Having to rev the engine to 3500 rpm to go 140 kph sucks

>>28453462 (OP)
Meanwhile in regera - from 0 to 400km/h in one gear.

What decrepit shitbox are you driving that still has a 5spd in 2025??

>>28453492
Gen 6 Fiesta

>>28453462 (OP)
Just upshift to Rth gear. The R stands for "Really fast"

>>28453462 (OP)
>Having to rev the engine to 3500 rpm to go 140 kph sucks
If you didn't the engine in a Fiesta wouldn't produce enough power to do 140 kph

>>28453462 (OP)
time to get a tkx with the 0.64 5th gear

>>28453505
Fiesta Beach Assault is all the ad that car ever needed.

>>28453462 (OP)
lol, imaging caring about your revs
I sit above 7k rpm all day in 4th gear going 80mph on the highway.
one foot driving at its finest

>>28453570
For those that don't know.
https://youtu.be/YJxWGnUA5ow
It was the end to a "proper" road test.

>>28453578
>I sit above 7k rpm all day in 4th gear going 80mph on the highway.
No you don't

>>28453589
Yes I do. Especially in any sort of traffic.
At 7k+ I'm in full VTEC, max power
Maximum engine braking
Maximum exhaust sounds
All while getting 18mpg, which is the best a 10 speed F150 can get going 60mph

>>28453602
>7k redline
Bro you're about to blow that thing up this isn't a real Honda kek

>>28453602
You know why money shift is called money shift?

>>28453605
>>28453607
I have never money shifted that car in 8 years and I send my oil out for analysis once a year, no signs of any significant wear thus far.

>>28453625
Bro you have no top end this shitter is made for low rpm torque you're over here pegging it off the limiter like it's a honda

>>28453625
I'm genuinely curious, how many miles?

>>28453602
So in 4th your shitbox only does 11 mph per 1000? In 4th?

>>28453630
i was passing in that pic, im not always near redline
>>28453633
146k
>>28453638
its a 6 speed. 4th is 1:1

>>28453602
What car is this

>>28453462 (OP)
How do you think I feel with a three-speed Autotragic?

>>28453713
Lol I understand, my older truck is an 80's Chevy with the 6.2 diesel, a TH400 3 speed with no lockup, and 4.56 gearing. Anywhere beyond 55MPH and it's hollering at me.

>>28453462 (OP)
literally nothing wrong with that though

>>28453844
What about mpg, engine wear and going even faster on autobahn?

>>28453856
>mpg
presumably a tiny engine, so no problem
>engine wear
Not a thing. 3500rpm is perfectly within operating range. Less wear will occur riding at 3500rpm for hours than lugging it in city traffic a few times... Too little rpm is much MUCH worse for engines than sitting at fairly high rpm for long periods of time
>what if I want to go faster
you rev it higher? It'll still be perfectly happy at 5 or 6 thousand rpm too

Wait, you have 5 forward gears?

>>28453801
I've done 85 before, downhill, but yeah van hates doing more than 60

>>28453986
What RPM number would you consider to be “too little?” If OP had more gears, he could be doing 2500-3000 RPM at the same speed, which I assume would be more optimal for his engine.

>>28453602
Nobody can be this retarded right?

>>28453462 (OP)
What's wrong with 5 speed trannies?

>>28453462 (OP)
It's fine. Mine revs to 4k at 80 mph.

>>28453602
Based vtec enjoyer. I have tobkeep mine above 3k at all times and in vtec because I have a cracked exhaust valve and am down a bunch on a car thar was gutless when brand new and also its lifted on pickup truck tires. Keep it in vtec and it'll pull 70 to 80 mph all day no problems and pass slow tards on my two lane highway commute

>>28453462 (OP)
>5-speed transmission isn't enough.
I disagree. 6-speed transmissions are stupid shit transmissions with one too many gear, also the reverse gear is in wrong place and often requires pressing a button or pressing down the gearshifter to get into reverse so it doesnt into 1st gear. alternatively pull up the gearshifter to get into 1st gear instead of reverse gear. Really annoying If I want to take off fast from standstill, do fast gearshifts like its racing situation.

>Having to rev the engine to 3500 rpm to go 140 kph sucks.
Thats not because its 5-speed transmission. Its because of smaller displacement, lower HP engine. Alternatively because its more aggressively geared transmission to make sure you have some power in all gears, and the 5th gear can be used for fast/ top speed driving so you dont have to shift into 4th gear everytime when you want to drive fast or when you drive at uphill roads. 5-speed transmission is good for about 155mph top speed.

>>28454863
>What RPM number would you consider to be “too little?”
depends on the engine design, (mainly stroke and conrod length) but generally speaking I would avoid anything under 1700rpm.
>If OP had more gears, he could be doing 2500-3000 RPM at the same speed, which I assume would be more optimal for his engine.
Depends on what you would define as "more optimal". It would get slightly better MPGs, but as far as engine wear is concerned it would not make a significant difference.
Remember, at a higher rpm you have more fireings per minute. So to get the same amount of horsepower your individual combustion events can be smaller. So in a way, your engine is experiencing less load. Think of it as the inverse of lugging your engine.

Man, I just keep an ear out for my engine and remain in a gear that sounds healthy

>>28455634
I don't know why this is so hard for me to get the hang of, for some reason I think hire RPM means more gas usage so I tend to give it tons of power in fourth gear climbing up a hill even though I should really just downshift to third because I'm actively losing speed the whole time...

>>28453462 (OP)
I do not want more than 5 fuck off.

>>28453462 (OP)
Uhh Anon, more gears isn't gonna help you if you car wasn't built for cruising with tall overdrive ratios, my car has a 5 speed auto and it does 144 kph at 3100 rpm, more gears would just make you shift more for no reason.

>3 speed manual
This is fine.

Mine has 6 gears and I get to 4K rpms at about 150-160 kmph(on 6th)

>>28455989
ugh how do you people live like that? My 124hp econobox and my 6500lb SUV both sit at like ~3k rpm at those speeds with 4 speed autos. That's still not great, especially in the 4banger but at least it's not 4k. Fuck that.

>>28455634
>but generally speaking I would avoid anything under 1700rpm.
NTA or OP but is <2000 in 2nd gear considered lugging in city traffic? Too fast for my touchy 1st gear

>>28455964
It was good enough for grandpappy and good enough for pops. I figure "Why not me"?

>>28453462 (OP)
>>28453505
A six-speed wouldn't be reving lower anyways, because that is most likely already a fair bit longer than a vmax setup.
3k at 100 used to be common for cars in that HP class, to get a decent topspeed out of them. But that already came with limited torque reserves.
Making it rev about 3k at 140 would leave you at wide open throttle with 0 reserves for hills, wind or acceleration, if it could even keep the 140 that is. That's worse for fuel, your driving experience and your engine.

>>28456056
I guess horsepower matters?
Mine has 114 horsepower or so and it’s far from a econobox because it’s German(aka chugs a lot of petrol)

>>28456248
It’s fine because 2nd is an acceleration gear
Same with third on most cars
I sometimes drive my NA one up hills(not very steep tho) on third at 2K rpms or a bit less even

>>28456573
Low reving cars are all well and good but some are designed that you have to rev the hell out of them.
A Harley at 12000 rpm wouldn't sound good for long , a GSX250 is supposed to do that.

>>28453462 (OP)
This auto shitbox has a 4 speed and does 100 kph at ~1800 rpm. So 140 at 2500 rpm. It can do this because it has a 4 L engine and doesn't need to rev its tits off to make enough power.

>>28456767
That's either a Ford or the same age Jaaag.

>it's another confused faggot making less than 280 ft torque with a short ratio diff that needs to be spun to 10k to go 110mph wondering why we don't have 8 gears episode

>>28456772
Based Barraboi

You’ll just lug and blow the engine up. Which is fine. I don’t care about you.

>>28456834
We got a gear reatiolet over here

>>28453462 (OP)
My shitbox revs already 3200 rpm at 100 km/h. At least it runs on lpg.

>>28456845
My shitbox gets a wiggle on at about 4500, it runs out at 8000. 6500 In top is around 140mph.
300rpms is for ships.

Fun fact, a short 5-10 minute drive causes far more wear and tear on your engine than it sitting near redline at full load for 24 hours.

There is a reason why some pilots swap in LS engines, and why they tell you short drives are bad for your car.

>>28456882
100,000 mile cars have not done food delivery,
even if they are battery powered.

>>28456882
>a short 5-10 minute drive causes far more wear and tear on your engine than it sitting near redline at full load for 24 hours
That's a little extreme Anon, my car has been doing short trips for over 20 years and it's still not all fucked up or having massive amounts of blow by, I could understand if this is some sort of F1 thing with 40 or 50 weight oil, but on an every day car, it is designed to do short tripping and be usable without blowng itself up, the 0W-20 in an economy car these days is so damn thin, you've got instant lubrication, especially if it's not super cold, it's like water.

>>28456897
the issue is that piston rings dont make a full seal until warm, and gasoline gets inside and dilutes the oil causing premature wear.
if you keep taking short drives, you keep diluting your engine oil. without prolonged use, the gasoline doesnt burn off or evaporate
>>28456896
my buddy did pizza delivery in a coralla with a 1zz. he was adding 2 quarts of oil every month. he never did an oil change in that car in the 6 months he had it. he even had oil in the radiator.
car still ran like a champ

>>28453462 (OP)
>turning 2600 rpm at 80 mph with this heap from the 70's
Eurobros ngmi

>>28456604
My car is designed to be reved where 3k is its happy place. Sometimes I need to drive city speeds at 2k, but a lot of people fear monger and say 2k is dangerously low.

>>28457619
People ought to listen to their car, it'll tell you when it isn't happy. :)

>>28456908
Merely a modern Honda turboshit problem

>>28457449
You do realise that the gearbox makes little difference? It's all down to the final drive ratio

>>28456908
>the issue is that piston rings dont make a full seal until warm
Wrong

>>28453462 (OP)
True, that's why modern MTs in anything above glorified shopping carts are 6-spd.

>>28457619
I did 10 hours in a day at 3k rpm and my car never ran better than it did after that trip.

>>28458224
The old eye-talian tuneup works wonders.

>>28453462 (OP)
Unironically in a 1994 lancer 1.6, it is.

>he thinks quantity of gears are directly related to top speed/cruising speed

Ok britfag

>>28458186
then how does fuel contaminate the oil?

5 speed = soul
6 speed = cringe, unless it's on a genuine race car and I do mean a race car not one of those sports cars where the engine breaks if you drive them hard for more than one lap.

5 is the bare minimum for reasonable driving in the current year. Though if and when I blow up my 5 speed I will be getting a 6 speed.
>tfw 2900rpm at 90mph

>>28460376
Yeah I don't love the 4 speed manual in my 43 year old shitbox. 4th is 1:1 so I just don't have an overdrive gear at all with a 3.23:1 final drive. It could really use a 5th gear on the highway.

>>28460376
Based croozer, I'm 200 rpm higher to go 90 in the Honda but at least it's 4 cylinder so I'm not suffering with bad economy and noise.

>>28460404
That's very close to what I had in my ford falcon. It was frustrating because the few times traffic was light enough for me to cruise at a high speed it was uncomfortable because of the high revs.
It makes me envious of all those German cars that were built to cruise at 100mph+

>>28460376
>>28460924
fuck. i've got a 3 speed auto in mine...it'll be like 3k rpm just going on the highway lel. ehh, i guess if it blows up or whatever i'll manual swap it

Thread is a bunch of eurohomos who dont have the torque to run 80mph at 2k on a 3.1 rear and 0.68 OD gear while still getting 32mpg.

>>28461025
>muh homo

>>28459349
Incomplete combustion when engine is cold and it's over-fuelling. It's less of an issue with modern injection cars with decent ecu and emissions control, more common with carburettors

>>28461821
and how does that fuel get into the oil?
cold piston rings

>>28461824
Blow by.
But, as you seem intent on hanging on to your incorrect preconceptions, have a read.
https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=16891
And no, when it refers to the phenomenon happening in cold engines, it's nothing to do with poor ring sealing but incomplete combustion. As I said.

As an aside, if you were correct, you couldn't use a compression tester on a cold engine. But you can. So you're not

>>28461834
>Blow by.
so piston rings then? warm piston rings will seal better and will scrape fuel better.
yes, there is an overlap point where the engine is warm enough to not have fuel stick and where piston rings seal better.
pretty sure compression testing involves both cold and warmed up block. You will see higher comp on a warmer block. cold blocks should still seal, there is a range. like wet or dry torque values.

anyway, what i originally wrote is still accurate. cold rings dont seal well. fuel gets inside the crankcase on cold engines.
here is some info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7hvTWsLIP8

As far a carb vs modern cars, unfortunately modern cars use low compressions piston rings that even with smart ECUs will still piss fuel into the crankcase when cold. and they also burn oil by design.
https://youtu.be/Ft12aZffCEg

>>28461029
Yes, you are. Glad you accepted it.

>>28461847
Yes, cold cylinder can be 120psi and at fully warmed OIL which is the only point you can guarantee everything is appropriately heated, 160-180psi, as an example.

Yes, cold engine has more blowby, gets more fuel in the oil.
This shouldn't be a problem if the engine is then ran while oil is above 185F or so for 10 minutes. Even if 95% of your time is short drives if you do half hour drives a couple times a month most of the residual fuel in the oil should be evaporating out. Its the reason why the majority of people still have less than 3-5% fuel contam by their oil change intervals.

>>28461907
>engine is then ran while oil is above 185F or so for 10 minutes
and thats where my original comment comes from.
short, quick drives do a lot more damage to the engine than if it was sitting at redline for 24 hours.

>>28461847
>so piston rings then? warm piston rings will seal better and will scrape fuel better.
Provide some evidence for this claim

>>28461948
That's wrong though.
Assume everything is up to temp and no parts have wear damage, so the oil is doing its thing correctly.
On this chart, you'll be in the right half of the oil/wear zone. Redline would be the furthest right, most friction, most wear.
Your lowest engine wear point is always going to be from about 1400rpm to the lower third of rpm range at less than 60% load.

>>28453462 (OP)
i read in a book that 3k revs is the most efficient for a gas car

>>28462055
It depends on the car, Anon, ideally the lower rpm the better when cruising , that's how cars get sick mpgees, if you can run around at 2000 rpm or less that's what you want, my engine doesn't have 16 valves operating until 2400 rpm because it is made to save fuel.

>>28462061
30 year old book so idk how it works on modern engines or if manufactuters actually aim for good specific fuel consumption

>>28461847
>As far a carb vs modern cars, unfortunately modern cars use low compressions piston rings that even with smart ECUs will still piss fuel into the crankcase when cold. and they also burn oil by design.
>https://youtu.be/Ft12aZffCEg
That's not what the video says. In fact, it says the exact opposite, in that modern engines can and are oil tight. He then goes on to postulate that reduction in piston ring pressure is solely responsible for increased oil consumption.

He does not take into account that the older engines had to have high ring pressures (with the corresponding drop in efficiency and increased wear) to overcome the poor machining tolerances and resulting ovality of the bores.

He also does not explain how the oil in the coarser cross-hatch will be prevented from getting past the rings, as though the ring deforms into the cross-hatch depression - which it doesn't. The oil pooled in the cross-hatch will still be there as the ring passes over it.

He also does not take into account that, to increase engine efficiency, oil viscosity has been reduced (which has been facilitated by better manufacturing tolerances).

There are many instances of engines from the 90's and 2000's that were notorious for very high oil consumption
>Not all engines suffer from this problem. In fact, our data shows that owners of 98 percent of 2010 to 2014 cars did not have to add oil between changes. But the cars that do burn oil do so furiously. Even if only 2 percent of vehicles sold since 2010 have this problem, that still represents about 1.5 million vehicles on the road.
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/06/excessive-oil-consumption/index.htm

>>28462072
>30 year old book
Oh yeah Anon, disregard that book entirely, modern cylinder heads and camshafts are designed to change profile on how they flow at certain RPMs, to maximize either power or economy, an aggressive cam would never work at low rpm with how shitty the economy and idle would be, and a non aggressive cam wouldn't perform well at high rpm, the reason why the old book settles at 3000 rpm is because it was smack dab in the middle of making decent torque and not being at such a high rpm that it's drinking fuel, well nowadays engines make hella torque and fuel economy at 2000 rpm or less, and then you slam on the gas and now you have a 6000+ rpm beast that is also performing optimally.

>>28462072
BSFC at full throttle has got nothing to do with fuel economy under normal driving. Go find yourself an "island map" where airflow rate and rpm are the axis and the bsfc is the graph zone. GM engines should have a lot that are easy to find.