• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should cars have built-in speed limit?

Do you think cars should have built-in electronic speed limit

  • Yes, all cars ecxept "special" ones (police, swat, etc.)

    Votes: 11 11.5%

  • No

    Votes: 76 79.2%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 2.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 7.3%
  • Total voters
    96
CRUE CAB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not all. The Gen IV's, you had to get the top suspension/tire option to get the limiter removed. Caused quite a lot of trouble for AAFES sales back then when customers got there cars, hit the autobahn and then got shut down. I was actually thinking of getting a Gen IV (Trans AM actually, not the camaro) when I ran across the '92 Z-28 in K-town, still own it.
 
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...

Gee, apparently Year One is a all knowing encyclopedia for old Mopars. Who would a thunk? I also love how some car guys cant think they point out a wrong without going the extra mile and calling someone ignorant. Usually its the parking lot car show racers that do it.
You know the ones, don't own the first tool yet know everything. Never built the first car of their own, yet got all the straight dope on anything automotive related.
 

The fact is that the Road Runners were from 1968 to 1970. The car that came after was an ugly filler to that market and it very unpopular.

They have always been $300.00 cars even if they were a Road Runner. I wonder if he would consider the Plymouth Volare that had the Road Runner stickers on it a Road Runner too.

The first time I saw anybody pay any attention to those cars was on the Counting Cars show.

As to your last point. I learned my lesson with people. Even if I know they are wrong, I just let them have their fantasy.

I was once talking to a mechanic, an old mechanic, and he told me he once saw a 1958 Camaro.

I thought to myself that maybe 2 years before introduction there could have been a prototype, but not 9 years.

It turns out he was talking about the El Camino which officially came out in 1959, so there probably was a 1958 prototype at one point.

I didn't argue with him as it would have done no good at all.
 

Crue built a bracket racer in his garage years ago so now figures he's an auto guru - like someone who puts together a boxed puzzle and decides he's an artist.

A curious claim that he "built" a car. He means he put one together. :lol:
 
Usually its better to talk about torque than horsepower in street cars, but everyone thinks in terms of horsepower so I tend to just post in those terms.

Octane levels were not lowered on federal mandate directly. What was outlawed was "lead." That boosted effective octane levels. Without "lead," gasoline has a much lower octane. There is no law prohibiting 100 octane unleaded gasoline. Most people don't care about power as long as their car goes down the road. For how most people drive they really only need 2 cylinders. The 1000+ horsepower Veyron is only using about 50 hp traveling along at 60 mph.

Variable cams/lifters, multi-valve heads, direct cylinder injection and computer management allows notably flat horsepower and rpm curves - mainly because motors now can put out radical amounts of power that is computer limited. Since the power is being "held back," the motor can reach its allowed torque and allowed horsepower and stay at it for a very long time. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but for the Merc we have - a 385 cid V12, it has a flat torque curve in factory form covering 2200 rpms, its that at very low rpms (I seem to remember 1600) and doesn't fall off all that much to it's leisurely (for a V12 of that displacement) 5900 rpms. The horsepower is also almost as flat. It is a car that in OEM form was built to be able to cruise the Autobaum 186 mph hours on end.

Tetraethylenelead or whatever its real name is very health destructive. You would not want to get it straight on your skin. Many cities do have terrible "smog" problems - LA the worse - but even elsewhere if you drive into many huge urbans you can see the grey haze of the air over the city before you see the city. Bad air is a seriously health problem and it's not just greenies that say so, but also doctors.

The technology is amazing actually and it has been interesting looking back over the history of mechanical development, particularly watershed models that enhanced technology - or inhibited it - and how that intertwined with politics. For example, GM shifted in the mid 60s from opposing federal regulations to supporting them. Ford had just spent a billion dollars on new generation motors - the Cleveland (notably the huge port heads) and the boss 429 plus the "cammer." The 351 Cleveland had the future potential for 500 cid and the 429 for over 600. Mopar also was going for horsepower, but internally questioning "the ethics of putting 500 horsepower motors into taxi cab chassis' and selling them to teenagers." (CEO of Chrysler). Their designs inherently couldn't meet EPA standards. As for safety, you could run a 928 into a brick wall at 60 - and it wouldn't even crack the windshield.

But more, GM never got over the Corvair matter, that GM has poured piles of money into including to target the Euro market. GM figured regulations here and abroad would kill nearly all fot he many hundreds of small car makers - and they were right about that. They could not afford the testing or retooling.

GM wanted to take out Porsche, a thorn in the side of Corvette sales, when Porsche was nowhere near it's size now, and GM wanted to take out VW, which competed with the economy cars, plus there were other rear engined car makers they wanted to take out. If GM couldn't have a rear engined or air cooled motor, then no one else should be able to either. So GM used its legislative muscle in a push to get rear engined cars outlawed for emissions and safety reasons.

Porsche is one of those companies that has intensely loyal, wealthy followers (why else would anyone buy one at their prices?) and they poured money into Porsche for a new model concept - basically ground up builds and the first truly advantageous computer systems too. The front engined water cooled 4 cylinder 928 quickly became the 944 and the turbo 944, plus the luxury ultra high performance 928 2+2 4 seater coupe - no turbos - with advanced fuel injection and so fast it would not only blow away any Vette, it was faster than 2 seat aluminum Ferraris and Lambos - and got good mileage, handled fantastic and rode comfortably.

Although costing more than the average house and 3 times the price of a Vette, Porsche lost money on every 928 which were virtually hand built - and kept making and improving them for 2 decades.

While the reason did mean anything to people, this was Porsche making a huge threat to GM and every other car maker in the world. Porsche had the patents. The 928 motor was exactly 1/2 a turbo 944 - literally used the same heads. And the 944 met all regulations. That meant that Porsche only had to put two turbos from the 944 onto the 928 - already the fastest production car in the world - and the 928 would become a 600 horsepower monster in the mid 80s at a time when GM's hottest Vette made all of 270. So GM gave up it's war against rear engined car - plus they now had the Japanese to content with and their the laws they had helped to get passed hurting them.

When production stopped on the 928, Porsche buried it. It has no respect and they are only minimally tolerated somewhere in the back at a Porsche car show. A 928 4 valve from the 80s will still blow away a boxster.

The evolution of cars and particularly motors is very interesting. Other than the rotary, the same basic motor has been built for over 100 years. How old is the SBC? It does back to the 265, right?

Leaded fuel is never coming back, nor should it. It is too poisonous. People want the cheapest gas they can get to get them where they are going. If they have 70 hp that'd be enough for 90% of
them.

The American muscle car is back and in a big way - though their ads a bit deceptive. One definition of a muscle car is affordability. So they won't have top performance components. However, because so many are sold aftermarket parts are cheaper so they can be built up cheaper. The Merc I have has ultra exotic valves, oil sprays underneigh each piston to cool them off, independent water cooled thru independent radiators, Very complex direct cylinder injection - and the list goes on and on. So the car was (new, we got it used) exorbitantly expensive. Still, for a fraction of the costs, a person could make a V8 Camero fastest.

How much of a percentage of fuel economy do you think cars could make on unleaded 87 octane gas than they do now by eliminating EPA regulations other than about "leaded" gasoline? They can go 12.5 compression on 91 octane. I think that is has high as old super muscle cars ever went on 110 octane super premium leaded fuel. The Merc we have has 22 psi boost into 8.5-1 compression on 91 octane unleaded.
 
DVSentinel said:
You do realize that he was talking about speeding, not driving dangerously. Not the same thing.
Click to expand...

When someone chooses to drive significantly faster than the surrounding traffic, oh yes it is.

DVSentinel said:
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?
Click to expand...

And you have? Can you please give us evidence that shows that it's even remotely possible that speeding doesn't kill?

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/speed_en.pdf
 

OK, that sounds a little better. But I stand by my point that people who feel that a particular speed limit is too low should use the democratic process to try and get it raised.
 
I've got most of the tools I need to take the car apart and put it back together except the short block and tranny, I don't mess with those. I rebuilt my first front end about 3 decades ago and have done several since then. Ditto for rebuilding carbs. I've swapped heads, rebuilt one set of heads (never again!), and swapped I don't know how many intakes.
 
In my post I specifically stated "at least, what I call Road Runners" when I said the last year was 1974. You made no such note, which made you look ignorant. If we had been on a car forum I might have gotten the gist of your post right off the bat. Since we're not, and since I've seen all sorts of stupid on here, I had no idea you weren't simply another idiot who read something wrong in a book somewhere. I was there, just like you apparently were. I grew up with these cars and bought the '72 later in life because I liked their looks as a teen. I don't care if the car is stock or not, I didn't want a numbers matching trailer queen. I just wanted one last car to play with on weekends, which is what I've got. Eventually, I'll learn auto body work with it. I never really cared too much about looks. I've always spent what little money I had on performance. Doesn't do much good to have a looker if it can't run for crap or corners like a tuna boat.


As for the rest:
The 1971-72 B-body factory 440 models (like mine) were virtually the same suspension as the 1970, so I don't know what bug you have up your ass about the 1971-72 unless it's the stock engine specifications, which I didn't keep. Either that or you just can't stand anything that doesn't look like a box on wheels.
 
Last edited:

First, read the previous posts in this thread, I'm nor retyping it.

Second, you quote something from WHO which means that you now have zero credibility. WHO is the same organization the believes availability of health care is the greatest determining factor of quality. WHO wouldn't know reality if it bit them on their asses. What does it say about you that you would actually believe anything they say?
 
An Experiment: Push the gas pedal all the way down while you are on the highway... I would suggest you will find your car already has a speed limit. :rock
 
Phys251 said:
OK, that sounds a little better. But I stand by my point that people who feel that a particular speed limit is too low should use the democratic process to try and get it raised.
Click to expand...
Traffic engineering and enforcement doesn't work that way. If the speed limit is 70, X number of drivers will go +5 (75), a smaller number (Y) will go +10 (80), and a smaller number still (Z) will go faster than +10 (81+). When you raise the speed limit - say to 75 - those numbers don't drop much unless the road is obviously hazardous at those higher speeds. There will still be X, Y, and Z number of driver speeding - but now driving 80, 85, and 86+. Better to keep the speed lower and risk the ticket than open the gate for driver's who don't have the judgement, experience, etc. to speed in the first place.
 
jmotivator said:
An Experiment: Push the gas pedal all the way down while you are on the highway... I would suggest you will find your car already has a speed limit. :rock
Click to expand...

Yeah, there were several cases with the pedal stuck to the floor or something. Not a pleasant experience. :roll:
 
joko104 said:
There are few accident situations where a person would survive at 70 mph but wouldn't at 90 mph.
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the lines of preventing such - I would think a crash more likely at higher speeds because less time to react.
 

Wow, you are really off-based with your criticism of WHO. What you said makes about as much sense as saying that because someone doesn't understand the circulatory system, he or she can't be a good truck driver. You need to start presenting some legitimate evidence, quickly, if you intend for me to take your positions seriously. Now would you care to falsify the claim that excess speeding kills?
 

That's not necessarily true and I can prove it. Here is a counterexample. Quote:

"GDOT officials are considering raising the speed limit to 70 in urban areas - or places with populations of 50,000 or more. The agency raised the speed limit to 65 mph along a 27-mile stretch of I-285 in November. Department records show that drivers traveled at 65.4 mph after the limit was raised, compared with 65.5 mph from before. The limit had been 55 mph."​

My preliminary research suggests that raising speed limits on interstates, particularly rural interstates, can be a reasonable course of action (PDF). But raising speed limits on surface streets is not:

The results of the model estimations showed that, for the speed limit ranges currently used, speed limits did not have a statistically significant effect on the severity of accidents on Interstate highways. However, for some non-Interstate highways, higher speed limits were found to be associated with higher accident severities, suggesting that
future speed limit changes, on non-Interstate highways in particular, need to be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis.​
 

This thread is not the place to discuss how truely disgusting and discredited the WHO is. They are a biased discredited source and is the source of your "proof".

As to falsifying the claim that excess speeding kills, as I suggested before, read what has already be written in the thread. If you want to argue a particular point I have already made or address one I may not of addressed yet, go ahead and bring it forth, but I am not starting at the beginning again.
 
DVSentinel said:
This thread is not the place to discuss how truely disgusting and discredited the WHO is. They are a biased discredited source and is the source of your "proof".
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, since when does a strong and pathological dislike of an organization automatically falsify anything they say? If the report I posted is so off-base, surely it should be no trouble to disprove it. Your unwillingness to do so suggests that--wait for it--the report is likely accurate.


Can you please point me to the particular post number? This thread is nearly 300 posts long.
 
Phys251 said:
Can you please point me to the particular post number? This thread is nearly 300 posts long.
Click to expand...

Enjoy the read. But I am not going re-address points already made. Or don't and just let everyone know that you are only interested in being antagonistic and don't really have a point to make.
 

I'm all for letting Darwin decide instead of the police.
 

I don't think so. Do you mean the highest legal speed limit in the country? So, like, 80 mph? Or do you mean the computer changes the ability to go with the area of town you're in....the car can go 65 on some highways, 35 in the city, etc.?

My main concern is that all cars won't be doing this simultaneously. Old cars will remain on the roads for decades. So some people won't have that limit. Which means that if I need to speed to get away from someone chasing me in an old car, I'm outta luck.

Or if someone needs to speed someone else to the hospital in an emergency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…