reasonable suspicion

^Agreed.

The gm excuse factory is running at full capacity, and lol at the sheeple responses.

BYBY4RE

Thanks Tadge
I am going to make an assumption that you get to read the replies to the post. I applaud you for taking the time to reply in an open forum. This has a lot of impact for those of us that have invested in the Z06. You have addressed a few items that got my attention:

1. Nissan was using octane boost to prevent their engine from puling power. The pulling power is something which the Z06 has been experiencing in certain conditions. Would octane boost or a race gas mix be a solution on the Z? Is there a magic combination?

2. You mention a rough track calibration available through performance parts. It would be great to have a factory C7 tuner available through GM that we could upload GM programs (engine, suspension) for different conditions and still be warranty approved.
For the price of the car you could charge $1000.00 for the tuner and it would be a bargain. Or an OBD plug with different modes in it. $200 for an OBD plug and I am in.

The C7 and Z06 are being sold in huge numbers. Some product add ons would appeal to those who take advantage of the performance. Great response and I appreciate that you are defending the Z06. That is the passion your owners share.

PS. Please make sure any ECM updates are backwards compatible and available, my Z06 was built last week.
Thanks

C5Captain

Wow randy pobst complaining about the minute handling characteristics about the z but fails to leave out the GTR is running an octane booster. Nice reporting car and driver.

Callsign_Vega

Tons of excuses. Relying on the manufacturer to tell you the whole truth = Ok. Rear tire out of alignment, sounds like Gilles excuse with the MT Viper head to head with the ZR1. But of course when Tadge says it's the truth and when Gilles says it, it's BS.

The NISMO is designed to run only on 93 octane or higher, hence the need for octane boost if fed 91. The Z06 is certified to run on 91 octane. Both cars were running their minimum designed octanes, nothing to see here.

Direct from NISSAN:

*Damage resulting from racing, competitive driving, track and/or airstrip use not covered by warranty. See your New Vehicle Limited Warranty and Owner's Manual for proper vehicle operation and complete warranty details.
**Nissan GT-R NISMO with track options
***Dry carbon fiber requires specific maintenance. Please see Owner's Manual for details.
****MSRP excludes applicable tax, title, license fees and destination charges. Dealer sets actual price. Prices and specs are subject to change without notice. Destination and handling $1,595.
*****93 octane gasoline required

cmicasa

Good point. But if 93 is required, and they were in a place that only had 91, thus requiring Octane boost... when have U ever seen Octane Boost that only Boosts 2 points? The majority of octane boosters I've seen are set to boost minimum 3.. which means even if worse case the Nissan was pushing 91.3 Octane while the Vette was at 91.

I personally would like to kno what Octane Booster they used

ivanjo11

Yeah the Track mode Magnetic Ride stiffness was one of the complaints of Randy so is nice to see they are fixing those things.

reasonable suspicion

really? Lol, how does the kool-aid taste. Anything to defend the c7, lol

ivanjo11

My guess is that if Tadge is saying that he is very satisfied that means that those lap times have come way down.

And finally comparo of lap times between the A8 and M7.

0Myhardtop

I'm with you on this one.

Oh snap - I'm going to be labeled a hater. Worse yet, a vendor C7vette hater

BTW, Torco is a great Octane Booster - I used it on my 2010 GTR back in the day and on all my other cars to this day

Thanks,
Carlos

Hecks

You got it right man. Let's bring the Nismo back and set it up specifically for Willow and see what happens. Remember, the Nismo also beat the Mclaren. At least they're not crying this time. And a can of octane booster doesn't make the GTR a ringer. That car is a high tech track weapon. What a joke. Chevy is starting to sound like Mclaren/Ferrari by crying foul when they loose and then resetting for a private test like Mclaren did with the MP4 12C in Europe.

cmicasa

I asked a question. Answer it instead of being a clown

ivanjo11

I remember a few years ago when Porsche accussed Nissan of cheating with the Nurburgring lap times so is not the first time that GTR is involved in some controversy.

Bwright

I gather that Motor Trend admitted it on video. See here: 4:55 - 5:05.

In addition, when the question was raised on a Reddit thread on the subject of the test Carlos Lago's response, "The stuff the Nissan engineers gave us. I trust them" was quite interesting. See here: http://www.reddit.com/comments/2kg9ci

stevebz06

The rear caster was misadjusted, or did he mean camber? The C4, 5, and 6 did not have an adjustment for rear caster, but camber could be problematic if you didn't use enough torque to keep the adjustment from slipping. And if the camber slipped, then the toe would change, also, and, yes, a misadjusted rear suspension could be enough of a problem that all of the octane boost in the world wouldn't help.

Robs98Z28

I feel that the A8 car would have been the better car to compare to the GTR. I would be interested to see what the results are in that comparison.

The comparison of the M7 vs the dual clutch GTR is apples to oranges, I feel.

fjaphd

Great news. I really appreciate Tadge's availability to the Forum's members.

Snorman

It's pretty commonly known that the GT-R's dynamic timing advance adds or subtracts timing based on feedback from the knock sensor. In relatively low-noise situations (i.e. higher octane, cooler temps) it can add as much as 3* and subtract as much as 9*. Nissan states on the gas door "93 AKI", however, also states in the owner's manual that the car can run on 91 AKI with a decrease in performance. The numbers that Nissan touts for the GT-R are based on 93 AKI (which is what they noted in the Nismo press releases), which is not available in many areas of the country. Presumably, this all applies to the Nismo as well or else they would not be able to sell the car west of the Rockies where only 91 AKI is predominantly available.

It was realized early in the GT-R DBA cycle that the cars were VERY sensitive to octane and heat. There were (and still are) LOTS of reports of the cars going into a reduced power mode and limiting boost pressure to 9 psi. I recall seeing dyno results showing 20-30 hp deltas between running 91 and 93 AKI on stock DBA's. That number obviously goes up when the car is ran hard or hot. Who knows what that number is with the Nismo. Nissan issued a revised calibration to all the early DBA cars to reduce the available timing that DTA could add from 7* to 3* at WOT.

My feeling is that cars should have been tested with the maximum available octane from the pump. This would be what an actual owner could access (reasonably). If the Nismo is handicapped by that, then move the testing venue east to a track like VIR where 93 AKI is available.

http://www.gtrlife.com/forums/topic/...an-gt-r-nismo/

Early testing of the Nismo with 91 AKI showed it to be about as fast as the base or Track GT-R.
S.

jimmyb

Shame on GM for not having the car aligned correctly.

It was an eye opener when MT (Randy) complained about the handling of the car. That has certainly NOT been an issue with anyone else.

I don't understand how Nissan makes a car that REQUIRES 93 octane, knowing full well that it is NOT available in many parts of the U.S.

Jimmy

jimmyb

As usual, wrong. The first ZR1/Viper test (where the Viper lost) was NOT because of alignment issues on the Viper. The mis-aligned Viper was in the "Best Drivers car" test (where it finished dead last). Ralph put the blame for the first loss squarely on Randy Pobst's shoulders, stating that he thought Randy was scared/intimidated by the car. Ralph then, miraculously, produced a "T/A" in record time, the re-test was done, and the Viper "T/A" won by a couple hundredths of a second (I guess Randy wasn't scared of the "T/A"). Never mind that the T/A was not available for purchase for nearly a year (shame on MT for allowing that to happen).

Jimmy

kilpatds

Another possibility on alignment is that GM DID ship it correctly aligned, but it got out of alignment during the test. That would point to a different way to help fix the issues (adjustment bolts that lock down better?).