current UK waiting list

[GTR FREAK!]

have you not read the posts above, NO

[stealth]

Launch control is just a switch with all the other switches ,what happens if you just press it down but dont use it ,will that register on the data at a service ?
If so pretty much all UK cars will have no warrenty

[pupsi]

It's a bit stupid to put a switch in, and if you use it, you lose the warranty?? or do Nissan mean that if you physically disable it by other means??.

[GTR FREAK!]

can someone show me this 'switch' please? as after seeing a few different GT-Rs now i didnt see any.

[ToroKuro]

There is no LC switch. To enable LC you use the three toggles in the following sequence: i) switch the suspension/damping to 'R'; ii) switch the transmission to 'R' and; iii) switch the traction control to 'Off'. Then foot on brake, floor accelerator (holds RPM at 4.5k) and foot off brake, off you go.

So no specific LC switch and the function will not be mentioned in any Nissan UK literature (manuals etc.).

[Richbe]

What is the difference in the 0-60 time when launching the car with LC and just regularly and have Nissan published a 0-60 time for the car? Because if they don't mention it as a feature, and it voids warranty if you use it, its just a touch shady when part of the reputation of the car has been built on 3.5s 0-60 times created through LC.

[sumo69]

Dealers say that the 3.5 secs is WITHOUT LC.

[axolotl]

yes i think the figure is 4 seconds with rolling start....without "riding" the brake pedal to keep the revs up. 3.5 would probably be everything in R mode (i.e. not switching off the traction control as that would activate LC) and holding the revs at 4500 before sidestepping the brake pedal. I'm not going to try that in my car let alone launch control. At several thousand pound cost for the potential damage from gaining half a second I think you'd need to earn money at the same rate as Bill Gates to be able to afford it I'll be very happy to get an effortless 4 second time without straining the car or my wallet

[axolotl]

p.s. I do realise that launching using the above technique might not be seen as expensive as the warranty would not have been invalidated....but if you are planning to keep the car in the long term as I am then you might worry that you'll precipitate failure of transmission components after the warranty has expired

[axolotl]

Originally Posted by ToroKuro

There is no LC switch. To enable LC you use the three toggles in the following sequence: i) switch the suspension/damping to 'R'; ii) switch the transmission to 'R' and; iii) switch the traction control to 'Off'. Then foot on brake, floor accelerator (holds RPM at 4.5k) and foot off brake, off you go.

So no specific LC switch and the function will not be mentioned in any Nissan UK literature (manuals etc.).

I heard you need to put the gearbox into manual mode too

[turbobungle]

Originally Posted by sumo69

Dealers say that the 3.5 secs is WITHOUT LC.

B0ll0cks!! Every test I've read (just about all of them) has used LC to get to 60 in 3.5. Around 4 seconds without LC.

One for Davros - I understand why Nissan void the warranty for using LC (although the performance claims should not be based on using this function that doesn't officially exist) but why void the warranty for switching off traction control?? Even in R mode the car was still being held back too much by the electronics and not lettin it move about enough!

[sumo69]

One of the dealers who posts here told me that!

I suppose we will have to wait for the official tests by Evo etc to put this one to bed.

[Aerodramatics]

Originally Posted by ToroKuro

There is no LC switch. To enable LC you use the three toggles in the following sequence: i) switch the suspension/damping to 'R'; ii) switch the transmission to 'R' and; iii) switch the traction control to 'Off'. Then foot on brake, floor accelerator (holds RPM at 4.5k) and foot off brake, off you go.

So no specific LC switch and the function will not be mentioned in any Nissan UK literature (manuals etc.).

Too late to exclude now. Contracts were agreed back in March, 2008. LC functionality was widely promoted by the marketing bods.

Warranty or no, the law of the land is quite clear, imho. The goods must be as described, fit for purpose, and of satisfactory quality, including durability.

If LC is integral to the advertised performance claims, then it must work. End of.

It is a serious matter indeed if misrepresentations induce a contract, especially if fraudulent and the goods are not as described. "Go directly to jail, do not pass go..." E.g. use LC for marketing purposes, but never intend to allow customers to use it with a plan to always exclude it from waranty. Highly dubious, methinks. The Sales and Supply of Goods Act (as amended), Trade Descriptions Act and Misrepresentation Act all make this quite clear. 'It's too late to apologise now...' as the song goes

No warranty can limit or disclaim statutory rights, indeed it is a criminal offence to do so Furthermore, the terms of the warranty can be enforced by a court in favour of the consumer when the seller is sued under breech of contract if it is deemed an Unfair Contract as described in the Unfair Contract Terms Act (amended), for instance not being as described, fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality.

If I was a car company, dealership or marketing dept. selling a premium sports car in the EU, I should definitely expect the courts to take a dim view of any guff which attempted to disclaim these statutory rights, whether it be in marketing material, or on order forms, or on websites. Would you beleive, I've seen some sales contracts which attempt to claim that no description of the goods is warranted by the seller.... tut, tut.... they really should know better. However, they usually rely on the consumer being discouraged by the small print, imho and taking no further action, rather than actually challanging the one-sided nature of such disclaimers in courts, where the outcome is likely to be a lot fairer, especially when they are on the wrong side of the law

Just my tuppance worth of opinion. Of course, you shouldn't rely on this as legal advice, but seek the services of a legal professional

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Aerodramatics

Too late to exclude now. Contracts were agreed back in March, 2008. LC functionality was widely promoted by the marketing bods.

Warranty or no, the law of the land is quite clear, imho. The goods must be as described, fit for purpose, and of satisfactory quality, including durability.

If LC is integral to the advertised performance claims, then it must work. End of.

It is a serious matter indeed if misrepresentations induce a contract, especially if fraudulent and the goods are not as described. "Go directly to jail, do not pass go..." E.g. use LC for marketing purposes, but never intend to allow customers to use it with a plan to always exclude it from waranty. Highly dubious, methinks. The Sales and Supply of Goods Act (as amended), Trade Descriptions Act and Misrepresentation Act all make this quite clear. 'It's too late to apologise now...' as the song goes

No warranty can limit or disclaim statutory rights, indeed it is a criminal offence to do so Furthermore, the terms of the warranty can be enforced by a court in favour of the consumer when the seller is sued under breech of contract if it is deemed an Unfair Contract as described in the Unfair Contract Terms Act (amended), for instance not being as described, fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality.

If I was a car company, dealership or marketing dept. selling a premium sports car in the EU, I should definitely expect the courts to take a dim view of any guff which attempted to disclaim these statutory rights, whether it be in marketing material, or on order forms, or on websites. Would you beleive, I've seen some sales contracts which attempt to claim that no description of the goods is warranted by the seller.... tut, tut.... they really should know better. However, they usually rely on the consumer being discouraged by the small print, imho and taking no further action, rather than actually challanging the one-sided nature of such disclaimers in courts, where the outcome is likely to be a lot fairer, especially when they are on the wrong side of the law

Just my tuppance worth of opinion. Of course, you shouldn't rely on this as legal advice, but seek the services of a legal professional

All this would of course be true if Nissan UK had actually produced a brochure that said what the specification of a UK car was and what it's performance is. However, they have not and the website clearly states that the EU specification has not been finalised and is subject to change.

What has been written by a load of UK car mags when testing imported cars not even provided by Nissan is not legally relevent.

[GT-Racer]

Don't forget The 7:29 Ring lap, done on the Dunlops. I will not be taking delivery of my car unless it's fitted with these.