|
Dwight, thank you. After all the discussion, that has been my continued question, and something interesting that has come from this poll.
Driving your engine at <2K RPM its whole life will certainly increase its longevity, absolutely no question. BUT, then the problem gets more complicated when you realize you want more than 2k RPM.
I could argue by driving more than 1500RPM, you are prematurely wearing out your engine, to which you would probably respond, 'every RPM up to redline is safe'.
To which I will leave it at, does anyone know the exact wear pattern for the plot of load vs. RPM vs time (many years/lifetime of engine)??? I dont think so...maybe the extreme m96 racing buffs.
I guess I'll always wonder, you guys saying that you 'redline' but would NEVER intentionally 'rev limit' aren't really thinking about the absolute difference to the engine.
6500 is redline in my car, or 108 revolutions of the crank a second. I think I remember the manual says rev limit is at 6750 or something. A 250 RPM difference accounts for only 4 more revolutions of the crank per second. Whats the difference in wear? What changes in those extra 4 revolutions per second that some people are getting crazy about?
All cool sounds, bad shifts, and immaturity of shifting gears aside, I would argue there is no noticeable INCREASE of wear from 6500 redline to 6750 rev limit. You'll just be a bit slower to the finish line of the 'freeway on-ramp' race.
Of course if you never hit redline either, then just think of the PPM of cylinder liner material you're saving!
|