Does a low top speed in a performance car bother you?

[MikeM6]

biggbn said:

It's also quite condescending for those for whom vmax is important to denigrate those for whom it isn't as not 'real' petrolheads or green party members as often happens. I've owned and enjoyed almost 200 cars, all cheapo bangers, and I've driven some of them past 150mph but it didn't thrill me and it is not, and has never been something that I value in a car. I had far more fun in the many thousands of miles I did in my 34hp beetles and basic Smart 450s. Each to their own, some love driving very quickly. I'm cool with that, but not wishing to do so does not diminish anyone's enthusiast credibility.

Saying that it isn't important to you is fine, no denigration here, but ranting on about how there is no point as the limit is 70, how it's nothing special, only bragging rights etc, that is just needless provocation.

Your last sentence is why we are on the same page. It's the sanctimonious who have become so content to push the "speed kills" mantra even on here that needs a quiet word with themselves.

Edited by MikeM6 on Wednesday 26th June 08:04

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

raspy said:

No because the limit is 70mph here.

Oh my god, unclench!

[LooneyTunes]

Nomme de Plum said:

LooneyTunes said:

cerb4.5lee said:

So would a low top speed in a performance car bother you?

Yes. I generally like things over-engineered.

The two are not mutually inclusive. Especially from certain car manufacturers.

I’m guessing from your other posts in this thread that this is TVR related? I’d agree, not as well engineered as something from a company with proper resources but mine still inspires confidence at any speeds I would do on a UK road. For a 150+ run, if I were ever minded to do such a thing, it wouldn’t be the set of keys I’d grab.

The point I’m really making is that a modern high performance car feels solid and planted at UK speeds, with braking systems designed to accommodate much higher speeds.

Nomme de Plum said:

Mr Tidy said:

Given that observation about the impact high speeds have on range with EVs I can see why they have speed limiters, but then I still can't think of EVs as performance cars!

Both my BMW have 155mph limiters, but apparently they only interfere in 6th and if you are looking for Vmax you'd still be in 5th anyway as they are manuals.

I'll never get close to the limiter in the UK, I just like knowing if I ever go to Germany and find the right Autobahn or visit the Isle Of Man my right foot would be the limiter!

Try a Taycan and you may change your view on their potential as a performance car.

We had a Taycan for three years. I wanted to like it but found it to be most boring car we’ve opened for a long time, to the extent that I only drove it when I had no real choice but to do so.

None of this is criticism, just shows how much views vary on individual cars/preferences!

[Kerniki]

It wouldnt me tbh, the power for excitement is more important, or bhp/ton

gearing masses of power for 200+ mph somewhat dilutes the lower speed fun in some ways as you stay in gears too long, especially on older 5-600hp cars with less gears, that seem to labour in them.

Some of the fun with the smaller cars with 6sp gearboxes is the speed at which you have to change gear, bit like a motorbike, tiring but fun.

My GT cars i prefer with longer gears, lots of power and torque, but again never been over 150mph on the autobahns etc

Drive to track cars with 7-800hp would be fine geared to about 180 imo, seen just under this at Spa which is about as long a straight as you get.

[AKjr]

I have an electric Volvo which is a quick car, acceleration wise. The lower limiter doesn't bother me one iota to be honest. On a "day to day" humdrum car I don't care about it being limited, but I would if it were my motorbike or a "fun" car....

With that in mind, I owned a Caterham 360 which would "only" do 130mph, is that a low top speed?

[jhonn]

I don't drive in Germany or do track days, so a limited top speed of 125mph wouldn't bother me in the slightest; to me, decent acceleration, good handling and a feeling of keeping mass under control, are far more important traits in a performance car.

A 100mph vmax would be fine with me.

[Baldchap]

A performance car limited to 112 or 125 will have brakes designed to stop it from 112/125, not 155 or more. This ethos will continue across the entire car. Why would a manufacturer put in the effort to build systems with excessive telerances?

Then one day you are on track or driving hard down a mountainside having a lovely time and your under-engineered brakes fade and you die. All because of speed limiters.

So we can see from example that it is not speed, but lack of speed that kills.

I'll stick to a fast car with working brakes and stay alive please.

[DonkeyApple]

cerb4.5lee said:

We've been discussing the top speed on another thread about the new electric MG Roadster, and its top speed is only a 125mph, yet it has over 500bhp though.

For me personally I'd want it to go quicker than a 125mph, and I don't like Volvo anymore because they limit their cars to only a 112mph as well.

So would a low top speed in a performance car bother you?

It all depends on the particular product. A high top speed can often be a bad thing as it makes for a potentially very boring car.

A car that is designed and built to be capable of running at 200mph is all too often more boring than granny's Honda Jazz when travelling at 70.

If a car doesn't have to be designed to be safe and functional at 200 then it doesn't have to compromise how it drives at the speeds where it spends 99.9% of its time.

Being limited in top speed isn't the issue. In fact, it can be the gift that defines a great sports car. The only thing that is of importance is how it is at the speed that you use it at most often.

If you take your M4, it is a massively heavy car that has been fitted with huge tyres and generally set up to be stable at 155+. But in doing so it is shockingly dull at 50. An absolute snooze fest and when bumbling along at 50 it's more dull than the most base model BMW of the same shape while heaping on frustration at having to travel so slowly. Conversely, the Caterham is fun at fifty and at every mph up to 100.

Few cars that are designed to operate close to 200 are actually fun at 50 and instead they rely on veneers, illusions and branding to try and be interesting when plodding along aimlessly and wholly unchallenged and unexcited.

Who knows about this 500bhp, heavy MG. It doesn't sound like the sort of car that would be driven hard but then it also has the weight of the batteries that stop it being a pottering car like an MX5 or Alpine that then feels nimble if the throttle is pressed down at some point on the drive.

To be honest, electric sports cars due to how the limitation of current battery tech and how that flies in the face of the 100 year old facade of what a sports car does or is supposed to represent it makes the product more like the Audi TT Diesel, just a pisstake of the facade of freedom and escape on the open road, at the drop of a hat and off in any direction to anywhere without any plans.

In a way it's like buying a plane thinking you'll be free to just go and fly but then realising there is no freedom and that you must plan where you go and follow the prescribed rules. It's why pilots are some of the dullest people at the party, essentially actuaries who weren't good enough at maths so had to operate sky trucks to a living.

The i3 accidentally shows us how current battery tech best works for a sports car application. It's manifestly not about big batteries to give big BHP driven through big tires and then having to hypermile at 50 and plot a route leaping between motorway hell hole after hell hole to try and travel far and wide. It's about trying to have the smallest battery possible, forgetting about crossing continents and instead focusing on just local escapes from the house in something that's on skinny tires and feels nimble and genuinely fun and rewarding to sling down a lane at 50. The i3 is brilliantly sporty and a hoot. The MG? I will remain open minded but I think it'll be true to the legacy of the MGB, a heavy, turgid turd that is hypermiled at 50 holding the world up, at the hands of boring old blokes who you can guarantee if you make the mistake of ending up within their earshot will be banging on about how some worthless metric regarding their car makes it and them very special. We shall have to wait and see. They might be superb and not another dull trolly.

[kambites]

DonkeyApple said:

It all depends on the particular product. A high top speed can often be a bad thing as it makes for a potentially very boring car.

This is a good point. Engineering a car for a high top speed has an effect on just about every aspect of the car. Pretty much every structural component will be designed to be stronger, and hence heavier; suspension kinematics and rates will be designed to create a more stable platform at high speed, making the car feel less agile at lower speeds; the gearing will be extended, making the car accelerate less quickly;... all tangible things which you notice every time you drive a car, made worse for the sake of something which 90% of buyers will never use.

Even if the MG's speed is limited because of drive-train constraints, one has to imagine it would be even heavier if the platform was engineered to do 200mph.

[cerb4.5lee]

Exasperated said:

I have a theory, with which I'm sure many people will disagree, that if a car isn't fun at legal speeds, it's not a fun car. I honestly can't remember the last time I broke a speed limit.

Ideally it needs to be both for me. I remember my Cerbera being fun at 30mph and 130mph for example, but that isn't a trick that many cars can pull off in my experience though.

[Dingu]

Dunbar871 said:

Nomme de Plum said:

Dunbar871 said:

Little reminder on why top speed is important, before this forum fully converts into Mumsnet...

Why is that important? Surely it doesn’t take much talent, if any, to drive fast in a straight line on a motorway just being mindful of other road users.

Very odd attitude to think there is something special about it.

Why are you a member of an enthusiasts' motoring site ? Speed Matters damn it !

hand that PH card in TODAY

If you can’t accept there is more to it than top speed you probably need to hand in that one month old card…

[biggbn]

Baldchap said:

A performance car limited to 112 or 125 will have brakes designed to stop it from 112/125, not 155 or more. This ethos will continue across the entire car. Why would a manufacturer put in the effort to build systems with excessive telerances?

Then one day you are on track or driving hard down a mountainside having a lovely time and your under-engineered brakes fade and you die. All because of speed limiters.

So we can see from example that it is not speed, but lack of speed that kills.

I'll stick to a fast car with working brakes and stay alive please.

I don't think it will BC. Performance cars will continue to be engineered to high standards because it is what the market expects. Strong, fade free brakes are essential at any speed on some challenging roads. I can't see corners being cut because of limiters.

[james6546]

I’d ideally not have a car with such a low limiter. As others have said, I’ll probably never go to close to it, but I just like knowing the potential.

I know it sounds insane, but if someone decided to chase me for some reason like road rage or something like that, I’d like to think that I’d just be able to floor it and have a better chance of getting away.

Also, my stepdad had a fatal heart attack a couple of years ago, I definitely went more than 112 to get there as quickly as I could.

Edited by james6546 on Wednesday 26th June 08:25

[brillomaster]

well, i'm using my sports cars for trackdays, so yes, i need a top speed of about 130-140mph. butting into a limiter at 112mph would see me severely hindered on the straights...

and as someone else mentioned, for a track car, i'd like brakes designed to stop me effectively from 150mph, not from 100mph.

[kambites]

biggbn said:

I don't think it will BC. Performance cars will continue to be engineered to high standards because it is what the market expects. Strong, fade free brakes are essential at any speed on some challenging roads. I can't see corners being cut because of limiters.

A single big stop from 200mph probably put less heat through the brakes than a long, winding, low-speed mountain descent or a relatively modest session on a track where you're topping out at no more than 100mph. There are plenty of examples of cars with big top speeds which have pretty rubbish OEM brakes (yes BMW, I'm looking at you).

[cerb4.5lee]

DonkeyApple said:

If you take your M4, it is a massively heavy car that has been fitted with huge tyres and generally set up to be stable at 155+. But in doing so it is shockingly dull at 50. An absolute snooze fest and when bumbling along at 50 it's more dull than the most base model BMW of the same shape while heaping on frustration at having to travel so slowly. Conversely, the Caterham is fun at fifty and at every mph up to 100.

Funnily enough I only experienced this yesterday. I was out in the Caterham, and I was accelerating up to around 80mph and I couldn't keep the bloody thing in a straight line! It did make me realise how stable the M4 is(and the 370) in comparison at the higher speeds for sure.

[biggbn]

MikeM6 said:

biggbn said:

It's also quite condescending for those for whom vmax is important to denigrate those for whom it isn't as not 'real' petrolheads or green party members as often happens. I've owned and enjoyed almost 200 cars, all cheapo bangers, and I've driven some of them past 150mph but it didn't thrill me and it is not, and has never been something that I value in a car. I had far more fun in the many thousands of miles I did in my 34hp beetles and basic Smart 450s. Each to their own, some love driving very quickly. I'm cool with that, but not wishing to do so does not diminish anyone's enthusiast credibility.

Saying that it isn't important to you is fine, no denigration here, but ranting on about how there is no point as the limit is 70, how it's nothing special, only bragging rights etc, that is just needless provocation.

Your last sentence is why we are on the same page. It's the sanctimonious who have become so content to push the "speed kills" mantra even on here that needs a quiet word with themselves.

Edited by MikeM6 on Wednesday 26th June 08:04

....and the converse, those denigrating people as needing to go on mumsnet etc if they don't want a fast car. It would be wonderful if we could all just be a little kinder, wouldn't it?

[murphyaj]

Baldchap said:

A performance car limited to 112 or 125 will have brakes designed to stop it from 112/125, not 155 or more. This ethos will continue across the entire car. Why would a manufacturer put in the effort to build systems with excessive telerances?

Then one day you are on track or driving hard down a mountainside having a lovely time and your under-engineered brakes fade and you die. All because of speed limiters.

So we can see from example that it is not speed, but lack of speed that kills.

I'll stick to a fast car with working brakes and stay alive please.

Do you have any evidence to suggest this hypothetical situation has ever existed; that of a speed limiter being used as an excuse to fit brakes that fade as you come down a mountain? I'd think that the scenario of descending a mountain is massively more likely than hard stops from v-max, so if anything that is the scenario that any car manufacturer will be more likely to design them for.

I have certainly seen plenty of road tests over the years of cars with a very high top speed where the brakes faded terribly as soon as they are taken on track, so I'm not sure it really works that way.

[DonkeyApple]

cerb4.5lee said:

Funnily enough I only experienced this yesterday. I was out in the Caterham, and I was accelerating up to around 80mph and I couldn't keep the bloody thing in a straight line! It did make me realise how stable the M4 is(and the 370) in comparison at the higher speeds for sure.

Yup. The Caterham shows that top speed isn't relevant but what is crucial is how much fun a car is at the speeds you personally use it at.

A 1972 Rangie is fun at 60 down a country NSL. An Audi S4 is dull as ditchwater. My Griff was great fun at any speed. The Typhon was boring below 80. An M4 is pure fun round the Ring but as exciting as a Jazz when trundling along a motorway.

A sports car that's limited to 120 but gets there in seconds and is designed in such a way that it's only just coming to life at that point would be a truly terrible object.

[murphyaj]

DonkeyApple said:

Being limited in top speed isn't the issue. In fact, it can be the gift that defines a great sports car. The only thing that is of importance is how it is at the speed that you use it at most often.

If you take your M4, it is a massively heavy car that has been fitted with huge tyres and generally set up to be stable at 155+. But in doing so it is shockingly dull at 50. An absolute snooze fest and when bumbling along at 50 it's more dull than the most base model BMW of the same shape while heaping on frustration at having to travel so slowly. Conversely, the Caterham is fun at fifty and at every mph up to 100.

Few cars that are designed to operate close to 200 are actually fun at 50 and instead they rely on veneers, illusions and branding to try and be interesting when plodding along aimlessly and wholly unchallenged and unexcited.

Hit the nail on the head. How fast a car feels is way more important than how it is.
If a car is designed to connect you with the road and enhance, rather than stifle, the feeling of speed then you simply don't need to be going three figures to have fun.

I have driven some ludicrously fast cars, and owned my fair share too. The most fun I have had on the road was in a Morgan with less than 80 bhp and a top speed barely more than a Nissan Micra. I'm not sure I went above 60 in the hour or so I was driving it. To bring that back to the discussion at hand, I wouldn't avoid a car with a 125mph speed limiter, but I would avoid buying a car that needs to be driven at over that speed to have fun. Of course the very best cars manage to pull off the trick of being both very fast, and while still being exciting at sensible speeds.