My previous Infiniti and my SpecV both had/have some type of limiter on the cruise control so you cannot set it above 90mph. Did this BS feature find its way onto the Z???????????

 

From the manual:

So it looks like you'll have a shot at keeping your license after all!

 

Thats a deal killer for me. Call me crazy but I was able to set the cruise on my Vette at 125. As far as my license is concerned, I have not had a speeding ticket in 8 years. I set the cruise on my Mercedes anywhere between 90 and 105. Apparently you guys haven't been to Arizona. Save the flaming please, every last one of you has either bought or is contemplating buying a car that can nearly triple the posted speed limit on most major highways.

 

An 89 MPH cruise control is a "DEAL KILLER." Wadafuc!!! YOU"RE KIDDING ME, RIGHT? I mean in my 944, I regularly drove 110 out in the middle of Bumfuc Texas, but its just not that hard to push the accelerator with your foot.

 

A deal killer? Oh my god, this is even worse than the guy that refused delivery because the window sills were too high. If your tolerance is that low, I doubt you'll find ANY car that doesn't have a "deal killer" of one kind of another. Look at the entire package, and then look at the fact that over 90 you'll have to use your right foot, and apply a bit of perspective.

On second thought, lots of people are looking for preorder cancellers, so you'd make someone very happy if you killed the deal because of this intolerable limitation of the vehicle.

 

I had cruise on my prelude at 110 or 120 (not sure) on a clean highway between Florida and Gergia for over an hour.

Surely the Z is more comfortable at those speeds than the prelude...so the cruise engagement will still be wanted above 90 IMO.

 

One less moron driving a Z!

Woo-hoo!

I bet you were gonna put a big ricey spoiler on it anyways...

 

Wow, a bit zcar.com of you, nizl, but pretty funny!

 

I guess on a lonely stretch of empty highway in the middle of nowhere, cruise control _might_ come in handy at higher speeds... definitely not a deal breaker though.

What an odd condition for buying a car IMHO.

 

Wow, what a bunch of hostility. God forbid I pay 30K plus for a car and I actually expect it to provide some functionality! Maybe you guys are to busy self rationalizing to consider just how long I have to hold my foot on the accelerator between Phoenix and LA or worst yet when I do my annual one lap around the Western US to the tune of 3K miles. How shortsighted are you guys? Boy it would be nice to put on the old blinders and show up at the old dealership with a paper bag full of money!

I watched you guys bash Chris over the head for not being comfortable with the high beltline and now you come after me for some short fall from the manufacturer? Why don't you guys try to show a little more maturity.

 

It is Fing ridiculous to consider that a serious flaw with the car. You complain about the car having no functionality just because the cruise doesn't set over 90? I guess this isn't your car then. Go get those tickets for us.

 

I really don't know why nissan is playing granny over here saying "Oh no 90 mph is too fast for cruise control" I think that's such a joke. I personally think 90 mph is sufficient, but I can see how other people might not. I do not think driving 100 is any more dangerous than driving 90. We here in the united states might be on the road to cars being governed to 90 mph top speed.

That being said, I don't think that should be a deal killer as it is possible there could be a fix somewhere in the cruise control or engine computer system.

 

I think this guy might be sincere, but it is also possible he might be one of these guys that likes to rock the boat. Like asking a question he knows the answer to just to point out a flaw.

For example if I posted "does anyone know if the 350Z has a real spare tire or a space saver?"

Now everyone says it's a space saver.

Then I go "OMG... My jetta has a real spare, My Trooper has a real spare. What a joke, That's a deal killer. Nissan you should spend a few bucks and put a real spare..."

 

I don't understand why they add this feature. My Maxima is the same way. I'll admit it's a problem I rarely encounter, but still think it's a useless thing to add. Same thing with this new anti-burnout feature. What the hell is that? SCC had to disconnect some brake light wires or something to get a burnout for their cover page.

 

I rarely use cruise control... but this is funny nonetheless.

I have set cruise on my BMW at 130 before

 

This guy is whining about no cruise control above 90mph? That is ridiculous! You've got to be pretty stupid to give up some control of your car going above 100mph, especially on U.S. roads, and with all the idiot drivers out there (the ones that go slower than you, as opposed to maniacs, the ones that go faster).

It is extremely ironic that his name is "leadfoot".

How hard is it to keep your foot on the accelerator pedal? My maxima's cruise control acts the same way, but it's a non-factor in my driving. In the Northeast, wide open stretches of highway are few and far between. Consider yourself lucky that you get to drive on deserted highways. If you get tired of holding your poor foot on the pedal all the way from Phoenix to LA, just slow down and set the cruise at 89.

Nissan doesn't want to be liable for people dying because the cruise control function was set at 120mph and slowed the driver's and car's reaction times. I don't consider it a "shortfall" from the manufacturer.

 

I am a lawyer specializing in patent litigation and I know very liitle about personal injury law, BUT, I think setting a very high cruise control limit opens Nissan up to some serious liability issues. I believe the fastest speed limit in the U.S. is 75 now that Montana has day time speed limts (someone correct me if I'm wrong). And if leadfoot lost control of his car when his cruise was set at 130 and he killed some little girl, if I had my choice I would much rather be the lawyer suing Nissan, than the lawyer defending Nissan. I think it would be pretty easy for a lawyer to convince a jury that Nissan was negligent by allowing a cruise control that could be set over 50 MPH faster than the highest legal speed limit in the U.S. BTW, I understand that Nissan's negligence would be much less than leadfoot's, but under tort law in most states anyone whose negligence contributed to an accident is liable for the entire amount of damage caused. I will now duck while the anti-lawyer flamers come out of the woodwork.