speed governor

hi everyone-- would have posted this in r.a.m.ford but that group seems to have gone to hell, plus i have always gotten good responses from ramfe.

i just bought a new 2005 ranger, an upgrade from my 94 xlt explorer. i was disappointed to discover that there seems to be a speed governor (maxes out at 91-92 mph). i rarely drive that fast, but i don't want a governor on my vehicle--do any of the explorers have governors? i don't recall mine having one.

is this something that the dealership can 'remove' from my ranger? not sure if it's a mechanical part, or in the computer. it's also an issue because i was assured by the sales rep that there was NOT a governor of any type, when i was test driving. would its removal affect my warranty or my insurance in any way? i didn't get much help from the first service dept. i called.

thanks for your help, john

PS, does jim warman still post in this forum?

Reply to
jwaisanen
Loading thread data ...

It's a chip in the computer. Look around. After market chips are available for most makes and models.

Yes, Jim is still around.

Reply to
John Riggs

I live in Washington state, and believe me, it's good to have a governor...any governor at this point!

We just let Florida off the hook.

Reply to
Kevin D

Personally, I think anyone that feels the need to go that fast is a couple sandwiches shy of a picnic. Especially in something that isn't going to exhibit a great deal of stability at those speeds.

Oh, I know all about how very, very good some drivers are..... In fact, I've scraped many of them off our local highways...

Reply to
Jim Warman

I was thinking the exact same thing. What's the point in a Ranger Pickup?

-Fred W

Reply to
The Malt Hound

Reply to
Ron B.

They do..... unfortunately they lack both ailerons and rudder. Anyway, it's not the flying that kills........ but there is that little thiing with the sudden stop on landing.

On a more personal note, I really don't care if some folks are busy trying to "off" themselves (other than the trauma emergency responders experience dealing with the mess). Unfortunately, the cause of the tragedy usually winds up walking wounded while the innocents are lost.

I found these in another NG (many from here go there...). The irony is astounding.... we can apply this same irony to all manner of subjects.

formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
Jim Warman

I don't know that I'll look at them....they are here.

I didn't realize you were a Nebraska fan, Jim.

| > The Malt Hound wrote: | >

| > >>Personally, I think anyone that feels the need to go that fast is a | couple | > >>sandwiches shy of a picnic. Especially in something that isn't going to | > >>exhibit a great deal of stability at those speeds. | > >>

| > >>Oh, I know all about how very, very good some drivers are..... In fact, | > >>I've | > >>scraped many of them off our local highways... | > >

| > >

| > > I was thinking the exact same thing. What's the point in a Ranger | Pickup? | > >

| > > -Fred W | > >

| > >

| >

| |

Reply to
John Riggs

Actually, they are not graphic in the least, John. I'm not a Nebraska fan..... NASCAR, NHRA, Harleys, cheap whiskey and Mrs mechanic are the things I love. The first story is an article written by a university student - he's voicing his displeasure with seatbelt laws and feels they are an infringement on his basic rights. The second story deals with his demise.... ejected from the rear seat of a rolling SUV - no seatbelt.

Reply to
Jim Warman

I agree with the late Mr. Kieper that the cops should keep their noses out of my lap. The difference is, I choose to wear my seat belt. I still think the laws are wasteful of taxpayer dollars and a dangerous intrusion.

Another way to look at it is like this: Some accident situations are more dangerous when seat belts are worn. A very small percentage of accidents, true, but a few. Seat belt laws *kill* *people* in those situations. Lives are (or may be) taken without due process, innocent people martyred to the cause of safety for the majority. The State has no right to play dice with the lives of its citizens.

As I said, I always wear my seat belt; I wear it just to move from one end of the driveway to the other :-) But I should be allowed the freedom to not wear it if I choose.

Reply to
Gordon S. Hlavenka

Gordon... just like in the armed forces, there will be losses of "assets". Wearing seatbelts reduces those losses. That seatbelts cause casualties is up for argument.... some MVAs are unsurvivable PERIOD. I have yet to see proof that being ejected from a fast moving vehicle is a good thing. Your chances will always be better if you are "wearing" a metal skin replete with crumple zones and other shock reducing amenities.

Someones chances of surviving an incident are increased with seatbelt use.... after all, there is no way to plan which accident is going to go which way..... indeed, does anyone "plan" to have an accident at all.

While we are on the subject of basic rights... what about the rights of those charged with cleaning up the mess left behind. Those of us dispensing emergency services (for the most part) do so out of some innate desire or need to give care to those in need.By and large, the trauma that we see does go home with us... we are forever changed by those things we see and the reaction we see from the general public (and a lot of you folks are friggin' ghouls). Shovelling folks into body bags.... having bodily fluids sprayed all over me..... listening to screamers while I try to peel their car from around them, trying to keep leakers from leaking..... I do this because someone has to and it is one way I can give back to my community. What would happen if someone chose to spread themselves down a quarter mile of highway and no-one chose to clean up the mess..... At least the ravens would enjoy it.

Laws are made to protect people from themselves. Common sense has absolutely nothing to do with IQ. Hang up a sign that says "WET PAINT" and watch.....

One final point..... if someone has gotten themselves into a bind and has a real need to accurately control their car..... ill it be the guy bouncing around inside the cab or the guy firmly attached to the chair?

I can see it now... entenched in the charter of rights... "I reserve the right to enter the Darwin award competition at my discretion...".

Reply to
Jim Warman

Reply to
Captain Coleman

Uh, Jim...I ever tell you I'm *in* Nebraska....where all of this happened, and in Lincoln, where both articles were written, and he made the evening news?

I knew they weren't graphic..this ain't Arkansas Road Kill....it's just that they tend to run things like that into the ground here.

| > I didn't realize you were a Nebraska fan, Jim. | >

| >

| |

Reply to
John Riggs

Not to mention the pain caused to the family members who have lost a loved one. Can anything be worse than burying a child? What if the primary wage earner is killed because he or she didn't want to wear a seat belt (or a motorcycle or bicycle helmet)? Think of all the repercussions of trying to raise a family on a shoestring.

Something like this happened to my mother-in-law. Her husband worked at a company that rebuilt combine engines. He violated safety rules by standing under an engine when it was up on a hoist, and it fell on him. Let's just say it was a closed-casket funeral. My wife was 6 years old at the time, with four brothers and sisters. Five kids who grew up without their father, and a woman who went through hell to raise five children all by herself. Fortunately, there was a small life insurance policy that just paid off their house (we're talking about the days when a five-bedroom house sold for $7,000), but she had to figure out the rest. All because one person took a stupid chance, probably figuring that "it can't happen to me".

You're right., CC, ignoring rules like this because of some childish, idiotic desire to thumb one's nose at authority is selfish. People need to understand that they don't live in a vacuum - their actions ALWAYS affect others. However, in the case of seat belts, there is only one way to get these fools to change their ways, and that is to hit them in the pocketbook. There's a woman where I work who just got a $100 ticket for not wearing her seat belt. She wears it now - complains about having to do it, but does it.

Reply to
Kevin D

I want to make an important point here: I do not object to the use of seat belts. As I said previously, I wear mine all the time -- even on driveway "trips" of less than 30 feet at speeds of under 3mph. I was raised in a Seat Belt Family(TM); my dad bought aftermarket belts to install in our Rambler.

What I object to is seat belt LAWS. They're an intrusion of the government into areas where the government doesn't belong. I feel the same way about motorcycle helmet laws. Please note that I do not own a motorcycle and am not licensed to operate one. If I did get a bike, I'd probably wear a helmet when riding even though where I live (Illinois) there is currently no law requiring one.

Again, it's the *laws* requiring seat belts and motorcycle helmets I object to. I support and encourage the use of seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

Jim Warman wrote:

I'm treading dangerous ground here, because I don't want to appear ungrateful to those who do difficult work. But YOU don't HAVE to do that kind of work. If it bothers you then you're in the wrong line of business; you should switch to something you have the stomach for.

Wrong. Laws are (well, should be) made to protect people from other people. You can say that seat belt laws protect society in general from the expense associated with injuries, but that's a contrived argument because it would be much more effective to just outlaw the cars themselves and be done with it.

Meanwhile, Captain Coleman wonders:

We don't belong there. I think GWB is feeling guilty about having dodged Vietnam, so he's created a new Vietnam to get himself involved in. It's a bad idea, poorly executed. But that's a completely separate issue from seat belt laws. Am I allowed to be opposed to more than one thing? I sure hope so...

BTW as a 6-year US Navy veteran, I support the troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?). We don't need to repeat _that_ aspect of Vietnam too.

You mean like when he said this?

Sounds like he knew exactly what he was letting himself in for.

I disagree. Derek Kieper _did_ give a damn. He gave a damn about personal freedoms and unnecessary government interference with those freedoms. What he paid the ultimate price for was getting into an Explorer driven by someone who couldn't handle ice.

If anyone wants to discuss this further, I'd be happy to oblige. But by email, please, as it's offtopic for this newsgroup and I'll be unsubscribing soon since I'm selling my Explorer (see my previous "RIP

1FMD..." post).
Reply to
Gordon S. Hlavenka

...and what I object to is MY tax money being spent on medical care and disability for people who think that whether or not they choose to wear a seatbelt or helmet is none of my concern.

-Kevin

Reply to
Kevin Trojanowski

I'm at somewhat of a loss, here.... You wear seatbelts meaning that seatbelt laws have little impact on you. However, lack of seatbelt laws would have those less able to form a sensible decision bouncing around inside their vehicles instead of planted in the drivers seat in a position to regain control. These people could have an immense impact on your life.

Nobody plans on having an accident... it's not a concious decision.... but an accident is something that can happen just after you notice those headlights approaching.

These laws are designed to protect people from themselves and, to a point, to protect us from them. I can see where you might think it is eroding your rights... your right to die, involved in someone elses accident..... the right to fall victim to a friend or neghbour who has witnessed one to many horrendous, needless road tragedy.

Since when should the desires of an individual be allowed to outweigh the needs of the masses?

Reply to
Jim Warman

Then the solution is to tell your gvt to stop paying for things they are not obliged to pay for, not to tell supposedly free adult citizens what they must wear to be legal when driving.

Reply to
First Source

In light of your views, would you advocate legislation that would make your Harley illegal to operate on public roadways? Motorcycles offer much less protection than a car with no seatbelts. H

Reply to
Hairy

Yes... these laws are enacted by each province... seems to me most all the provinces came in about the same time but helmets are the rule everywhere for a long, long time. I will admit to cheating when on private land (that's how I learned to ride... before bucket laws) but if I plan on getting frisky, I make sure all of my bits are covered up.

Getting back to the crotch-rocket crew..... every time I see youngsters - no shirt - no shoes - shorts - girlfreind on the back in the same state of undress....(well, aside from the no shirt)... I am deeply saddened. Common sense took another holiday...

Reply to
Jim Warman

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.