Speed governors?

[Famine]

Wrong, but in Germany I know they have a 155 mph speed limit.

Wrong. In Germany they have several, much lower, speed limits and some small stretches of unrestricted autobahn where there is no speed limit.

Some German manufacturers limit their cars to 155mph - including Mercedes-Benz and Audi - but then if it were a rule, the Porsche 911 Turbo, 911 GT3, 911, GT2, 911 GT1, Carrera GT, all Rufs and the McLaren Mercedes SLR wouldn't be an awful lot of use, now would they?


My dad's Ford Explorer (1998, 4.0 XLT) was electronically limited to 112mph. Is there a good reason for this, or was it just a freak, random occurence?

Famine, if you're going to quote me, at least quote exactly what I said.

Okay then.

"If there are no police around then it's not dangerous to speed."

Good enough?

 

[JNasty4G63]

Hey, 240SXs are limited to 115 (or something close, it's a KPH number actually, IIRC), so that's not too far off.

Its actually not a speed that the car is limited to, but an rpm. The governor on the 240 is linked with the transmission. Once the trans gets to a certain speed in 4th or 5th, it cuts the fun. I used to drive a '98, and hated this. It was basically 118mph, from what I could figure. It was almost the top of 4th gear, and then about 4500rpm in 5th, if I remember correctly.

Some German manufacturers limit their cars to 155mph.....My dad's Ford Explorer (1998, 4.0 XLT) was electronically limited to 112mph. Is there a good reason for this, or was it just a freak, random occurence?

Did you see my last 2 posts??? I explained this all in them. The German limit is just a voluntary limit, not mandatory. And, the reason that most cars, American or otherwise, have unusual limits is because of the tires. Obviously, you don't want to be going much over 120 in and Explorer anyway, but most likely its the tires that limit it. All Terrain and SUV style tires, for the most part, aren't made for speed. So, the company will limit the car to keep the tires in one piece. Obviously for the Explorer, that wasn't the case a few years ago, but that was a rare occurance.

Hilg

 

[Lethalchem]

I thought that all American cars were electronically restricted to 155mph, providing they can even reach that speed. Doesn't the civic only top out at like 115? I mean, I think they should have acceleration censors/restrictors if anything.

Nope. The Vette will top 170, Viper will get over 190, close to 200, Ford GT will top 200, the new SRT Crossfire will hit 160, and the 4th Gen F-body cars would do over 160. Those are just a few, but you get the idea. About the only time you see limiters on American cars these days is if the stock tires can't handle the speeds. But, there are a good number that will go over 160.

Hilg

My 2003 Cobra was speed limited to 155mph. It was removed as an addition when I put a custom chip on the car to tune timing and AF after bumping up the boost. I can assure you though, although my car had a limiter on it, the tires and engine are certainly up to the task of going faster. 171mph (for now) to be exact.

 

[Famine]

Did you see my last 2 posts??? I explained this all in them. The German limit is just a voluntary limit, not mandatory.

Covered by the parts of my post you edited out:

"Some German manufacturers limit their cars to 155mph [...] but then if it were a rule, the Porsche 911 Turbo, 911 GT3, 911, GT2, 911 GT1, Carrera GT, all Rufs and the McLaren Mercedes SLR wouldn't be an awful lot of use, now would they?"

And, the reason that most cars, American or otherwise, have unusual limits is because of the tires. Obviously, you don't want to be going much over 120 in and Explorer anyway

Why not?

Brabus and AMG make versions of the M-Class and G-Wagen which are limited to 155mph. The Range Rover is not limited by any electronic means at all - and is 50% heavier and much, much larger than the Explorer.

Nonetheless, the Ford Explorer in the UK was electronically restricted to 112mph (and fitted with W-rated tyres, so that wasn't the case either). I'm told it was set like this - "as with many other US-made, US-market cars" - from the factory. Hopefully Doug can explain.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

I wonder if anyone here has hit 186mph yet. And, whats the verdict on american cars being limited to 155...true? Also, the top speed numbers are obviously always going to be without the rev limiter. The main reason they probably do it tho is A) cops can catch em and B) safety of the general public and the driver. Meh, who knows, it probably changes from state to state anyway.

 

[MazKid]

Read the thread again and come back.

 

[Duke]

118 mph is common for street cars sold in America. It corresponds with the T rated tires commonly found on most manufacturer's vehicles:

Q = 99 mph (160 km/h)
S = 112 mph (180 km/h)
T = 118 mph (190 km/h)
U = 124 mph (200 km/h)
H = 130 mph (210 km/h)
V = 149 mph (240 km/h)
Z = 149 mph (240 km/h and over)

My '95 Neon ACR, built for track use, has no speed limiter from the factory. I've topped it out at a calculated 136 mph (mathmatically derived from the revs), though it took a few miles of deserted interstate highway to get there.

As someone mentioned elsewhere, the concept of a 100 mph speed limiter would just further dumb down the car for the average driver. Which would further dumb down the average driver, requiring further dumbing down of the car... etc etc etc. In all honesty, with too much regulation, we're giving up huge amounts of freedom and in many cases not gaining much safety.

 

[pimp racer]

118 mph is common for street cars sold in America. It corresponds with the T rated tires commonly found on most manufacturer's vehicles:

Q = 99 mph (160 km/h)
S = 112 mph (180 km/h)
T = 118 mph (190 km/h)
U = 124 mph (200 km/h)
H = 130 mph (210 km/h)
V = 149 mph (240 km/h)
Z = 149 mph (240 km/h and over)

My '95 Neon ACR, built for track use, has no speed limiter from the factory. I've topped it out at a calculated 136 mph (mathmatically derived from the revs), though it took a few miles of deserted interstate highway to get there.

As someone mentioned elsewhere, the concept of a 100 mph speed limiter would just further dumb down the car for the average driver. Which would further dumb down the average driver, requiring further dumbing down of the car... etc etc etc. In all honesty, with too much regulation, we're giving up huge amounts of freedom and in many cases not gaining much safety.

Well I kinda agree and disagree with you there. But as Famine Said

I
Driving has become seen as a right, rather than a privilege,

I assume that he is one of the people that thinks driving is a privilege? I agree with him. So I think the governement would not be taking away a a "right".

 

[MazKid]

Driving IS a right, depending on if you have money for a car, the physical ability to drive, pass the tests, and meeting all necessary requirements. Unfortunately, the US's requirements and tests are too easy.

 

[pimp racer]

Driving IS a right, depending on if you have money for a car, the physical ability to drive, pass the tests, and meeting all necessary requirements. Unfortunately, the US's requirements and tests are too easy.

Hmm....I am trying to debate in my head on wheater I think its a right or not. Lets see the government can ban driving cars right? Lets say that some gas emmisions or something like is a conflict so the governement decides to ban driving and everyone has to use subways and trolly's and ETC. So is it still a right?

 

[Duke]

Nope. I think it's a privelege you have to earn. And if you don't voluntarily limit yourself to driving responsibly, you forfeit that privelege.

 

[JNasty4G63]

Covered by the parts of my post you edited out:

"Some German manufacturers limit their cars to 155mph [...] but then if it were a rule, the Porsche 911 Turbo, 911 GT3, 911, GT2, 911 GT1, Carrera GT, all Rufs and the McLaren Mercedes SLR wouldn't be an awful lot of use, now would they?"

Yes, as I also did before you. Thats all I'm saying. I covered it, you repeated, it wasn't needed. This was me 8 posts before you repeated me......

Well, not really. It's much like the Japanese 276bhp limit thing (which also has gone away). They just all voluntarily limit their cars to 155mph from the factory. But, even then, Porsche hasn't ever stuck to that. The Carrera GT will top 200mph, as will the SLR. And in recent years, MB-AMG has been very flexible with having the limiter moved up on their cars, if the customer wants. So, yes, many of them will limit the cars to 155 from the factory, but its not mandatory.

See what I mean???? If you would have read, you didn't need to rehash. Thats all, end of story.

Why not?

Brabus and AMG make versions of the M-Class and G-Wagen which are limited to 155mph.

Well, I never said that I would want to go that fast in any of those cars either. But, the thing that those AMG cars, along with the V8 X5s, Cayenne, and Range Rovers have going for them is that they have more road oriented suspensions. The Explorer is a big, tall, boxy, truck-based suv. You get going 125 or more in one of them, its not going to handle well, and little steering movements can cause some big problems. But, in those other cars I just mentioned, they have suspensions built more for that type of speed. The Range Rover and Cayenne, for example, will lower the vehicle and stiffen the suspension for highway speeds. And, the X5 is basically a car underneath, so it will handle fine as well. But, the Explorer, will not. It stays a big tall box no matter the speed. Like I said, it probably will do 120, but I just wouldn't want to be in the car when it was doing it.

The Range Rover is not limited by any electronic means at all - and is 50% heavier and much, much larger than the Explorer.

Hmmmmm, last I checked, the Range is only 800lbs heavier than an Explorer, and only 5in. longer with the same wheelbase. HMMM, not that much bigger.

Hilg

 

[pimp racer]

Nope. I think it's a privelege you have to earn. And if you don't voluntarily limit yourself to driving responsibly, you forfeit that privelege.

Ok then thanks for clearing it out. But since you said you think that is an opinion right? I wonder if the drivers ed handbook or manuel or something has a comment on weahter driving is a right or a privliage. I will ask my drivers ed teahcer when I get back to school.

 

[Zrow]

It seems to me that most people who would speed over 100 would probably disable the governers.

 

[a6m5]

Driving, I believe is an privilege.

I see where both sides are coming from on this topic. While the Pro-Speed Governors arguments make 100% sense, I can't support it.
One reason is that it will cost a lot of money to make this happen. After all the hassle of manufacturing them and installing them in all new cars, people will just come up with ways to bypass or disable them anyway.

I also don't want the government adding more and more restrictions on the cars that we drive. When I read about the black boxes & satellite tracking devices in our cars recording our behavior, I thought it was pretty scary. I'm not an street racer or anything, but I don't want something like the speed governors on top of that.

If you want to make the road safer, stopping drunk drivers will be much easier and way more effective.

 

[Famine]

Well, I've never yet met someone stupid enough to start an argument with someone agreeing with them. Congratulations.

Funnily, there WAS a need to repeat it though - as you will have noticed by the very FIRST line of my post, where I quote QuickNick who "knows" that there is a 155mph limit in Germany.

The Explorer is a big, tall, boxy, truck-based suv. You get going 125 or more in one of them, its not going to handle well, and little steering movements can cause some big problems. But, in those other cars I just mentioned, they have suspensions built more for that type of speed. The Range Rover and Cayenne, for example, will lower the vehicle and stiffen the suspension for highway speeds. And, the X5 is basically a car underneath, so it will handle fine as well. But, the Explorer, will not. It stays a big tall box no matter the speed. Like I said, it probably will do 120, but I just wouldn't want to be in the car when it was doing it.

Hmmmmm, last I checked, the Range is only 800lbs heavier than an Explorer, and only 5in. longer with the same wheelbase. HMMM, not that much bigger.

Right, fact time for you.

The Range Rover has a ride height of 8.8 inches. The Explorer has a ride height of 8.5 inches. The Range Rover has a function which will allow you to RAISE the ride height for off-roading - to 11.1 inches - and not lower it (the settings are called "Standard" and "Hi"). So the Explorer is lower to the ground.

The Range Rover is 62mm taller (2.4 inches - 2.1 inches of which is "car"), 153mm wider (6.0 inches) and 143mm longer (5.6 inches), despite being on "the same" wheelbase (actually, there's 0.6 inches in it). So the Range Rover is 10% bigger overall (that's 626.2 cubic feet of car compared to 571.7 cubic feet) and let's not forget - it's on roughly the same wheelbase (113.4 inches for the Range Rover, 114 inches for the Explorer). The one thing going for the Range Rover which would assist the road-holding is a 64 inch track compared to 61 inches for the Explorer - but that still means there's 3 inches more "stuff" hangiing over the edges of the wheels (it's 6 inches wider, remember?).


So the Range Rover is taller and boxier than the "tall, boxy, truck-based SUV" Explorer. And 24% heavier, it turns out.

Well, I never said that I would want to go that fast in any of those cars either.

Point being, someone does. So why restrict the Explorer to 112mph and the AMG G-Wagen (G55AMG) to 155mph? Come to think of it, do you even know what a G-Wagen IS?

But, the thing that those AMG cars, along with the V8 X5s, Cayenne, and Range Rovers have going for them is that they have more road oriented suspensions.

Our survey says "No."

Described as having "ponderous handling" - which isn't surprising given that it's 4.5 inches taller than it is wide and is based on a military vehicle chassis which hasn't changed in 25 years. It's a road-oriented as a Challenger II.


All of which flapping about fails to answer my question in any way at all. Hopefully when Doug arrives he will be able (assuming he's willing) to answer.

 

[Lethalchem]

What about working to provide an income for your wife and children? Is that a right? Not every location has public transportation. In such a case, a person without a vehicle would not be able to work, and therefore could not provide for his family. Can the government take away the "privilage" of feeding your newborn baby?

 

[Famine]

A right is something given to all. A privilege is something earned.

If driving were a right there would be no need for a driving test. Or driving licences. Anyone could do it - from the moment they were born, assuming they could afford a car.

The person living in the middle of nowhere with no public transport has CHOSEN to live there and CHOSEN to have a "newborn baby". If he CHOSES to drive down the street at 135mph and has his licence taken off him, that's his problem.

 

[Lethalchem]

A right is something given to all. A privilege is something earned.

If driving were a right there would be no need for a driving test. Or driving licences. Anyone could do it - from the moment they were born, assuming they could afford a car.

The person living in the middle of nowhere with no public transport has CHOSEN to live there and CHOSEN to have a "newborn baby". If he CHOSES to drive down the street at 135mph and has his licence taken off him, that's his problem.

You don't seem to understand people (or reality) very well.

 

[pimp racer]

A right is something given to all. A privilege is something earned.

If driving were a right there would be no need for a driving test. Or driving licences. Anyone could do it - from the moment they were born, assuming they could afford a car.

The person living in the middle of nowhere with no public transport has CHOSEN to live there and CHOSEN to have a "newborn baby". If he CHOSES to drive down the street at 135mph and has his licence taken off him, that's his problem.

Ok I hope that makes sense to the people who thinks its a right. Thanks for clearing things up.

 

[Lethalchem]

Ok I hope that makes sense to the people who thinks its a right. Thanks for clearing things up.

It doesn't clear anything up to me. What about the "right" to bear arms? That is something that the government can take away if misused, yet is still a right.

 

[pimp racer]

It doesn't clear anything up to me. What about the "right" to bear arms? That is something that the government can take away if misused, yet is still a right.

Well I really am not sure but I guess the rigth to bear arms might be a considered a right since lets say you wanna use it for protection the government cant take it away from you if its for protection or can it?

 

[Lethalchem]

Well I really am not sure but I guess the rigth to bear arms might be a considered a right since lets say you wanna use it for protection the government cant take it away from you if its for protection or can it?

If you commit a Felony you cannot own a firearm. So yes, it can be taken away from you based on your behavior.

 

[pimp racer]

If you commit a Felony you cannot own a firearm. So yes, it can be taken away from you based on your behavior.

Yeah but I said for protection. You know like against bad guys and such. I think that if a person attempts to shoot you and you shoot them to defend yourself you would not be in trouble right?

 

[MazKid]

It doesn't matter, if you have a felony you can't legally have or use a gun. Becides, a self defense case where you fire first doesn't work well, especially if you have a felony.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

There is something all people should know, YOU CAN BE STRIPPED OF YOUR RIGHTS AND PRIVELEGES WITHIN REASON. You have the RIGHT to life, the RIGHT to safety, and the RIGHT to free speach. That can all be taken awya from you. If you take the life of someone else, or rob a store, or even start a war, those rights will be taken awya form you. Priveleges are even easier to lose. Priveleges are granted to you because you have proven yourself worthy enough to abide by and use them safely. In Canada, weapons are a privilege. You have to take a test, register your gun, and a whole pile of other crap. In the states, form what I've heard, you have to be 18+ and enough money to buy it, less a criminal record. In Canada to lose your privilege of using a gun, all you have to do is A) get a record or B) use your weapon in an unlawful manner. In the U.S., it seems that you have nearly take over a small country to lose that "right". The right to bear arms, remember, is in the Declaration, but so was the fact that women weren't allowed to vote. Look what happened there. Rights and privileges can be both given and taken away form you. Rights however, are somehting you are born with, and are entitled to, if you need it. If the Gov't however doesn't have enough money to provide for you though, well, then you're SOL. A privilege however, they don't have to give any privilege to you if they don't want to. A even if you do prove yourself worthy of the privilege, they don't necessarily have to give it to you. I wouldn't mind hearing M5Power's take on this though, that would be insightful..

 

[Famine]

You don't seem to understand people (or reality) very well.

If you live in the middle of nowhere, with no means to support yourself other than by taking your car to your workplace and decide that playing "Mr. Wobbly hides his helmet" is a great idea, despite the fact it could result in child and THEN chose to disobey traffic laws to the point where your licence is taken from you so you can no longer get to your workplace, that's two bad decisions you've made (or one bad decision and one which turned out to be bad in retrospect).

Are you saying that people should be allowed to get away with outrageous violations of traffic regulations if they have a family to support?

Personally I wouldn't one anyone who has been shown incapable of conducting a vehicle in a safe manner on the same road as me. And, if he kills me, I won't rest any easier knowing that he's allowed to be a total foreskin because he's got a baby.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Personally I wouldn't one anyone who has been shown incapable of conducting a vehicle in a safe manner on the same road as me. And, if he kills me, I won't rest any easier knowing that he's allowed to be a total foreskin because he's got a baby.

 

[Duke]

Understand:

You have a right to drive a car - on your own property. It's driving on public roads that becomes a privelege.

The same with owning a gun (within what some of us call reason). You have a right to own a gun unless you have chosen to throw away that right by bring a convicted felon. But carrying that gun in public is a privelege that you must earn by education, testing, and a clean safety and criminal record.

 

[JNasty4G63]

Well, I've never yet met someone stupid enough to start an argument with someone agreeing with them. Congratulations.

Funnily, there WAS a need to repeat it though - as you will have noticed by the very FIRST line of my post, where I quote QuickNick who "knows" that there is a 155mph limit in Germany.

Ok first off, I'm stupid now??? Thats a bit harsh. Grow up. And, I wasn't intending to start an argument, just saying that I already covered the subject. No need for us all to go repeating ourselves.

Right, fact time for you.

The Range Rover has a ride height of 8.8 inches. The Explorer has a ride height of 8.5 inches. The Range Rover has a function which will allow you to RAISE the ride height for off-roading - to 11.1 inches - and not lower it (the settings are called "Standard" and "Hi"). So the Explorer is lower to the ground.

Well, thats where your wrong, sorry. There are 4 modes for the air suspension on the Range, not 2. Here it is right from the website.......

· Access for easy passenger entry/exit
· Off-road for surmounting rocks and boulders
· Standard for all other on-road travel
· Highway to lower the vehicle at speed for better efficiency

The fourth one there is the biggie. You see, like I said, the car will lower itself at speed for more aero and handling benefit. But, nice try.

The Range Rover is 62mm taller (2.4 inches - 2.1 inches of which is "car"), 153mm wider (6.0 inches) and 143mm longer (5.6 inches), despite being on "the same" wheelbase (actually, there's 0.6 inches in it). So the Range Rover is 10% bigger overall (that's 626.2 cubic feet of car compared to 571.7 cubic feet) and let's not forget - it's on roughly the same wheelbase (113.4 inches for the Range Rover, 114 inches for the Explorer). The one thing going for the Range Rover which would assist the road-holding is a 64 inch track compared to 61 inches for the Explorer - but that still means there's 3 inches more "stuff" hangiing over the edges of the wheels (it's 6 inches wider, remember?).

Blah blah blah with the numbers. Way to go looking up all those. But, your missing the point. Neither one of these vehicles will handle REAL well at speed. Thats the main point. I could care less of the specifics. But, you said that the Range was "....50% heavier and much, much larger than the Explorer." I was just stating that it was a bit of an exageration. They're both big, we get the picture. But nit picking about inches and mils is a bit silly.

So the Range Rover is taller and boxier than the "tall, boxy, truck-based SUV" Explorer. And 24% heavier, it turns out.

OK, I'm really having a hard time understanding wher you get your facts still. We understand they are both big vehicles, but its now 24% heavier??? Thats some fuzzy math. Since when is 5300lbs 24% heavier than 4500???? I get 17%, so not sure what #s your using. Either way, they're both big, we get the picture. But still, with one being able to lower itself at speed, and coming with either H-rated (130mph) or V-rated (150mph) tires, I'll go with that one if I must.

......So why restrict the Explorer to 112mph and the AMG G-Wagen (G55AMG) to 155mph? Come to think of it, do you even know what a G-Wagen IS?

As I said before, its probably because of tires. The AMG G-Wagon comes with V-rated Yokohama AVS S/T "Street Truck" tires. Meaning, they are ok up to 150mph. The Explorer, on the other hand, comes with S-rated BFG Rugged Trail T/A tires. Meaning, they are ok only up to.......ready for this??? 112MPH!!!!!! Funny, huh?? And, enough with the "stupid" remarks. I know what a Gelaendewagen is. You don't know me, so stop with the pandering and mocking. Get over yourself.

Described as having "ponderous handling" - which isn't surprising given that it's 4.5 inches taller than it is wide and is based on a military vehicle chassis which hasn't changed in 25 years. It's a road-oriented as a Challenger II.

Again, I never said the G handled well. But, at least it comes with tires and brakes that are up to the task of going fast. With close to 500hp under hood, the G55 will have the speed, but having the other essentials underneath is just as important. The Explorer on the other hand does not. I'm sure, with the V8 its got the power to go fast. But, with truck tires and standard brakes, I stand by my previous statement. I wouldn't want to be in one going 120mph.

Hilg