Volvo to Impose 112 MPH Speed Limit on All New Cars from 2020

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
As a means of reducing fatalities and serious injuries caused by speeding, Volvo has announced it will be reducing the top speed of its new cars to 112 MPH starting next year. “The cap will prevent drivers from accelerating to the top speeds of up to 155 MPH many Volvos can reach.” The company is also experimenting with geofencing to automatically limit speeds around schools and hospitals.

Håkan Samuelsson, Volvo’s president and chief executive, said: “While a speed limitation is not a cure-all, it’s worth doing if we can even save one life. We want to start a conversation about whether carmakers have the right or maybe even an obligation to install technology in cars that changes their driver’s behaviour.”
 
love that they're are being proactive , but the car market, is buyers market and will hurt they're sales from controlling the drivers speeds. sure you might be asking when will you drive past 112 Mph. but i rather have it and not need it then need the speed and not have it.
 
Krazy925 said:
American cars did this. Governors is what we used to call them.

I’d just disable it like we did in the 1990s.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my '97 Mercury Sable was governed at about 120Mph.

You could try to override the governors on these, but I'm guessing Volvo won't make it easy. For instance, there are no third party software tunes for my 2009 S80 as Volvo used very effective encryption to protect the ECM software.

And then, even if you can override it, once this is a standard across the brand they could optimize the transmissions such that you simply don't have the gearing to go much faster than the governor.

We will see. I think this is a boneheaded move by them from a marketing perspective. It might pull in some wealthy parents who buy their kids new cars and like that they only have the option to go at medium irresponsible speeds, not crazy irresponsible speeds, but I think the turnoff of the aspirational nature of the thing will turn away even more customers.
 
Last edited:
the_real_7 said:
love that they're are being proactive , but the car market, is buyers market and will hurt they're sales from controlling the drivers speeds. sure you might be asking when will you drive past 112 Mph. but i rather have it and not need it then need the speed and not have it.
Click to expand...


There is nowhere on a public road that you need to go 112 MPH, ever.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Inleds tjey optimize the transmissions such that you simply don't have the gesring to go much faster than the governor.
Click to expand...
Probably should have RTFA. Alright but now that I did am I reading this wrong?

“It said the electronic restriction focused on driver behaviour because mechanical solutions alone could not ensure safety. The limit will apply to all cars made from mid-2020 onwards.”

I was actually looking at an S60. This is disappointing.
 
A lot of people speed in urban ad suburban areas anyways. In small streets going at 60 or 80 km/h is nowhere near that speed limit and still potentially very lethal.
 
Spire3660 said:
There is nowhere on a public road that you need to go 112 MPH, ever.
Click to expand...


It's aspirational. Most people never drive that fast even once. They just like knowing that they can if they should ever want to.

Same thing with SUV's. Most people never drive them off-road, but they still want it just in case they should ever want to.

People Are Generally unwilling to give up these options even if they never actually use them.
 
Krazy925 said:
Probably should have RTFA. Alright but now that I did am I reading this wrong?

“It said the electronic restriction focused on driver behaviour because mechanical solutions alone could not ensure safety. The limit will apply to all cars made from mid-2020 onwards.”

I was actually looking at an S60. This is disappointing.
Click to expand...

Unless you plan on driving in certain areas of west Texas, or Montana I don't really see what the issue is.
 
Krazy925 said:
Eastern Nevada and western Utah comes to mind.

There is literally no reason not to peg it out there.
Click to expand...

I had to make the west texas into new mexico drive quite a bit. There is a section there where you can go a few hours and not see a single other car on the road. If your vehicle will do 100+ safely there is no reason not to do it.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
He said need, not want.

You'd never need to drive 112mph.

My commute typically sits in the 90-100mph level when there isn't a slow driver blocking my way, but I try to keep it below triple digits because I like having a driver's license.
Click to expand...

Again, there are areas of the country where -

You don't see anyone for long periods of time

Even if you saw a cop, they wouldn't give a shit if you were going 120

If your car can do it safely, why not?

No, you don't need to drive over112 in these areas, but you are literally just wasting your time if you aren't and you have a vehicle that can handle it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
illli said:
Curious how they determined that 112 was the magic number. It seems like... a person crashing at 112 vs 155 would still have an equal chance of dying
Click to expand...

I think it must be due to number 112 being the most common european country emergency number equal to 911 in the US/Canada for example :p
 
Mchart said:
If your car can do it safely, why not?
Click to expand...

Some would argue no such car exists. Hitting a bad rut in the road at even 85mph could result in loss of control and death by the side of the road.

Even today's safest cars are typically fatal at high speed impacts. IIHS safety tests take place at 40mph. The assumption is you are travelling at 65mph or less and have a chance to hit the brakes before impact to shave some of the speed off.

It's one thing to put youeself at risk, but despite roads being empty for miles, there is always the random chance someone else will be on it at just the wrong moment.
 
Most cars sold already have a limiter, all trucks have a limiter around 105mph, my 2006 Mustang had a limiter at 108mph to keep the two-piece driveshaft from coming apart.

99% of buyers will not even know this is a thing. So cool for Volvo? that's a big bragging right and great advertising tool to say 'no one dies in a new volvo'
 
motomonkey said:
And sometime soon, NoBoDy nEeDs a kILir VehicLe tHaT gOeS 112mph! if max speed limit is 70, then cars should go 70...

Certainly goes along with turning cars into tiny little electric shitboxes that can't pass a bicycle.
Click to expand...
is the max speed EVERYWHERE 70?
oh... its not.
well toss that idea out the window then.
 
Need vs. want. There are times and places, on public roads, where I may want to go over the posted limit, 112, whatever.

Guess it won't be in a Volvo then? lol
 
illli said:
Curious how they determined that 112 was the magic number. It seems like... a person crashing at 112 vs 155 would still have an equal chance of dying
Click to expand...
maybe because at 113 the car disintegrates in a crash? lololol
 
I firmly believe you should be allowed to "go full retard", but I have no personal need for anything over say.... 90.
 
I guess Volvos aren't really marketed as fun cars. Though didn't they make some turbocharged models for a while there?
 
ThatsAgood1jay said:
Most cars sold already have a limiter, all trucks have a limiter around 105mph, my 2006 Mustang had a limiter at 108mph to keep the two-piece driveshaft from coming apart.

99% of buyers will not even know this is a thing. So cool for Volvo? that's a big bragging right and great advertising tool to say 'no one dies in a new volvo'
Click to expand...


some cars have them for aerodynamic reasons a 2004 TL could easily go faster than 150 but Acura held it back due to possibility of a flip at higher speeds as air started lifting up the car.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
some cars have them for aerodynamic reasons a 2004 TL could easily go faster than 150 but Acura held it back due to possibility of a flip at higher speeds as air started lifting up the car.
Click to expand...

A 2004 Acura TL could go over 150 MPH? if you dropped it from an Airplane, perhaps.
 
2006 mustang had a limiter due to the driveshaft at over 108? News to me.

People have put well over 400rwhp through the stock shafts without them twisting up and if they do, it is usually on a launch.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It's aspirational. Most people never drive that fast even once. They just like knowing that they can if they should ever want to.

Same thing with SUV's. Most people never drive them off-road, but they still want it just in case they should ever want to.

People Are Generally unwilling to give up these options even if they never actually use them.
Click to expand...

I've had a vehicle up to 140 mph, for a very short amount of time, on a deserted section of interstate with no one else around. most people in the united states will never get a vehicle that fast even on a track. It's only been in the last decade with developments in engine tech like direct fuel injection that small engines in production cars could develop the horsepower to get even close to that.
 
Riptide_NVN said:
2006 mustang had a limiter due to the driveshaft at over 108? News to me.

People have put well over 400rwhp through the stock shafts without them twisting up and if they do, it is usually on a launch.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that's bullshit, I had a 2007 mustang GT I have had at 110 multiple times.
 
I've done the same and got out of it once it hit 140. Long stretch of road, nobody around, etc.. Really, the only way you have any business doing that in the first place. Minus race track.
 
If people want to go past the limiter that badly. I'm sure they'll find a way, then youtube it
 
Wake me up when we see mustangs, corvettes, porsches, ferraris, etc. limited to 112 or under. Until then so what if some snooze fest boring AF volvo has it enabled
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top