Peter, fellow Australian, don't you realize that our vehicles are under less stress than most of the "up and over" world. Something to do with not having to contend with gravity, I've been told before. Our issues are around requiring stickier tyres to stop us from falling off the earth, aren't they
Thanks for your detail, I'm still asking for actual figures (% of Spyders) where normal (old fashioned?) revs have been used to cause significant failures/premature wear - I was not initially arguing the "against" the higher revving argument. But I see things creep into people's opinion that may be questionable/illogical.
The point is made, and accepted, that driving in an optimal rev range produces the best power but economy not necessarily so, and what does fuel economy have to do with the subject anyway?
Silly examples that don't support the argument:
I've heard aeroplane engines need to rev. on this thread: what 2700rpm is high?
You have written not to "lug" truck engines at 600 rpm. Who does that?
How does trucks running at 1200 - 2400rpm equate to faster running engines? For a few examples.
Often I hear the implied stupid argument that an engine uses the least amount of fuel at the highest torque or power revolutions. Laws of Physics suggest otherwise.
Not trying to be too picky but "modern cars refuse to select their highest gears" is not universal at all. The ones that I have come across all do go to the top gear quickly. Yes they have learned behaviour controlling gear changes, based on load/throttle position etc, but that is to maintain adequate power, and control emissions.
You mentioned 4WD I've had quite a few, just looking at a new Prado (top popular 4WD) to replace the wife's. It is offered with 6 speed (2 overdrives), the 4th gear no different to past 5 speed model, strongly suggesting the designers are targeting economy.
My Mitsubishi Challenger switches to top very quickly, adding a "chip" has created more power and torque but the engine spends even more time at low revs, and with improved economy. No discernible extra wear. Reading 4WD mags , the Internet and Forums don't suggest revving engines at all, on my readings. First 4WD bought new 1983, probably driven 0ne million Kms in them. My various F100/Bronco's clearly ran most efficiently at low low revs (did probably 400,000 Km's in those (bullet proof). I can go on. You did not mention marine engines - tell me about these modern engines! ha
.
Tesla? isn't "don't have any other gear choices at all" because they are electric?
Maybe I haven't learnt the hard way yet. But the last fifty years of extensive driving numerous types of engine things does not support the argument "revving is better", if I am now to argue the "against" case.
I'm not saying that you should "lug" an engine at all. Sensible driving of course (I understand what has been said and there is some truth in it all).
Evidence on Spyders, other than anecdotal please.