GT-R 18,000 mile service.

[RagingBITCH]

I wonder if at 10 qts, they flushed the system or drained/refilled it 3 times

 

[punjabiplaya]

i think the only thing messing this up is the price of that car. If the GTR was sold at like 200k or something, then no one would complain. I understand the insane pricing because it's a super tech car and thus you pay the price for early adoption. Think about how much it would cost to replace the magnetorheliological suspension parts. No need to complain about this unless you own it. There's a guy near where I live who just bought a black one. I see it like twice a week. I need to find him and talk to him.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: lurk3r

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: lurk3r

A vette driven normally is a mechanic nearly no maintenance cost, but if you track it, it will destroy your pocketbook nearly as fast. My cousin has a track in England that he has quite a collection of cars you can rent for the weekend, the vette's brakes alone are over 1200 pounds a year, nearly $2500.

That's very different from the US, where the parts are very cheap. $150-175 buys you the entire set of pads, front and rear.

Pads maybe, but big rotors are expensive for any sports car. Luckily they last a decent amount of time.

And the stock pads and rotors, while great for daily driving are flat out unsafe on a track.

There is nothing unsafe about the stock rotors. You can swap out aftermarket rotors, calipers, etc. The stock ones are fine though. If you really want to step up to great rotors, the Brembo slotted 47193 (front) and 47195 (rear) are excellent and cost less than $500 for the entire set.

Aftermarket pads & fluids will definitely help the fade. There are plenty of cheap higher temperature choices from Hawk, Carbotech, EBC, and others. Motul RBF 600 is more than enough too, unless you want to step up to Castrol SRF.

As I said above, cheap.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: lurk3r

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: lurk3r

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Apex

Originally posted by: lurk3r

A vette driven normally is a mechanic nearly no maintenance cost, but if you track it, it will destroy your pocketbook nearly as fast. My cousin has a track in England that he has quite a collection of cars you can rent for the weekend, the vette's brakes alone are over 1200 pounds a year, nearly $2500.

That's very different from the US, where the parts are very cheap. $150-175 buys you the entire set of pads, front and rear.

Pads maybe, but big rotors are expensive for any sports car. Luckily they last a decent amount of time.

And the stock pads and rotors, while great for daily driving are flat out unsafe on a track.

why is it unsafe?

After about the 3rd lap the stock pads would not stop the car. This is actual data, my cousin the mechanic HAD to change the stock brakes out. Again, this is for a TRACKed car, not for normal operation.

There are plenty of people on the Corvette forum who track their car and use stock pads and rotors. The only problem I read about is occasional cracked drilled rotors. The problem seems to go away when they switch to solid or slotted rotors. Most hardcore track guys do switch to aftermarket brake system. But every account I've read says stock is fine. Spring Mountain and Bondurant driving schools both use stock C6 Z51, C6 Z06, and ZR1. These cars stay on the track at hours at a time with no problems. You're the first person I've read that says stock rotors and pads are flat out unsafe on a track.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I never understood why people on the internet complain about things they can't afford

Because it's a GT-R, any chance to take it down a peg.......ya know?

Vette still can't hold a candle to this car, sorry you are getting much more and it's also more expensive to maintain.

Lemme know when the Vette get's a DSG and AWD. It's simpler to maintain, because it's basically the same technology we've been using for 50 years.

Not saying it's a dinosaur, but the GT-R is cutting edge is every respect, you can't say the same thing about the Vette, and I'm including the ZR-1 in there as well.

:laugh::laugh:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: big man
are you sure it wasnt the brake fluid boiling over?

nissans are known to have robust brakes with the brake fluid being the weak point

My Nissan has shit brakes...then again, it's a family sedan. Just sayin'

I could get them to fade badly just getting off a freeway off ramp at high speed. They suck that bad.

 

[DVad3r]

lol did this thread turn into Vette vs GT-R match?

 

[DivideBYZero]

NEWS JUST IN: Performance cars cost more than normal to run.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: DVad3r
lol did this thread turn into Vette vs GT-R match?

because ayabe is a fany boy that knows little of cars.

The Gt-R is not "cutting" edge in ANY respect. It has awd which is not new and has been done many times before. Turbo is not new, again done many times. A tranmission that blows up with litte notice, ford did that in the late 80's with the Taurus so nothing new there either.

 

[ehhhh]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DVad3r
lol did this thread turn into Vette vs GT-R match?

because ayabe is a fany boy that knows little of cars.

The Gt-R is not "cutting" edge in ANY respect. It has awd which is not new and has been done many times before. Turbo is not new, again done many times. A tranmission that blows up with litte notice, ford did that in the late 80's with the Taurus so nothing new there either.

And your on the other side of the fanboy fence. I know americans like their big dumb push rods but come on.
To say the GTR isn't cutting edge is down right retarded, how many cars at its price point match its technology?
Let me know when the corvette counters with intelligent awd, a modern cam-bucket valve train, sleeveless block and dsg.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: ehhhh
And your on the other side of the fanboy fence. I know americans like their big dumb push rods but come on.
To say the GTR isn't cutting edge is down right retarded, how many cars at its price point match its technology?
Let me know when the corvette counters with intelligent awd, a modern cam-bucket valve train, sleeveless block and dsg.

The Corvette had a DOHC engine at one time. The cost outweighed the benefits. And I'm assuming you probably consider Ferrari's high tech... so where's their AWD? AWD has it's own performance tradeoffs, notably in weight and driveline losses. That is why a Z06 can weigh in a good 700LBs less than the GT-R and even the Viper with it's large V-10 is 400LBs less.

All that tech costs money, and all that equipment adds weight. The Corvette just made different compromises and has produced very good results from them.

The GT-R is a great car, but needs much more care and is more expensive to maintain. It's far from a "god car" though. The Corvette is a car that can take more abuse, is cheaper to run, and can still put a shit eating grin on your face.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: ehhhh
And your on the other side of the fanboy fence. I know americans like their big dumb push rods but come on.
To say the GTR isn't cutting edge is down right retarded, how many cars at its price point match its technology?
Let me know when the corvette counters with intelligent awd, a modern cam-bucket valve train, sleeveless block and dsg.

The Corvette had a DOHC engine at one time. The cost outweighed the benefits. And I'm assuming you probably consider Ferrari's high tech... so where's their AWD? AWD has it's own performance tradeoffs, notably in weight and driveline losses. That is why a Z06 can weigh in a good 700LBs less than the GT-R and even the Viper with it's large V-10 is 400LBs less.

All that tech costs money, and all that equipment adds weight. The Corvette just made different compromises and has produced very good results from them.

The GT-R is a great car, but needs much more care and is more expensive to maintain. It's far from a "god car" though. The Corvette is a car that can take more abuse, is cheaper to run, and can still put a shit eating grin on your face.

That and is also nto really cutting edge.
A Japanese car that has Twin turbochargers and twin intercoolers, Electronic controlled MFI (multi-point fuel injection) with twin spray injectors, 4 bolt main bearing caps with forged steel crankshaft, Full time all-wheel drive with center differential and electronic traction control, Limited slip rear differential, 4 radiators with dual fans (engine, oil, and two turbo coolers), etc... would that be cutting edge?

If so you're about a decade or so late. :laugh:

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
That and is also nto really cutting edge.
A Japanese car that has Twin turbochargers and twin intercoolers, Electronic controlled MFI (multi-point fuel injection) with twin spray injectors, 4 bolt main bearing caps with forged steel crankshaft, Full time all-wheel drive with center differential and electronic traction control, Limited slip rear differential, 4 radiators with dual fans (engine, oil, and two turbo coolers), etc... would that be cutting edge?

If so you're about a decade or so late. :laugh:

Two decades actually. The longer that car was made, the less tech it had. They were constantly removing things to keep the cost under control.

The tunable exhaust was phased out as early as 1994, the ECS disappeared after the 1995 model year, and the active aerodynamics in 1996.

 

[ehhhh]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: ehhhh
And your on the other side of the fanboy fence. I know americans like their big dumb push rods but come on.
To say the GTR isn't cutting edge is down right retarded, how many cars at its price point match its technology?
Let me know when the corvette counters with intelligent awd, a modern cam-bucket valve train, sleeveless block and dsg.

The Corvette had a DOHC engine at one time. The cost outweighed the benefits. And I'm assuming you probably consider Ferrari's high tech... so where's their AWD? AWD has it's own performance tradeoffs, notably in weight and driveline losses. That is why a Z06 can weigh in a good 700LBs less than the GT-R and even the Viper with it's large V-10 is 400LBs less.

All that tech costs money, and all that equipment adds weight. The Corvette just made different compromises and has produced very good results from them.

The GT-R is a great car, but needs much more care and is more expensive to maintain. It's far from a "god car" though. The Corvette is a car that can take more abuse, is cheaper to run, and can still put a shit eating grin on your face.

That and is also nto really cutting edge.
A Japanese car that has Twin turbochargers and twin intercoolers, Electronic controlled MFI (multi-point fuel injection) with twin spray injectors, 4 bolt main bearing caps with forged steel crankshaft, Full time all-wheel drive with center differential and electronic traction control, Limited slip rear differential, 4 radiators with dual fans (engine, oil, and two turbo coolers), etc... would that be cutting edge?

If so you're about a decade or so late. :laugh:

Um I guess you should look up the 1989 gtr.
_My point is_ vs American cars there was and still not a car that had the same tech at it's price point. The dsm still didn't have sleeveless block and dsg.

 

[MotF Bane]

Why is it every time a thread about the GT-R shows up, all the ignorant GT-R fanboys (half of them new users with low post counts) pop in to start bitching?

 

[ehhhh]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: ehhhh
And your on the other side of the fanboy fence. I know americans like their big dumb push rods but come on.
To say the GTR isn't cutting edge is down right retarded, how many cars at its price point match its technology?
Let me know when the corvette counters with intelligent awd, a modern cam-bucket valve train, sleeveless block and dsg.

The Corvette had a DOHC engine at one time. The cost outweighed the benefits. And I'm assuming you probably consider Ferrari's high tech... so where's their AWD? AWD has it's own performance tradeoffs, notably in weight and driveline losses. That is why a Z06 can weigh in a good 700LBs less than the GT-R and even the Viper with it's large V-10 is 400LBs less.

All that tech costs money, and all that equipment adds weight. The Corvette just made different compromises and has produced very good results from them.

The GT-R is a great car, but needs much more care and is more expensive to maintain. It's far from a "god car" though. The Corvette is a car that can take more abuse, is cheaper to run, and can still put a shit eating grin on your face.

Yes it's a shame the old ZR-1 had a damn good engine and they got rid of it for a cheaper engine that made less power. Why do that to your flagship car?

I'm not saying the GTR is a "god" car. I'm saying for it's $/tech and it's proven performance at the circuit it's worth it's money.

 

[ehhhh]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Why is it every time a thread about the GT-R shows up, all the ignorant GT-R fanboys (half of them new users with low post counts) pop in to start bitching?

I guess that's directed towards me. I'm here to counteract the anandtech corvette fanboys.
As far as being new, I've been lurking anandtech wayyyy before you were around. Agn3d anyone?

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: ehhhh
Yes it's a shame the old ZR-1 had a damn good engine and they got rid of it for a cheaper engine that made less power. Why do that to your flagship car?

I'm not saying the GTR is a "god" car. I'm saying for it's $/tech and it's proven performance at the circuit it's worth it's money.

They got rid of it because it was a $40k option on a $35k car. When it was introduced it was 385HP vs. 255HP. When it was dropped it was 405HP vs. 330HP. Now the "base" Corvette is pushing 430HP with the pushrod format instead of the high tech (for 1912) DOHC format. Both pushrods and DOHC have their own design tradeoffs which include complexity, the physical size of the engine, and weight. Having pushrods allows for a larger displacement engine in the same space as an equivalently sized DOHC engine.

If GM decided to go the DOHC route they would likely have a smaller displacement, more expensive engine that makes the same power as the current engine. (see the Cadillac XLR)

 

[ehhhh]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: ehhhh
Yes it's a shame the old ZR-1 had a damn good engine and they got rid of it for a cheaper engine that made less power. Why do that to your flagship car?

I'm not saying the GTR is a "god" car. I'm saying for it's $/tech and it's proven performance at the circuit it's worth it's money.

They got rid of it because it was a $40k option on a $35k car. When it was introduced it was 385HP vs. 255HP. When it was dropped it was 405HP vs. 330HP. Now the "base" Corvette is pushing 430HP with the pushrod format instead of the high tech (for 1912) DOHC format. Both pushrods and DOHC have their own design tradeoffs which include complexity, the physical size of the engine, and weight. Having pushrods allows for a larger displacement engine in the same space as an equivalently sized DOHC engine.

If GM decided to go the DOHC route they would likely have a smaller displacement, more expensive engine that makes the same power as the current engine. (see the Cadillac XLR)

And is the Current ZR-1 worth 50K+ for a blower/suspension/brakes over the base c6? The C4 ZR-1 and C6's were/are both halo cars and have their respective mark ups.
As far as the current LS3 making more power, sure it does but it still doesn't make more HP/L that the LT5 had and this is 16 years later.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: ehhhh
And is the Current ZR-1 worth 50K+ for a blower/suspension/brakes over the base c6? The C4 ZR-1 and C6's were/are both halo cars and have their respective mark ups.
As far as the current LS3 making more power, sure it does but it still doesn't make more HP/L that the LT5 had and this is 16 years later.

But it makes more HP/LB. And guess which number matters more? The LT-5 engine was 600LBs, the LS3 is 450LBs.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: ehhhh

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: ehhhh
Yes it's a shame the old ZR-1 had a damn good engine and they got rid of it for a cheaper engine that made less power. Why do that to your flagship car?

I'm not saying the GTR is a "god" car. I'm saying for it's $/tech and it's proven performance at the circuit it's worth it's money.

They got rid of it because it was a $40k option on a $35k car. When it was introduced it was 385HP vs. 255HP. When it was dropped it was 405HP vs. 330HP. Now the "base" Corvette is pushing 430HP with the pushrod format instead of the high tech (for 1912) DOHC format. Both pushrods and DOHC have their own design tradeoffs which include complexity, the physical size of the engine, and weight. Having pushrods allows for a larger displacement engine in the same space as an equivalently sized DOHC engine.

If GM decided to go the DOHC route they would likely have a smaller displacement, more expensive engine that makes the same power as the current engine. (see the Cadillac XLR)

And is the Current ZR-1 worth 50K+ for a blower/suspension/brakes over the base c6? The C4 ZR-1 and C6's were/are both halo cars and have their respective mark ups.
As far as the current LS3 making more power, sure it does but it still doesn't make more HP/L that the LT5 had and this is 16 years later.

ahhh the good ol HP/L argument.

let's go to HP and ft-lb per unit engine mass or engine volume. that is a much better indication of how good your engine is.

example: BMW's 5.0L V10 on the M5. an impressive "100 hp per liter"

but in reality, the M5 engine is something like 100lbs heavier than the LS7, which outputs 5 more hp and ~~ 75 ft-lbs more torque in physically smaller package.

*THAT* is efficiency. i mean, motorcycle engines must be so much better than car engines because they get 200hp/liter, right?

 

[Arkaign]

Can all the sane people present here agree on some nitty-gritty stuff?

I'll go first :

(1)- Is the GT-R a pretty awesome car?
(A)- Yes, there's not much in the price range that can perform like it can, particularly in sub-100mph territory, or on good mixed circuits like the 'Ring. The maintenance is admittedly daunting, and it's not a car for everyone, that much is certain. It performs almost impossibly well considering the weight.

(2)- Is the Corvette a pretty awesome car?
(A)- Most definitely. Great great legacy, only slightly tarnished by late-'70s into early-'90s, but the final years of the C4 finally showed Chevy willing to revitalize the Corvette, and from C5 onward, it's been a true benchmark vehicle. Like the GT-R, you can grab performance previously only available to track-prepared custom cars or $150k+ supercars, combined with pretty bulletproof reliability and very reasonable maintenance. The fact that they're a classic FR setup, with a lightweight cam-in-block motor, is not a detriment. It's actually what makes the car what it is, tuning proven tech over the years, and keeping an iconic model somewhat affordable.

(3)- Which car is right for you?
(A)- Maybe both, maybe neither, but your choice or my choice doesn't make that opinion worth more than anyone else's.

 

[ehhhh]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: ehhhh

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: ehhhh
Yes it's a shame the old ZR-1 had a damn good engine and they got rid of it for a cheaper engine that made less power. Why do that to your flagship car?

I'm not saying the GTR is a "god" car. I'm saying for it's $/tech and it's proven performance at the circuit it's worth it's money.

They got rid of it because it was a $40k option on a $35k car. When it was introduced it was 385HP vs. 255HP. When it was dropped it was 405HP vs. 330HP. Now the "base" Corvette is pushing 430HP with the pushrod format instead of the high tech (for 1912) DOHC format. Both pushrods and DOHC have their own design tradeoffs which include complexity, the physical size of the engine, and weight. Having pushrods allows for a larger displacement engine in the same space as an equivalently sized DOHC engine.

If GM decided to go the DOHC route they would likely have a smaller displacement, more expensive engine that makes the same power as the current engine. (see the Cadillac XLR)

And is the Current ZR-1 worth 50K+ for a blower/suspension/brakes over the base c6? The C4 ZR-1 and C6's were/are both halo cars and have their respective mark ups.
As far as the current LS3 making more power, sure it does but it still doesn't make more HP/L that the LT5 had and this is 16 years later.

ahhh the good ol HP/L argument.

let's go to HP and ft-lb per unit engine mass or engine volume. that is a much better indication of how good your engine is.

example: BMW's 5.0L V10 on the M5. an impressive "100 hp per liter"

but in reality, the M5 engine is something like 100lbs heavier than the LS7, which outputs 5 more hp and ~~ 75 ft-lbs more torque in physically smaller package.

*THAT* is efficiency. i mean, motorcycle engines must be so much better than car engines because they get 200hp/liter, right?

And that 100lbs is worth what in the 1/4m? 0.1s?
What if the m5 engine was a 7L? Would it's increase weight make it inferior to the LS7? Doubtful.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: ehhhh
And that 100lbs is worth what in the 1/4m? 0.1s?
What if the m5 engine was a 7L? Would it's increase weight make it inferior to the LS7? Doubtful.

Let me ask you this...

In what possible way is HP/l a meaningful number at all when it comes to performance of a street car?

Numbers that are meaningful to me:
HP/lb: the higher the ratio, the faster the car is likely to be
HP/$: the higher the ratio, the more likely people can afford it
1/4 mile: an actual performance measurement
0-60: an actual performance measurement
lateral Gs: an actual performance measurement
Nurburgring times: an actual performance measurement
MPG: an actual efficiency measurement
$: whether it's affordable at all

Numbers that are just "dick waving" trivia:
HP/l
redline
number of acronyms in the marketing material

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: DVad3r
lol did this thread turn into Vette vs GT-R match?

because ayabe is a fany boy that knows little of cars.

The Gt-R is not "cutting" edge in ANY respect. It has awd which is not new and has been done many times before. Turbo is not new, again done many times. A tranmission that blows up with litte notice, ford did that in the late 80's with the Taurus so nothing new there either.

It also has wheels, those have been around for a long time.

If anyone just plainly demonstrated their extreme ignorance, it's you.

In fact, the GT-R is so awesomely ordinary it weighs more, has less torque but is faster than a Turbo 911, must be that ancient AWD system. In fact, they're all the same...right? Just like all turbos are the same, and all motors for that matter, it burns gas after all.

Thanks for playing bitch.