2009 Nissan GT-R - Zero tolerance for asshattery

[nd 4 holden spd]

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.

This is probably why some people like muscle over technology. The Z06 doesn't use launch control, and gets more or less what Chev claims, and has even done faster than what Chev claims down the 1/4mile. No launch control, just plain old regular driving. HSV's E-Series has come within 0.1sec of manufacturer claims in the hands of a Motor Magazine, a respected and reliable source. Ford's XR6T has also more or less matched manufactuer claims in the hands of journos (But they might have used launch control on the Ford, I don't know).

 

[gator of kana]

This is probably why some people like muscle over technology.

But those type of people like to get over on car dealers because they can get away with the abuse to their car and don't have to pay a dime, I don't like that

 

[Scaff]

This is probably why some people like muscle over technology. The Z06 doesn't use launch control, and gets more or less what Chev claims, and has even done faster than what Chev claims down the 1/4mile.

And in doing so (particularly down a drag strip) you get back into exactly the situation we have been talking about. That of putting massive stress on the drivetrain.

Yes its can be done (matching manufacturers times) but to do so repeatedly is to risk component failure and would almost certainly be viewed as abuse.

No launch control, just plain old regular driving. HSV's E-Series has come within 0.1sec of manufacturer claims in the hands of a Motor Magazine, a respected and reliable source. Ford's XR6T has also more or less matched manufactuer claims in the hands of journos (But they might have used launch control on the Ford, I don't know).

Its a lot more variable that just high tech vs low tech. Take the Caterham R500 for example, its capable of quite insane 0-60 times, but they are very difficult to achieve as the light weight of the car makes off the line traction difficult to balance. That's certainly not a 'tech' based car at all.

A different example would be the modern Ferrari range, matching 0-60 times with the LC button is almost impossiable, as Ferrari have a 'hidden' second LC function (its been decribed a number of times in both Evo and Autocar) which is used for much harder launches. It does allow you to acieve the 0-60 times Ferrari claim, but is far more hard on the drivetrain (and I wonder why they keep that hidden away).

But those type of people like to get over on car dealers because they can get away with the abuse to their car and don't have to pay a dime, I don't like that

Rubbish, just because cars of this nature are described as being power rather than tech driven does mena they are low tech at all.

Its always made me laugh that the current 'vette engine is described as being low-tech because its a pushrod (step forward Mr Clarkson). Its an amazingly high-tech engine, that is based on an older design taken to much greater heights by some very smart engineering.

Your point also doesn't hold water as the ECU that holds this info is as high tech on any of the cars mentioned by nd 4 holden spd as it does on a GT-R.


Regards

Scaff

 

[TheCracker]

A different example would be the modern Ferrari range, matching 0-60 times with the LC button is almost impossiable, as Ferrari have a 'hidden' second LC function (its been decribed a number of times in both Evo and Autocar) which is used for much harder launches. It does allow you to acieve the 0-60 times Ferrari claim, but is far more hard on the drivetrain (and I wonder why they keep that hidden away).

The Evo article also mentioned that to get close to the claimed 0-60 times in the F430 Scud, they had to change the tires from a set of new but lightly abused tires to a set of new but already scrubbed tires and this made a substantial difference in the times they could achieve.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

And in doing so (particularly down a drag strip) you get back into exactly the situation we have been talking about. That of putting massive stress on the drivetrain.

Yes its can be done (matching manufacturers times) but to do so repeatedly is to risk component failure and would almost certainly be viewed as abuse.

Regards

Scaff

I bet you could do it more than 20 times and still be fine though, unlike lauch control which puts even more added stress on, is this not correct? It's the way it looks from where I'm sitting, but I could be wrong.

 

[homeforsummer]

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

It goes back to the point that the 'Ring lap times are largely irrelevant unless they're all being done by the same person - if Nissan has to offer driving tips to one of Porsche's chassis engineers that has driven hundreds of laps around the 'Ring, and the only person that can take the GT-R to such a top time is the GT-R chassis engineer because he knows all the quirks of the electronics, then saying the car will do a certain lap time is completely pointless.

"You can do a lap of the Ring in 7m29s in the GT-R...but you have to be Toshio Suzuki"
is roughly equal to...
"You can win seven Formula 1 world titles...but you have to be Michael Schumacher"

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

It goes back to the point that the 'Ring lap times are largely irrelevant unless they're all being done by the same person - if Nissan has to offer driving tips to one of Porsche's chassis engineers that has driven hundreds of laps around the 'Ring, and the only person that can take the GT-R to such a top time is the GT-R chassis engineer because he knows all the quirks of the electronics, then saying the car will do a certain lap time is completely pointless.

"You can do a lap of the Ring in 7m29s in the GT-R...but you have to be Toshio Suzuki"
is roughly equal to...
"You can win seven Formula 1 world titles...but you have to be Michael Schumacher"

I think it's more along the lines of:
Our car can beat this car when both are driven by people who are extremely capable in each, therefore you will beat someone else of similar skill to yourself using our car.
Not that I care for Ring times too much, unless the cars are relatively low powered as fewer mistakes are made then, and it's more up to the car to do the fast lap time.

 

[Tornado]

One major US outlet fried a clutch on an Evo in one day.

Or when Car and Driver shattered the shift linkage in the Lambo a few years ago.

 

[Scaff]

I bet you could do it more than 20 times and still be fine though, unlike lauch control which puts even more added stress on, is this not correct? It's the way it looks from where I'm sitting, but I could be wrong.

Not in all cases at all, for an electronic system it depends on how the system 'interferes' with what is going on, and is why Ferrari have two LC systems.

Doing it 'manually' can put just as much strain on the drive-train, particularly if the tyre/track combo is very sticky (drag-strip for example) as you now have no electronics to balance the new found levels of grip with the torque hitting the drivetrain.

As I said I've thrown drive-shafts on road cars with no LC system at all.

Regards

Scaff

 

[homeforsummer]

I think it's more along the lines of:
Our car can beat this car when both are driven by people who are extremely capable in each, therefore you will beat someone else of similar skill to yourself using our car.

My thinking is that Toshio could probably get closer to Porsche's time in the 911 than the Porsche test driver could get to Nissan's time in the Nissan. Because of all the smart-alec electronics working away in the Nissan, it can let you do things that most performance cars probably couldn't, but if you have to exploit the car in quite a different way to any other performance car, then there are probably only a few drivers in the world who can genuinely extract that sort of performance (in the same way that not every F1 driver could take their car to seven world championships).

And even then, given that Toshio has probably driven the GT-R a lot, I'd be surprised if even someone like, I dunno... Sabine, could even get close to that time, regardless of her 'Ring experience.

 

[Leonidae]

Nissan tells Porsche to put down the GT-R before they hurt themselves

this is going to turn ugly..

 

[homeforsummer]

That's more or less an expanded version of the article you posted earlier. And whilst it was probably a bit petty of Porsche to call cheating on the whole thing, Nissan is making itself look stupid by basically admitting that only a handful of people (if that) can extract the true performance of the car because it requires these special techniques to drive.

It's all very well having high performance, but if nobody can use it then it's redundant.

 

[kingcars]

A different example would be the modern Ferrari range, matching 0-60 times with the LC button is almost impossiable, as Ferrari have a 'hidden' second LC function (its been decribed a number of times in both Evo and Autocar) which is used for much harder launches. It does allow you to acieve the 0-60 times Ferrari claim, but is far more hard on the drivetrain (and I wonder why they keep that hidden away).

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! 💡 Advanced features need to be for advanced users that (for the most part) KNOW what they're doing. Ever wonder why computers dont have a BIOS edit key right on the keyboard?

So I stand by my original comment. Give me a C6 Z06 any day of the week. A very nice N/A V8 with a REAL clutch/stick setup 👍 .

 

[niky]

@nd 4 holden spd:

Motor broke the clutch on an XR6T (according to them,.. no flat-shifting involved) in just one test.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! 💡 Advanced features need to be for advanced users that (for the most part) KNOW what they're doing. Ever wonder why computers dont have a BIOS edit key right on the keyboard?

So I stand by my original comment. Give me a C6 Z06 any day of the week. A very nice N/A V8 with a REAL clutch/stick setup 👍 .

Giving any new driver a powerful car is giving "advanced features" to a user patently unable to use them safely. Ever wonder why so many supercars wind up in hedges? Or, more to the point, why so many 300 horsepower Mitsubishis and Subarus end up inside people's houses or upside-down?

Besides, that argument doesn't hold when launch control isn't just a matter of turning off the VDC. You have to set a number of switches to the correct position.

Same thing with "M" mode and Launch Control on BMWs... you need to set a number of switches properly... and it's assumed you'll have read the manual to find out how to do it, and you know the ramifications of LC use, and what the words "traction control off" mean.

BTW, Ferrari doesn't offer Launch Control in the US. After you've actually done the research and seen how many Lambos, Evos, Corvettes, etcetera, have blown expensive parts on the drag strip, you'll probably understand why... and now Nissan does, too.

Of course, already pointed out in the thread are the contents of the owner's manual and warranty information booklet. Both explicitly state what is and isn't covered. It's the warranty information booklet that best applies to Septskyline case and explains on page 30, under the "What is not covered" section:

"This warranty does not cover damage, failures or corrosion resulting from... Operating the vehicle with the Vehicle Dynamic Control (VDC off), except when rocking vehicle when stuck in mud or snow..."

To get the word straight from the horse's mouth, we turned to our source at Nissan who summed up the situation: "Switching VDC off doesn't void the warranty nor does running the Launch Control on the car. However, if someone switches off VDC, enables Launch Control and then breaks something while doing this, we wouldn't pay (under warranty) for the specific parts that break during this action."

So for those owners looking to modify your state-of-the-art Japanese supercar right off the dealership lot (or engage in VDC-disabled hooligan activities), be forewarned: Read your owner's manual, avoid a headache, and save yourself what could potentially be a hefty chunk of dough should anything snap, crackle or pop.

Basically, by activating Launch Control, you're signifying you want to go racing... and no mass-market manufacturer carries a warranty for non-road use. Like I've said previously in this thread... it's only manufacturers of cup cars that give any type of on-track warranty... and it's usually drivetrain-only... and for a certain number of hours, and in the tens of hours... a far cry from an on-road warranty that can stretch to a hundred thousand miles or more.

I see MotorTrend has picked up on the story... and surprise surprise, nobody there bothered to read through the thread to see how many times the owner has launched the car, nor his driving history. Excellent research work, MT, just excellent.

 

[kingcars]

Giving any new driver a powerful car is giving "advanced features" to a user patently unable to use them safely. Ever wonder why so many supercars wind up in hedges? Or, more to the point, why so many 300 horsepower Mitsubishis and Subarus end up inside people's houses or upside-down?

Anybody who gives a new driver a powerful car like that is a moron. Hence why me, and many other people have started out with rather slow, basic cars (although...my car didn't...erm...stay slow and basic for more than 6 months after I started driving...but I'm mature and responsible enough to handle it and not break it).

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

@nd 4 holden spd:

Motor broke the clutch on an XR6T (according to them,.. no flat-shifting involved) in just one test.

Was that the older BA or BF model a few years back?

 

[Scaff]

That's more or less an expanded version of the article you posted earlier. And whilst it was probably a bit petty of Porsche to call cheating on the whole thing, Nissan is making itself look stupid by basically admitting that only a handful of people (if that) can extract the true performance of the car because it requires these special techniques to drive.

It's all very well having high performance, but if nobody can use it then it's redundant.

I would personally be willing to put money on the vast majority of drivers not being able to extract the true performance from ANY car, let alone supercars.

While the entire Nissan/Porsche thing is starting to get to the school-yard level, Nissan's comments on cars needing to be driven in a certain way is spot on. To be honest Porsche themselves should know, they say exactly the same about the 911, I have a copy of the Porsche Driving book, which goes to great lengths to explain how you will never extract the full performance from a 911 without lots of training and driving the car in a manner than reflects the nature of the drivetrain and weight distribution.


The statment "It's all very well having high performance, but if nobody can use it then it's redundant." can be easily and honestly applied to all cars and particularly high-performance ones.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! 💡 Advanced features need to be for advanced users that (for the most part) KNOW what they're doing. Ever wonder why computers dont have a BIOS edit key right on the keyboard?

So I stand by my original comment. Give me a C6 Z06 any day of the week. A very nice N/A V8 with a REAL clutch/stick setup 👍 .

While I agree with the first part (well I would I wrote the original part), the Z065 has just the same potential for abuse.

Dialing in revs to the limiter and then dropping the clutch is hardly rocket science and certainly not hidden, but do that a few time to many on the drag-strip and it will break something and it won't be covered under warranty.

Abuse is down to the driver, plain and simple, and is possiable in any car performance orientated or not.


Regards

Scaff

 

[niky]

Was that the older BA or BF model a few years back?

I'm not up on model numbers, but I assume it's the BA... looks similar to the one in GT4. It was actually the XR6T Typhoon, I believe. Ford claims Motor flat-shifted it to break it... Motor claims they didn't... there were at least two cars that broke clutches, if I remember right. And this is Australia... where dragstrips aren't quite as quick as in the US (whether it's the surfacing or the heat, or both, I don't know), though you do have some properly fast cars down there.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I'm not up on model numbers, but I assume it's the BA... looks similar to the one in GT4. It was actually the XR6T Typhoon, I believe. Ford claims Motor flat-shifted it to break it... Motor claims they didn't... there were at least two cars that broke clutches, if I remember right. And this is Australia... where dragstrips aren't quite as quick as in the US (whether it's the surfacing or the heat, or both, I don't know), though you do have some properly fast cars down there.

Its a Ford no wonder it broke down Holden's can cope with it

 

[Leonidae]

back on topic, please? and please, no blue ovals.. they all are cursed.. well, maybe not Focus or Fiesta..

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

I'm not up on model numbers, but I assume it's the BA... looks similar to the one in GT4. It was actually the XR6T Typhoon, I believe. Ford claims Motor flat-shifted it to break it... Motor claims they didn't... there were at least two cars that broke clutches, if I remember right. And this is Australia... where dragstrips aren't quite as quick as in the US (whether it's the surfacing or the heat, or both, I don't know), though you do have some properly fast cars down there.

I might be a Holden fan, and I do remember that incident, and I still firmly believe that they would have been flat shifting, these cars don't break that easily like that. Plus, working in a Ford dealer, I can tell you clutches are not a problem with XR6Ts, but there would be other little things...........

back on topic, please? and please, no blue ovals.. they all are cursed.. well, maybe not Focus or Fiesta..

You've never driven a Falcon, they're not cursed.

 

[Leonidae]

and you have never driven a Taunus *shudder*.. They are not only cursed, but possessed as well, have dreadful driveability and gearing that really doesn't work too well with puny engine it has.

 

[nd 4 holden spd]

and you have never driven a Taunus *shudder*.. They are not only cursed, but possessed as well, have dreadful driveability and gearing that really doesn't work too well with puny engine it has.

But I have driven Fiesta, Focus, Falcon and Ranger. All quite good at what they do.

 

[Jay]

I might be a Holden fan, and I do remember that incident, and I still firmly believe that they would have been flat shifting, these cars don't break that easily like that. Plus, working in a Ford dealer, I can tell you clutches are not a problem with XR6Ts, but there would be other little things...........

Turned out to be a problem Ford didn't expect at the time and they were mostly fixed before full blown production. It was a fault (bad design) in the clutches that cause them to slip even without flat shifts.

Oh and I doubt MOTOR never flatshifted it, I know I would have! I have flatshifted many cars before in my younger years and only broke one gearbox from it.

 

[homeforsummer]

I would personally be willing to put money on the vast majority of drivers not being able to extract the true performance from ANY car, let alone supercars.

The vast majority, probably so. Professional test drivers, I'd be less keen to put money on.

While the entire Nissan/Porsche thing is starting to get to the school-yard level, Nissan's comments on cars needing to be driven in a certain way is spot on. To be honest Porsche themselves should know, they say exactly the same about the 911, I have a copy of the Porsche Driving book, which goes to great lengths to explain how you will never extract the full performance from a 911 without lots of training and driving the car in a manner than reflects the nature of the drivetrain and weight distribution.

I did consider as I was typing that the 911 probably isn't the easiest thing to drive quickly either, but given the leaps and bounds that Porsche have made on the chassis even since the 993 model, I expect it's not the handful it once was on the track. I've read many tests of modern 911s (Evo drive the damn things all the time) and the skittish, tail happy attitude that they used to be well-known for no longer really appears in tests.

But Nissan having to tell an experienced Porsche engineer with many, many laps of the ring under his belt how to drive their car quickly makes me think of a situation where Ducati offer Valentino Rossi a ride but say "speak to Stoner first though, he'll show you how to extract the best performance from it" - also redundant.

If a professional test driver has to be told how to drive a car properly then things are getting ridiculous.

I'd like to make clear that having driven neither car my comments are only speculative, and I do admit to having a preference for Porsche on a desirability level, but the debate between the two manufacturers is getting silly now. Porsche made a fair comment - they couldn't get a GT-R around the ring as quickly as Nissan did, and they used a professional driver with much Ring experience, so they assumed there must have been an anomaly with Nissan's original test. They picked the tyres as a likely cause.

Nissan coming back and effectively saying "your driver must be a bit rubbish then, we'll give him lessons" is childish and petty.

What really needed to happen from the start was for both manufacturers to take an example of their car to the 'Ring, under scrutiny from an independant adjudicator, and with an independant driver, to test both cars under exactly the same conditions.

 

[Leonidae]

Let's get FIA on it then.. let the biggest bribe win.

 

[Scaff]

The vast majority, probably so. Professional test drivers, I'd be less keen to put money on.



I did consider as I was typing that the 911 probably isn't the easiest thing to drive quickly either, but given the leaps and bounds that Porsche have made on the chassis even since the 993 model, I expect it's not the handful it once was on the track. I've read many tests of modern 911s (Evo drive the damn things all the time) and the skittish, tail happy attitude that they used to be well-known for no longer really appears in tests.

But Nissan having to tell an experienced Porsche engineer with many, many laps of the ring under his belt how to drive their car quickly makes me think of a situation where Ducati offer Valentino Rossi a ride but say "speak to Stoner first though, he'll show you how to extract the best performance from it" - also redundant.

If a professional test driver has to be told how to drive a car properly then things are getting ridiculous.

I'd like to make clear that having driven neither car my comments are only speculative, and I do admit to having a preference for Porsche on a desirability level, but the debate between the two manufacturers is getting silly now. Porsche made a fair comment - they couldn't get a GT-R around the ring as quickly as Nissan did, and they used a professional driver with much Ring experience, so they assumed there must have been an anomaly with Nissan's original test. They picked the tyres as a likely cause.

Nissan coming back and effectively saying "your driver must be a bit rubbish then, we'll give him lessons" is childish and petty.

What really needed to happen from the start was for both manufacturers to take an example of their car to the 'Ring, under scrutiny from an independant adjudicator, and with an independant driver, to test both cars under exactly the same conditions.

The thing is that the part about Rossi, Stoner and Ducatti is that they would most likely do that, in fact I would be amazed if (in that situation) Rossi didn't ask how the bike handled, what its traits were, etc.

A good driver/rider knows that cars do differ massively and that to extract the best from them (and we are talking here about extracting the last few percent) talking to another person who knows that car/bike better than you do may well be essential.

While I've not driven an R35 GT-R, I have driven a few 911's and a R34 and they behave in very, very different ways. 911's in particular are tricky buggers if you don't want to understeer into every corner and oversteer out of every corner.

So childish as the spat is (on both sides) a core element of truth does exists within it, and that is extracting the final 10% of a cars ability requires a huge degree of understanding about the car and how it behaves.


Regards

Scaff

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Porsche should just give the Cayman 500+ HP and get it over with.

 

[niky]

As far as I know, the Ducati's power curve and balance are radically different from Rossi's Yamaha... (the desmodronic's extra punch is what got Stoner last year's championship, if I remember right... I kind of tuned out halfway when it was obvious Rossi had a crap bike and didn't have a chance)... but of course, comparing Rossi to your common test driver is like comparing Da Vinci to Matt Groening (so, it's a reach... I couldn't think of anything)... there's a world of difference there...

It's easy to see this effect, even in Formula One... where a very quick driver will sometimes struggle when switching teams, simply because they're unfamiliar with the chassis in question.

The current crop of F1 drivers is a very good example. Kimi, who is brutally on-the-limit, had trouble adapting to current Ferraris at the start of 2007 (and now, in 2008, seems vaguely uninterested in racing per se)... Alonso, whose infamous violent turn-in worked well with the neutral Renault, was truly unhappy with the Mercedes McLaren, and examining Lewis Hamilton's telemetry didn't help him much, because Lewis's style was easier on the car. And these are cars built to very similar specs. Go from that to road cars... the difference between driving 911 and a GTR, with radically different engines and weight balances, would be much bigger... sure, they both understeer and oversteer... but not for the same reasons... and forgetting that difference on a racetrack as unforgiving as the Nurburgring could spell the difference between losing a few seconds or losing it, period. C'mon... even Michael Schumacher got his arse whupped in the Race of Champions... in a Ferrari road car, no less.... by Hekki Kovalainen, who is obviously not even one-fifth the F1 driver Schumi was... yet.

I can imagine driving the GTR properly involes pushing or exceeding limits a Porsche driver would be uncomfortable exploring, and putting more trust in the active differentials to quell understeer, instead of trying to adjust your line by the usual racer tricks of using the brakes and throttle to trim the balance. Of course, Nissan's race-prep for Porsche's engineer might involve telling him to put the thing in "R" mode when going out on the track...

 

[Greycap]

What really needed to happen from the start was for both manufacturers to take an example of their car to the 'Ring, under scrutiny from an independant adjudicator, and with an independant driver, to test both cars under exactly the same conditions.

As a coincidence this (with the exception of the 'Ring, other tracks used) is just what has been done in about every serious car magazine and the GT-R has come out on top in nearly all of the tests. Goes to show that it's the faster car for those who don't have massive experience on either one... well, now when I think of it. Wasn't that one British guy a huge 911 fan and the GT-R still beat the GT3 in his hands?