Correct.
IF you can afford a 24litre Rolls Roycve Merlin engine to move a 1000kg car you pretty much dont' need revs as there is so MUCH torque that it could pretty much drive the wheels directly and gears woudl allow it to use a 1000 rev powerband.
BUT in the real world of REAL cars it's not so black and white.
Rather than repeating myself, PLEASE review all the race "crate" engines availabel for US cars and notice they increase power AND revs.
Ther is a reason, BOTH are there in the ideal/perfect engine.
THAT is whree this discussion started, to show that revs CAN make up for power and AS I HAEV SAID power can also make up for revs.
You're the only one sseeing this as black and white !!!!
Read
http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls1c.html it's a great insight into the design decisions.
Especially the coment on the choice of pushrod - again confirmign that the power they coudl get "was enough", NOT that pushrods were better or DIHC worse etc.
See
http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/2...no%20Graph.pdf
WHAT is interesting is how that graph ends REAL quick. They are limiting that engines revs. It is LIEKLY to be because of valve bounce or the risk of bending pushrods as the MASS movement beings to assert HUGE forces.
HOwever, ther point is they DID go to increase revs. THAT they dont' go further is liekly for some mechanical reason as it woudl seem that the engine wasn't having any real breathing issues as it's fairly gentle roll off.
IF you will try to be objective I WOULD like to know WHY they dont' push it out.
So far you claim it's because they dont' need to , I'm suggesting it MAY because they CANT without it starting to break things. IF you can increase revs you usually TRY to do that as it INCERASES THE USABEL POWER BADN which is what every driver wants ( as along as it' doesn't hurt another aspect fo performance )
??????