automotive newbie here, why is a high revving engine good/better ?

>>16547915
For the car its bad, if you want to preserve the car's engine don't rev high

If you want to accellerate fast and have fun, rev high

>>16547915
The higher you can rev the more or an engine can make if airflow allows it

>>16547915
It isn't always a better thing. Low-revving engines can also perform very well. For instance, the Dodge Viper has a very low redline at around 6000 RPM, but it has a very flat torque curve and consistent performance across its entire revband.

Whereas, say, a Ferrari 458 has a low-displacement V8 that revs to like, 9600 RPM, and it can make more power out of less displacement by simply spinning faster.

The mathematical answer is that higher RPM will increase the horsepower coefficient, but you can achieve the same effect using high stroke and low revs by just generating a lot of torque.

>wing pointing upwards
Quality American engineering. Doing nothing only for looks ever. Everything is well thought out.

It's a little more exciting, I don't know if it's better. Technically you want the most power with the littlest amount of stress and wear.
Ann engines make power by flowing air. Some engines used forces induction to cram more air through the head. Some engines use a bigger pump, some engines use a smaller pump that runs faster. The slow pump will probably last longer.

They aint

t. diesel driver

>>16547940
Says the dumb cunt who doesn't understand the difference between a wing and a spoiler and what a kammback is or does.

>>16547915
Power = Torque x RPM
200nm @ 4000rpm = gutless
200nm @ 14000rpm = glorious

>>16547939
LS master race here peak torque on a stock cam is like what 4000rpm or less? Peak power at 5600 and a 6200 redline.

Low-midrange powerband master race.

I feel like strapping a turbo on it for high end power but a cam will do

>>16547975
But it's a wing, and kammbacks have nothing to do with downforce.

>>16547983
It's a spoiler nigger, it's there to reduce drag not increase downforce

It has a live axle and a 429 cubic inch iron block in the front, you really think they gave a shit if it could turn a corner at 60mph let alone 160?

>>16548047
>A spoiler is an automotive aerodynamic device whose intended design function is to 'spoil' unfavorable air movement across a body of a vehicle in motion, by creating turbulence which leads to increased drag.
Spoilers increase drag. Wings are simply spoilers that are disconnected from the body.

>>16548047
It's both. Any spoiler or wing can be called a spoiler by the definition of a spoiler. But since it actually has a gap allowing air to go under it's a wing. Or spoiler, if you really want to call it that.

>>16548067
Continue reading the rest of the page, nigger
>The term "spoiler" is often mistakenly used interchangeably with "wing". An automotive wing is a device whose intended design is to generate downforce as air passes around it, not simply disrupt existing airflow patterns.[1][2] As such, rather than decreasing drag, automotive wings actually increase drag.

A Spoiler, spoiler, spoils the fucking airflow on the car so it can be used in other ways.
Now if you're not blind and know what a kammback is, you'll see that a spoiler like the one used on the 71 mach 1 is designed to enhance that effect, reducing drag. It doesn't do shit for downforce.


Stop posting about things you clearly have nothing about, before your mind starts getting blown over vortices and how a laminar flow is not always ideal

You the type of nigger to say golf balls should be smooth so they'll go further

>>16548087
>it's intended that way!
>they designed a brick and then tried to make it aerodynamic!

>>16548118
Your retarded ass does realize they couldn't angled it to produce downforce, right?
As in it would've taken no effort at all and would've stopped morons who think they know how air works from thinking the wing was mounted wrong the factory.

But guess what? They didn't.
And unless your dumb ass has made a 220mph car to win le mans 4 times in a row, you clearly don't know better than ford in the late 60s.

>>16548118
Stop posting

>>16547940
Anon that's a Peugeot. Also I'm pretty sure the trio put the spoiler on backwards as a joke.

>>16547915
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Work_Is

>>16549819
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/work-torque-d_1377.html

>>16547975

Awww shucks, I thought my 650lb/ft @4k was pretty solid. Guess I'm a pleb.

>>16547939
Quality post. Truth is, there's more to going fast than revs. Revs ultimately lead up to personal preference. Some people like to wring out a 9,000rpm flat plane engine, some like the linear, strong everywhere pushrod engine with 6500rpm and some like explosive turbos down in the lower rpm range

>>16549889
this it ultimately just an engine characteristic of where the power is made on the power band. You could argue have more rpms at your disposal gives you more control over how exactly to apply that power

>>16549915
Care to elaborate? As in the car is more predictable?

>>16547915
A high reving engine has more power than a low reving engine of the same sieze.

Example: F20C 240hp @8300rpm
morgan 3 wheeler engine 83 hp @ low rpm, I don´t know it exactly

>>16548186
That's not a peugeot you fuckwit it's a mustang with peugeot badges on it

File: 6500rpm.jpg (17KB, 240x153px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 240x153px

>>16547979
>tfw when 6500redline
>tfw peak torque @ 3600rpm
>tfw max power @ 6000rpm
get rekt

>>16547915
Because it's fun.

>>16550011
>tfw 6200redline
>tfw peak torque @ 4000rpm
>tfw peak power @ 6000rpm

You get rekt

>>16547915

"High revving" pretty much translates to "no torque"

Having a 9000rpm redline is extremely pointless in a 2800lb car, in a 1800lb car, maybe but not something pigfat. Your car isn't a race car, you don't need all that rev modulation on the top end. Torque is more important for everyday cruising in a normal car.

>>16550256
>tfw 4400redline
>tfw peak torque @ 3000rpm
>tfw peak power 4400rpm

Gas engine too, redline is legit caused by valve float, no electronic limiter of any kind.

File: 1481511173438.png (1MB, 700x1422px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 700x1422px

>>16550011
>>16550256
>tfw 6k redline
>tfw peak torque @2000rpm
>tfw peak hp @ 5000 rpm
you both can get rekt

>>16547979
Rotary here peak torque at 3200rpm Lmao get on my level v8 shitter

File: wedontneedlowend.jpg (68KB, 458x430px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 458x430px

>>16550274
this /thread

>>16550302
And people actually think those 300ci Ferds are "good"

"high revving" just means that it's better balanced i.e. capable of achieving higher rpms without damage. The larger the displacement the harder it is to balance. Theoretically the engine that has the highest redline with the largest displacement is best but then there are many many more factors that affect performance.