MS3 at high speeds?

[adamsredms3]

I hate it when people drive like(boobs)

Really? I'm not seeing enough of this (boobs2)

but I once saw a guy driving and he was doing this (nana)

Ha ha ha. Now this post is f----d.

 

[Boston5761]

Because a company has known issues with a few of its cars does not mean that ALL of its cars will have this issue. Nor does it mean that in the proper setting that car should not be driven up to its potential on the off chance that the known issue might suddenly spring up in the car being driven at the limit. If that was the case, none of us should be driving ANY car at speed as ALL cars have had issues at one time or another.

Quite often car manufacturers produce cars which are quite optimistic in terms of vehicle speed shown on the speedometer. However, many of these cars cannot attain these speeds even under the best of circumstances. Less frequently, they produce cars whose performance supersedes the speed shown on the speedometer. Normally, this is not the case. Generally, when manufacturers produce an automobile the speedometer covers the range of speeds that most drivers will use that car in.

The MS3 is sold in several markets worldwide including the European market. As was shown in the Sport Compact Car video there are areas where it is legal to travel at speeds in excess of 150 mph on public roadways. The MS3 did so without too much fanfare. The MS3 is electronically limited to 155 mph. The engine is capable of doing more. The manufacturers likely chose this limit because beyond which the control of the car becomes problematic for all but the most skilled drivers.

The MS3 is limited to this speed because thats what the insurance regulations mandate.

 

[Betelgeuse]

Many cars are capable of going at speeds that they

I said nothing about breakaway motor mounts...I said the engine is falling out of these cars and people are talking about driving them 140+. These mounts are failing without any contact or wrecks to speak of. A couple of people have had theirs fail going 30mph, not 140. And if a car is involved in a wreck going 140 and hits a wall...the last thing you have to worry about is hoping your breakaway motor mounts work properly.

I agree with most of what you're saying but try to keep the drama turned down a notch. THE ENGINES ARE NOT FALLING OUT. Falling out means just that and no one has had to stop, get out and go look for their engine on the road somewhere. Yes some (and only some)tranny mounts have failed causing the engine to drop on the axle. And Yes I agree, at high speeds this could probably lead to a bad situation but that has yet to be seen.

 

[matsuda]

The MS3 is electronically limited to 155 mph. The engine is capable of doing more.

That is being optimistic.

The latest C&D had the top speed at 151, drag (power) limited.

I'm sure that under the right circumstances, the car is capable of 155 but there can't be much more in reserve.

It's too bad that Mazda didn't limit the top speed to something a bit more sane, especially for the North American market. There are probably way too many kids that would want to find out if the 155 limiter really exists.

 

[camrycev6]

Interesting side note...the European version is listed (like the US version) to be limited to 155 MPH. It actually is not.... the car can go above it. The Dec 2006 Automobile magazine took a MS3 to 162 MPH in Germany on public oads with no issues....

 

[dommo_g]

The MS3 is limited to this speed because thats what the insurance regulations mandate.

What insurance regulations are those? Do you have a link to your source on that?

 

[camrycev6]

Boston, I would like to see your evidence on that as well. Considering that the electronic speed limiters in cars vary widely across the board for similar vehicles, that statement makes no sense. Below is some data to consider. Notice that most cars are electronically limited versus drag limited, but yet the speeds vary quite a bit. Are you suggesting that the insurance on a GTI should be less than a MS3 because it can't go a fast? Insurance has way more to do with cost of vehicle, class of vehicle, and safety features (air bags, anti-lock brakes, etc.) After all, I can make a Hyundai Accent go over 100 MPH -- but insurance is dirt cheap for those cars. Check it out:

G6 - 118(e)
Aura - 115(e)
SS - 141(d)
GTI - 126(e)
MS3 - 155(e)
Red Line - 145(d)
Altima - 146(e)
WRX - 145(d)

 

[maybemazda]

Beyond that, I dont see how ANYONE anywhere can make a case that one speed (60 mph for instance) is any less dangerous than another (50 mph). I havent seen any info anywhere that shows any speed being much safer than another. Maybe I am not explaining this well, but what standards have they used to decide what is the safest speed to go. And if they are using speed limits as a safety mechanism, why dont they just make them all like 34? The lower the safer, right? Why is there no speed limit on the bhan?

Dont get me wrong, I believe there SHOULD be speed limits, but I also think they are for people that cant make good decisions. I have gone well over a hunred on the expressway before when there was no one around and I had a clear line with no traffic. I take the risk of getting a ticket, and or blowing a tire and killing myself. I did this in a car that could more than handle these speeds though and I was fine, nothing wrong there.

People that complain about going fast, spare me your moral attacks, if you REALLY believed what you said, you wouldnt drive at all because everytime you get in a car, you risk your life and others whether you go 60 mph or 120.(smash)

 

[camrycev6]

True...there is always some sort of risk in just about anything you do...but that is slippery slope you are on with your argument....

While I agree with your concepts of relative speeds being the same, I think you would have to concede that the risk of injury (especially fatal) and the number injuries / damage goes up as speed increases. So, that said, there is a big difference between 60 and 120 and you cannot compare the two. It comes down to pure physics really, and momentum = MV

That is why they set speed limits in the first place. They just don't do it on the cars because people would have a cow. Have a wreck in a residential area doing 90 versus 20 and see how much damage you do. You driving on a closed road at 120 --- fine. You driving on I95 during a busy day at 120 --- not the same. If you wreck you are a lot more likely to hurt more than just yourself at 120 versus 60 --- Hence the relative risk is not even close to the same.

BTW.. the autobahn folks have been steadily reducing the no limit sections. There has been a recent discussion of moving the max to 130 km/hr (A little over 80 MPH)

 

[Boston5761]

Boston, I would like to see your evidence on that as well. Considering that the electronic speed limiters in cars vary widely across the board for similar vehicles, that statement makes no sense. Below is some data to consider. Notice that most cars are electronically limited versus drag limited, but yet the speeds vary quite a bit. Are you suggesting that the insurance on a GTI should be less than a MS3 because it can't go a fast? Insurance has way more to do with cost of vehicle, class of vehicle, and safety features (air bags, anti-lock brakes, etc.) After all, I can make a Hyundai Accent go over 100 MPH -- but insurance is dirt cheap for those cars. Check it out:

G6 - 118(e)
Aura - 115(e)
SS - 141(d)
GTI - 126(e)
MS3 - 155(e)
Red Line - 145(d)
Altima - 146(e)
WRX - 145(d)

What are you talking about? The speed is limited to 155mph because thats what the automakers and insurance agreed on...meaning thats the max a car is allowed to go. I said nothing about cost of insurance?

 

[Boston5761]

Beyond that, I dont see how ANYONE anywhere can make a case that one speed (60 mph for instance) is any less dangerous than another (50 mph). I havent seen any info anywhere that shows any speed being much safer than another. Maybe I am not explaining this well, but what standards have they used to decide what is the safest speed to go. And if they are using speed limits as a safety mechanism, why dont they just make them all like 34? The lower the safer, right? Why is there no speed limit on the bhan?

Dont get me wrong, I believe there SHOULD be speed limits, but I also think they are for people that cant make good decisions. I have gone well over a hunred on the expressway before when there was no one around and I had a clear line with no traffic. I take the risk of getting a ticket, and or blowing a tire and killing myself. I did this in a car that could more than handle these speeds though and I was fine, nothing wrong there.

People that complain about going fast, spare me your moral attacks, if you REALLY believed what you said, you wouldnt drive at all because everytime you get in a car, you risk your life and others whether you go 60 mph or 120.(smash)

http://www.virginiadot.org/info/faq-speedlimits.asp

 

[Boston5761]

that's like saying there's no difference in me getting hit by a 72 mph curve and getting hit with a 98mph fastball, because they could both kill me.

 

[camrycev6]

What are you talking about? The speed is limited to 155mph because thats what the automakers and insurance agreed on...meaning thats the max a car is allowed to go. I said nothing about cost of insurance?

I would have to ask you what you are talking about. Sorry, but you aren't making any sense. You are saying that insurance companies limit the speed of cars on an individual basis? So, "they" -- some conglomerate of insurance companies / automakers -- have decided that a MS3 can go to 155, but a GTI can only go to 126. A G6's can only go to 118, and an Aura can only go to 115? What magical data are they using to base this on? Any why would they do this, if it doesn't affect insurance rates? Why would the insurance companies even be involved?

It makes no sense at all, and you have yet to provide any logical basis for your conclusion.

 

[camrycev6]

that's like saying there's no difference in me getting hit by a 72 mph curve and getting hit with a 98mph fastball, because they could both kill me.

Not at all. You have completely missed my point.

Beyond that, I dont see how ANYONE anywhere can make a case that one speed (60 mph for instance) is any less dangerous than another (50 mph). I havent seen any info anywhere that shows any speed being much safer than another.

My point: I am saying there is a huge difference in risk (danger) between large differences in speed when it comes to cars. To use an example of 50 versus 60 and then casually compare 60 to 120 isn't at all reasonable. And there is plenty of data to support that speed is a critical factor in injuries / fatalities involving vehicles. Here are just a couple of good sources:

http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/20_speed/speed_and_accident_risk.htm

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.html

Using your logic, any car at any speed all equally carry the same risk because any of them could kill you. I agree that a car doing 10 could kill me just as like a car doing 100 could. However, the risk involved is clearly not the same, so therefore I should rationally treat the two situations differently. My point (which you obviously missed) is that a car traveling at 120 miles an hour has far greater potential to injure / kill than a car traveling at 60 miles an hour. If your definition of risk doesn't consider the conditions, then everyday life would be either dramatically conservative, or recklessly foolish. Something tells me (as I am not trying to insult you) that you do consider relative risks whether you want to admit it here or not.

 

[Boston5761]

Have read anything i've posted, I said nothing about insurance regulating cars individually. I said it's limited to 155 because cars produced today, unless an exotic are regulated to that speed, as a MAX SPEED. In Germany it's called the gentleman's act, in other countries it's called different things. I said nothing about a GTI being the same cost as a speed? Once again...cars today are limited to a MAX speed of 155mph, by some sort of governor, thats a MAX SPEED. Some are limited to 98mph, some 125mph. None above 155mph.

 

[camrycev6]

I have read everything you have posted, which is why I am surprised by your comments.

Boston...I can see you aren't going to address any of my points, even when I quote your own posts back to you. You just keep changing the point you are attempting to make after I point out the errors in your previous attempts. I can't have a discussion if you are going to persist on being irrational. I know it is hard for me to do when it happens, but can't you just admit you are wrong on this one? (Or two in this case...)

Anyway, I will leave you with one final point --- which I am fairly confident you will ignore.... Many cars -- and exotics still count as cars because they are "street legal" and must be adhere to those laws --- are not limited to 155. I just provided an earlier example of an MS3 going to 162. (Did you read my post?) ZO6 Corvettes, Vipers, Porsches 911s, Ferrari's (several), Bugatti, Aston Martin, etc., etc. all can go faster than 155 -- their electronic limiters are higher that 155, and in some cases are drag limited -- but are still higher than 155. And yes, the go faster than 155 in Germany too! Again...all of them are street legal, so what mysterious gentleman's law are you talking about? If it exists, why do so many cars not have to adhere to it?

This is nothing personal man, but you haven't really offered one counterpoint to anything I have said. You have either ignored it, changed your statements (Again...why I quoted you), or offered dubious counter statements (typically to points I didn't make in the first place) with no facts or rationale to back them. Just go back and read the whole thread again...you might see my points. If not, hey, I tried. I will let the posts speak for themselves.

 

[AntimonyER]

I must agree with camry on that point, my Z06 went well above 155. Just reference your latest Car and Driver or Road and Track, and look for an exotic, and you will see top speeds well above 155.

 

[dommo_g]

Still waiting for your source on who decides what a car is electronically speed limited to.....or did you just pull that out of your ass?

 

[camrycev6]

Dommo...I would not hold your breath. I think I might have scared him off!

 

[Mocoso]

ITS ALL ABOUT TIRES!

Guys on most cars the electronic speed limit is due to max tire speed ratings... its that simple

Lets refocus the thread on topic and call a truce on this argument....