Mine cuts out at 96 or 97.

 

Personally, IMHO, it's probaby not a bad idea to have a limiter. Remember hwy speeds are between 55 and 75 depending on what state you are in and what road you are on so you shouldn't be going faster than that anyway. Be thankful that they don't set it at 80 or something like that. Also, ppl are mentioning differences when it kicks in. My 05 F150 speedo (stock tires) is off about 2 mph @ 70 mph (actual 68 per my GPS however accurate it is??) so @ 100???? My speedo might show 105 with poss. actual 100. I'll never know cuz I'll never happen in my truck. Besides, just think about how much gas you are sucking down at that speed @ 2.69 a gallon!! Just my thoughts.

 

I guess my problem with the whole limiter thing is this. I'm supposed to be a responsible adult and personally I don't feel that I need Ford or anybody else limiting me on how fast my truck "CAN POSSIBLY" go do I need to go that fast??? the answer is NO but I don't like somebody else taking that decision from me . Seatbelts is another thing that irriates me ,I don't need a law from bigbrother to wear my sealtbelt it's just one more thing that should be MY decision!! I guess to me these things rank right up there with being old and mature enough at 18 to make the decision to die for your country but not old enough to make the decision to drink a beer ! now I'm a 32 yr old man and I guess I feel that I can make decisons for myself

 

There`s no "need" to go 100+,but don`t you want to know what your truck will do if you need it? I was on a toll road with a 65 mph limit that everyone does 80+ on.So,I guess I was a little over the limit.

 

Have to disagree, respectfully TA396, on both the limiter and the brew.

In today’s litigious society, no company can take the chance.

How many who say you should have the right to drive the truck faster than the tires will hold up, would sit on a jury and award many millions to some sobbing mother whose idiot 16 year old son blew a tire at 120?

History says the sobbing mother wins; common sense never wins in a court room.

Ditto on the drinking. Let’s face it, 18-20 year olds are involved in many times the crashes than even 21 year olds are. It's about adult supervision and experience.

If you put a 18-20 year old in 16 weeks of intense training and made him competent there would be no reason you wouldn’t trust him to do the job.

If you wanted to give 18-20 year olds the same level of training in driving etc. before you gave him permission to buy beer, it would work out fine.

Also, you have never been in the military, or you would know about on-base drinking laws. Between 18-20 I had many a legal brew, while watching semi-naked dancers. (anyone remember 'Go-Go' dancers?)

Anyway it's Apples and tangerines.
If we can send a man to the moon, why are carbohydrates fatting?

Chris

 

Chris as always I value your thoughts and I guess the thing is I believe that people should be held responsible for there actions. would it in all reality cost ford that much more money to put a better tire on there vehicles? would ppl really not be willing to pay a couple of hundred bucks extra to know they had a better tire? we all know that car manufacturers do put as low a grade of tire as they can get away with so they can have a higher profit margin. as far as the lawsuits go if the courts would start throwing out some of these stupid lawsuits we would be a lot better off ! the ppl who sued Mcdonalds because it was making there kids fat ? what a Joke. the inmates who sue and win for the brand of peanut butter or Icecream they want absoultely ridicoulus.
as far as the brew I was in the military . US NAVY 3 yrs blew out my knee. I was in from 93-96 went to boot in San Diego and yes on base we could have a brew but that is not the case any longer was stationed out of Norfolk and if you were under 21 you could not drink on base. Why ? because the states sued the fed goverment because the feds said they would withold hihgway funds if the states did not raise the drinking age so they said that military should not be able to drink on post.
Bottom line is until if ever ppl decide to be responsible for them selves and not expect the goverment to take care of them we will always have problems

 

Didn't know you were a 'deck-ape'.
I was in Vallejo in 72, and the drinking was easy. Unless you pissed off a CPO... And West Pac, there was nowhere you couldn't go into any bar you were man enough to walk in...

In Manila the 17 year olds could drink... and get rolled by the B-Girls with their little 'butterfly' sling knifes, just the same as the 30 year swab jockeys.

Actually you make my point in your post. If Ford put tires rated at 130 on these trucks, everyone would complain about spending the extra 300 bucks when no sane person would ever take a truck over (fill in your speed here).

Also, there is no such thing as a 'speed rated' heavy load tire. Won't work.

Tires rated to high speed can not carry weight.
Check it out, no 1300 plus pound carrying, faster than 130 mph tires.

Not likely to be in the near future. Technology is a tad behind. No demand.

So to put faster tires on the truck you would have to drop the load rating way, way down.

So who would buy a truck rated at 500-1500 lbs of cargo?

You can buy them, Chevy makes that cute little retro that goes fast, looks kinda like a truck, and carries no weight. Not the market Ford is looking for.

Also, as you point out in the post, the juries and judges would find that if Ford put high speed tires on their trucks, and did not limit the top speed, then Ford was assuming liability for the trucks going fast and killing people. Ford lost enough money on the media generated Firestone fiasco.


Look at the lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Anyway, anyone who wants can remove the limit for a couple hundred bucks, and get much better performance in the bargain.
Then it's up to that person to decide if they want to carry loads or go fast. You need different tires for each.


As to the bad tires, dunno, my truck came with excellent Michelins, no extra charge, and I took them off and put BF Goodrich’s on, also made by Michelin.
I am sorry for the guys with the Ameritracs and Hankooks.


All the tires I've used (3 sets) have been very good and rated to at least 112 steady running. In a 5-6000 lb truck, that seems enough to me.
Oh well, too each his own.
Have a good one.
Chris

 

i checked t money resetted my avg. mpg and i was getting around 4 when i going around 105 dont remember if i was cruising or still trying to acclerate though. but 4 miles per gallon and im paying about 2.90 a gallon.. id still like to go as fast as i want though. 120 or so would be good enough in the truck.

 

My Mark VIII has a speed limiter because of the driveshaft and tire rating. You want to race, change to high speed rated tires and to a after market driveshaft. Then retune.

 

Most all cars built today have speed limiters. My 2001 Camaro SS is speed limited to 160 MPH, but rest assured I'll never test that. It has BFG Radial T/A KD tires on it. New Corvettes and Vipers have higher limits, the '05 Mustang has a speed limiter also. I think that regardless of tires, you would see speed limiters, because of litigation. When some punk gets in a truck, runs up to 120 MPH (assuming no limiter), and kills himself, the first thing the relatives seem to think is "PAYDAY". Hello, 1-800-Sue Ford! Maybe Johnny's dead, but now we're rich, he was such a good boy. Rub enough money on it, it always feels better!!!

 

You said it much better than I did.
A sad thing, but totally true.
Chris