Are people who always talk about torque simply afraid of revving their cars?
most cars that need to rev to make power don't make half the power that cars with torque do when they rev.
>>29051552Revving won't take you up that hill
no
>>29051552I'm going to end this discussion now.Lets say all else equal, I have two 500hp engines. I have a 12000rpm v8 that makes 200ft.lbs, I have a 6000rpm v8 that makes 400ft.lbs.Pros of a high revving engine:-low torque means smaller, lighter weight components. easier for packaging.-generally more efficient from a power/weight perspective. -Lighter engine components means that the engine response is significantly better-any lack of torque can be made up for by shorter gearing-The powerband generally would have a much more usable range of power. for example, in low speed corners-Entire drivetrain package pre-transmission can be lighter because it only has to deal with 200ft.lbs instead of 400ft.lbs. -Lighter drivetrain means more responsive. cons: -friction losses are higher-bearings have to be able to withstand that rpm-complicated valvetrain design to be usable across that range. That being said, it's 2026 and throwing truck engines in sports cars is retarded with how easy it is to get tight tolerances out of engines these days. CFD makes flow calculations much easier and faster than 50 years ago. Slapping big lazy v8s in sportscars is just lazy engineering to appeal to boomers, and has now been engrained in american culture so deep, that manufacturers can't move away from it if they wanted to. if your v8 revs to less than 7000rpm, congratulations, you have a truck engine not a sportscar engine. Any engineering decisions from that point on are purely based around appealing to the emotion of boomers instead of modernized and better engineering practices.
God damn, what a huge pile of cope.
>>29051552Their fear is warrantedrevving your car can be a very dangerous affair with pushrods
there's this 'pickup' time from when you press the pedal to the floor and actual car reaction which is far better in low rpm torqy engines200hp/500nm diesel engine feels ten times faster than some high reving honda with same power
>>29051597>-complicated valvetrain design to be usable across that range.Lmao you actually SIMPLIFY your valvetrain if you want to rev it to high RPM.
>>29051597>tripfag>shakespearean monologue
my shitbox makes no power and no torque
>>29051597>The powerband generally would have a much more usable range of power. for example, in low speed cornersCould you elaborate?
>>29051611>-t. some retard who never went from 10% to 100% throttle with a high revving engine while it's ACTUALLY IN THE POWERBANDYeah of course it will take time to pick up if you're outside the powerband buddy, just because your pushrod powerband is so low that you're never not in it doesn't mean it picks up faster than any other engine in its powerband.
american engines actually explode if you rev them past 5k
>>29051620The torque curve of a high RPM engine actually matches the torque DEMAND you would use for high speed cornering quite nicely.I.E if you're actually cornering fast you won't want a massive hit of torque straight away from low RPM, you'll want it to ramp up gradually as you peel out of the corner. Being able to dip below the powerband for the part of the corner where you don't actually need high torque, then still have the entire powerband ahead of you as you get out of the corner and require more torque, is much better than a low RPM engine where you might be throttling your massive torque mid corner then by time you're ready to start winding it out you already need to change gear.
I like the b8.5 rs5 a lot and will probably get one even though /o/ tells me its a bad idea
>>29051627>if you're actually cornering fast you won't want a massive hit of torque straight away from low RPM,Lmao what? Yes you do
>>29051646LOLIf you tyres can have enough traction left in them to handle a massive hit of torque then you obviously weren't cornering very fast little buddy
>>29051646The viper drove like this and had a reputation for killing people
>>29051621it's takes time to downshift and revmatch plus you have to throw it through the rev range while i just push the pedal and my car does a leap forward instantly
>>29051653>it takes time to downshift because I won't already be in the right gear because I'm scared of revving my engineNot doing much to disprove OP buddy
>>29051613I'm saying the engineering task of designing a high revving head is more difficult than designing a low revving head especially in a production car. If that weren't true then manufacturers would make high revving engines all day long.Flow design is more difficult, atomization of the fuel, preventing valve float, material selection for bearings and valves becomes more difficult, timing becomes more important etc.
>>29051656yes i consider myself a torque advocatehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YBk53VcKRHcthis is what it looks like irl, the 335i would probably catch up later, but it's lagging at the start despite rolling at like 3.5k rpms
>>29051663Yeah so torque is for people afraid to rev their cars, it's the easy option: >"I'm always in the poweband because the powerband goes down to idle so that way I don't have to think about itbased retards just out their living their dreams
>>29051552High revving peaky engines are fun, but once you reach a certain age you appreciate nice low end torque. Its just a more comfortable driving experience.
>>29051686Based, I too have gotten old enough that I no longer want to have fun and just want to commute comfortably.
>>29051552My E46 used to rev to 8,000, and I just never found myself enjoying it all that much. I always felt like I was throttling the fucking thing's neck, and the exhaust note wasn't exactly pleasant, so more often than not I'd find myself shifting around 6,500 to 7-ish. I now drive a V8 with a redline of around 5,500, and I much prefer the seemingly effortless pull it has. I don't have to beat the piss out of it to get any meaningful power, it just kind of hits you with this immediate push at any rpm, and also sounds great doing so.It's just a preference thing, really.
>>29051692>I always felt like I was throttling the fucking thing's necknot proving OP wrong
>>29051696I wasn't really trying to. It wasn't enjoyable to listen to that engine screaming it's tits off will nothing much to show for it, and the concessions made to make it rev that high don't really provide a good driving experience off track. It was just a very "meh" experience overall. I don't hate high revving cars, but I certainly don't feel much draw towards them.
>>29051686>>29051690so then buy an ev? why drive a boring sluggish v8 and piss away all that money on gas for no reason. you should have a commuter that's boring and comfortable and a high revving fun sportscar. anything else is suffering.
>>29051705Am I to understand you find this sound unappealing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC-4kUpMrLE
>>29051552We just want the car to move without having to rev the shit out of it, ffs.
>>29051712ntahot take those sound like shitI would blow my dick off if my daily sounded like that every time I wanted to feel a little accelerationgimme something with a little bassy rumble any day
>>29051723You can just route the exhaust wrong on any engine if you want it to sound like a gay V8 bud
>>29051728yeah but what if the engine just sounded good to begin with and also made way more power way earlier?
>>29051690Well this is why I keep a fleet of dependable cheap shitboxes for daily use, and my weekend car is complicated, high performance, garage kept, pampered, and no expense spared even though it sees 1/10th the mileage of my other cars.I also daily manuals and drive auto on the weekendsMy mind is an enigma to the average /o/ enthusiast
>>29051729Sorry to break it to you bud but if the inefficient sound of an incorrectly routed exhaust sounds good to you, then you might just be retarded.
>>29051712Well, none of those cars sounded like my S54, but you're correct, none of those particularly tickle my fancy. I *really* liked the M52 and M54 in my 523i and 330ci respectively, as they had quite a deep and guttural moan on acceleration, but besides the S62, I've never really taken a liking to the sounds of any ///M engine.
Torque is performance for the intelligent racer that comprehends the various nuances and limitations between a vehicles minimum power and peak power. You can't always be in peak power, but you get far more access to said power when managing torque instead of rpms.
>>29051736i just like what i like bud dontcha know
>>29051738thank you grok
>>29051744That ain't grok, that's from experience. Dumb bitch.
>>29051738This is retarded for many reason, not least of which because higher torque requires heavier drivetrain components.But more importantly:1: You don't actually want to peak torque all the time when you're acting racing on an actual track with actual corners, if your engine has to gradually build up to the powerband then that matches the torque demands of cornering quite nicely.2: gears exist and they can indeed keep you in the peak of your powerband
>>29051597>Trip fag>Horrible baitChecks out.Old trip fags were at least good, y'all new fags are pathetic.
>>29051650Sounds like a skill issue
>>29051752just have better throttle control
>>29051778>higher torque requires heavier drivetrain components.
>>29051783>I actually want my car to be able to impart less force through the wheels>surely it will be faster
>>29051797>the wheelsThat's where you've gotten yourself confused little buddy.An engine with double the torque but half the RPM will still impart the exact same force through the wheels, but it will impart twice as much force through the crankshaft, block, clutch and gearbox - all of which will need to be made much stronger (and heavier). It's not rocket science buddy, people figured this shit out many decades ago.
I will say torque is nice in a daily. >1.9L vw alh TDI: 90hp, 155 torque @ ____1900rpm____>1.7L honda d17whatever has engine: 127hp, 118 torque @ ____4800rpm____In the high torque diesel you can pull off and drive with just the clutch. A little gas for hills, almost never needed to ebrake. In the Honda I find myself adding a lot of gas and revs just to take off, especially if there's a small incline. If i try and ease the clutch to bite point with my foot still on the brake and not adding throttle, I'll just stall, ebrake needed for literally every hill. For actually driving on curves and shit though you take the higher revs all day.
>>29051552because 99% of car owners, and 99.5% of /v/ know fuckall
>>29051552Corvette Racing could rev to 8k RPM but they never went that high and won races even against 9k RPM screamers because they were much more efficient at low RPMs and were able to maintain speed whilst conserving more fuel.people who talk about torque unironically just want to win races.
>>29051552It's that most people don't know how torque works. They think a guy with a 400 ft/lbs torque wrench can move a load just like an F150 with 400 ft/lbs of torque.
>>29051937lad, this is the aut/o/m/o/bile board
>>29051597its also easier to put the horsepower down, cars with lots of torque are easy to break traction = more difficult to drive fast/smoothly
>>29051951>needing to save fuelNice "race" series you have there
>>29051552I like passing high-revving shitboxes by making peak torque at ~2k RPM, even better when I can do it without even downshifting.>t. supercharged V8
>>29051752>your engine has to gradually build up to the powerband then that matches the torque demands of cornering quite nicely.Why would you wait for your car to gradually build up torque when you could have torque on demand and ease of the trottle when you don't need so it. You should be driving your car, not catering to it.Think about it like this. If someone was going to give you $1000 would you prefer them to give you the full amount upfront or hand it out to you over time like pocket money, piecemeal.Doing it your way only works if you have no impulse/throttle control.
The double edged sword of driving a 351 cleveland, it flows enough to rev hard and make good power while doing it, but it'll starve the main and big end bearings at high rpm. I keep mine to 5000rpm max but it's running out of steam before then so I don't care. I built it for torque.
>>29051566Gan San would disagree. He praised the s2000
>>29051552I've owned a 2ZZ that you needed to drive at 7k rpm for vvti to kick in and its not a fun experience 99% of the time. I assume its about the same for the s2000 where the car sucks dick for 70% of the rev range.>>29051707>why drive a v8it sounds good.>piss away all that money on gasyeah because im sure driving at 6k rpm all the time is great for your gas mileage bro
>>29051597WORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS
>>29052208Why are you making your drivetrain more heavy so that you can make torque at an RPM where you don't need it anyway, so you have to throttle it back, and lose extra RPM where you want it?
>>29051757I was a tripfag in the late '00s but dropped it.notamiata has been around at least a dozen years here, he's not new, but he's changed. I figure his waif has him whipped mentally.
It's weird how much I have to rev my gay little 19 wrx base to just get off the line not even a hard launch
>>29052343Just buy an EV it will suit you better
>>29052343I've had Imprezas 10 years combined. 6-7 of those with an STi.Launching one of these isn't as easy as it is in a video game. It's super easy to drop the clutch too quickly and bog down the engine so it has to build boost again. Really easy. Launching an AWD without launch control is harder IRL than launching a RWD.The worst part is, in a Subaru, if you shock the drivetrain with a clutch dump on good tires, the gears and clutch will take the impulse forces because it can't spin the tires.Launching isn't that wise unless you're racing. What you want is to roll out with just clutch THEN mash the gas unless you're really going for it.
>>29051728>sound like a gay V8the only gay v8s ive ever heard were from audis and mercs with shitty crackle tunes or fart mufflers
>>29051552>hold on bro let me get up into the power band so I can get some speedlmao fucking pathetic
>>29052383All the v8s which were too lazy to route the exhaust properly sound gay
>>29052386That's the cool thing about driving on an actual track instead of traffic lights - you already have speed, so you're already in the powerband.
>>29051686Pretty much this.Two cars about as polar opposite as they could be. One was a carbed Fox from my younger years. Could do mid 12's at 110 letting it all hang out but in traffic I was rowing the box like it was some two-stroke Detroit and getting left behind everywhere. The other was a First Gen Mustang with a Fronkenshteen FE that was more truck engine than not that could dust off all those soccer moms that floor their 'burbans from every light without ever going on the other side of 1800 rpm. Much preferred the Mustang in traffic as I got older despite the manual drum brakes.
>>29052272Its vvtli dumbass
What about high revving, high torque engines?
>>29051552I have a motorcycle with a big engine so I'll explain it to you. I can, and do, rev it out to 10,000rpm+ sometimes. But because it's a big engine and has good torque, I don't have to rev it out to pass or accelerate quickly.
>>29051597>if your v8 revs to less than 7000rpm, congratulations, you have a truck engine not a sportscar engine.This.Diesels are also nice to drive, but they're no sports cars.
