Should cars have built-in speed limit?

TNAR said:

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.

Click to expand...

I raised the question of going extreme speeds on a flat, open highway in the middle of nowhere with not a car in sight - and what then should the punishment be? Many, if not most, members wanted prison and banned from driving for live plus seizing the car and huge fine because a school bus full of children would be beamed by tele-transportation in front of that car killing all those innocent children.

It's called envy. They can't do it so they want it criminal for you to do it. That is a flaw of mob rule (ie democracy).

TNAR said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do you realize how immature it sounds to bring up nullification as an attempt to enable people to drive however dangerously they want?

Phys251 said:

Do you realize how immature it sounds to bring up nullification as an attempt to enable people to drive however dangerously they want?

Click to expand...

Unless you hit someone while speeding it is a victimless crime. You should not be punished when there is no victim.

Henrin said:

Unless you hit someone while speeding it is a victimless crime. You should not be punished when there is no victim.

Click to expand...

You mean, over 30,000 victims a year? Man, with attitudes like these, no wonder we have such aggressive, self-entitled drivers.

Phys251 said:

Do you realize how immature it sounds to bring up nullification as an attempt to enable people to drive however dangerously they want?

Click to expand...

You do realize that he was talking about speeding, not driving dangerously. Not the same thing.

Phys251 said:

You mean, over 30,000 victims a year? Man, with attitudes like these, no wonder we have such aggressive, self-entitled drivers.

Click to expand...

What data do you have that "speed" kills or injures 30,000 victims a year? Have you actually even read an accident report? Have you ever worked in safety and have a clue on reporting procedures and evaluations?

DVSentinel said:

Physics simply does not allow maximum efficiency under current EPA guidelines.

Click to expand...

Maximum efficiency is toxic and emissions systems effect output less than you might think. I ought to know - I own a 2002 Intrepid R/T 3.5L (which is an LEV) that has some homemade efficiency modifications but I didn't touch the emissions control systems. I also own a '72 Road Runner GTX, which has a factory 440, now slightly built. Both engines have similar compression, get about the same HP/inch, and the GTX, whose engine is twice as big, gets half the gas mileage, as you might expect. But the GTX spews out over 10x the amount of pollutants - and that's using unleaded gas instead of the leaded gas it was originally designed to use. While there may be some minor power loss from emissions systems it really doesn't amount to anything significant. PCV & EGR systems are used for quenching, vapor recovery systems use no power, and catalytic converters don't restrict squat nowadays. Engineers have learned to USE the emissions control systems instead of leaving them being parasitic like the old days.


It's not pristine by a long shot. I put money into the engine instead of the body.


PS
Yes, I could have driven that car when it was new.

MoSurveyor said:

Maximum efficiency is toxic and emissions systems effect output less than you might think. I ought to know - I own a 2002 Intrepid R/T 3.5L (which is an LEV) that has some homemade efficiency modifications but I didn't touch the emissions control systems. I also own a '72 Road Runner GTX, which has a factory 440, now slightly built. Both engines have similar compression, get about the same HP/inch, and the GTX, whose engine is twice as big, gets half the gas mileage, as you might expect. But the GTX spews out over 10x the amount of pollutants - and that's using unleaded gas instead of the leaded gas it was originally designed to use. While there may be some minor power loss from emissions systems it really doesn't amount to anything significant. The PCV is used for quenching, the vapor recovery system uses no power, and the catalytic converters don't restrict squat. The only thing that drains any power is the EGR and it's draw is very small.

View attachment 67161037
It's not pristine by a long shot. I put money into the engine instead of the body.

Click to expand...

Sigh. I guess you missed the post where I explained that I was not talking about emissions equipment.

MoSurveyor said:

Maximum efficiency is toxic and emissions systems effect output less than you might think. I ought to know - I own a 2002 Intrepid R/T 3.5L (which is an LEV) that has some homemade efficiency modifications but I didn't touch the emissions control systems. I also own a '72 Road Runner GTX, which has a factory 440, now slightly built. Both engines have similar compression, get about the same HP/inch, and the GTX, whose engine is twice as big, gets half the gas mileage, as you might expect. But the GTX spews out over 10x the amount of pollutants - and that's using unleaded gas instead of the leaded gas it was originally designed to use. While there may be some minor power loss from emissions systems it really doesn't amount to anything significant. PCV & EGR systems are used for quenching, vapor recovery systems use no power, and catalytic converters don't restrict squat nowadays. Engineers have learned to USE the emissions control systems instead of them being parasitic.

View attachment 67161037
It's not pristine by a long shot. I put money into the engine instead of the body.

Click to expand...

Looks better than my Chevelle.



Ok, you mentioned emissions. How do you know one puts out more than the other? Got the DEQ numbers?

Phys251 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't flaunt speed limits - I just ignore them when they're unjustified. I'm a mature, informed, and experienced enough driver to know when the posted limit is low - and I actually understand that roads have design speeds, which I allow for in my driving decisions.

For me, speeding has nothing to do with morality. If I speed and get caught I pay the fine, don't bitch, and hold no grudge.

DVSentinel said:

Looks better than my Chevelle.

View attachment 67161038

Ok, you mentioned emissions. How do you know one puts out more than the other? Got the DEQ numbers?

Click to expand...

We don't have that, here, so - no, I don't. But I've done enough reading to know what the averages were in the early 70's compared to what my LEV Dodge puts out. It's not a big leap to say 10x more - mostly in nitrogen compounds.

DVSentinel said:

Sigh. I guess you missed the post where I explained that I was not talking about emissions equipment.

Click to expand...

Mmmm, I guess I did. Care to give me a rough hint where that post is? I don't mind looking a little but we're up to 250+ posts, now.

MoSurveyor said:

Mmmm, I guess I did. Care to give me a rough hint where that post is? I don't mind looking a little but we're up to 250+ posts, now.

Click to expand...

post #249

MoSurveyor said:

We don't have that, here, so - no, I don't. But I've done enough reading to know what the averages were in the early 70's compared to what my LEV Dodge puts out. It's not a big leap to say 10x more - mostly in nitrogen compounds.

Click to expand...

Even if you have never seen a '60s or '70s car blow zeros on an emission test I have.

In Las Vegas you have to smog a car every year and we would adjust the car when it was on the machine.

Why do you asume the, what was it a Satellite, would blow 10X more than the newer car?

MoSurveyor said:

We don't have that, here, so - no, I don't. But I've done enough reading to know what the averages were in the early 70's compared to what my LEV Dodge puts out. It's not a big leap to say 10x more - mostly in nitrogen compounds.

Click to expand...

Darn. One of these days in one of these discussions I am going to get someone to bring theirs up and answer a few questions so I can demonstrate a point about DEQ/EPA measurements that some people keep telling me I'm lying about. So I want someone to present it then answer those questions and they can then understand my point.

We don't have it either. The closest is in Dallas and also, I don't know if it is separate from state inspection there or part of it. If it is part of it and I fail, I cannot then get my car inspected anywhere else in the state. Besides, the cost to drive that distance and pay for the test alone is just not worth it just to make a point on this forum.

That is partly because of the CAT. It is designed to burn the hydrocarbons (unburnt fuel) and because it does it with basically no compression, it is a very inefficient burn giving off lots more nitrogen compounds and other things, but less, by their measure, CO2.

The point I'm trying to make if I can ever get a DEQ reading posted is that their readings are a ratio measure, not a particle count or amount. If you get 70 ppm, that means 70 of every 1 million particles are that item. Nothing tells you how many particles. There is nothing that says your motor puts out X grams of CO2 per mile. A car can put out 10 ppm compared to your 70ppm but in reality you might put out 35 grams per mile and the other car may put out 100 grams per mile, DEQ just doesn't check that nor does EPA regulate emissions that way.

If you test two cars without Cats, the car with the lower Hydrocarbon to CO2 ration will be the more efficient burn, not necessarily in fuel mileage of course, just a more efficient burn. Anytime you see an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Hydrocarbons, you have made your motor more efficient. CO2 and Water are the only two compounds that must result from combustion of gasoline with oxygen. All the other crap is there because of the atmosphere and poor burn characteristics.

Mason66 said:

Even if you have never seen a '60s or '70s car blow zeros on an emission test I have.

In Las Vegas you have to smog a car every year and we would adjust the car when it was on the machine.

Why do you asume the, what was it a Satellite, would blow 10X more tan the newer car?

Click to expand...

Good question. If I have 1 million ppm of coke in a glass, then mix it with water until I get 500K ppm, then the EPA says I decreased the amount of coke. Government math for you there.

In reality, I just put in the same amount of water, thus doubling the amount of fluid. The amount of coke is still the same.

Mason66 said:

Even if you have never seen a '60s or '70s car blow zeros on an emission test I have.

In Las Vegas you have to smog a car every year and we would adjust the car when it was on the machine.

Why do you asume the, what was it a Satellite, would blow 10X more than the newer car?

Click to expand...

We don't have those kind of tests here. Hell, St Louis is the only area in the state that requires vapor recycling at gas pumps. No place in Kansas requires it and that about covers all my close friends.

A Satellite is the mild-mannered base version of a Road Runner/GTX.

Something I read a decade ago when I was looking for a newer car. I was looking up what LEV meant and ran across something from a university about the changes in automotive pollution over the decades. That reference is lost to time, I'd probably never find it again - assuming it's even still on-line.

Summerwind said:

Some already do have governors. Is that what you mean, or one's that will respond automatically to the speed limit of each stretch of road?

Click to expand...

Worthless and overrideable. I know some 4th gen Z28s had top speed limiters. That limit was 105mph.
Otherwise the whole question of speed limiters on a car is just more big brother cry baby BS.

MoSurveyor said:

We don't have those kind of tests here. Hell, St Louis is the only area in the state that requires vapor recycling at gas pumps. No place in Kansas requires it and that about covers all my close friends.

A Satellite is the mild-mannered base version of a Road Runner/GTX.

Something I read a decade ago when I was looking for a newer car. I was looking up what LEV meant and ran across something from a university about the changes in automotive pollution over the decades. That reference is lost to time, I'd probably never find it again - assuming it's even still on-line.

Click to expand...

I am sorry but the last Road Runner was 1970. Also Road Runners and GTXs are different cars. I am biased when it comes to these cars.

I have had many older cars that blew zeros on the smog test but I will have to say that very few people keep their cars running so well. This is why the car manufacturers made it so the car does all the work to make sure the emissions stay low, but it is not accurate to say that an older car automatically puts out more emissions than a newer car.

If just one sensor goes bad on a newer car it becomes a gross polluter.

Mason66 said:

I am sorry but the last Road Runner was 1970. Also Road Runners and GTXs are different cars. I am biased when it comes to these cars.

Click to expand...

Uh, NO.


First off, Road Runners (and Chargers) - at least, what I call Road Runners - were made until 1974. Many parts from 1971-74 B-bodies (Road Runner, GTX, Charger) interchange across all years. Some interior parts even interchange with E-bodies, Barracuda's and Challengers.


Secondly: The last GTX as a separate model was made in 1971. In 1972 Chrysler couldn't use the 426 hemi or 440-6,. which only left the 440-4 as an engine for the GTX. Instead of a separate car line, since the GTX and Road Runner have the same base, they decided that any Road Runner with a factory 440 in the 1972-74 years also got GTX badging. My VIN is RM23U2, a 1972 Road Runner with a factory 440 engine, and subsequent GTX badges - a Road Runner GTX, one of only 792 made that year. 1973-74 didn't even have that many total for both years.


You are ignorant when it comes to these cars. Go ahead, look 'em up at Year One, I'll wait.
Here's another couple of pages of pics of those non-existent cars. I have to assume NBOA is good enough for you, though they also have an obvious B-body bias:

http://www.wwnboa.org/pg6772.htm
http://www.wwnboa.org/prr7174.htm


When you're done looking you can come back and apologize for your terrible mistake.


PS
Here's another pic of mine - notice the license plate?




Here's a pic of the trunk badging - still original and unpainted since 1971, when it was produced (the first week of Sep '71, to be exact)




Why are you biased - because they kept kicking your ass on the strip back then? :lol:

MoSurveyor said:

Uh, NO.

First off, Road Runners (and Cahrgers) - at least, what I call Road Runners - were made until 1974. Many parts from 1971-74 B-bodies (Road Runner, GTX, Charger) interchange across all years. Some interior parts even interchange with E-bodies, Barracuda's and Challengers.

Secondly: The last GTX as a separate model was made in 1971 but any Road Runner with a factory 440 in the 1972-74 years also got GTX badging.

You are ignorant when it comes to these cars. Go ahead, look 'em up at Year One, I'll wait. Then you can come back and apologize for calling me a liar.

Click to expand...

I am not ignorant in any way when it comes to these cars. You can call it a Road Runner all you want but it is just a dressed up Satellite and not a very good one. I understand it is your car and you are partial to it.

I think that it would be stupid. I mean there is alot of raceing that would be prevented and like it is crack is illegal and nobody can get that. Needless to say there are many mechanics who would jump to accept that money and alter vehicles so that criminals could still get around the system

Mason66 said:

I am not ignorant in any way when it comes to these cars. You can call it a Road Runner all you want but it is just a dressed up Satellite and not a very good one. I understand it is your car and you are partial to it.

Click to expand...

Your previous statements say otherwise. May as well call a Goat a dressed up Tempest. :roll:

MoSurveyor said:

Your previous statements say otherwise. May as well call a Goat a dressed up Tempest. :roll:

Click to expand...

The 1990's Lincoln was a dressed up Crown Victoria, though it was an awful nice suit. :mrgreen:

There are places in the United States without speed limits. If companies want to risk losing business by making cars that way go ahead. The government has no place in regulating that though.