///Mous3

Most data stored on the car is in codes. Who do you think have the key to decipher those codes?

Given a reasonable condition, the court can order to draw our blood!

am722

To my knowledge, there isn't a single thread anywhere on these boards trashing the hysterically awesome performance of the ZR1 and the Viper ACR. Both are faster than any current production Porsche, and both are about half the price of a GT2 (the only current model that approaches their times). There are reasons to own a Porsche over either one of these cars, but we are not starting threads about them because (1) they do not claim to be something they are not; and (2) all of their parts appear to be working. Maybe if Nissan made such a car it wouldn't be so soundly and justifiably ridiculed.

N-Dub

Touche!!

Kit_Chris

Yes they claim to have never launched the car, I'm prepared to believe every one of them, but would you expect any of them to state otherwise?

The issue of the black box is interesting and not so clear cut, I'm no specialist in intellectual property law in the US, I have nothing useful to bring to this. One thing is clear to me however, if Nissan uses bogus excuses related to their reading of this box to justify denying warranty claims, then they'll be forever damned; on the other hand, if an owner invokes his right to privacy on the black box info to conceal the fact that LC was used inappropriately in order to get a warranty repair, the same standard should be applied. Right or wrong?

Here lies the contradiction in your thinking. On the one hand, you stress that the cases of transmission failure you rely on were caused by something else than LC since owners claimed they never used it, on the other hand you went to great lengths telling us that LC is the fundamental problem (Nissan removes the feature for future and past models, aftermarket gears designed by tuners who experienced failure due to LC, and so on).

My position is rather simple, every piece of evidence points to damage caused by repetitive use of LC, and I don't believe the GTR's transmission is under-engineered because of it, all performance vehicles achieve their best results using harsh launch techniques and no manufacturer would cover damage to a transmission that's been destroyed as a result of repetitive clutch-drops. Now, if transmissions break not because of abuse, then it's obvious Nissan should stand behind their product and cover warranty repairs. In this case, owners who claim to have made light use of LC shouldn't be afraid of Nissan opening up the black box, what have they got to hide?

Isn't this fun? Anyone who doesn't think so should stay away from this thread!

Regards,
Chris

///Mous3

Correct. Exercising the fifth is the first sing of guilt. The data on the car is allowed to retrieve for manufacturers to determine and improve the maintenance intervals, etc., (don't argue with the corporations)

However, is there a written statement by Nissan that clearly states that "repetitive use of LC" will result in the failure of any mechanical components? If it is, then the drivetrain on the GT-R is clearly under-engineered for "repetitive use of LC". Without such statement; Nissan is toying with $$$

One thing I recall... and love it. While the engines are blowing up; BMW issued a written warranty (circa 2003) for 2001 and 2002 model E46M3's. Stating that every part lubricated with motor oil is under warranty for 100,000 miles. Now, that's *****!

Kit_Chris

See this article for the disclaimers by Nissan regarding launch control and potential damage: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/13/c...wners-busted/8

We know for a fact that the GTR's transmission is under-engineered for repeated launches, but I'm not sure it's even possible to design a unit that can absorb the enormous shocks of a sudden 500hp power surge and 4WD. Porsche's solution with PDK is clever and Nissan should make a note (LC automatically disabled after a number of launches), but shows that even PDK can fail due to repeated launches. The key issue is that any car with launch control will fail if the harsh engagement mechanisms are used frequently; you could argue that it was Nissan's job to make sure that drivers couldn't use the device too frequently by building in some kind of disabling function. More generally, a standard transmission will not survive repeated clutch drops, and I can assure you that even Porsche would refuse to replace a clutch or other broken parts under warranty if the owner used the car as a dragster one too many times.

Regards,
Chris

911rox

Cool, we'll just chime in, in a couple of years to check if you're done chasing your tails since you're enjoying dishing each other. We should be on page 257 of the same crap by then... enjoy!

911rox

I believe the solution is as simple as " can't be done? don't offer the dud feature! basically what they are doing now..."

opps, sorry, chimed in 2 yrs earlier than planned... my bad!

///Mous3

Is that a fact too?

eclou

Cass from the Porsche Driving School brought a 09 C2 with PDK and launched it 30x consecutively at a recent track event, on a car that was hot lapped for almost 6 hours continuously. While it is a series of one, I don't think that PDK is going to have nearly the same concerns as the GR6.

Kit_Chris

There's conflicting reports on this, including the article I referenced, although this one states that repetitive use of PDK's launch control will not void the warranty. If in fact the PDK is designed with some fail-safe system that shuts launch control when too many launches have been done, I take it as a matter of fact that the PDK would fail as a result of repetitive launches. This said, I would imagine the GTR's transmission is quite a bit more stressed than the 911 (more hp, more weight, and 4WD), but it's up to Nissan to engineer the box accordingly. I'm curious to know whether the 911 Turbo will be given a PDK with launch control.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/20/f...a-s-with-pdk/2

This first report of a broken PDK is treated as a one-off normal statistical defect, as it should. Contrast this with the first GTR failure (later revealed to be entirely due to repetitive harsh launches), it's all it took to spin and build a story! I'm not calling this a conspiracy, just intolerance of strong competition!

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/t...0PDK%20gearbox

Any car gives you the option to abuse it any way you want. Porsche offers all owners the DYC gearbox feature (dump your clutch), Porsche still won't cover the damage under warranty if you fry something. I guess the question is how far manufacturers should go in fool-proofing their cars.

Regards,
Chris

///Mous3

You can't! There are wayyyyy too many fools.

cfjan

I think the current PDK will hold up fine as it is only used in the RWD Porsche for now..

The challenge will be when the new Turbo comes out w/ 500hps+ and AWD.. if Porsche offers the PDK w/ that combo and offer LC.. and covers the tranny problem under warranty.. then it will be an apple to apple comparison.. !

GuyR

I just don't see why people think it's only Nissan who deny warranty claims for abuse. I had a warranty denied for PCCB failures as did a friend of mine and I know of warranty denials on gearboxes on GT2 and also engines on GT3s, where they have deemed abuse.

So much hatred, I just don't get it.......

am722

http://jalopnik.com/tag/2010-nissan-gt_r/?id=5159339

Apparently some Nissan testers were able to get the GTR with the updated launch control from 0-60 in 3.3 seconds, with the traction control on. They failed to improve its aesthetics.