2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[Scaff]

Interesting article, I remember reading it in Evo at the time. I agree that probably most mainstream manufacturers wouldn't honour a warranty if you took a car on track, but it does seem a bit strange for certain cars - M3 CSL, 360 CS, 911 GT3, Renault R26.R etc, all of which are purpose-designed track specials - if the manufacturer refused to cover their use on the track in the warranty.

I don't know if any of the manufacturers of these cars use the term "track day car/track special/etc" in any promotional material for the cars but if they do it's surely misadvertising if using the car in the purpose for which it was designed invalidates the warranty?

Anyway, I'm rambling. I'm certainly not saying that Nissan's ever said the GT-R was a track special (though pushing the tiresome 'Ring stuff all the time does make them look a bit hypocritical if something breaks under hard use) but I still think it's cheeky offering a performance function that invalidates the warranty when it's used. Why not just not offer the function and then not try and claim the car does a certain 0-60 time or whatever when the act of an owner trying to match it invalidates their warranty?...

I will be honest I can see it from both sides of the argument (the 'ring aside that ones easy to get out of - it is a public road). I know of a great many people who attend track days and still understand what the term 'car sympathy' means. I've seen others (a particular RS6 springs to mind) that have come off a track day almost falling apart from the abuse they have just been given.

Using the RS6 as an example, if some one starts a track day with a new set of tyres and when they finish those tyres are down to the 'cord', wouldn't you say its a fairly certain that user abuse was a factor in this case.

In regard to 0-60 times, as I said earlier, matching almost any manufacturers time would invalidate a warranty under the 'abuse' clause they all include. Sidestepping clutches and flat-shifting count as abuse no matter what was you look at it.

Its also misleading to imply (and I'm not saying that you specifically have) that should you need to have a electric window motor changed under warranty they would refuse because a car had been flat-shifted. However try and claim for a snapped drive-0shaft under similar circumstances and it would get turned down.


Regards

Scaff

 

[gator of kana]

My guess is that Nissan didn't know that the transmission would go when they put the function for you to turn off the VDC, it could have been an unexpected turn that Nissan now tries to prevent by warning owners not to turn the VDC off. I guess Nissan didn't see it coming

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

My guess is that Nissan didn't know that the transmission would go when they put the function for you to turn off the VDC, it could have been an unexpected turn that Nissan now tries to prevent by warning owners not to turn the VDC off. I guess Nissan didn't see it coming

Yeah Nissan really can't be bothered to test thier cars. [/sarcasm]

 

[wrcsti]

Might get to drive a GTR soon. Will take pics!

 

[McLaren]

I have heard off issues with three of the four marques you have mentioned. Lanbos and Ferrari's have long user histories of chronic short life clutches when used with launch control (3 - 4 uses and they are gone), I mentioned the Ferrari issue earlier. Vettes are know to throw driveshafts after prolonged sessions of hard launches, particularly when on sticky rubber at drag strips. Sticky rubber + rubbered in track surface = minimal wheelspin = far more stress on the drivetrain.

I'm not saying you're wrong Scaff, but I think you're referring too heavily on older Ferraris & the Diablo. The Diablo was known for having a clutch only capable of being launched hard for around 4-5 times. The Gallardo & the Murcielago, on the other hand, aren't as bad. The Gallardo can be launched quite a few dozen times before transmission issues really plague the car. The Murcielago, of course, doesn't get the same amount done, but you can launch it quite a few times before it goes.

Ferrari, on the other hand, may depend. I haven't honestly heard any major stories on F430s or 599s needing their clutch replaced after a few launches. Their cars seem to be really stable until the next checkup is recommended.

 

[homeforsummer]

Thanks for the post above, Scaff. I wasn't trying to bait anyone for a response with loaded questions, I was genuinely asking inquisitively about the 0-60 times, warranty claims et al. The RS6 owner you spoke of sounds like they were abusing the car without question.

With regard to 0-60 times, I'd be more confident in matching manufacturer's 0-60 times without something going bang than I would matching a magazine such as Autocar, for example, who seem to have a knack of beating even those figures.

Interesting point actually, I was going to refer to BMW in the above paragraph, as Autocar invariably beat their manufacturer figures. Am I right in remembering you have a 320i, Scaff? If so, does the clutch go very soft when you accelerate from rest with haste? It's something I'd heard in a BMW magazine, and then my friend confirmed it with his E46 - that the electronics purposely limit the bite of the clutch when the engine is at high revs to prevent the driver from burning it out or putting unnecessary strain through the gearbox, and this results in a soggy clutch under quick starts.

Perhaps Nissan should have equipped the GT-R with a similar system to prevent the hamfisted owners from burning out the drivetrain...

 

[niky]

RE: other cars with transmission woes...

One magazine borrowed an Evo from a manufacturer. Pristine condition. Brand new. One day at the dragstrip and the clutch was toast. There were also reports that Mitsubishi was at one time, having problems with American Evos. See, US customers like to have sticky-sticky tires, and American tracks have terrific traction (which goes part-way to explaining why US testing numbers are faster than everyone else's)... guess what happens when 5000+ rpm launches meet too much grip? Snapped driveshafts.

Aside from snapped driveshafts on Corvettes... I've heard of the odd differential or two blowing up, although these problems are common enough that GM may actually replace them for you if you ask nicely.

Lamborghini Mother o' Murcielago... the only one in this country had the clutch give up the ghost while pootling around town in second gear. Whoops. Cheaper to fix than the GT-R... the clutch only costs $15k compared to $20k for the entire GT-R transmission. And Murcies are still notorious for clutch wear, just like Ferarris.

For those who don't know... GT-R's launch mode raises the engine stall to 4500 rpm and dumps the clutch when you release the brake. You can only enable launch mode by disabling VDC (which is why VDC is the market Nissan uses in the manual) and doing a few other things. Nissan's manual explicitly states that you should never turn off the VDC except to rock the car out when stuck in snow. And turning VDC off without enabling launch control will limit your rpms so you can do so (apparently, from what other NAGTROC members post).

In the GTR manual, it shows that you have VDC Normal, VDC "R" mode (for racing) and VDC "off" (for emergencies only). People only turn VDC off because they feel it makes the car faster, as it enables more wheelspin when driving hard. I would hazard a guess that Nissan will simply remove the VDC button from future GT-Rs because of the stink. But it ain't getting this guy a free new transmission.

It's also suggested in the manual and service guide that you change the gear oil after hard use... Remember the issue before about track-days and warranty? A track-day won't void your warranty if you submit to a technical inspection and have all the fluids flushed. But if you're launching 20 times in 2 months, you're probably not thinking about all of this stuff.

If you've never heard about problems with these other cars... well... owners rich enough for a Ferrari or a Lamborghini aren't the kinds of guys to get on the internet and post: "OMFG, another blown clutch! Damn you, Ferrucio!" or "My last Ferrari caught fire... this is the third one! I'm never buying this rubbish brand again... I'm getting an Evo!"

Now Porsche... well, there's an interesting bit... haven't heard of any widespread issues with them, at all.

It's funny for me, because I track occassionally. Minimum damage for a track day is often a sliding clutch, if you're lucky. If you're not, glazed brakes (need refacing), boiled brake fluid (needs flushing), overheated gearbox (needs flushing), busted suspension bushings (twice now! damnit!), grained tires, alignment, boiling coolant (needs replacement) and burned motor oil (needs replacement). That's why manufacturers won't warranty track use... because most noobs balk at the idea of having a special service after every trackday... and that was why I was particularly fond of the idea of Nissan's "special service" after each trackday that allowed you to keep your warranty.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

No problem then.



And untill that happens then its not a reliability issue is it, it's an isolated failure.



I which case I don't ever want to see you get defensive if someone takes a pop a GM products for reliability, after all they will only be doing their job.



Here we go again with speculation.

I have heard off issues with three of the four marques you have mentioned. Lanbos and Ferrari's have long user histories of chronic short life clutches when used with launch control (3 - 4 uses and they are gone), I mentioned the Ferrari issue earlier. Vettes are know to throw driveshafts after prolonged sessions of hard launches, particularly when on sticky rubber at drag strips. Sticky rubber + rubbered in track surface = minimal wheelspin = far more stress on the drivetrain.

In none of these cases would I start to shout about reliability, mainly becuase I have an understanding of exactly what forces are being placed on the drive-train in situations like this.

If you ever get the chance take your car to a 'run what you brung' and actually launch it hard and throw in a few flat-shifts; then come back and tell me how long you expect the transmission to last if you keep doing it.

Regards (and sorry for the giant post)

Scaff

Lighten up mate, have some fun, that's what I'm doing. Internet is always so serious, how can we socialise with each other in those conditions?

 

[Scaff]

Lighten up mate, have some fun, that's what I'm doing. Internet is always so serious, how can we socialise with each other in those conditions?

Irony - when someone with a long history of taking offence when none is present tells you to lighten up.

I will be sure to throw in the sarcasm tags next time, my point about GM warranty was light-hearted. I guess this........was a bit too subtle.




Scaff

 

[gator of kana]

I just got this one question, why would you want to turn off the VDC anyway when it is for safety issues?

 

[the Interceptor]

Because you can only use launch control when VDC is off.

 

[kingcars]

If I'm gonna spend $80k+ on a car, I had best be able to use all of its built in features without voiding the warranty; and it better have a REAL manual transmission. None of this paddle shifting/tiptronic crap. Sorry guys, I'd buy a C6 Z06 over a GTR any day of the week, for the aforementioned reasons.

/rant

 

[gator of kana]

Because you can only use launch control when VDC is off.

But how often are you going to use the launch control in everyday life?

 

[the Interceptor]

But how often are you going to use the launch control in everyday life?

That's up to you. The guy with the wrecked transmission apparently used it twice a week for two months before it went to heaven. The manual says you shouldn't turn off VDC at all under normal driving conditions, therefore, you obviously shouldn't use launch control as well. Personally, I think you're just as well off with setting VDC to "R"(ace mode). You probably lose a couple of tenths from 0 to 60, but you use the car within manufacturer warranty and still are quick enough.

This way or that one, everyone should be aware that heavy abuse will void the warranty on every car. Using a feature that is

a) not documented in the manual and
b) incorporates a setting that the manual explicitly forbids

will obviously void the warranty when a part fails.

 

[homeforsummer]

Maybe the VDC button should be marked with "-$20k" for clarity

 

[kingcars]

This way or that one, everyone should be aware that heavy abuse will void the warranty on every car. Using a feature that is

a) not documented in the manual and
b) incorporates a setting that the manual explicitly forbids

will obviously void the warranty when a part fails.

Then the manufacturer shouldn't make it such an easily accessible feature. They knew going into it "Hey look, we can add this button on here, guys will wanna push it, and that means we won't have to back up warranties on our most expensive car!"

It's an obvious money making tactic if I've ever heard one.

 

[Scaff]

Then the manufacturer shouldn't make it such an easily accessible feature. They knew going into it "Hey look, we can add this button on here, guys will wanna push it, and that means we won't have to back up warranties on our most expensive car!"

It's an obvious money making tactic if I've ever heard one.

Of course it is, because every single GT-R made to date has done this and Nissan have made $20k extra off each car.

Oh wait, no they haven't. I will be honest if this was the case it would be the single stupidest tactic ever, $20K extra and a lost customer for ever. Great move.

Warranty exclusions such as this (and I speak from experience within manufacturers) exist as 'noob' clauses. They are an easy get out if someone has turned off the VDC and then ragged the car to hell and back (and saves arguments about driver abuse). It still leaves the manufacturer the option of covering any failure if the driver has switched the VDC off and not abused the car. In this day and age its very easy to find out exactly which scenario has occurred,as the ECU will log a huge wealth of information.

So if a driver has switched off the VDC and then proceded to use the launch control 10 times in a row from cold and then bounce the engine off its rev limiter for a dozen laps of a track and wonder why a few bits went 'pop'. If the driver then tries to say it happened during 'daily driving' they have a nice easy get out clause.

Some may call it unfair, but as I said earlier I've been on both sides of the story and can understand both points of view.


Regards

Scaff

 

[buickgnx88]

The logic of car companies is confusing sometimes. It does indeed seem to all boil down to be just a way to make money.

 

[kingcars]

Of course it is, because every single GT-R made to date has done this and Nissan have made $20k extra off each car.

Oh wait, no they haven't. I will be honest if this was the case it would be the single stupidest tactic ever, $20K extra and a lost customer for ever. Great move.

Warranty exclusions such as this (and I speak from experience within manufacturers) exist as 'noob' clauses. They are an easy get out if someone has turned off the VDC and then ragged the car to hell and back (and saves arguments about driver abuse). It still leaves the manufacturer the option of covering any failure if the driver has switched the VDC off and not abused the car. In this day and age its very easy to find out exactly which scenario has occurred,as the ECU will log a huge wealth of information.

So if a driver has switched off the VDC and then proceded to use the launch control 10 times in a row from cold and then bounce the engine off its rev limiter for a dozen laps of a track and wonder why a few bits went 'pop'. If the driver then tries to say it happened during 'daily driving' they have a nice easy get out clause.

Some may call it unfair, but as I said earlier I've been on both sides of the story and can understand both points of view.


Regards

Scaff

But the problem is, even if you use launch control maybe once or twice of the course of 6 months or maybe a year, and something breaks, they'll just say "sorry, you used LC. Warranty is voided, we can't help you." It doesn't matter if you use it once or a hundred times.

 

[Scaff]

But the problem is, even if you use launch control maybe once or twice of the course of 6 months or maybe a year, and something breaks, they'll just say "sorry, you used LC. Warranty is voided, we can't help you." It doesn't matter if you use it once or a hundred times.

And how may I ask do you know that to be true?

I spent two years as a customer service manager for Renault/Nissan and know full well that warranty exclusions can and are over-ridden.

Depending on the nature of the situation (age, mileage, service history, ownership history) I've authorised repairs on cars that would have fallen outside warranty and even work on cars that the warranty had expired on.

Its simply not true to say that situations of this nature are a black and white case, which is exactly why I described this as a 'noob' get out clause.

In the past I've authorised full engine rebuilds for cars that have had cam-belts fail and the customer had not changed the belt within the prescribed period (and that's an automatic warranty exclusion by the book), because the car had not been abused.

In other cases I've refused to cover cars that were within the warranty period because it was clear that the car had been abused.

Implying that these warranty exclusions are always used as a blanket 'no' is simply misleading and also flies in teh face of my own personal experience of dealing with warranty claims. It may also be worth pointing out that I currently deliver warranty and customer service training for two manufacturers (one of whom may begin with N).


Regards

Scaff

 

[kingcars]

Well, if that's the case, then all is well. I would suggest reading through forums such as this, though:

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=25361

However, fact of the matter is, Nissan included an easily accessible feature, knowing that it would void warranties, and also that it's the only way to get the advertised 0-60 time. If I'm spending 80k on a car, it had better be able to regularly perform up to advertised specs.

 

[buickgnx88]

Of course it seems like in normal everyday driving, you wouldn't need to get to 60mph in under 4 seconds.

 

[niky]

Well, if that's the case, then all is well. I would suggest reading through forums such as this, though:

http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=25361

However, fact of the matter is, Nissan included an easily accessible feature, knowing that it would void warranties, and also that it's the only way to get the advertised 0-60 time. If I'm spending 80k on a car, it had better be able to regularly perform up to advertised specs.

That's the exact thread I quoted earlier. And three pages down, the guy admits to doing 20 burnouts in just two months.

Other cases mentioned seem mostly electronic glitches (in Japan) fixed under warranty. Granted, with no gear grinding, this one could also be electronic, but with a diagnostic download that has a history of hoonery plastered all over it, the dealership was well within its rights to deny a costly replacement.

Like Scaff said a few pages ago... if you were to repeat the acceleration numbers of, say, Car&driver on a daily basis, you should expect something to break. I've ragged on my car hard, and I pay for it. No complaints. I've driven various manufacturer "test" units, and let me tell you, since those are driven balls out almost every week, they're in crap condition. Overheating/grinding automatics, worn clutches, broken engine mounts. And this is with a local media that doesn't test 0-60 mph times (only two publications here actually do, ours and C! Magazine). One major US outlet fried a clutch on an Evo in one day.

Being on multiple boards, I've seen complaints like this for any new performance car... S2000s that blow up, Mazdaspeed3s in which engine mounts shear off, Honda/Acura 6-speeds that turn into kibble. All abuse/neglect-related.

 

[kingcars]

There's a difference between breaking a car from constantly beating on it, and voiding a warranty just to achieve advertised performance.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

There's a difference between breaking a car from constantly beating on it, and voiding a warranty just to achieve advertised performance.

Those two things usually go hand in hand, in order for it to achieve its max performance you have to take it all the way to the edge.

 

[Leonidae]

Nissan pimp-slaps Porsche

Exclusive: Nissan officially slams Porsche cheat claim


Will show tyres and video as evidence, offers Porsche driving tips


Nissan is standing firm on its claim to the production car lap record at the Nurburgring despite a blistering attack from Porsche.

And it has the tyres to prove it.

The German sports car maker accused Nissan of using special semi-race tyres when it set the Nurburgring benchmark at 7 minutes 29 seconds in April but the Japanese company is now going public with the actual Dunlop SP Sport 600 DSST CTT tyres used for the hot lap.

It is also offering video footage shot by the Japanese magazine 'Best Motoring" during the high-speed runs.

Nissan has also questioned the preparation of the customer GT-R used by Porsche for its in-house testing last month, where it claimed it could not get within 25 seconds of the Nissan time and that its 911 GT2 and Turbo were both quicker.

And, in a back-handed slap at Porsche, it has offered driving tips for anyone trying to get the best from a GT-R.

The man who led development of the Nissan supercar, chief engineer, Kazutoshi Mizuno, says the lap record car is a regular production GT-R.

“Testing a car with specialized parts such as unique tires or suspension has no meaning for us. The GT-R was designed from the start to be a supercar that could be driven anywhere, anytime and by anyone. For us, testing the car in standard production specification is far more relevant than creating a one-off vehicle that our customers cannot buy," Mizuno says.

Nissan has taken nearly a week to assemble the evidence it says clearly refutes the Porsche claims.

It has even offered to show the actual tyres from the record run, which were taken back by Sumitomo in Japan for promotional work, to prove they are identical to the rubber fitted to production cars.

"It is clear that there are some important facts that were not accurately represented," Nissan says in its official press release on the Porsche claims.

It states that the record run, by former F1 driver Toshio Suzuki, was even compromised by carrying around 50 kilograms of data logging equipment supplied by Marelli and camera equipment.

Without attacking Porsche directly, it has also questioned everything from the tyres on the customer car its rival used to its preparation and the skill of the driver - who Porsche describes as one of its chassis test engineers.

Nissan says there are two types of tyre fitted to the GT-R, and the clear inference from its reference to the Bridgestone Potenza RE070R is that these were fitted to the Porsche-run GT-R and not as quick on a track as the Dunlops it uses.

It has also indirectly questioned the preparation of Porsche's car by referring to the run-in and service procedure, as well as the special technique for driving the all-wheel drive supercar.

"We are aware that several auto makers have purchased the GT-R for their own testing and evaluation. Like all GT-R customers, we recommend that any auto maker buying a GT-R should follow the recommended run-in procedures, service schedules and maintenance to ensure the maximum performance from their car," Nissan says.

"In addition, we offer performance driving courses for prospective and current GT-R owners to help them get the best performance from their car. We would welcome the opportunity to help any auto manufacturer with understanding the full capabilities of the GT-R."

Nissan has gone into great detail on its work with the GT-R at the Nurburgring, including documenting its various track tests earlier this year and the method - the same one used by Sport Auto Magazine in Germany - it used to time the car.

And Mizuno even says the Nurburgring lap record was not the prime objective of the GT-R program.

“We have used circuits like the Nurburgring and Sendai extensively during the development of the GT-R. The fastest lap-time was never the objective but a simple parameter for us to measure the GT-R in a consistent way against other world class supercars," he says.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

Irony - when someone with a long history of taking offence when none is present tells you to lighten up.

I will be sure to throw in the sarcasm tags next time, my point about GM warranty was light-hearted. I guess this........was a bit too subtle.




Scaff

Well, could imply you're saying I'm stupid. I see no problem here though, move along people, move along.

 

[the Interceptor]

Then the manufacturer shouldn't make it such an easily accessible feature. They knew going into it "Hey look, we can add this button on here, guys will wanna push it, and that means we won't have to back up warranties on our most expensive car!"

I wonder why so many people suggest that Nissan only had evil thoughs on this. I could as well argue that they made it easily accessible that you don't have to memorize the handbook and press 11 buttons at once when you're stuck in snow and you want to get going again. The fact that something is easy to access doesn't mean you are allowed to do it.

Let's take a look at how others handle it: the BMW M3 manual:

They describe their launch control feature, and it is vital to archieve the 0-60 time they claim. Yet, they say that if you repeatedly use it, your clutch and your driveline are in danger. So what do you think happens to your warranty when you use the "Acceleration boost" a few times in a row and your gearbox blows up?

However, fact of the matter is, Nissan included an easily accessible feature, knowing that it would void warranties, and also that it's the only way to get the advertised 0-60 time. If I'm spending 80k on a car, it had better be able to regularly perform up to advertised specs.

Sorry, but that's the same for almost all cars of all kinds. Which car archieves all the numbers the manufacturer claims? Especially 0-60 times often are very "optimistic", as there is no independent organisation that monitors how they are archieved. You can sue them and argue that the car doesn't fulfil the claimed specs, but the difference has to reach a specific percentage. And I highly doubt that said difference is big enough in this case. Also, you'd have to give back at least half of the cars ever produced for some reason.

 

[niky]

Hmmm... would love to see those videos. And if Porsche did use the Bridgestones? Remember the 5 second per lap estimate from Dickie Meaden? Take 5 seconds per 1:30 lap (typical of most racecourses) and apply it to a 7:30 lap... which is 5 times as long... 5x5 = 25 seconds.

There's a difference between breaking a car from constantly beating on it, and voiding a warranty just to achieve advertised performance.

20 launches in two months (most likely without a transmission fluid change) is constantly beating it.

RE: BMW launches: the counter is supposedly around 20 or 30 launches before it voids your E46 M3 drivetrain warranty. Varies per region, but I think it's fewer launches in the US, due to stickier drag-strips.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Nissan pimp-slaps Porsche

Wow Nissan failed on the first sentance.