[hdplasmas]

I don't quite get what makes this car qualify for the government to limit the top speed of this car. There are plenty others that go well over 150 m.p.h. I admit going that fast is stupid but I want to make my own choice as to how fast I want to go. Is it to lower insurance premiums?

 

[Cdnhemi]

I don't quite get what makes this car qualify for the government to limit the top speed of this car. There are plenty others that go well over 150 m.p.h. I admit going that fast is stupid but I want to make my own choice as to how fast I want to go. Is it to lower insurance premiums?

You can add Canada as well. Only Mexico in North America has no limiter.

 

[deegee]

The government does not mandate a limiter. The manufacturer puts one on of their on volition, or, more properly, at their lawyers' request. With the power put out by this engine, it would be easy to exceed the speed range of the tires. The addition of a limiter keeps lead-footed customers from crashing at 150 on tires rated for less, then filing suit against Chrysler. It would be an effective case, too - if you make a car capable of going that fast, you ought to make sure it's dressed for the occasion.

 

[arnoldw]

I don't quite get what makes this car qualify for the government to limit the top speed of this car. There are plenty others that go well over 150 m.p.h. I admit going that fast is stupid but I want to make my own choice as to how fast I want to go. Is it to lower insurance premiums?

I believe the speed is limited because of the tires. The Contis are only rated for 130mph. My previous car, a 300m had the euro package with michelins and no limiter. The regular M's had a limiter also.

 

[max]

Well that is not exactly true, mine doesn't have a limiter, atleast I haven't been fast enough for it to kick on. As a matt of fact while traveling at that speed the speed was held for atleast 25 minutes before slowing down to around 115. It's great to live in Europe from time to time...An that was one of those times... Happy New Year

 

[hdplasmas]

I don't completely agree with that being the reason. As someone mentioned the South of the border version or the Euro version don't have the limiter so it leaves me to believe they have Z-rated tires for the speed. If they still have the stock H-rated tires they are still risking lawsuits. The 300 SRT-8 won't have the limiter and comes with Z-rated tires so I don't see why they couldn't do that on the 300c. Cost, come on who wouldn't pay an extra $300-$500 more for these tires and no limiter except the transmissions rpm cutoff. However, I don't know if Z-rated tires are tall enough for the stock 18" or 17" wheels but I am sure there has to be a tire tall enough and built for the speed.

I believe the speed is limited because of the tires. The Contis are only rated for 130mph. My previous car, a 300m had the euro package with goodyears and no limiter. The regular M's had a limiter also.

 

[II kings 9:20]

Yes speed is limited b/c tires then one must ask why did'nt they use Z tires and have no limit. It is quite obvious it is about liability, we have 7% of the world's population and 50% of the lawyers. Audi fits some of thier cars with Z tires and still limits to 130 b/c they fear Americans will put a lesser tire at replacement time and Audi could be held responsible in this environment, just look at the tobacco settlement. Some auto makers assume the risk, Chrysler chose not to with the C.

 

[Northern Rider]

IIKings is bang on. It's strictly a lawyer thing and - yes - a tire thing. On the 300M, they put a limiter. On the 300M Special, they came with 18" Michelin Pilot Sports low profile - a high speed rated tire - and no limiter. DC took a lot of heat over this decision because you had to put very expensive winter tires on this car as it was undrivable on snow or ice with the summer Michelins (there were other major issues with the 300M Special - I'll outline in a future post).

When the C came to market, there really wasn't an appropriate all-season high speed tire. Hence the decision to program a limiter. It's my understanding that the SRT-8 will have performance tires and will not have a limiter. It will also not ship until after the winter.

It's my guess that C owners won't have to wait much longer before an aftermarket program will be available to remove the limiter.

 

[joey]

IIKings is bang on. It's strictly a lawyer thing and - yes - a tire thing. On the 300M, they put a limiter. On the 300M Special, they came with 18" Michelin Pilot Sports low profile - a high speed rated tire - and no limiter. DC took a lot of heat over this decision because you had to put very expensive winter tires on this car as it was undrivable on snow or ice with the summer Michelins (there were other major issues with the 300M Special - I'll outline in a future post).

When the C came to market, there really wasn't an appropriate all-season high speed tire. Hence the decision to program a limiter. It's my understanding that the SRT-8 will have performance tires and will not have a limiter. It will also not ship until after the winter.

It's my guess that C owners won't have to wait much longer before an aftermarket program will be available to remove the limiter.

The downside of aftermarket modifications is it likely voids our warranty.
As much as I would like to occasionally take my C for a high speed joy ride, I don't want to void my warranty.

A good compromise - Chrysler disables the limiter if we sign a waiver.

 

[Northern Rider]

The downside of aftermarket modifications is it likely voids our warranty.
As much as I would like to occasionally take my C for a high speed joy ride, I don't want to void my warranty.

A good compromise - Chrysler disables the limiter if we sign a waiver.

Some of the better programs allow you to reset your software to factory specs any time you want, then to re-instate your performance program. A rather elegant solution, IMO.

 

[hdplasmas]

Is the lawyer/lawsuit thing official or an assumption? If it is official I will accept it for what it is. However, if this is an assumption I would have to argue that there are easily a million other ways to be killed while driving this vehilce from things installed or not installed by Chrysler. It seems a pretty easy case for the Chrysler lawyers to point out that the driver was going well over the speed limit which contributed to death or serious harm. How about this: One of us could be driving late at night or anytime of the day for that matter and we encounter an erradic driver (Road Rage, Drunk, AWOL). Erradic driver decides to follow us or ones spouse and our 300 goes only upto 120mph while erradic drivers car goes upto 130mph. Couldn't Chrysler be held in part responsible that one couldn't outrun this pshyco-pathic killer? Let me stretch it a bit. Some of you might remember the Road Rage episode of NBC's E.R. with the chrysler 300 (I hope you all have HDTV if not get one, If you can afford a 300c you can afford HDTV). The 300c couldn't outrun the guy that was shooting at them so they fall into the river after being shot, car sinks down to the bottom and rear passenger dies. Duh! I know that wasn't real but it is possible. Coincidence, Chance, Fate I think not members of the jury I blame it on the speed limiter!
-------------------
" I did not have sexual relations with that woman! Miss Lewinsky"-Bill Clinton

IIKings is bang on. It's strictly a lawyer thing and - yes - a tire thing. On the 300M, they put a limiter. On the 300M Special, they came with 18" Michelin Pilot Sports low profile - a high speed rated tire - and no limiter. DC took a lot of heat over this decision because you had to put very expensive winter tires on this car as it was undrivable on snow or ice with the summer Michelins (there were other major issues with the 300M Special - I'll outline in a future post).

When the C came to market, there really wasn't an appropriate all-season high speed tire. Hence the decision to program a limiter. It's my understanding that the SRT-8 will have performance tires and will not have a limiter. It will also not ship until after the winter.

It's my guess that C owners won't have to wait much longer before an aftermarket program will be available to remove the limiter.

 

[Northern Rider]

Is the lawyer/lawsuit thing official or an assumption? ......

Since lawyers are the masters of situational ethics, you'll never get them making clear, definite policy statements. Just read the welcoming screen on the Nav system.

To my knowledge DC do not have an official public position. However, do you remember the Ford Explorer - Firestone tire issue? DC are just not going to put 130 mph rated tires on a C and allow it to go 156 mph.

There is also a cost issue. We C owners like to compare our cars with those costing 15K more. Performance tires and wider rims might add as much as $3500.00 retail to the price.

It would have been nice to give us buyers the option on wheels and tires, but there just weren't good selections out there when the C came to market.

As to signing a waiver, I doubt that DC can sign its way out of liability, given the legal history surrounding speed/tire lawsuits.

 

[NJCOBRA10tha]

In 1996 when I bought my Z28 if you didn't get the high performance tires the speed limiter was set low I think as low as 118MPH or so.

A handheld programmer could raise that and hopefully there will be one for the 300c soon.

As far as voiding warranty I hate that term. NOTHING voids your warranty!

A dealer can deny warranty service if he can prove something you did caused the problem but they can not void your warranty and not cover a rusted exhaust because of a chip or replace a speaker....

Handheld programmers are preferable over chips because it's not as easy to tell they have been used.

If they can be detected at all it's because they can tell when the computer was last flashed. With the handheld you would return it to stock before brining it in for service.

Even if they can detect it I doubt they can prove anything other than you used it to fix speedo error for your 20" RIMS vs stock 18".

-Dan

 

[hdplasmas]

I didn't know some camaros had the speed limiter. I purchased 93 Trans Am when the new f-body had just come out but that car didn't have speed limiter. I must have gone 140+ mph in that car and I was trying to max it out but it cut off because I had it in wrong gear. Didn't get a chance to try again because car was sold soon after. Plenty of drag racing and reaching 130+ though, cause that was all I needed. Unless I came across a Stang that had aftermarkets in motor. Cousin of my had V-6 camaro 95' I think and that thing made it to about 125mph. What do you think handheld programmer will cost and is it specific to car or specific to manufacturer.

In 1996 when I bought my Z28 if you didn't get the high performance tires the speed limiter was set low I think as low as 118MPH or so.

A handheld programmer could raise that and hopefully there will be one for the 300c soon.

As far as voiding warranty I hate that term. NOTHING voids your warranty!

A dealer can deny warranty service if he can prove something you did caused the problem but they can not void your warranty and not cover a rusted exhaust because of a chip or replace a speaker....

Handheld programmers are preferable over chips because it's not as easy to tell they have been used.

If they can be detected at all it's because they can tell when the computer was last flashed. With the handheld you would return it to stock before brining it in for service.

Even if they can detect it I doubt they can prove anything other than you used it to fix speedo error for your 20" RIMS vs stock 18".

-Dan

 

[maherm]

My 300c was built in Canada just like yours and it was equipped with stock MAGNUM R/T 18" wheels and pirelli Z rated tires, and it costs the same as the US model ( around USD.35000), so cost is not an issue here...By the way,Ilive out of US.

 

[scarface]

Insurance

Insurance

 

[II kings 9:20]

hdplasma, I think the lawyer issue is real. Without question we are the most letiginous society on earth and every company who conducts business here considers liability in everything they do. I have worked on the sate level in Ohio on the liability issue and know this first hand, I do not know specifically about the limiter on the C but given our liability climate it is very safe to surmise that it plays a role in the limiter decision. The chairman of VW stated last year that th US is the most difficult markt to sell in because of our laws and product liability. Audi in the early 90s had an off switch for ABS (much like the esp switch) and eliminated it in the US because of liability concerns (before the black box) despite proof that cars at low/moderate speed stopped better in snow with ABS off. No other manufacturer followed Audi's lead and they did not want to be the only company out there with no support in the market for this feature. The lawyers would have a fiesta in court. I am sure the limiter decision was multifactorial with liability risk playing a big part.

 

[Two300Cs]

Limiter switch ?

Some of the better programs allow you to reset your software to factory specs any time you want, then to re-instate your performance program. A rather elegant solution, IMO.

Any word on gettin rid of the limiter? Talked to a tech at a dealership and he says it can be done. Ill dig for more info tomorrow when I go for the Oil change.

 

[CDBLU]

how do u know if u have a limiter?

Two300Cs:
How do you know if your 300 has a speed limiter??? Where do you check or what to look for under the hood....thanks

CDBLU

 

[glhs837]

Since it's just programming in the computer, it's impossible to see The only way to know is to drive until the car won't go any faster Which of course, is at your own risk, unless your not bright enough to do it when it wont endangers others

The above is NOT a slam on you, more of a disclaimer I think we established before that the limiter in US/Canadian cars was in the 125-130 range, and yes, they set it for tires, which chioice is driven by economics vs ergonomics vs mpg vs phase of the moon.