carmudgeons.com  

Go Back   carmudgeons.com > Automotive Forums > Car Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-06-2019, 09:13 AM   #11
John V
No more BMWs
 
John V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Carmudgeonly Ride: 987S, Ram, MS3, CX-5, RX-8
Location: Glenwood, MD
Posts: 12,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by JST View Post
Again, the point here isn't specifically that Volvo limited its cars to a particular number--it's that Volvo is trying to make a point about the danger of speed and spark a conversation that will lead to regulatory imposition of speed caps.
Sparking that conversation may indeed be Volvo's goal (certainly seems that way). Whether that conversation will actually happen, and whether that conversation will lead to regulatory imposition of speed caps or not is a much longer bridge.

But, yeah. Meh.
John V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 10:12 AM   #12
ff
.
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 13,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by JST View Post
make a point about the danger of speed and spark a conversation that will lead to regulatory imposition of speed caps.
Don't we already regulate speeds with road signs that tell how fast we're allowed to travel?
ff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 10:19 AM   #13
Nick M3
Old Fart
 
Nick M3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 9,230
IIRC, the EU is getting ready to mandate automatic speed limit compliance in new cars.
__________________
2006 GMC Sierra 2500HD 4WD LBZ/Allison
2002 BMW M3
1999 323i GTS2
1995 M3 S50B32, S6S420G, 3.91
1990 325is
1989 M3

Hers:
1988 325iX
1996 911 Turbo


Nick M3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 11:04 AM   #14
clyde
Chief title editor
 
clyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 23,481
What bothers me about the idea of starting a safety argument at 112mph is that 112mph will probably have an imperceptible impact on traffic fatalities. It's also not very fast and perfectly reasonable on tens of thousands of miles of Interstate and US highways outside of built up metro areas. It's even often a sane and reasonable speed on the NJTP northbound from Exits 1-5 (but almost never southbound).

Anyway...

My initial guess is that capping speeds at 112mph will not hurt Volvo's sales or their reputation among their buyers, but will cut their costs by, um, a lot.

If your cars can't go over 112mph, you don't need to design all the parts and systems to perform over 112mph. You don't need to test them over 112mph. Parts costs go down, initially making new car sales more profitable and, later, saving customers money post-warranty with lower parts replacement costs.

If they really wanted to spark a safety conversation to have a safety conversation and safety based outcome, they'd cap speeds at 80mph or less.
__________________
OH NOES!!!!!1 MY CAR HAS T3H UND3R5T33R5555!!!!!!1oneone!!!!11

Team WTF?!
What are you gonna do?
clyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 11:12 AM   #15
Nick M3
Old Fart
 
Nick M3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 9,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by clyde View Post
What bothers me about the idea of starting a safety argument at 112mph is that 112mph will probably have an imperceptible impact on traffic fatalities. It's also not very fast and perfectly reasonable on tens of thousands of miles of Interstate and US highways outside of built up metro areas. It's even often a sane and reasonable speed on the NJTP northbound from Exits 1-5 (but almost never southbound).

Anyway...

My initial guess is that capping speeds at 112mph will not hurt Volvo's sales or their reputation among their buyers, but will cut their costs by, um, a lot.

If your cars can't go over 112mph, you don't need to design all the parts and systems to perform over 112mph. You don't need to test them over 112mph. Parts costs go down, initially making new car sales more profitable and, later, saving customers money post-warranty with lower parts replacement costs.

If they really wanted to spark a safety conversation to have a safety conversation and safety based outcome, they'd cap speeds at 80mph or less.
Obviously a really different market, but trying that didn’t seem like it worked out great in the V6 Mustang.
__________________
2006 GMC Sierra 2500HD 4WD LBZ/Allison
2002 BMW M3
1999 323i GTS2
1995 M3 S50B32, S6S420G, 3.91
1990 325is
1989 M3

Hers:
1988 325iX
1996 911 Turbo


Nick M3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 11:40 AM   #16
clyde
Chief title editor
 
clyde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 23,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick M3 View Post
Obviously a really different market, but trying that didnít seem like it worked out great in the V6 Mustang.
Broadly, what about the V6 Mustang worked out great?

More limited, was the problem including the limiter or using a driveshaft that couldn't operate safely above the limiter's set speed?
__________________
OH NOES!!!!!1 MY CAR HAS T3H UND3R5T33R5555!!!!!!1oneone!!!!11

Team WTF?!
What are you gonna do?
clyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2019, 12:38 PM   #17
John V
No more BMWs
 
John V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Carmudgeonly Ride: 987S, Ram, MS3, CX-5, RX-8
Location: Glenwood, MD
Posts: 12,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick M3 View Post
Obviously a really different market, but trying that didnít seem like it worked out great in the V6 Mustang.
I had the same thought about the V6 Mustang

I agree with Clyde on this, generally. Zero impact from a safety standpoint. And 110+ is perfectly reasonable on many roads across the country. Interstate 72 across Illinois comes to mind.
John V is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Forums © 2003-2008, 'Mudgeon Enterprises - Site hosting by AYN & Associates, LLC