why are high revving engines so loved by the community a lot

They're more fun

>>17720144
i like the angrier sound of high revving engine
specially the ones with retarded extreme cam profiles

Because the area under the torque curve is what matters, not peak hp. Also, the higher you rev the lower you can gear.

File: big turbo m5.jpg (244KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1280x720px

idk man. gears are torque multipliers. higher revving engines can stay in lower gears longer, thus putting out more power. they can also take bigger turbos, since who cares what happens before 5k when you redline at 9k. but for a daily-driven street car, yeah, ill take a 7k redline with a medium-sized turbo any day.

>>17720178
What's so fun about going slow in a car that sounds like a beehive and while revving at 5000 RPM?

>>17720193
Drive something other than you mom's Caravan and you'll understand

>>17720144
Imagine we're comparing two cars with the exact same gear ratios, but different redlines. The car with the higher redline can hold onto to gears for more time, and doesn't have to shift as often. This is a godsend when racing on more technical courses since you can exit corners in a lower gear and have better acceleration.

File: Chrysler_027.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

I think it has something to do with smooth power delivery with few cylinders as well, but at the end of the day if you want high revving, get a chrysler turbine car like jay lenos, idle at 19,000 RPM and rev to 44,500 RPM

>>17720259
my god

>>17720144
because my 1L i4 sounds awesome at 13.5k rpm, it makes about 165whp around the same as a camry, but that is a 2.4 that only revs to ~7k and is boring

>>17720190
i dont quite follow your logic

>>17720259
Literally no throttle response

>>17720290
but you literally get a jet engined car

>>17720290
why does it have a throttle then

File: gallery-1478278046-gettyimages-615653942.jpg (8KB, 122x164px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 122x164px

>>17720296

>tfw you spool up your prime mover

>>17720144
It really depends on the car and how it develops the power, both can be fun.

>>17720285
Did you take calculus in school? Area under the curve, integrals? A derivative is the rate of change of something. An integral is the something.

Mostly autism but it is fun. Nothing wrong with a turbo car that redlines at 7k or a pushrod with 500+ hp that redlines at 6k. Personal preference really.

>>17720191
>Why would the higher revving of two cars - both with the same power - be considered more desirable?
>The one with higher revs puts out more power
Nice reading comprehension, numbnuts.

File: FB_IMG_1485054844406.jpg (149KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1000x750px

of course at the end of the day I prefer to burn rubber at 1,150 RPM in third gear with my truck

>>17720343
dude. if a car can rev higher, it can stay in lower gears longer, therefore making more power. even if both cars have 300hp.

here, watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZBqb0ZJSwU

>>17720191
>they can also take bigger turbos, since who cares what happens before 5k when you redline at 9k
Dumb fuck. Never post again

File: big turbo.jpg (186KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 960x720px

>>17720420
explain to me why you feel that way.

>>17720343
i understand integrals and derivatives, when you said area under the curve i was thinking like [A=LxW]
looked up area under the curve now i understand
but you are arguing for the benefit of a lower reeving engine in that circumstance, am i wrong?

>>17720259
>20,000 rpm idle
ROTARY BTFO, HOW WILL MAZDA EVER RECOVER

>>17720397
>Linking to a faggot that doesn't race cars himself

In the age of auto being better and having 7,8, even 10 fucking gears no revs isn't an issue anymore. Ford and Camaro have 10 speed autos available now.

>>17720420
actually larger displacement is what allows larger turbos not revs

>>17720144
I don't see how revving to 9000rpm just to get passed by a pickup truck at 2k rpm is fun. I can see if you're making 600hp at 9000rpm but needing 9000 rippems to make less than 200hp is ricer tier engineering.

>>17720661
No? You can increase power with displacement, engine speed, or bmep (turbos). Increasing either engine speed or displacement will increase air flow rate, which means you will need bigger turbos if you want higher bmep.

>>17720655
i mean, using personal insults to try to negate the argument of someone who is simply explaining basic math doesnt make his math wrong.

and more gears, so what? that keeps you in your powerband better but youre still putting your power through a higher gear ratio than you would be with a higher revving motor. all things being equal, put both engines behind the same transmission and rest of the drivetrain, and the higher-revving motor will be faster every time.

>>17720661
dude..

I like high revving engine because they sound like F1 when I was a kid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOZnUHC8w2s

File: image.jpg (225KB, 1064x588px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1064x588px

>>17720696
Blah blah blah muh math muh science yet the fasted factory quarter mile car and fasted factory car around the ring don't rev over 6,300 rpm

>tfw no 10 speed manual K20 Civic

>>17720764
its a good thing you limited the discussion to only factory-produced cars, that way we cant talk about actual race cars which rev to 10-20k+

>>17720764
Hellcat is slower at the strip than bikes that cost 1/6th the process and reviews over twice as high
Viper is slower at the ring than many many cars... that all rev higher

The state for Americans Lmao

File: IMG_0533.jpg (16KB, 250x134px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 250x134px

>>17720840
You just mad we styling on you

>>17720792
>just buy a racecar xd

>>17720866
oh so we're not actually talking about which is better, what we're actually talking about is which you personally are realistically going to own, and basing our conclusions and fitting our arguments to make you feel better about your personal choices. makes sense now.

ya engines that rev hi r totally lame XD XD XD

>>17720792
So? Those are engines only meant to use the top half of the rev range and geared for it. They're dog shit using it for anything else.

File: P1050435.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>17720144
sometimes being slow can be fun

>>17720970
are you purposefully misunderstanding the literal mathematical fact that you put more torque to the ground when using a lower gear ratio? i refuse to believe this simple concept is so hard to grasp.

>>17720844
>"you are just mad we are slower"

lol

>>17721003
You reaaaly need to learn how torque, gear ratios and vehicle weight work. Wasn't bill fucking nye supposed to teach you this shit in the 3rd grade? For starters go ride a fucking bike.

>>17720144
For enthusiasts it's all about the wind-up, feeling and watching that needle climb higher and higher, turning a baritone burble into a screaming soprano

File: 1367608642425.jpg (20KB, 512x460px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 512x460px

>>17721016
oh man, you sure showed me. youre absolutely right, gears are totally not torque multipliers. how could i have been so foolish.

>>17721026

You can lift a battleship with a watch motor... Doesn't mean it's practical in the real world...
Real lift isn't Forza kid.

File: pick one.png (22KB, 800x358px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 800x358px

>>17720397
That video is utterly irrelevant. The question OP asks is whether you prefer a car with engine A or engine B. When people quote the power of their car there's no standard engine speed for that - it's implied that it's at whatever speed generates peak power for that engine - so if you say
>my car makes 300 kW but it's better than a low-revving engine because I can rev higher and make more power xD
you're being retarded for not quoting a meaningful power figure to begin with.

>>17721049
yeah, call me a kid. that'll make gears magically become not torque multipliers.

>>17721053
at least youre presenting a possibly meaningful argument. if a car pushing 300hp at 6k rpms is being compared to a car pushing 300hp at 9k rpms, its very possible that the power curve is moved high enough up in the 9k rpm car to cancel out the effective power difference due to losing too much time off the line.

from a roll though ill take the 9k car every time given identical area under the curve.

>>17720144
Because no one really cares about torque. It's all about power, only power. And deep down inside you know where it is. It's up there, above 10k. And with all your soul you yearn for a piston light enough and stroke short enough to get there.

>>17720885
my engine revs to around 8k and makes 500 hp whats bad about that?

>>17721139
if you dont understand why your high-revving crapbox motor sucks then obviously you need to go back to kindergarten and watch bill nye teach you how to ride a 10-speed bicycle, kid.

>>17721154
ok fair enough

>>17721024
i appreciate all the input but for me i think this is the nail on the head, im pretty sure my car is slower off the line with the shorter runners, but man the feel of having my car wined out to 7700 instead of 6700 is really nice

High revving engines are shit on the street. You're never going to spend much time in the powerband, even if you are an obnoxious boyracer. Wide power band with lots of low end torque is the most fun on the street, period. On the track who cares, do whatever is best to fit the ruleset and win.

>>17720144
Less torque lost than with gear changes.

File: 63208347_p1_master1200.jpg (157KB, 700x682px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 700x682px

People love Hondas for a reason.

>>17721053
The area of the curve correlates directly with the usage of the available power.

300hp during 3 seconds =/= 300hp during 2 seconds

Then when you downshift at 9k, you will be at 6k (peak hp/torque again)

Because it's just fun.

Sure, having a bunch of grunt at low RPM is fun, too, but it's not the same. At high RPM's there's a sense of drama, like everything is stretched, maxed, out, focused. It's an emotional thing, like you can actually feel your heart beating faster and your blood pumping harder.

>>17721219
yeah because they're teenagers and hondas are cheap so they think it's a hotrod

>>17720144
You must be so young that you missed the glory days of F1's v10's exceding 20k rpm...
https://www.you tube.com/watch?v=ZOJkl4Agf4c

>>17721285
S2000s ain't cheap.

File: 1502764319298.jpg (581KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 2560x1440px

>>17720988
Does this really do anything?

>>17721986
probably a crankcase breather. cars need some form of pcv, thats a very low tech version. without it youll blow out all your seals due to blow-by.

>>17721986
it's just a vent, some are meant to have a low pressure hose attached to the intake to help reduce crankcase pressures though and replacing it with the filter can cause weird problems on some engines but it isn't a huge deal. the filter is just to stop oil from spraying out and dirt from getting in

>>17720435
Because, mr retard: Turbos dont work directly by RPM but by exhaust gases.

If you have a 6k redline 7.0 V8 you can put a giantic turbo and it will have no spool time, while you would need to spin it at 8k RPM or more with a 2.0 or 2.4 inline 4.

Its not about RPM or displacement, is the amount of gasses spent, or more accurate, the size of the engine relative to the size of the turbo.

>>17721053
If the engine makes 300hp at the very high end with a high revving engine and another engine does 300 hp with low end RPM with a low redline then the engines are VERY different to begin with.

>>17722112

>what is exhaust overlap the post

The reliability, and light weight, coupled with the good sound that comes with efficient airflow, which is a requirement for revving high.

>>17721180
This, I'll take low end punch from a quick spooling turbo any day.. but that's me, I currently drive a 5cyl golf that doesn't like to Rev but it needs to to make power. I wish I had a 2.0T or even a TDI to get that 1.8k peak torque

>>17720259

I need this in my life

>>17720345
>tfw idk what my revs are in my f100
No tach life I guess, but it's fun seeing other people trying to drive her by ear

>>17720144
Because they mean you get more power from the same displacement.
There's no replacement for displacement, but there's also no substitutions for revolutions per minute.

>>17720144
usually high revs = wider powerband. like, this part of powerband where engine produces lots of torx is wider. wider powerband is better.

i'm not an expert and i might be wrong about that. I only know that people move their rev limiters higher and then install performance camshafts that move torx up on the rev range. you get more horsepower this way, and this torque hill becomes wider.

>>17720661
Wrong. More airflow is what allows larger turbos, and larger displacement is only one way to achieve more airflow.

>>17720290
get good at ford planning
>noob

>>17721285
lmao no car spotted

File: s2000.jpg (56KB, 679x490px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 679x490px

So much misinformation in this thread.
A high revving, smaller displacement engine with good headflow and agressive cams (think Honda s2000, BMW E46 M3, etc) tends to deliver power and torque towards the peak of the rpm range.
This means, as the rpm goes up, the power goes up as well.
This also means, not a whole lot of power is available at low rpms, and there is NOT a lot of area under the curve.

File: Dyno.jpg (107KB, 1024x745px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1024x745px

>>17723301
Now in comparison, here's a dyno map of a Camaro SS of the same era.
Notice how early peak torque comes on.
The engine is tuned to deliver power over a wide range of rpms, however the trade-off is poor head flow and less than spectacular performance at high rpms.
Notice how much area is under the curve and how much power is available even at lower rpms.

>>17720190
>Also, the higher you rev the lower you can gear.
What the fuck are you saying nigger?