u2civic1

this might be a dumb question but what better for driving daily reving the car to 5k (low load) with no boost or rev to 3 k with a couple pounds of boost(more load) which would u say is better for the motor?

yellowturbo

you are right ...its a dumb question...

spark plugs.

ummmm...it's a pretty dumb question...
how is 5k a lower load than 3k? and i dunno about your honda, but mine doesn't produce that much boost at 3k. best thing for YOUR motor is to leave it n neutral.

99B16Si

depends on the motor used

Bailhatch

is neutral above D1?

Disco Stu

I must not be understanding the question very well, because boosting (even just 1psi) is going to obviously be more stressful to a motor than not boosting it.

Seraph0

I think it's a good question.

I have heard reputable engine experts say RPM kill motors. Makes sense to me. My vote at this point.

<3k with boost is more "gentle" than >5k with no boost.

Disco Stu

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MarkC &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think it's a good question.

I have heard reputable engine experts say RPM kill motors. Makes sense to me. My vote at this point.

&lt;3k with boost is more "gentle" than &gt;5k with no boost.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well now I'm interested to see what others have to say on this as well. I guess I could understand that it would be more stressful if it were taking something like 8 seconds to very slowly let the rpms rise to 5k and shift, as opposed to quickly going right to 3k and shifting whilst having created boost. Does that make sense? Basically, would the stressful part of the equation simply be the time it would take to rev to 5k without letting the turbo create boost?

I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I'm curious about this now.

turb

a dumb question but it got me curious too..

anyone else have any input on this?