not produce more power.
no one is talking about rasing the redline
sorry, grasping at the "p-power is equal" is wrong and proves how desperate you are
power isnt equal, power is the result of revving higher with the same amount of torque
not going to reply to your autistic wall of text that discusses points no one is discussing
stay mad
>>13853094
you are retarded
an engine that has the redline at its physical limits will make more power than an engine which redline is below that point
more power = better unless you are a kuk, which you are
now prove how dumb you are by arguing shit noe is arguing like this autist >>13853080
>>13853042
Depends on car.
I own a bike which revs up to 18,500, the sound is amazing. Turbos are much the same, peaky as fuck one are stupid fun. Both are inconvenient for daily stuff though. That's where I'd get a pigfat V8, cruising @80 just above idle is sex
![HondaCBR2501[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5xtCgmZ.jpg "HondaCBR2501[1].jpg")
>>13851898
only 18?
The best high revving motors
BMW's 4.0 L S65 V8
Ford's 5.2L Voodoo V8
everyone else can go fuck themselves with their doritos and no torks
>>13853145
>8k
>high revving
>>13853138
96' model, tach goes to 20 but bike stops at 18.5
>TFW tach stops out at 2500
...
>TFW 1,300 ft lbs torque
when i built my engine i set the spark cut at 6000rpm and it pumped out 344rwkw at 5850rpm. i set the cut at 8500rpm after i felt it had been properly run in, peaked 386rwkw at 8200rpm.
>revving higher doesnt make more power
top kek cukcold
>>13853105
>in the case of everything being equal, an engine like, for example a Ford 5.0 v8 will make more power at 6k rpm than at 3k rpm
That's not what we're even talking about you fucking illiterate retard.
>sorry, grasping at the "p-power is equal" is wrong and proves how desperate you are
No, you're saying "more power is better"
No one is even arguing otherwise. Obviously more power is better than less power.
What we're talking about is whether higher rpm is better than lower RPM. The fat is, it is not.
>power isnt equal
Power is equal because I said it was equal in my example. You do not get to set the terms of my example after I have already set them.
>power is the result of revving higher with the same amount of torque
As I explained. simply revving higher does not necessitating making more power. That's not how engines work.
>not going to reply to your autistic wall of text that discusses points no one is discussing
I was discussing these very points several hours ago. You jumped in and said some stupid shit "HURR MORE RPM IS BETTER" and I corrected your dumb ass.
>>13853119
>an engine that has the redline at its physical limits will make more power than an engine which redline is below that point
That is wrong. An engine will only make power if it can support the flow and VE% to make the requisite rote for that RPM. This is true regardless of it's physical limits.
>more power = better
No one is arguing that more power is better than less power you fucking idiot. The argument is whether more RPM, or specifically making power at a higher rpm is better than making power at lower RPM. The answer is, it's not.
>>13852257
sounds like a good argument to me
