I think it would be nice that sometime we could get higher reving engines, because like these in XRT XRG only revs to 7000rpm come on... V8 nowadays revs at 8000 and V8s are the laziest engines in the world. So i would like to see like 8500-9000rpm from those cars like XRT, XRG...
Yes, F1 engines are the laziest in world :rolleyes:
Revs of cars in LFS are more than normal, rev limiters were LOWERED in previous patch (Y), to be more realistic. Don't see any chances of raising them in a nearest future
It depends what you mean by redline. Do you mean where they set the rev limiter? That's an easy question to answer. If an engine is revved to high, you can get valve float which is when the valve spring does not bring the valve back up fast enough. Also, the higher an engine is revved, the more heat is generally produced. (Although actually not, it depends on the efficiency at a given RPM, I think). So they set it at an RPM where the car would not be damaged if it were to be revved at that RPM for a small amount of time (obviously if you stay at redline for a really long time it cant be good for the engine no matter what). That is my understanding at least.
Real you say? SR20DET revs up to ~8000, RB26DETT revs up to 8000 and is capable of even 10 000. Spoon rev`d vtec to 11 000rpm... So I think 8000rpm would be fanstastic.
I could be, but it'd be a long and boring post, involving stress analysis of conrods, big ends, bearing journals, then valve train dynamics, combustion chamber pressures, heat rejection, fatigue cycles, ring pressure, expected life....
It is highly unlikely that the rev limiter is set simply to avoid valve float/bounce. And staying at high rpms isn't necessarily bad. It's changes in loading conditions that cause problems, which is why engines frequently fail at the end of straights when the driver comes off the throttle (although this is frequently seen as the engine failing when you get back on the throttle on corner exit, but the damage was done 100m earlier). At high rpm with high load on the engine inertial forces are pretty well balanced (as well as they can be), and hence little harm or wear is done.
I'd call you something rude if I didn't know you were being silly!
Plenty of engines only rev to 7000rpm, so it's realistic as it is. For a very simplistic analysis, what is the bore/stroke of the LFS engines compared with the engine codes you state?
Glad to see another one who dislikes people who use engine codes as if they're common knowledge... It really irritates me when people use an engine code in a general context without even saying Honda, let alone what model it's out of...
"Oh yeah, I have I a 272Dg43E and once I fitted it with a 193-421-C it made a world of difference to the 123431"
Spot the paraphrase of someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about!
High revving engines in small engines are because of the variable timing/valves to beat the point of volumetric efficiency. Once the pistons move so fast they can't intake enough air to produce more power, this is the volumetric efficiency point. Hondas have computers that open the valves more at high rpm to let more air in. Most modern four bangers redline around 7-8000rpm.
As far as I know the redline is in reverse proportion to the stroke. The proportion is a fixed number that I forgot. Go check some production cars' redlines against their strokes... it works.
This might not be the true redline though. Nevertheless I think it's a red line on the safe side, unless you built your engine yourself and have no clue about it.
Is the beginning of the "red sector" on your rev-meter's face really the redline? In your F430 it most probably is... in your Punto it's probably close to the redline but a compromise of all the models they use the same clock face in.
Rev-Limiter? Compromise on (grammar?) performance and longevity.
(I'm looking forward to corrections :razz
to the topic:
I'm not the one who's going to say "we don't need this" to something new, but I might say "no thanks" to something that's supposed to be changed although it's quite ok the way it is... and I think it is ok.
It depends, however, to which cars you compare the LFS cars. For example, a lot (not to say "the most" because I didn't do a research) of LFS drivers say the XRT is basically a Mitsubishi Starion.
There we go.
And even if it's not a Starion: around 7000 rpm is pretty much what you'd have in a very, very big number of sporty cars with engines of this size.
And then there's the question: what's your benefit of higher revs? 200 hp is 200 hp in the end, no matter how it's produced.
But hey, if the next car is something honda-ish reving up to 9000, that's fine with me.
I myself don't like the powerband of some of the LFS engines, simply because none of the many, in all the other respects similar, cars I've driven had such an optimistic powerband. But then again, maybe the LFS cars are modelled after very rare cars that only a few of us have ever driven (which are extremely close to the ones I know but totally different in one single aspect... amazing world, isn't it?)
To keep it short and simple: It is a problem we and the developers have to face when dealing with "imaginary cars" (and other content). What do you judge against? Personally I really think that the imaginary content clashes a bit with LFS wanting to be a simulator. I mean, what is being simulated in the end?
Type of the cars in LFS are something that I wouldn't say should rev to 8000.
IE. The XRT, it is late 80's / early 90's 2-liter TURBO sporstcar, whit ~250 bhp. Stock cars like that don't usually rev that high, because they want to produce a "smooth" very usable torque curve.
Usually engines what rev to 8000+, "wake up" late too, so you have to have at least 5000 rpm before it starts to take off.
One big meaning of on what revs the power is produced, is cam "profile" and timing. Stock road cars have usually a "mild" cam because engine like that is easy to drive and have a wider torque "peak".
Then the XRG, it haves 1.8 N/A engine with ~140bhp. That sized engine what would need revving up to 8000 with that power would be quite badly built. It revs to slightly high, around 7000 and has a shorter peak than the XRT, but still works pretty good from the low revs too.
My real road car, it has a limiter on ~6150rpm and it even has a aftermarket cam what is slightly more aggressive than the stock one. Well the limiter is stock and to be honest it could have a bit more "go" if it wouldn't block me revving it to 7000 but this is just an example, engines what don't rev "high" are just realistic.
So i would like to see like 8500-9000rpm from those cars like XRT, XRG...
