What's with the increasingly restrictive speed limiters on new cars?

[Anubis]

I've driven faster than that in my 120 horsepower Ford Fiesta

we got a 3 cylinder geo storm going over 110

 

[jlee]

we got a 3 cylinder geo storm going over 110

How many times did you circle the equator first?

 

[Bignate603]

The War for common sense continues unabated..

I really don't see what people's problem are with this. Everybody speeds a bit once and a while but they set these speed limiters far higher than anyone really should be going in those vehicles on public roads. If you want to go faster and are going to take it to the track you typically can get rid of those limiters relatively easily.

 

[zsdersw]

I really don't see what people's problem are with this. Everybody speeds a bit once and a while but they set these speed limiters far higher than anyone really should be going in those vehicles on public roads. If you want to go faster and are going to take it to the track you typically can get rid of those limiters relatively easily.

If common sense were really being "fought for", speed limiters wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Bignate603]

If common sense were really being "fought for", speed limiters wouldn't be necessary.

I agree, but unfortunately common sense in the general population is less common than it should be.

 

[zsdersw]

I agree, but unfortunately common sense in the general population is less common than it should be.

Yes it is.. but that's no justification for having speed limiters.

The few who drive that fast (and shouldn't) are not a good enough reason IMO to inconvenience those of us who know what we're doing.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Yes it is.. but that's no justification for having speed limiters.

The few who drive that fast (and shouldn't) are not a good enough reason IMO to inconvenience those of us who know what we're doing.

Inconvenienced because you can't drive over 112 mph?

 

[zsdersw]

Inconvenienced because you can't drive over 112 mph?

Inconvenienced by having to disable the limiter when using the car at a track or other appropriate venue.

 

[exar333]

I said "Japanese domestic market" vehicles in my post...meaning cars that are not meant for export markets.

Yeah, read fail on my part. sorry.

 

[JCH13]

Inconvenienced by having to disable the limiter when using the car at a track or other appropriate venue.

To play devils advocate :sneaky:

Those speed limiters probably wouldn't matter much at many "weekend warrior" events like drag racing and auto-x racing. If you're getting into a serious road racing, time attack, or circuit type event it's not a huge deal to delete or increase the limit, if it was even an issue in the first place.

 

[zsdersw]

To play devils advocate :sneaky:

Those speed limiters probably wouldn't matter much at many "weekend warrior" events like drag racing and auto-x racing. If you're getting into a serious road racing, time attack, or circuit type event it's not a huge deal to delete or increase the limit, if it was even an issue in the first place.

I'm just generally against nannying.. particularly government-imposed nannying. I'm a responsible adult; I don't need anyone to tell me which choices are smart and which are stupid, and I don't need or want anyone to curb my choices in the name of my or anyone else's safety.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I'm just generally against nannying.. particularly government-imposed nannying. I'm a responsible adult; I don't need anyone to tell me which choices are smart and which are stupid, and I don't need or want anyone to curb my choices in the name of my or anyone else's safety.

It's not about "gub'ment" nannying. It's about a rational decision by the manufacturers based on non-legislated common law that's been around for hundreds of years. The auto company doesn't give a damn about safety with the speed limiters, what they care about is avoiding a lawsuit from some moron who runs his OEM tires bald and underinflated and then has a blowout at 130 mph (on tires rated for 112 when new). Popular delusions aside, tort cases for what ought to be common sense have been with us for at least 200 years.

If you really want to support freedom of choice, support the free choice that the auto manufacturers are making to avoid a tort liability that has existed for centuries.

ZV

 

[Imported]

As far as that goes, most wheels balanced at tire shops when you get new tires are only spun up to 25-35 mph. That's not on the car to include the rotor or hub either. A few grams is enough to cause vibration at 100+.

I remember getting a tire replaced last year at a well-known tire/alignment shop in the area and overhearing a customer asking to have his wheels set up for 200mph+ speeds.

 

[A5]

Yeah, if you're in a position where the speed limiter is a serious hindrance to your track-day enjoyment, you should probably be thinking about doing an ECU flash anyway

 

[zsdersw]

It's not about "gub'ment" nannying. It's about a rational decision by the manufacturers based on non-legislated common law that's been around for hundreds of years. The auto company doesn't give a damn about safety with the speed limiters, what they care about is avoiding a lawsuit from some moron who runs his OEM tires bald and underinflated and then has a blowout at 130 mph (on tires rated for 112 when new). Popular delusions aside, tort cases for what ought to be common sense have been with us for at least 200 years.

Yes, it would become about government nannying. If the companies started not having speed limiters chances are someone's gonna beat a path to Congress so a law will be passed that requires limiters.

If you really want to support freedom of choice, support the free choice that the auto manufacturers are making to avoid a tort liability that has existed for centuries.

ZV

I don't support limiters, but I do support liability protections for the auto manufacturers.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Yes, it would become about government nannying. If the companies started not having speed limiters chances are someone's gonna beat a path to Congress so a law will be passed that requires limiters.

Unless you can pony up some objective support for this, I'm going to have to say that you're smack in the middle of the slippery slope fallacy. And even if we accept your unsupported (and unsupportable) premise, this doesn't change the fact that the current situation isn't the result of government interference.

I don't support limiters, but I do support liability protections for the auto manufacturers.

Laws tend not to work very well at the margins. I'd love to hear your specific ideas on how you'd word these "liability protections" and how you'd implement them. So far experience has taught me that when people say "I support X as a law" they haven't really given any though on how to craft it from a practical standpoint.

I'm a card-carrying member of The Federalist Society and a supporting member of Cato and I understand where your emotional response is coming from, but the objective facts just don't support the assertions you're advancing.

ZV

 

[zsdersw]

Unless you can pony up some objective support for this, I'm going to have to say that you're smack in the middle of the slippery slope fallacy. And even if we accept your unsupported (and unsupportable) premise, this doesn't change the fact that the current situation isn't the result of government interference.

The current situation re: limiters is one of the few areas of automobiles that isn't the result of government interference, so it's not like the concept of government interference is without precedent. Voluntary actions by manufacturers that a majority of the public supports are good... but if those actions stop and a few incidents happen that get enough attention (quite probable these days), only a fool would think the government isn't going to get involved and pass some kind of law or regulation.

Laws tend not to work very well at the margins. I'd love to hear your specific ideas on how you'd word these "liability protections" and how you'd implement them. So far experience has taught me that when people say "I support X as a law" they haven't really given any though on how to craft it from a practical standpoint.

Lots of things are on signs and in laws to punish/warn drivers about driving too fast for conditions... whether it's the condition of the weather, the road, the zone you're in, how much traffic there is, or the condition of the vehicle. Driving with bald tires in general results in accidents and the vehicle manufacturer isn't sued.. so why should the speed at which the driver was operating the vehicle matter? I think it should be made clear in the specs of the vehicle what the maximum speed its tires can handle. Once that is accomplished, if the owner chooses to operate the vehicle beyond that speed, the owner takes total responsibility for anything that happens.

 

[Bignate603]

Yes it is.. but that's no justification for having speed limiters.

The few who drive that fast (and shouldn't) are not a good enough reason IMO to inconvenience those of us who know what we're doing.

Anyone that knows what they're doing isn't driving that fast on public roads. Anyone that knows what they're doing isn't going to be driving an F150 over 90 MPH without modifying it anyways to make it so it won't have its tires come apart or roll over at the first turn, changing the limiter is relatively minor.

The mustang is a little bit more restrictive because you could take that car to a track and get going pretty quickly without needing to do much to the car, though I believe the base model's tires are only H rated (130 MPH) anyways. However, I still think that they should ship them with a limiter. Anybody that knows what they're doing can easily get the limiter removed. If you're not willing to invest a little money and an afternoon getting your car to perform like you want it to you have no business driving that fast.

 

[zsdersw]

Anyone that knows what they're doing isn't driving that fast on public roads. Anyone that knows what they're doing isn't going to be driving an F150 over 90 MPH without modifying it anyways to make it so it won't have its tires come apart or roll over at the first turn, changing the limiter is relatively minor.

I'm not talking about driving that fast on public roads.

The mustang is a little bit more restrictive because you could take that car to a track and get going pretty quickly without needing to do much to the car, though I believe the base model's tires are only H rated (130 MPH) anyways. However, I still think that they should ship them with a limiter. Anybody that knows what they're doing can easily get the limiter removed. If you're not willing to invest a little money and an afternoon getting your car to perform like you want it to you have no business driving that fast.

It's not that changing/disabling the limiter is difficult, it's just an unnecessary inconvenience. Minor or not, inconveniences are still inconveniences.

 

[Zenmervolt]

The current situation re: limiters is one of the few areas of automobiles that isn't the result of government interference, so it's not like the concept of government interference is without precedent. Voluntary actions by manufacturers that a majority of the public supports are good... but if those actions stop and a few incidents happen that get enough attention (quite probable these days), only a fool would think the government isn't going to get involved and pass some kind of law or regulation.

That's a lot of text and absolutely no objective supporting analysis.

Lots of things are on signs and in laws to punish/warn drivers about driving too fast for conditions... whether it's the condition of the weather, the road, the zone you're in, how much traffic there is, or the condition of the vehicle. Driving with bald tires in general results in accidents and the vehicle manufacturer isn't sued.. so why should the speed at which the driver was operating the vehicle matter? I think it should be made clear in the specs of the vehicle what the maximum speed its tires can handle. Once that is accomplished, if the owner chooses to operate the vehicle beyond that speed, the owner takes total responsibility for anything that happens.

The common law regulating torts has well over 100 years of history behind the idea that knowingly selling a product that can, without modification, operate outside of safe bounds for its standard equipment imposes a liability on the seller/manufacturer. Bitch about it all you like, but the precedent has been around a hell of a lot longer than you have.

ZV

 

[zsdersw]

That's a lot of text and absolutely no objective supporting analysis.

It's common sense. Almost everything about vehicles has a related law or regulation. New laws and regulations are created all the time, especially as a result of accidents and other incidents. It's not unreasonable to conclude that a law or regulation that mandates limiters would be created if manufacturers stopped including them on their own and someone got in an accident.

The common law regulating torts has well over 100 years of history behind the idea that knowingly selling a product that can, without modification, operate outside of safe bounds for its standard equipment imposes a liability on the seller/manufacturer.

Age does not determine what's good, right, or proper. What you appear to be using is the old "that's the way we've always done it" excuse.

Bitch about it all you like, but the precedent has been around a hell of a lot longer than you have.

ZV

I'm not the one bitching.. but you seem to be.

 

[Ghiedo27]

This is good for everybody. The number of people who know the exact limits of the weakest part of their vehicle in various circumstances better than the manufacturer that also run track days (but for some reason haven't even done so much as a simple chip mod for their "race vehicle") is exactly zero.

 

[Pariah]

I don't understand why someone would be against these limits. I really doubt Ford cares how fast you drive your car. If the limiter is there it's beause they know some part of the vehicle is not designed to operate properly at a certain speed and they have scaled that back a little as a safety margin. This has nothing to do with government intervention. This is a manufacturer saying our vehicle can't do this, so we aren't going to let you do it. It's absolute common sense for them to do it.

I know in Europe some of the highend makers have voluntary 155MPH limiters on their cars, but I'm unaware of any blanket policy like that in America. What serious performance vehicles sold here have speed limiters?

I'm not aware of any that do, but maybe some of them should:

Ripped from another thread, Nismo 370z brakes fail

 

[JackBurton]

I can assure you that the 2011 Mustang GT will blow past the 113 MPH mark.

 

[XZeroII]

Because the cars can't handle speeds faster than that safely. If you buy a real car that can handle that speed, the limiter is higher. My G8 tops out around 140.