MS3 at high speeds?

[camrycev6]

There was never an argument to begin with. I was never angry --- this was more like a one sided discussion.

I also think the thread topic has pretty much been addressed.

Finally, I have to cry BS at your tire comment. There is no more logic or truth to that than many of Boston's statements. There are tires that cover the entire range up to 186 MPH. There are also tires rated for speeds over 186 MPH. So if I could just put a better tire on the car, why would I limit the performance?

 

[tbone13]

I hate it when people drive like(boobs)

love when people drive like that (breakn)

 

[maybemazda]

Yah the question has been answered COMPLETELY. Thx for all the responses, to be honest, I learned alot more on this forum than just the handling characteristics of the Ms3 at high speeds, but all good stuff. I am not sure if i said anything controversial in this final post, but if I did(peep)

 

[Mocoso]

There was never an argument to begin with. I was never angry --- this was more like a one sided discussion.

I also think the thread topic has pretty much been addressed.

Finally, I have to cry BS at your tire comment. There is no more logic or truth to that than many of Boston's statements. There are tires that cover the entire range up to 186 MPH. There are also tires rated for speeds over 186 MPH. So if I could just put a better tire on the car, why would I limit the performance?

Well since the thread has run its course Ill take it off topic then... the answer is simple: If manufacturer put a tire rated to 125 MPH to save on cost it wouldnt make sense for it to let you go 180 MPH and have a tire blowout just so you can sue them for negligence.... speed is actually governed for two reasons and yes tires is just one example but mainly:
1. Due to design limits of the car (whatever those limits car manuf. deems them to be - tires tend to be high up there)
2. To keep insurance rates lower (yes there are countries where insurance is higher if yer car can go faster - Boston wasnt wrong on this)

 

[camrycev6]

I see what you are saying, but the facts don't back you up. Further, it doesn't make sense financially (see below), so your premise is flawed. Why limit a car that is capable of better performance because of an assumed cost increase for tires? Tire companies and car companies have also have discount deals because them because of the volume of business. I would think a car company would want to report the best numbers they could for their cars (Especially sports cars...) to sell them.

Here is the critical part on this. If you do a little research (I like tirerack.com) you will see that size, performance type, and manufacturer are the main factors for determining cost. If you look at tires by the same company, you will see that the speed rating has almost nothing to do with it. In fact, in the majority of the cases, lower speed rated tires cost more than higher rated tires because of the application! (In other words, the Z rated tires are generally all Summer tires, where a V or H rated tired might be an all season perfomance tire or Winter tire --- and be more expensive.)

Also, you haven't provided any data on your insurance comment. I am not the only person to ask for it. I have already explained that it is inconsistent with the way cars perform and since you and Boston are making the statement, the burden of proof is on you. Just where have you found that insurance companies have a role in limiting cars top speeds to keep rates lower?

So I agree that your answer is simple. It simply doesn't provide any data or facts to back up your conclusions.

But hey, I'm a fair guy and I enjoy a good discussion. (Again...just like with Boston...this is nothing personal against you.)

Let's assume for a second that you are right in your conclusions. That
1) Tires play a role in determing the max speed of a car and
2) Insurance rates play a role in determing the max speed of a car

....so far neither you nor Boston have been able to give any valid reasons why. I just invalidated your financial reasoning for the tires...so what else have you got for #1? I am still waiting on ANY reason for number two.

 

[Ms3InMd]

How the hell is this thread still going

 

[BuckDich]

Well I certainly want to know what the limit is of this car. If, for example, the electronic limiter was defeated and enough power was added, what would the MS3 be doing at redline in 6th gear?

 

[camrycev6]

How the hell is this thread still going

I am still seeing some bold statement made with no facts / logic to back them up....and I just can't let it slide. Call it a character flaw, but I just can't help it. You know the guy at work that researches urban legends to see if they are true or not? Yeah...that's me....

 

[Mocoso]

Dude there is plenty of info out on the internet on car speed governors and the reasons for them... to keep it simple you can do a wikipedia search on "why do cars need speed governors" (and yes Wikipedia isnt always right I know...)

On the insurance front I didnt believe it either until I did a search on the gentlemen's agreement... its mainly a European manuf/insurance thing hence Boston was right... I DONT KNOW if that holds in the US and if insurance companies here care but you would think top speed would have a factor in the overall insurance equation

And if you dont think insurance plays any role in car design do a history search on muscle cars of the late 60s/early 70's and see how many had to tone it down a notch just so insurance co. wouldnt black ball the cars....

And your tirerack pricing example is useless as car manuf. doesnt buy tires from tirerack. Their pricing models are completely different than what you would buy at tire rack... car makers buy in volume and if they can shave $1 off the cost of each tire it means $4 more profit on every car. Did you know on some cars the tires that come with the car have less thread then the same tire you buy at tirerack? (now you are going to ask me for proof... ) -

I stand by the fact that tires (among other design decisions made by the car manuf) play a role on the top speed of the car and if you do the same 5 minute research you will realize Boston wasnt wrong on the gentlemens agreement..

if you need more proof your gona have to go do your own research and if you still want to call my statements BS that is fine too but Im putting this to rest from my end

 

[clos561]

i could see this car hitting 170 easily with mods and w/e but i dont see a reason for these kidns of speeds....ive never even taken my car past 130..

 

[camrycev6]

I have to throw my hands up in the air on this one if you are going to provide a response like that Mocoso. In any event, I can rest easy on this one too. I am glad I live in a world of science and facts where mere speculation and opinions don't really count for much. My tirerack example is actually a good example, since it clearly indicates a trend in costs of tires. Your arbitrary numbers of saving $1 / $4 a car are not accurate nor realistic. I could easily provide real examples of higher speed rated tires running $10 / 20 /30...etc less than a slower rated similar tire. When I can show a premise is clearly false in many cases, it destroys the validity of premise. Since we clearly aren't going to this with facts and logic, I can't discuss it. You can stand by your "facts" all day and all night --- but you haven't really provided anything more than opinions really. You, of course, are more than entitled to that.

If you look at why insurance companies charge what they do (I have...) it is becaues of the class of vehicle, cost of vehicle and your driving history. (Age, wrecks, points.) I can drive a Elantra 100+ MPH, so why don't they charge me a lot? That is why people who speed get points and the insurance goes up. The speed potential of a car isn't a major factor, because any car can go fast. (Relatively speaking.) Once you go over about 90 MPH (And I have data on this...), damage, injuries, etc. goes up exponentially! This is why they tried (and failed) to limit cars to 85 in the 80s. It failed...and what did they conclude? People were going to responsible for their own actions and speeds. They got rid of it. If insurance companies could regulate speed, they would! Cars would be back at 85 (or something close) as max speeds. Since they can't do that...they do the next best thing...they punish people who speed and have accidents with higher rates.

Oh yes...I have done more research... and still come up with the same data, facts, and conclusions on tires....

Case closed.

 

[Rainman]

Interestingly, the "Gentelmen's Agreement" was valid in Japan where auto manufacturers agreed not to produce cars in excess of 275 HP in an effort to avoid an automotive arms race to produce more powerful cars. This agreement was followed for many years until fairly recently when the whole thing seemed to get tossed out the window as Japanese manufacturers sought to compete with European marques. Now, we see cars producing in excess of 275 HP coming from Japan more and more frequently.

While insurability may have played a role in the drafting of the agreement, I am not at all certain that it was because of an active role of the insurance companies or rather, because of a general desire of the manufacturers to maximize the utility of cars that they produce.

R

 

[dommo_g]

Well. I spent quite a bit of time with my salesman, the sales managet, and the owner of the dealership I bought my car at. Discussions got pretty candid the longer I hung around and BS'd. John, the dealership owner, talked about an owner's meeting they had with MazdaUSA officials. Just basically talking about the car, getting them ready for it to go on sale. John says that when they had the car in Europe doing testing, completely ungoverned, they were able to achieve a speed of 216. This information was never released to the press. But John swears up and down that's what the car did.

Take that with a grain of salt. But this is the dealership OWNER we're talking about, not a bum of a salesman. Personally, I don't buy it. I think the car is drag/gear limited to way less than that. But I'm just saying what he said that they said. lol

 

[Rainman]

While I am not sure I believe 216 mph, I do suspect that 155 mph is not simply because of drag limitation. I don't have any data to back up that suspicion, but on the other hand I don't see any data suggesting that it is drag limited to that speed. It would be interesting to find out what it could do ungoverned...just for interest sake...LOL!

R

 

[camrycev6]

I don't know about 216 either. I know the car is listed in magazines as 155 electronically limited. I also know that a test was done in Germany that had a stock car going 162 MPH. (Apparently their point was that it wasn't governed to 155 as indicated.) I NEVER plan on taking my car even near 155, so it really doesn't matter much to me.

 

[gsrtype1]

sti 0-604.2, 103 in 1/4 mile. STI is not a high.

An STI is NOT a VERY HIGH PERFORMANCE machine btw... but to get back on topic:

Stability at 90-120 MPH range is defined not only by the weight, weight distribution including center of gravity, tires, and the suspension but also by the aerodynamic characteristics of the car.... you can put a big ass wing in the back, tweak the front spoiler and rear diffuser but the basic shape of the car will have a huge impact on the aerodynamics of the car.... a lot of people fail to realize how much work and effort is placed on the UNDERSIDE of a high performance car to increase stability at high speeds.

The reason that C43 AMG feels more stable at 145 is due to the sum of parts - its part weight, weight distribution, shape, suspension, aerodynamic characteristics, and tires - it is also far more expensive than a MS3 - 20 something grand is only going to get you so much.....

For the price range the MS3 holds its own on the stability side at high speed but the suspension is too soft, the rear too light, and the underside has very little in the aero design area for it to compete wth cars in the trully high performance arena.... the STI btw suffers from the same types of problems and what it gains in weight distribution it loses in the aerodynamics of a brick area.....(my def. of high performance starts at the likes of a C6 Corvette and the types of cars that can match it or beat it - sheer speed need not apply)

Look at the underside of a C6 corvette, porche, or SL55 AMG and you will notice that there is a lot of thought placed as to how air will flow under the car....they are designed to create a huge amount of downward force as speeds increase - it isnt all done by a big ass wing in the back

I was actually pleased with how the MS3 handles at high speed as I expected much worse but the car doesnt get too nervous. The only complaint is the suspension is too soft and noticeable at high speeds

sti is not a high perfomance,(uhm) 0-60 in 4.2 sec

 

[dommo_g]

Even more high performance STI:

http://www.perrinperformance.com/products/show/369

 

[clos561]

sti is not a high perfomance,(uhm) 0-60 in 4.2 sec

yes awd 0-60, after 60 (yupnope)

 

[fourthmeal]

I love how everyone is jumping to conclusions here. "I'd love to get a MS3, but I just don't have the time to deal with the engine falling out." That's like saying, "I wish I could fly to go visit my relatives but I don't want to crash into a building."

You laugh, ..but that s*** just happened to me!!!

My driver's motor mount sheared off today...The engine is GONE.

 

[AWDRACER6]

The MS6 at 145 feels as good as 40. Just with the added rush of goin fast! But ur lookin at the ms3 so good luck with ur purchase!