C63 PP,R1,,Clubman
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Uh oh GTR transmission
- Thread starter jamesp24
- Start date
Golf Mk6 Oil Burner
Oh dear, that will seriously knock 2nd hand prices on the GT-R. Why would anyone want to buy a 2nd hand one of these now not knowing if its been launched once or 100 times.
Apparently it does 4.0 sec 0-60 without LC so why add it to the car with the associated risks, obviously some owners are going to break them!
Apparently it does 4.0 sec 0-60 without LC so why add it to the car with the associated risks, obviously some owners are going to break them!
Better than yours. C*nt.
4.5 apparently, which isn't a mile away from a 15-year-old Audi. However I agree, if it can't take the punishment that's a bit shocking - how do Nissan cope with lending them to the press? As that's all anyone is ever going to do in someone elses car, thrash shite out of it!
Dispicable, but then it is a Renault.
Dispicable, but then it is a Renault.
"Nissan will not cover damage due to misuse of:
Operating the vehicle with VDC off, except when rocking vehicle when stuck in mud or snow.
Basically Nissan put a fine print that VDC can not be shut off. So there is no way to warranty damage from LC since VDC has to be shut off and they will have proof of it. "
Operating the vehicle with VDC off, except when rocking vehicle when stuck in mud or snow.
Basically Nissan put a fine print that VDC can not be shut off. So there is no way to warranty damage from LC since VDC has to be shut off and they will have proof of it. "
Revels Mum & Sister
Exactly, ridiculous! Seems like they have had a few problems now, hope they iron them out for when i get mine
I think by 2040 they will butter
Christopher
ClioSport Club Member
Z4M
This has been going on since launch... not good!
Poopensharten
ClioSport Club Member
Golf R
172 Cup
Re: Launch Control Fail!
read that last night, 4th owner supposedly!
read that last night, 4th owner supposedly!
ValverInBits
Re: Launch Control Fail!
Quote from the PH forum
It's an interesting point. But I don't agree. Engineer things better. If it's got the torque, it needs to be able to deliver it without relying on the electronics to save it.
Just poor engineering IMO, which is a shame considering the rest of the car.
Quote from the PH forum
It's an interesting point. But I don't agree. Engineer things better. If it's got the torque, it needs to be able to deliver it without relying on the electronics to save it.
Just poor engineering IMO, which is a shame considering the rest of the car.
C63 PP,R1,,Clubman
Re: Launch Control Fail!
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=364928&highlight=gtr+transmission
REE
http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=364928&highlight=gtr+transmission
REE
C63 PP,R1,,Clubman
C63 PP,R1,,Clubman
C63 PP,R1,,Clubman
Turbos.
When you buy cars you have to sign a lot of things, i would say its within his right to say he wasn't made fully aware and felt rushed through the buying process. Considering the US legal system tends to take the side of the consumer, i imagine if taken to court he could get a decent result.
That bonnet latch comparison is totally different IMO!
That bonnet latch comparison is totally different IMO!
Darren S
ClioSport Club Member
Exactly! The whole issue is a joke. If this was some bloke complaining that his GTR's box ate itself when trying to do 60mph in reverse - then fine, the bloke is clearly a tool.
But these cars should be built to match the kind of abuse that they are designed for - within reason. If he has been everywhere in plumes of tyre smoke, then he should foot the bill. But the occasional powerslide or traffic-light rally should be within tolerances.
I tell you. Cases like this will only make performance manufacturers think more and more about live black-boxes - beaming back data to head office in real time...
Owner - "Can I hand my GTR back please? It's munched its gearbox"
Nissan - "Sorry sir, no. According to our records, at 16.22 last Thursday your car was recorded to donuts in the local Maccy D's".
You get the picture.
D.
330Ci (Fail)Sport
Bit ridiculous isn't it. Advertise car is that fast, but you can only drive it that fast if you want to void your warranty.
As long as its run in, it should be designed to take a hammering everyday IMO, it was built to be a superbly fast and awesome handling car. If it wasn't, don't put a twin turbo engine and more trick wizardry than a Nasa Spacecraft.
Nissan made a c**k up, and covered their arses in the fine print. As said above, Porsche will be ROFLing for quite a while.
http://www.nissanusa.com/pdf/techpubs/gtr/2009/2009_GTR_WIB.pdf
Page 9: 3rd bullet point under 'What is not covered' if anyone is interested.
As long as its run in, it should be designed to take a hammering everyday IMO, it was built to be a superbly fast and awesome handling car. If it wasn't, don't put a twin turbo engine and more trick wizardry than a Nasa Spacecraft.
Nissan made a c**k up, and covered their arses in the fine print. As said above, Porsche will be ROFLing for quite a while.
http://www.nissanusa.com/pdf/techpubs/gtr/2009/2009_GTR_WIB.pdf
Page 9: 3rd bullet point under 'What is not covered' if anyone is interested.
Stupid comparison with the bonnet catch, idiot.
Strikes me as Nissan having their cake and eating it and, all legalities about what a warranty is, does and whether the disclaimer is valid (contrary to popular belief, not everything you sign can be legally binding!) the bottom line is that Nissan advertise the car as being 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. They get massive press and sales and a lot of that is from their headline 0-60 time.
So... Nissan get the benefit of that, sell this superb car and then won't cover it if you actually want to go that fast.
Undoubtedly the guy here has abused his car as it reads as though he just ragged the s**t out of it. However, I'd have a field day in the English Courts if, having turned LC on once or twice in two months the car then broke and Nissan wouldn't pay.
Without going into detail, again, I think Nissan would be stuffed in a UK Court. America is consumer-biased and so you'll probably find he wins there too.
Strikes me as Nissan having their cake and eating it and, all legalities about what a warranty is, does and whether the disclaimer is valid (contrary to popular belief, not everything you sign can be legally binding!) the bottom line is that Nissan advertise the car as being 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. They get massive press and sales and a lot of that is from their headline 0-60 time.
So... Nissan get the benefit of that, sell this superb car and then won't cover it if you actually want to go that fast.
Undoubtedly the guy here has abused his car as it reads as though he just ragged the s**t out of it. However, I'd have a field day in the English Courts if, having turned LC on once or twice in two months the car then broke and Nissan wouldn't pay.
Without going into detail, again, I think Nissan would be stuffed in a UK Court. America is consumer-biased and so you'll probably find he wins there too.
I'd say that comparison is retarded and the bloke clearly has no clue. It'll be interesting to see how it will play out legally. The car has a function/option to do so and as such in my eyes should be "fit for purpose" but at the same time he has signed a disclaimer. I'd say it's more akin to a company only offering warranty cover if a car is driven gently. Either way it's a farce for a company to release a product that has a setting that makes it lunch itself and is not covered under warranty.