# 2011 GTR - 0-100kph in 3.0s



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

a3ZR5lf00SU&feature=channel


----------



## GTaaaaaarrrrrr! (May 4, 2006)

Good find  

I don't know if it was just me or did the LC sound a little higher than 3k RPM? Does it sound feasible to drop 0.35 seconds off the original car's claim of 3.4 seconds with only another 40-45HP? It also sounded like he was hitting 3rd gear before he backed off, won't these things hit 60 in second gear?


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

I shall look forward to being monstered at the lights :bawling:


----------



## GTRSTAR (Nov 26, 2009)

Nissan appear to be braking the mould with the GTR, gone are the days of the manufacturers new versions only being marginally quicker if at all.. :wavey:

Nissan are setting the bar for all future performance cars, such leaps in performance must mean that car makers will be forced to look at new technologies to surpass eachother which is great news for us! :clap:

I wonder what exactly nissan have done to achieve such an improvement in 0-100kph? :bowdown1:


----------



## Papa Smurf (Sep 25, 2008)

GTRSTAR said:


> Nissan appear to be braking the mould with the GTR, gone are the days of the manufacturers new versions only being marginally quicker if at all.. :wavey:
> 
> Nissan are setting the bar for all future performance cars, such leaps in performance must mean that car makers will be forced to look at new technologies to surpass eachother which is great news for us! :clap:
> 
> I wonder what exactly nissan have done to achieve such an improvement in 0-100kph? :bowdown1:


Might make your car a little pedestrian!


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

GTaaaaaarrrrrr! said:


> Good find
> 
> I don't know if it was just me or did the LC sound a little higher than 3k RPM? Does it sound feasible to drop 0.35 seconds off the original car's claim of 3.4 seconds with only another 40-45HP? It also sounded like he was hitting 3rd gear before he backed off, won't these things hit 60 in second gear?


The LC is at 4000rpm AFAIK.


----------



## GTRSTAR (Nov 26, 2009)

nurburgringgtr said:


> Might make your car a little pedestrian!


Hey! this thread isnt about my car, if it were though the title would be *2009 GTR - 0-100kph in 2.6s Beat That Nissan!*


----------



## r34mspec (May 30, 2007)

Oh my word that is mental!!!!


----------



## bobel (Jul 26, 2010)

I was under the impression that Nissan hadn't upgraded the transmission on MY11 but obviously this isn't the case, I can't imagine they would go backwards and make the same mistake as LC1 and produce a transmission the turns itself into mush whe trying to achieve a 0-60. I guess saying nothing and making significant improvements which they obviously have negates the queues of warranty claims outsides HPC's given it's an abmission that the original box wasn't up to the task


----------



## jameswrx (Jul 27, 2003)

So 0-60 is 2.9x seconds then


----------



## TAZZMAXX (Mar 9, 2010)

LC1 was 4500 rpm, LC2 was 3000 rpm, LC3 is 4000 rpm so a drop of only 500 rpm from the original. My guess is that they have made 1st gear stronger.


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

TAZZMAXX said:


> My guess is that they have made 1st gear stronger.


and they've 10k in the bank on each car, to pay for the odd knackered transmission

Presumably increasing power provides justification for tranny beefing, and therefore protection from circling (American) lawyers.


----------



## Naranja (Dec 4, 2008)

Bloody hell, that thing takes off well. Good to see Mizuno-San giving one of his lectures!


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

TAZZMAXX said:


> LC1 was 4500 rpm, LC2 was 3000 rpm, LC3 is 4000 rpm so a drop of only 500 rpm from the original. My guess is that they have made 1st gear stronger.


I'm sure, plus they will have made the clutch engagement optimised for launching.

Pretty amazing, and as the vid says, the ground temp was low during that attempt, so sub 3.0 to 100km/h to come.
Now to get a decent dry Nordschleife time. I'm betting sub 7:20 min...


----------



## mindlessoath (Nov 30, 2007)

iirc they didnt change engine or trans, however i heard they made there parts tollerances much tighter for more percise contact. take that with a grain of salt tho.
iirc here: ?????GT-R????????????GT-R 2011??????????? - ???? - ??????????


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

So theoretically a 600bhp car using LC2 should be sub 3 sec, or am I missing the point?


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

LC2 is notoriously tricky to use though.

One of the new Cobb launch maps should be better, but I've yet to try the latest ones.


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

David.Yu said:


> LC2 is notoriously tricky to use though.
> 
> One of the new Cobb launch maps should be better, but I've yet to try the latest ones.


Remind me how is LC2 supposed to work, I havent dared try it yet in fear of breaking something lol


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

You definitely won't break anything with LC2! I don't think there has been a single reported failure, but that's because it is barely a launch control at all...

Put buttons in RROff.
Press brake as hard as you can (100% on the MFD), then floor the accelerator, revs will barely climb to 2,800rpm if you're lucky, then release the brake.
Pretty tame.

You can sometimes get the revs to rise to a bit more by lifting off the accelerator and immediately reflooring it, but the thing that holds LC2 back is the super slow clutch engagement.

I think I've done most of my best times by simply flooring it from rest!


----------



## enshiu (Aug 20, 2010)

LC2 is the safetiest. Anything beyond 3500 rpm is going to break the 1st gear.

Mine is 2.5k limited by cobb AP (done by myself)

3.3 sec to 62.5mph


----------



## ChuckUK (Jan 1, 2009)

enshiu said:


> LC2 is the safetiest anything beyond 3500 rpm is going to break the 1st gear.


If this is true, and Nissan hasn't updated the gearbox with the 2011 car, then how come they offer a warranty on LC launches ?


----------



## enshiu (Aug 20, 2010)

ChuckUK said:


> If this is true, and Nissan hasn't updated the gearbox with the 2011 car, then how come they offer a warranty on LC launches ?


probably going to break more gearboxes for the costumers fault.

Make a LC4 with only 2K that is even enough to get 0-62.5mph under 3.3 sec I think
I hope they will update the first gear shaft,wheel and clutch.


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

enshiu said:


> probably going to break more gearboxes for the costumers fault.
> 
> Make a LC4 with only 2K that is even enough to get 0-62.5mph under 3.3 sec I think
> I hope they will update the first gear shaft,wheel and clutch.


I've been trying not to say this for a while, but without meaning to be rude, you do talk a lot of nonsense!

The new "LC4" is completely covered by warranty and sounds as if it revs to at least 4k rpm.
It is mainly down to the clutch engagement as to whether it is going to shock-load components or not, and Nissan clearly believe they've got it sorted now.


----------



## GTR_Steve (Sep 4, 2008)

David, interesting point and probably quite right regarding the clutch engagement. I had a remap applied to my TCM at the dealer recently to try and resolve gear engagement issues (not related to LC!). I passed this on to Joe at Cobb and although it appears as a standard revision JF04B, the tables are completely different. Physically the clutch engagement is radically different with the same TP settings etc. after clutch relearn. I wonder if this is effectively the same TCM map as the 2011 model.
Any comments Joe/John. Have you had a chance to look at the detail yet?


----------



## JapFreak786 (Aug 29, 2003)

i love but hate the way these things change gear,love it because it's so quick,hate it because i can't shift gears that quick!!


----------



## enshiu (Aug 20, 2010)

David.Yu said:


> I've been trying not to say this for a while, but without meaning to be rude, you do talk a lot of nonsense!
> 
> The new "LC4" is completely covered by warranty and sounds as if it revs to at least 4k rpm.
> It is mainly down to the clutch engagement as to whether it is going to shock-load components or not, and Nissan clearly believe they've got it sorted now.



Nothing against you but, So If I want to turn my VDC off then the warranty is covered on a 2011 model?


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

enshiu said:


> Nothing against you but, So If I want to turn my VDC off then the warranty is covered on a 2011 model?


That is a separate issue. LC4 works with VDC in R.
Unless they've changed their stance, Nissan have previously stated that if damage occurred whilst VDC was Off, then that damage would not be covered.


----------



## enshiu (Aug 20, 2010)

David.Yu said:


> That is a separate issue. LC4 works with VDC in R.
> Unless they've changed their stance, Nissan have previously stated that if damage occurred whilst VDC was Off, then that damage would not be covered.


Very nice to know that.

What is the difference between R and off then for the 2011 model?


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

IMHO the majority fix for LC4 must be hard engineered, as opposed to control software related.

Don't forget Nissan software engineered out the LC1, which I am sure they wouldn't have done if they could sort the original problem by changing how the clutches engage?

Sorry, but I can't see LC4 appearing without some form of warranty poopoo, even if the box is now millenium falcon grade


----------



## enshiu (Aug 20, 2010)

Zed Ed said:


> IMHO the majority fix for LC4 must be hard engineered, as opposed to control software related.
> 
> Don't forget Nissan software engineered out the LC1, which I am sure they wouldn't have done if they could sort the original problem by changing how the clutches engage?
> 
> Sorry, but I can't see LC4 appearing without some form of warranty poopoo, even if the box is now millenium falcon grade


so you will see a lot of issues with this new gr6 version?

What do you mean with millenium falcon grade?


----------



## sumo69 (Mar 31, 2008)

There will undoubtedly be a warranty get-out with this - something along the lines of "abuse" etc.

Thus i envisage repeated and frequent use will not be warranty protected.

D


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

This is the first time launch control has been officially recognised as such and it is explicitly stated that it is covered and it works in R mode.

Trans oil temps and probably some other parameters are monitored and when the TCM decides it's time to let everything cool down, it won't permit any more launches.

Sounds pretty watertight to me.

Besides, name a single instance of an LC2 car failing on launch, let alone being denied warranty?

People really need to get over this whole warranty thing! :chairshot
The REALITY is that we know of extremely few cases where warranty has been denied.
Even Nissan Enemy Number One, Evolution VI, has had issues sorted under warranty despite it being very well known his car is pretty highly modified and thrashed 100% on track all the time!


----------



## sumo69 (Mar 31, 2008)

David

Until you see the official manuals and any other paperwork that may appear before you can drive away, I would hold fire in saying LC is covered.

It may well be, but I cannot believe there won't be an "abuse" get out.

Time will tell, and i will ask this on FRiday when I see the 2011 car at WLMG.

D


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Mizuno said it himself at the Nurburgring presentation.
I think he knows what he's talking about... 

No warranty ever written includes "abuse", by definition. But it is going to be pretty hard to abuse this LC as the TCM will simply not allow any launches if it detects conditions are outside parameters.


----------



## zeyd (Apr 15, 2008)

I believe A LOT of the transmission problems have been... corrected. And not only on the 2011 people. 

Believe !


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

I'm not interested in the warranty bit, more, how they have devised a sustainable, performance maximising, launch?


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Same as many other LCs out there, e.g. Porsche PDK etc.

The right revs, the right clutch engagement and the right amount of throttle allowed.
When things get too hot, it shuts down.


----------



## bhp (Sep 13, 2008)

Is it possible that the 2011 MY has the same tranny software that Prashan received recently via a HPC update? I know that this has not been officially released yet, he mentioned this on one of the threads in the technical section.


----------



## Lofvis (Nov 19, 2010)

A question.. ( yep I'm a noob:runaway 

What did they change on the MY11 on the hardware side?
Because if it's only software the 09 and 10 should be able to do 3's as well.


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

From the horses mouth tonight;

No engineering changes to gearbox for MY11

(Speed) performance stats will differ from JDM cars. Is JDM what has been tested thus far ??


Interesting dialogue re LC; 4 launches then cool down.......... Then comments re ability to monitor abuse via black box

Groundhog day ???


----------



## ANDY400R (Mar 28, 2008)

So not overly impressed tonight then Ed, nothing to get you to even think about upgrading to the new model.


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

Short of the power hike, there is nothing to float my boat really.

I'd be putting in around 50% of what I originally spent in 09, to upgrade; madness:runaway:


----------



## stealth (Jul 6, 2004)

Sorry to break it to you guys but it's not an R36 ,just a slightly power tweeked r35 with a new colour and funny front bumper , no differant to what what Nissan have done with the 3 previous models .


----------



## sumo69 (Mar 31, 2008)

I am with Ed on this - for £20k the apparent and usable benefits are 40bhp (if you believe the old versions have only 480bhp) and the slightly better gripping Recaro seats.

That buys alot of mods!

D

David Y - it was confirmed a max of 4 launches would be allowed, no tranny parts changed so this must be a software upgrade that could be done to a current car...and the likelihood of an "abuse" clause on the warranty (as now).


----------



## mackyfr (Nov 28, 2009)

I want a 2011!


----------



## Rich-GT (Apr 2, 2008)

sumo69 said:


> it was confirmed a max of 4 launches would be allowed,


4 Launches on the trot, a day, in the life of the vehicle???


Rich


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

Rich-GT said:


> 4 Launches on the trot, a day, in the life of the vehicle???
> 
> 
> Rich


on the trot


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

David.Yu said:


> I've been trying not to say this for a while, but without meaning to be rude, you do talk a lot of nonsense!


:chuckle:

This is why I buy Evo.


----------



## WingedBeast1968 (Sep 18, 2009)

Did anyone else notice the complete lack of wheel spin and axel tramp?
45bhp more, yes. 4000rpm LC start, yes.
But it looks like a lot of the extra acceleration has come from software.
She didn't smack the clutch, and opened the taps as fast as the available traction would allow; but progressively.

It looked a lot kinder to the transmission, and quick.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

If the wheels are spinning it's wasted effort.


----------



## drumzz (Sep 18, 2010)

having asked whether the current r35's will take this software upgrade last night at the launch, the answer was no..odd really especially if there is no engineering change


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

I think there's obviously an engineering change otherwise the 'software upgrade' would have been out ages ago.


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

We need to wait for someone to crack open the box


----------



## GTRSTAR (Nov 26, 2009)

sumo69 said:


> I am with Ed on this - for £20k the apparent and usable benefits are 40bhp (if you believe the old versions have only 480bhp) and the slightly better gripping Recaro seats.
> 
> That buys alot of mods!
> 
> ...


I think this sums it up.

Manufacturers come up with all manner of ways of remarketing the same product, some appeal to existing owners, some to new owners, either way, same shit different day.

Thers no bigger Kudos than having a new model before anyone else, the thing is the new model came out in 2007, Since then there has only been new versions, not designed to reinvent the wheel, but to attract new buyers even though the model is now 3 years old.

If you do the maths, you can have much more fun modifying your GTR than changing it every 3 years, unless youre like David and youve driven the equivalent to twice around the world


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

I'm starting to think this car might run a 10 as stock.


----------



## Naranja (Dec 4, 2008)

Zed Ed said:


> (Speed) performance stats will differ from JDM cars. Is JDM what has been tested thus far?


I must have missed this bit Ed, what context were the performance differences mentioned in?


----------



## Zed Ed (Oct 24, 2007)

Naranja said:


> I must have missed this bit Ed, what context were the performance differences mentioned in?


He said something along the lines of no performance figures yet as the car had not yet been euro homolgated; perf figures to differ from
JDM.

I also recall the number of times he said 'it's not called launch control' :chuckle:

And his rather quick move-on from the question re previous gearbox issues, lol


----------



## Naranja (Dec 4, 2008)

Zed Ed said:


> He said something along the lines of no performance figures yet as the car had not yet been euro homolgated; perf figures to differ from
> JDM.
> 
> I also recall the number of times he said 'it's not called launch control' :chuckle:
> ...


Ah yes, I remember now. Hopefully there won't be much difference. You'd have to say the one in the vid is undoubtedly J spec. 
I do remember the launch control stuff, yes! Can't remember what the official, approx 7 word, Nissan term for it was. I got the distinct impression there were certain things Andy wasn't supposed to get involved in discussions about: the gearbox was one, boost pressure was another!


----------

