The Pittsburgh Thread

[Kilo-9]

Launch control was added to the Corvette for the 2010 model year. GM said from the get-go that its use would NOT void your warranty.

[Jamie Mac]

Originally Posted by Swacer

The original launch control was breaking rear ends. It worked, but when users would launch the car light to light to light, it would just break out of thermal fatigue.

You can't get on Nissan's case, because GM did the exact same thing with the Corvette when it was added. You use it, say good bye to your warranty.

Thats why the 2009 GT-R had it, and then it was removed for 2010 and 2011.

2012 is the first model to have it placed back in. They now warranty its use and it now has idiot control to prevent the owner from using LC over and over and over to the point it heats up. If the transmission hits a certain temperature, it will lock out LC and R-mode until the car is driven 1.5miles to allow the transmission to cool off, at which time LC can be turned back on.

Odd considering the GM videos showing a big group of owners how to use it and explaining the benefits of it. I call B.S.
Also odd that an engineering marvel would break so easily due to a feature it was designed to use. Sounds like they used some marvelous engineering to limit the use of its marvelous system so the marvel wouldn't be harmed by people driving it. Lol

[Seer]

Originally Posted by Swacer

The original launch control was breaking rear ends. It worked, but when users would launch the car light to light to light, it would just break out of thermal fatigue.

You can't get on Nissan's case, because GM did the exact same thing with the Corvette when it was added. You use it, say good bye to your warranty.

Thats why the 2009 GT-R had it, and then it was removed for 2010 and 2011.

2012 is the first model to have it placed back in. They now warranty its use and it now has idiot control to prevent the owner from using LC over and over and over to the point it heats up. If the transmission hits a certain temperature, it will lock out LC and R-mode until the car is driven 1.5miles to allow the transmission to cool off, at which time LC can be turned back on.

Not true at all.

First it was the GT-R's transmission that was imploding using launch control and the unit costs $16886 to replace, ask me how I know, happened to my neighbor.

Second, GM will not void the Vette's warranty using launch control. Nor does Ford. It is a built in function of the car, is how those manufacturers are looking at it.

Ford and GM also have a better race heritage and more factory support than Nissan as well.

[Seer]

Originally Posted by Jamie Mac

I bet a lot of GT-R guys are like a lot of Corvette guys. "mine is blue, what color is yours? Who works on your car?"

Mustang forum is more like...

"Started my header install today on jack stands, scraped my hands up pretty good, busted my knuckles, yelled at my wife for telling me I don't know what I am doing and chased around a bolt that either fell on the floor, in the garage drain or is currently residing on a frame rail somewhere. I attempt to finish this tomorrow after I finish off this six pack and fall asleep to white trash tv. Because the hospital visit for stitches in my hands was rather long."

[Swacer]

Originally Posted by Seer

Not true at all.

First it was the GT-R's transmission that was imploding using launch control and the unit costs $16886 to replace, ask me how I know, happened to my neighbor.

I mistyped. Yes, it was the transmissions that would go. It should have been obvious that I missed that when I stated about the dT transmitter in the new transmissions.

[Seer]

Originally Posted by Swacer

I mistyped. Yes, it was the transmissions that would go. It should have been obvious that I missed that when I stated about the dT transmitter in the new transmissions.

If the GTR came in a manual I'd be more of a fan of it. I respect it's high advancement in automotive technology but the general consensus is, that the car makes even the worst of drivers above average.

Not a driver's car in my opinion. After knowing a few owners, after about 6 months they all come to an agreement, it's a down right boring car to own and drive and has one of the worst resale values for a vehicle in it's class.

[Swacer]

Originally Posted by Seer

If the GTR came in a manual I'd be more of a fan of it. I respect it's high advancement in automotive technology but the general consensus is, that the car makes even the worst of drivers above average.

Not a driver's car in my opinion. After knowing a few owners, after about 6 months they all come to an agreement, it's a down right boring car to own and drive and has one of the worst resale values for a vehicle in it's class.

A manual was not the goal of Nissan at all. Between Nissan/Toyota/Ferrari/Audi, all of their highest performing cars all contains dual clutch automatic transmissions. The driver is the worst influence on the overall performance of the car. if you can take a SMALL variable out (aka the driver's inability to shift), you can create a car that works better, is more reliable, and is consistent time after time.

Stick cars are a thing of the past. The GT-R/LFA/Enzo/M5 have all had their manuals removed. The Audi R8 is going to be an automatic only option next year.

Bugatti doesn't have a stick either. Such a piece of crap...being the fastest car in the world and all lmao

[bhall82]

[Jamie Mac]

Thats fine....think what you wish. Your misunderstanding or disregards for the engineering of the space shuttle is beyond staggering.

In all honesty, if you have Honda and Nissan as your preferred brands I'm ok with that. Your instant defense of all things Japanese and attack of all things American is laughable to me. I don't think I could get a quicker reaction out of you of I called your mother bad names. My favorite is your defense of Datson when I said they were the king of rust. How old we're you when Nissan shut it down? I saw them on streets in mass. Did you? Sorry, keep your preferred brand on a pedestal if you wish but quit using the comparison of your engineering skills and those of your Japanese counterparts as an example of all American vs Japanese engineering.

[Seer]

Originally Posted by Swacer

A manual was not the goal of Nissan at all. Between Nissan/Toyota/Ferrari/Audi, all of their highest performing cars all contains dual clutch automatic transmissions. The driver is the worst influence on the overall performance of the car. if you can take a SMALL variable out (aka the driver's inability to shift), you can create a car that works better, is more reliable, and is consistent time after time.

Stick cars are a thing of the past. The GT-R/LFA/Enzo/M5 have all had their manuals removed. The Audi R8 is going to be an automatic only option next year.

Stick cars are not a thing of the past LOL. Yes a DCT is a nice tech advancement, you still lose the connection with the vehicle imo.

I've driven the GT-R, with its combination of electronics, awd system and transmission it takes the fun out of driving.

[Swacer]

Originally Posted by Seer

Stick cars are not a thing of the past LOL. Yes a DCT is a nice tech advancement, you still lose the connection with the vehicle imo.

I've driven the GT-R, with its combination of electronics, awd system and transmission it takes the fun out of driving.

I am not a fan of the sticks disappearing, but few companies are making them options anymore. Really, the American car companies are about the only ones still offering them across their lines of sports cars.

Lexus is even removing the stick option from the IS250 next year (Kayla was looking at one)

[demonspeed]

It's not always about specs on paper -- some of us still appreciate a full driving experience.

On another note, I can appreciate engineering aspects of this, that, and whatever other thing, but at the end of the day, I don't care why it works -- just that it works. The Space Shuttle may be scoffed at by engineers, but at the end of the day, it contributed a lot to us as humans and our exploration of the universe.

Could over-engineering just for the sake of being an engineering marvel be merely making engineers feel more vindicated?

[Seer]

Originally Posted by demonspeed

It's not always about specs on paper -- some of us still appreciate a full driving experience.

On another note, I can appreciate engineering aspects of this, that, and whatever other thing, but at the end of the day, I don't care why it works -- just that it works. The Space Shuttle may be scoffed at by engineers, but at the end of the day, it contributed a lot to us as humans and our exploration of the universe.

Could over-engineering just for the sake of being an engineering marvel be merely making engineers feel more vindicated?

If engineers could ever become vindicated, you would remove Accountants and Buyers from the product development process.

At the end of the day you would have a vehicle that performs flawlessly, has all the creature comforts one could ask for and use quality components, but who could afford it? LOL

The best part of my engineering background is when I started managing the business side of things.

[Swacer]

Originally Posted by Jamie Mac

Thats fine....think what you wish. Your misunderstanding or disregards for the engineering of the space shuttle is beyond staggering.

.

My misunderstanding and disregard for the engineering of the space shuttle? Are you for real? I'm a mechanical engineer with a specialty in fluid in aerospace engineering.

I wanted nothing more when I was a child but to work for NASA. I almost went to PSU for Aerospace Engineering (I was accepted and had a swimming scholarship) but decided against it due the job instability of NASA and the fact a Mechanical Engineer can produce Aerospace work while Aerospace can't do the same.

However, you can't ignore blatantly true facts.

The shuttle program was an overwhelmingly positive program for NASA. However, it was GROSSLY underpriced at the time of proposal. It was said that they would have an original turnaround time of 1 month, and the price to maintain them was $XB dollars cheaper than producing Saturn V+ rockets. In the end....they were $XXB dollars MORE and we lost 2 of them in devastating accidents.

The Space Shuttle is a heavy loader. It produced Skylab (which my mother worked with Contravis on), it loaded up the Hubble Telescope (fixed it god knows how many times), and produced the ISS. So many things have been produced by the Space Shuttle program. What I"m saying is, a heavy loader that was proposed based on the Saturn V rocket would have been cheaper and more efficient.