View Poll Results: Do you think cars should have built-in electronic speed limit

Voters
116. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, all cars ecxept "special" ones (police, swat, etc.)

    14 12.07%
  • No

    93 80.17%
  • I don't know

    2 1.72%
  • Other

    7 6.03%
Page 25 of 39 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 384

Thread: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

  1. #241
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    That is not what it is.

    The computers have a shelf life and when they start to go bad, and they will, what is going to happen to that driver?

    Yo are going to spend more oin fixing your Mercedes than you did buying it.

    Unquestionably on the particular Mercedes we have, but only 192 of them were ever made and it is a radical car. Just the rubber molding around the windows were as much as $500 each - and it has 6. Replacing all the computers would probably cost $30,000. Just reprogramming them (not for repair but performance) is running over

    Actually cars tend to last longer than in the past. Cars used to be pretty much shot by 100,000 miles. Now 150,000 is more common.

  2. #242
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Not better mileage. The mileage per horsepower and per displacement cars now obtain is amazing.
    BS. You are correct in what is available without other considerations. However, you still can achieve 25% or greater increases in fuel efficiency by removing EPA requirements from the system. Not legal most places, so I choose per-emissions/early emissions cars and upgrade their engines to modern technology. Unfortunately, there is not yet after-market heads offering Direct Injection (DI). Even with DI you do not get anywhere near achievable fuel mileage due to environmentalist regulation. Take a DI engine, rip the computer system out of it, put a good after-market engine management system and you can greatly increase hp and fuel efficiency. If the EPA would pull their heads out of their collective asses and measure emissions correctly, then we would know that we would actually put out less emissions also. Physics simply does not allow maximum efficiency under current EPA guidelines.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  3. #243
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,774

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    Some you care about just got injured. It will take an ambulance 30 min to get there and another 30 min to get to the nearest hospital. You decide to drive them yourself to cut the time until they receive perhaps life saving treatment. You have two vehicles to choose from, one limited to 90 mph, one unlimited. Which are you going to choose? Or do you believe there is no "legitimate" reason what-so-ever for an individual to act as an ambulance to save someones life?

    Now you know one legitimate reason for letting cars go faster than 90 mph, which is one more reason than exist for arbitrarily limiting a persons freedom based upon the actions of others.
    And how often does this sort of scenario really occur? You're talking about an exceptionally rare circumstance here. Are we really supposed to believe that everybody who drives 20, 30, even 40 mph over the speed limit (I'm not exaggerating with these numbers) has a medical emergency? Furthermore, do you have any idea how difficult driving becomes when you start going that fast? Driving in the real world is not a video game. You absolutely must not hit another car, not even one. And there is no respawn if you crash.

    Do I think there is some wiggle room in terms of what some speed limits should be? Sure. But there is zero excuse for cutting in and out of traffic while driving 20+ mph faster than everyone else. Statistics are very clear that such a driver presents a serious safety risk to himself and to others. My freedom to stay alive exceeds his freedom to drive as fast as he wants.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  4. #244
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    BS. You are correct in what is available without other considerations. However, you still can achieve 25% or greater increases in fuel efficiency by removing EPA requirements from the system. Not legal most places, so I choose per-emissions/early emissions cars and upgrade their engines to modern technology. Unfortunately, there is not yet after-market heads offering Direct Injection (DI). Even with DI you do not get anywhere near achievable fuel mileage due to environmentalist regulation. Take a DI engine, rip the computer system out of it, put a good after-market engine management system and you can greatly increase hp and fuel efficiency. If the EPA would pull their heads out of their collective asses and measure emissions correctly, then we would know that we would actually put out less emissions also. Physics simply does not allow maximum efficiency under current EPA guidelines.
    It would make very little difference in terms of EPA equipment now. Not anymore. What more restricts motors is mufflers and octane limit of gasoline. They will make more power under biofuels than petro-based fuel. Catalytic converters restrict mega-power motors some, not much for regular cars. I think you're living in the past. Inefficiency not only causes emissions, but also less fuel economy and less power. In the past, the 70s thru mid 2000, EPA standards did severely affect power and gas mileage. Direct cylinder sequential injection and computer management systems have almost complete negated those loses.

    As much as I do not like anything that limits power on a car, most cities do have terrible air quality and that is mostly due to vehicles.

    Even I was surprised that the Ford Fusion comes with a mere 1.5 liter motor (less than 100 cubic inches) and still is a peppy car that will go 100 mph. Modern cars are quite amazing actually. They now can go 12.5-1 compression on a mere 91 octane unleaded, which was unheard of in the past. The Merc we have has 8.5 -1 compression, but then puts out a massive 22 psi boost from the turbos - and can run on pump premium unleaded making 800 hp, 1000 ft/pounds torque and still get 20 mpg in a 4600 pound car. And that technology is now almost a decade old.

    I was surprised how little the quiet mufflers and cat-converters limit power on our ubber powerful motor car as we explored powering-up options, though going cat-less and o2 sensor delete would allow then 110 octane leaded racing gas. (At 8 per gallon). The extra octanes would allow taking up the boost on the turbos. However, none of this would improve daily driving fuel economy.

    There is 100 octane unleaded racing fuel (about $6 a gallon). While 100 octane unleaded could be offered at stations, few people would be willing to pay for it. Most people just want a car to get them where they are going.

    What would more increase fuel economy would be to eliminate safety factors to increasingly lighten cars. But that does increase danger factors. Only 1 subcompact even reaches an 'acceptable" rating. Most are dismal in crashes.

    What is most inhibiting development and running up vehicle prices is primary safety regulations and crash standards, not EPA regulations. Modern computer managed motors are so efficient they put out very little emissions. The other inhibitor is products-liability. Safety features go beyond structural integrity and air bags to now also controlling the brakes, suspension, and motor. This drives the price up, but also makes for much faster cars in the corner.

    The rate at improving technology is incredible. I had no idea how far it's gone until really exploring it. However, it is not consumer adjustable and makes a person totally dependent upon the experts/shop to modify and for most mechanical repairs.

    That is frustrating. I got rid of a Jaguar XKR (supercharged XKE) because it was literally impossible to change the rear axle ratio. No one even among Jaguar enthusiasts had any way to do it either, and Jaguar refused to release the codes. If the rear axle ratio changed, the rotation of the front tires will tell the computer something is wrong and throw the car into limp mode (2nd gear and reverse only). Many tried and none succeeded at defeating that. So I got rid of it.

    But modern car are superior they way a calculator is superior to an old mechanical adding machine - though the adding machine might be more reliable.
    Last edited by joko104; 01-28-14 at 04:37 PM.

  5. #245
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    There have been 2 times in the past when having the faster car likely saved my life. One time I was in a Lincoln LSC and two guys with guns chasing in a rice burner 4 door. The other time there were 4 in a turbo Nissan 350 and I was in an "Italianized" Maserati. The weight of 4 made their car inferior in the curves and how that Maserati motor was holding together at hitting 10,000 rpms was impressive. In that era of my life I never carried a firearm. Other people did.

    When both regulations and manufacturers were limiting cars to around 100 mph and speedos only went to 85, US car sales went in the toilet, there was no incentive for much development, and the cars for the next 2 decades are nearly all considered worthless crap. Basically over 2 decades of cars they will never become collectables no matter how old they become because they were junk.

    Having a fast car is like having a gun. It is likely you'll never need it in your whole life. But if you ever do, you need it more than anything you ever needed before.

  6. #246
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Having a fast car is like having a gun. It is likely you'll never need it in your whole life. But if you ever do, you need it more than anything you ever needed before.
    I'd take the gun, thank you. It will keep your home secure too.

  7. #247
    Revolutionary
    TNAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,018
    Blog Entries
    17

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Are we really supposed to believe that everybody who drives 20, 30, even 40 mph over the speed limit (I'm not exaggerating with these numbers) has a medical emergency? Furthermore, do you have any idea how difficult driving becomes when you start going that fast?
    Who cares what their reasons are? How does it even matter?

    As mentioned previously, I have only been in two accidents throughout my entire life and both times I was hit by someone else while at a complete standstill. That said, I have come close to getting into an accident on a couple of occasions. In every instance, someone either swerved in front of me or slammed on their brakes in some sort of ignorant display of pomposity. I ignore every single speed limit sign I see; not because I have some sort of misplaced disdain for the state, but because speed limits are entirely arbitrary and do absolutely nothing to keep a person safe. If people would concentrate on driving safely withing the limits of their ability and environmental/vehicular limitations, most accidents would not occur. And certainly not the sort of accidents which I nearly became victim to.

  8. #248
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,774

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by TNAR View Post
    Who cares what their reasons are? How does it even matter?
    An excellent point against disallowing the "we had a medical emergency" exception.

    As mentioned previously, I have only been in two accidents throughout my entire life and both times I was hit by someone else while at a complete standstill. That said, I have come close to getting into an accident on a couple of occasions. In every instance, someone either swerved in front of me or slammed on their brakes in some sort of ignorant display of pomposity. I ignore every single speed limit sign I see; not because I have some sort of misplaced disdain for the state, but because speed limits are entirely arbitrary and do absolutely nothing to keep a person safe. If people would concentrate on driving safely withing the limits of their ability and environmental/vehicular limitations, most accidents would not occur. And certainly not the sort of accidents which I nearly became victim to.
    Then do the proper thing and contact your state legislator about it. And if you don't get the results you want, start supporting a candidate who will. That is how the democratic process works. But simply choosing to flaunt traffic laws because you don't like them is childish. It doesn't matter if you think you're morally justified to speed. In a court of LAW, all that matters is the LAW.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  9. #249
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    It would make very little difference in terms of EPA equipment now. Not anymore. What more restricts motors is mufflers and octane limit of gasoline. They will make more power under biofuels than petro-based fuel. Catalytic converters restrict mega-power motors some, not much for regular cars. I think you're living in the past. Inefficiency not only causes emissions, but also less fuel economy and less power. In the past, the 70s thru mid 2000, EPA standards did severely affect power and gas mileage. Direct cylinder sequential injection and computer management systems have almost complete negated those loses.

    As much as I do not like anything that limits power on a car, most cities do have terrible air quality and that is mostly due to vehicles.

    Even I was surprised that the Ford Fusion comes with a mere 1.5 liter motor (less than 100 cubic inches) and still is a peppy car that will go 100 mph. Modern cars are quite amazing actually. They now can go 12.5-1 compression on a mere 91 octane unleaded, which was unheard of in the past. The Merc we have has 8.5 -1 compression, but then puts out a massive 22 psi boost from the turbos - and can run on pump premium unleaded making 800 hp, 1000 ft/pounds torque and still get 20 mpg in a 4600 pound car. And that technology is now almost a decade old.

    I was surprised how little the quiet mufflers and cat-converters limit power on our ubber powerful motor car as we explored powering-up options, though going cat-less and o2 sensor delete would allow then 110 octane leaded racing gas. (At 8 per gallon). The extra octanes would allow taking up the boost on the turbos. However, none of this would improve daily driving fuel economy.

    There is 100 octane unleaded racing fuel (about $6 a gallon). While 100 octane unleaded could be offered at stations, few people would be willing to pay for it. Most people just want a car to get them where they are going.

    What would more increase fuel economy would be to eliminate safety factors to increasingly lighten cars. But that does increase danger factors. Only 1 subcompact even reaches an 'acceptable" rating. Most are dismal in crashes.

    What is most inhibiting development and running up vehicle prices is primary safety regulations and crash standards, not EPA regulations. Modern computer managed motors are so efficient they put out very little emissions. The other inhibitor is products-liability. Safety features go beyond structural integrity and air bags to now also controlling the brakes, suspension, and motor. This drives the price up, but also makes for much faster cars in the corner.

    The rate at improving technology is incredible. I had no idea how far it's gone until really exploring it. However, it is not consumer adjustable and makes a person totally dependent upon the experts/shop to modify and for most mechanical repairs.

    That is frustrating. I got rid of a Jaguar XKR (supercharged XKE) because it was literally impossible to change the rear axle ratio. No one even among Jaguar enthusiasts had any way to do it either, and Jaguar refused to release the codes. If the rear axle ratio changed, the rotation of the front tires will tell the computer something is wrong and throw the car into limp mode (2nd gear and reverse only). Many tried and none succeeded at defeating that. So I got rid of it.

    But modern car are superior they way a calculator is superior to an old mechanical adding machine - though the adding machine might be more reliable.
    I never said what they achieve today is not in may ways amazing. I said it could be better.

    And, no, I'm not living in the past talking about EPA equipment.

    We no longer have 100 octane gas on the street because that would allow much higher compression ratios. Those higher ratios give more power, because they burn more efficiently. Unfortunately, when you increase efficiency in an internal combustion gasoline engine, you also increase CO2 production. Why, simple, Water and CO2 are the only things that would be produced in a perfect burn of gasoline. EPA restricts CO2 emissions, worse, it does so by using a ratio measurement. You cannot increase efficiency of the motor without increasing CO2, especially when measured as a ratio instead of by volume. I am also referring to Fuel Air mixture, timing restrictions and other idiocy put in place to meet requirements by an even stupider EPA.

    Weight, but only a little, gearing and aerodynamics give some gains. But ignoring the EPA and tuning for maximum efficiency of the motor offsets that on older vehicles. The best option would be no EPA on newer vehicles. The next best option, and the one that is legal, is to install that new technology in vehicles which are not required to meet EPA standards.

    Non-Emissions and early emissions, pre-cat vehicles give the best options for tunning. Just keep in mind that you actually have to modify the older block, not transplant a new engine to stay legal.

    The next best option is the Post-Cat, pre-OBD I vehicles. Modern cats have very little restrictions, however, since there were EPA measurements, your options on tunning are limited. These cars also came at the time when manufactures switched from really heavy to lighter cars.

    Next would be the OBD-I vehicles. Many have good aerodynamics and lighter weight. However, any gains due to aerodynamics and other factors will be offset meeting the tighter EPA restrictions. These are also the models that saw the move from 3-speed to 4-speed automatics and the introduction of the 6-speed manual transmissions, greatly improving gearing.

    There are all kinds of mods out there for changing a lot of factors involved. Including weight reduction options, better transmissions and even some aerodynamic mods for older vehicles that reduce drag. If Direct Injection for older engines were to become available, it would greatly improve even what could be achieved today.

    One of the best designs, if you are looking to improve economy on a chevy small block is to put on the TPI intake. It is by far the best intake ever designed for low to medium range torque. Couldn't move air well enough for high-end performance, but great for a daily driver.

    You also keep mentioning horse-power (HP). That is nothing but a number for them to hook you on a sale. Those numbers you are talking about are at such high rpms that they are never or only rarely ever achieved. HP really doesn't mean crap outside of racing. If your motor builds 300 hp at 6500 rpm but only makes 65 ft/lb torque at 2000 rpm, you are in far worse shape for everyday driving than if your car only built 175 HP at 5500 rpm but makes 125 ft/lb torque at 2000 rpm.

    You want to pick a car for economy, ignore HP totally, it doesn't really take affect until peak torque is reached, usually around 1000 rpm lower than peak HP. Instead, look at the torque curve, then test drive the car and see which is vehicle provides the best torque at the normal operating range at highway speeds.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  10. #250
    Revolutionary
    TNAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,018
    Blog Entries
    17

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    It doesn't matter if you think you're morally justified to speed. In a court of LAW, all that matters is the LAW.
    Nullification.

    Law is nothing more than the codification of social custom and is, as a rule, reactive. When bad law does not change quickly enough for the populace, they ignore it until it goes away. This has occurred all throughout history.

Page 25 of 39 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •