2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

  • Thread starter emad
  • 3,050 comments
  • 134,087 views
Porsche's attacks without providing solid evidence against Nissan has put a big dent into my faith towards current Porsche management, and I'm pretty sure that even you are bit disappointed at the way Porsche has dealt with this matter. While my post was clearly made in a manner that makes Porsche's PDK look bad, it doesn't differ at all about all the dirt that has been thrown on Nissan due couple blown transmissions after severe abuse.
 
The stuff I read about the blown transmissions with the GT-R was about the owners using launch control and it voiding the warranty. Why bother putting it on the car if you aren't supposed to use it? And if it's use destroys the transmission then the car should have been built better.
 
and had it been better, it would had been even heavier and more expensive to keep up and running than it is now. Remember the 2 out of 3 rule?

Fast and reliable = not cheap
Cheap and reliable = not fast
Fast and cheap = not reliable
 
Leonidae
and had it been better, it would had been even heavier and more expensive to keep up and running than it is now. Remember the 2 out of 3 rule?

Fast and reliable = not cheap
Cheap and reliable = not fast
Fast and cheap = not reliable
Click to expand...
That's not a particularly strong argument. Not particularly true either.
 
They probably could've opened up the tolerances on the gearbox a bit without hurting performance too much. It's a typical Engineer's mistake: works on paper, but in the real world, it doesn't as well.
 
Leonidae
Porsche's attacks without providing solid evidence against Nissan has put a big dent into my faith towards current Porsche management, and I'm pretty sure that even you are bit disappointed at the way Porsche has dealt with this matter. While my post was clearly made in a manner that makes Porsche's PDK look bad, it doesn't differ at all about all the dirt that has been thrown on Nissan due couple blown transmissions after severe abuse.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the way either company has handled the 'Ring times thing to be honest.

There has been quite a fuss made about the Nissan's transmission - my personal view is that it's still a bit silly giving users a little button that invalidates the warranty, but at the same time it's also asking for trouble making a car with such great performance potential so accessible to so many due to the cost without them receiving some sort of in-depth training. However, I don't think the fuss is justified, because the transmission did take too much punishment in a very short space of time.

But still, a "Porsches break too" comment in the GT-R thread in a way that seems to carry the feud onto here seems equally pointless.
 
It's not just a single button. It's a series of button presses that activates it. The combo isn't in the manual, apparently, since it's drivetrain-warranty voiding, but if you read the manual, you'll note that the actions required to activate LC will void the drivetrain warranty.

Joey D
The stuff I read about the blown transmissions with the GT-R was about the owners using launch control and it voiding the warranty. Why bother putting it on the car if you aren't supposed to use it? And if it's use destroys the transmission then the car should have been built better.
Click to expand...

Dumping the clutch and and destroying drive axles will void your warranty just as easily. And lots of cars still have clutches. ;)

Nissan's problem is that they really didn't understand what happens when you combine American hoons, an AWD supercar, super-sticky tires, a dramatic drop-clutch launch, turbocharged torque and a sticky drag-strip. But, as I've written in this thread before, a lot of other manufacturers have learned, to their horror, what happens when you combine these factors (note: Subaru, Mitsubishi, Lamborghini, BMW (sans AWD and turbo...) etcetera)

My bet is still on the transmission fluid. Either that, or program the LC to allow more wheel spin, to ease up stresses on the transmission.

---

EDIT: RE: PDK... I've been reading through some industry publications regarding these new gearboxes... the GT-R's six speed and the Porsche's PDK are at the forefront of a new generation of super-transmissions with ultra-fine tolerances (looser tolerances just provide more opportunities for catastrophic failure at high torque loads... more pliant or flexible metal is probably what you were thinking of, Jim) and ultra-thin transmission fluid...

These boxes are designed in view of reducing frictional losses and transmitting more power to the ground... as such, one transmission manufacturer has pointed out the incredibly difficult problem of making a gearbox that responsive, that smooth and that efficient... that it requires new, ultra-strong materials, just to cope.

As such... maybe it's not surprising that these boxes can break if just one thing (transmission cooler (probably what went on the 911)... wheel hop... hoonery) goes wrong.
 
Last edited:
Driver's Republic has finally released their GT-R versus GT2 article.
http://drivers-republic.com/

Guess what? Porsche was right... DR writer Chris Harris (who isn't a test driver, but a certified 'ring junkie), in a bog-standard customer GT-R (with the JDM limiter removed) could only get the GT-R around the ring in 7:55.





Oh... on the Bridgestone tires.








and...




on a partially wet track...



in November (7 degrees Celsius is cold)...

So who was it, exactly, who drove it for Porsche, now? :lol:

The GT2 they had on hand at the same test, did 7:49. Given that, it's possible that a 7:30 or so is possible with a better driver (in Chris's own words) for the Porsche... and maybe mid-7:30s for the Nissan... but then it's not an exact test, since these are the Bridgestones, and not the Dunlops... though he did say he felt he got closer to the GT-R's limits than he did the Porsche's. I hope they do a follow-up article... this is the first no-BS test of the GT-R versus the 911... not particularly surprised at the result (we all know the GT2 is faster) but I was hoping for a test on a dry, warm track...

But still... a 6 second difference between the two, in poor conditions, versus a nearly 25-second difference in Porsche's hands? Say what, now? :lol:
 
Here's some more home truth's for the GTR guys for the new year. Motortrend grabbed a GTR and put it on the dyno to compare the 'claimed' factory figures. Watch and discuss. ;)

 
They say they got 507 on their first dyno test at an estimated 15% driveline loss... yet when you apply Nissan's claimed 10% loss to that first test's numbers, you get an even 480 hp. Something that Edmund's has already shown with other tests, especially where it was tested back-to-back with a 911 Turbo and shown to make nearly identical horsepower on the dyno to the 480 bhp Porsche.

As for this test, I really can't say... because this is a new type of dyno, there's no knowing how high or how low it actually reads. The inaccuracy and optimistically high or pessimistically low readings of different commercial dynos is something I've discussed at length earlier in this thread.

One possibility for the high torque readings? The GT-R is electronically boost-controlled with a manifold absolute pressure sensor. In other words, boost is continuously varied to account for external conditions. So in favorable conditions, where the car is making more power due to more benign temperatures, it may be pulling back boost to cap top-end horsepower and preserve the engine.
 
niky
One possibility for the high torque readings? The GT-R is electronically boost-controlled with a manifold absolute pressure sensor. In other words, boost is continuously varied to account for external conditions. So in favorable conditions, where the car is making more power due to more benign temperatures, it may be pulling back boost to cap top-end horsepower and preserve the engine.
Click to expand...

Yes but if boost is controlled to a given absolute pressure then that absolute pressure should result in the rated power numbers...

Not the car boosting up to whatever then backing off to keep power at rated.
 
Until I saw a GTR in person parked next to a Murc I really had not fully comprehended how bloody big the GTR is!


100_1556_1024x768.jpg



Granted, it was parked farther out (less than a foot though), but the tails practically lined up near the curb and it absolutely dwarfed the big Bull!
 
Offish-topic: Why is noone infuriated by the braking oversteer it gets in GT5:P? Either PD seriously handicapped it, or Nissan is evil. Either way, why am I the only one vexed?
 
EA11R
Offish-topic: Why is noone infuriated by the braking oversteer it gets in GT5:P? Either PD seriously handicapped it, or Nissan is evil. Either way, why am I the only one vexed?
Click to expand...

Nope, it annoys me too. I really wanted to like the GT-R in GT5P actually, but I just can't get on with it.
 
Some tests report the GT-R is twitchy at the limit, so I'm not really all that bothered about it. Besides, if it were stable under braking, it would be even more ridiculously fast than it is now... I dread racing against the GT-R online... it's so heavy that punters can knock my little Elise clear into tomorrow with a small nudge... :lol:

Rotary Junkie
Yes but if boost is controlled to a given absolute pressure then that absolute pressure should result in the rated power numbers...

Not the car boosting up to whatever then backing off to keep power at rated.
Click to expand...

Really late reply to this, sorry.

By maintaining absolute manifold pressure, you are maintaining power numbers... meaning you get the same effect at the engine, the same absolute psi worth of compression in the cylinders, no matter what atmospheric is or what boost you're running.

And the dynos show that it is getting the power numbers Nissan claims it's going to get. For further explanation of how benchracing dyno numbers between different brands and dynos is inherently stupid, look for my post in page... errh... ten? twenty? of this thread... Dyno manufacturers and experienced multi-dyno operators know this. Most mainstream auto-journalists understand it about as well as they understand Economics 101.

Reading the boost pressure on the dynocharts given that include them, it hits maximum boost at low rpms and then holds it till redline, like many modern turbocharged cars, the GT-R has an artificially inflated torque curve.

This is not unique to Nissan. BMW does it with the 335. VW-Audi have done it, too. This gives new variable geometry turbocharged cars an incredible midrange, which is why the GT-R can out-accelerate many supercars... it's making "only" 480 hp, but it's making over 400 hp much longer than a high revving Ferrari, which achieves its 400-500 hp output only at the very top of the rev range. So while a Ferrari is climbing up through 100-200-300 hp, the Nissan is slowly pulling away.

At high speeds, all of these cars are at high rpms, already, so the GT-R's power advantage is nullified, and over the standing mile and at top speed, it falls far short of the competition.

----

As an addendum to my old dyno arguments, do you know that ramp rates effectively skew dyno numbers?

Apparently, the faster you accelerate a car on the dyno, the less power it makes, as some of the power is bled away to rotate the crankshaft, driveshaft and drive-axles. So, if you want your car to make more power on the dynojet, accelerate slooooowly. :lol:
 
On a real-world note:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=140966?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..1.

Nissan is not removing Launch Control completely from the new year-model GT-Rs, as initially reported. They are instead reprogramming the LC to launch at lower revs (but still higher than the revs it launches at with LC off. GT-R with LC off = 3.8 seconds to 60 mph, LC on, from 3.3 to 3.5 seconds).

The total number of hoonage casualties in the US is reported as "less than 1%". Meaning 16 cars or less. The article is not clear on how many of these were tuner cars. We know of at least three or four that were, and they saw somewhere between 70 -100 launches before the tranny gave out. And one wherein the owner performed over 20 LCs in unknown conditions before the tranny gave out.

There are rumors of owners who had the tranny replaced under warranty because they didn't use Launch Control. No solid proof, and they reportedly signed non-disclosure waivers (makes more sense than carping on the internet after bragging about doing over two dozen launches). Despite the rumors, VDC isn't the sole marker for warranty denial. There is a counter that marks the combination of LC use and VDC disabling.

Under the new guidelines, LC can be used even without turning off VDC. Thereby answering the criticism of those who say: "If it's an available feature, it should be warrantied."

http://www.gtrblog.com/index.php/2009/02/03/nissan-ecu-update-2010-demystified?blog=4

Interesting.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting. If they're using non-disclosure statements, that seems to signify that there is more going on than we're supposed to know about.
 
EA11R
Offish-topic: Why is noone infuriated by the braking oversteer it gets in GT5:P? Either PD seriously handicapped it, or Nissan is evil. Either way, why am I the only one vexed?
Click to expand...

homeforsummer
Nope, it annoys me too. I really wanted to like the GT-R in GT5P actually, but I just can't get on with it.
Click to expand...

That is the reason why I like the car in GT5:P. Most heavy, AWD cars are setup to rotate very well under braking, such as the STi. If the oversteer bothers you, just don't turn while you are braking...
 
indeed. compare that to the failure rate of Boxter engines and suddenly even french and italian cars seem to be reliable.
 
Keep in mind that reliability can be subjective as well. A big handful of problems on a Honda can classify it as a lemon, but put the same number (and even types?) of problems on a VW... Wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
 
Very late. That's the Drivers Republic test from last winter. Done on a damp track. And it's nothing new. We already know that the GT2 is faster than the GT-R in most comparative tests, but that GT-R is on the "slower" Bridgestones, which are worth two or three seconds on a shorter track.

Very good article, though.

Toronado
16 cars or less?!
Click to expand...

Less than 1%. Meaning something less than 17 and probably more than 8.

As I said. Four or five of those, we know about, already. All dead due to multiple drag-launches. The others are unknown. But many of them are linked to a combination of Vehicle Dynamic Control activation and Launch Control use. With a few claimedto be without any use of LC or VDC-off, at all... possibly several cars. Claimed being the operative word... given that salesmen romp on the cars and that many owners faced with an expensive non-warrantable repair tend not to admit any abuse... which I've seen on many enthusiast boards.

So, several cars that maybe failed with no warranty-exclusion usage. Which is probably 0.5% or less. And covered under warranty with a no-disclosure clause, so we don't know if they instead launched the car with VDC on multiple times. Still not a smoking gun.
 
Last edited:
niky
Driver's Republic has finally released their GT-R versus GT2 article.
http://drivers-republic.com/

Guess what? Porsche was right... DR writer Chris Harris (who isn't a test driver, but a certified 'ring junkie), in a bog-standard customer GT-R (with the JDM limiter removed) could only get the GT-R around the ring in 7:55.





Oh... on the Bridgestone tires.








and...




on a partially wet track...



in November (7 degrees Celsius is cold)...

So who was it, exactly, who drove it for Porsche, now? :lol:

The GT2 they had on hand at the same test, did 7:49. Given that, it's possible that a 7:30 or so is possible with a better driver (in Chris's own words) for the Porsche... and maybe mid-7:30s for the Nissan... but then it's not an exact test, since these are the Bridgestones, and not the Dunlops... though he did say he felt he got closer to the GT-R's limits than he did the Porsche's. I hope they do a follow-up article... this is the first no-BS test of the GT-R versus the 911... not particularly surprised at the result (we all know the GT2 is faster) but I was hoping for a test on a dry, warm track...

But still... a 6 second difference between the two, in poor conditions, versus a nearly 25-second difference in Porsche's hands? Say what, now? :lol:
Click to expand...

Even if you look at the times the GT2 is faster. The GT-R did get 7.29 (Only once though) and the GT2 got 7.30 but if you look at the time slower than those the GT2's are generally faster than the GT-R's. No one has been able to get 7.29 again so who really cares if it is true. If they could do is 2-3 times in a row then it is faster than the GT2 but the fact that they only did it once basically shows they got lucky.
 
TVC
Even if you look at the times the GT2 is faster. The GT-R did get 7.29 (Only once though) and the GT2 got 7.30 but if you look at the time slower than those the GT2's are generally faster than the GT-R's. No one has been able to get 7.29 again so who really cares if it is true. If they could do is 2-3 times in a row then it is faster than the GT2 but the fact that they only did it once basically shows they got lucky.
Click to expand...

So?

Most Ring runs are more dependent on a fortunate set of circumstances. Perfect weather, perfect car and tire condition, and an insanely good lap from the driver.

Nobody but Porsche has done the 7:32, but nobody's calling them out on it.. oh wait... that's because it's pretty silly to lie about coming in fourth-best on the Ring.

The Driver's Republic test shows merely what we already know from countless road-tests. On the Bridgestone tires, the GT-R is slower than the GT2. In fact, Nissan's 7:38 ring run was on the Bridgestones. So, 7:38 versus 7:32, a 12% difference in laptimes.

Take Chris Harris's test... 7:55 versus 7:49. The same 12% difference.

Pretty shocking, isn't it?

As for repeatability... how many people have run with the GT-R on Dunlops... with a racing driver... in the summer? So far, the only publication to try it (aside from Auto Motor und Sport, which drove a pre-production car) is Drivers' Republic, but they had a car on Bridgestones, and they got hit with bad November weather.

Wait for summer. But by then, there might be new pavement here and there, a stickier track here, a degraded one there, and times will be different.

I don't doubt that Nissan got 7:29. What we don't know is how much of that is attributable to the ungodly skill of their test driver and how much due to pure chance... maybe a 20 km/h tailwind down the back straight? :lol: A 3 second difference between the GT2 and GT-R on a course this incredibly long could be down to such trivialities as the driver being able to get on the power 1/10th of a second earlier per corner in the GTR, or the seconds lost to manual shifting. We'll never really know until both cars are taken to the track in ideal conditions and given a chance to do hours of uninterrupted laps.
 
I doubt it will irritate anyone, V8 supercars rounds are full of support races and exibitions with various imports from around the world.
 

Latest Posts

Back