I don't know about this XTRAC 295 being their new tranny. It says they have won 9 Indy 500's with this tranny.
http://www.xtrac.com/pdfs/295%20Indy%20Racing%20League%20Gearbox.pdf
GC - Good replacement for M1 0W-40 in Nissan GT-R?
- Thread starter cmd51231
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: cmd51231
2 wheels at 480HP, even with slicks, would have a hard time launching a 3800+ lb car from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. Gonna need AWD for that. 
OK, you just kind of agreed with me, heh.
You said:
1) 500+ rWHP (over +100 wHP)
2) 3300 w/out driver (minus more than 500 lbs)
3) 0-60 ???... I suspect would do it under 4 secs with slicks.
I said:
1) 480 crank HP (<420 wHP)
2) 3800+ w/out driver
3) 0-60 in 3.5 seconds... street tires.
... which I claim is the impossible part if it was only 2-wheel drive. The GT-R is a hog when it comes to weight to power ratio. Without that AWD technology, no way in [censored] it would do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. It's just simple physics.
So, what were you disagreeing with me on again? :P
Gotta disagree with you there. Have a couple of friends with 525RWHP (650-ish flywheel) and 534RWHP respectively who's cars hook solid on a set of 10.5" slicks quite readily.
These cars are about 3,300lbs; about 3450 with driver.
Its a different environment on the drag strip on a tire. These cars will readily obliterate drag radials at 120Km/h with a downshift and touch of the "go" pedal.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: cmd51231
2 wheels at 480HP, even with slicks, would have a hard time launching a 3800+ lb car from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. Gonna need AWD for that.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: cmd51231
OK, you just kind of agreed with me, heh.
You said:
1) 500+ rWHP (over +100 wHP)
2) 3300 w/out driver (minus more than 500 lbs)
3) 0-60 ???... I suspect would do it under 4 secs with slicks.
I said:
1) 480 crank HP (<420 wHP)
2) 3800+ w/out driver
3) 0-60 in 3.5 seconds... street tires.
... which I claim is the impossible part if it was only 2-wheel drive. The GT-R is a hog when it comes to weight to power ratio. Without that AWD technology, no way in [censored] it would do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. It's just simple physics.
So, what were you disagreeing with me on again? :P
Gotta disagree with you there. Have a couple of friends with 525RWHP (650-ish flywheel) and 534RWHP respectively who's cars hook solid on a set of 10.5" slicks quite readily.
These cars are about 3,300lbs; about 3450 with driver.
Its a different environment on the drag strip on a tire. These cars will readily obliterate drag radials at 120Km/h with a downshift and touch of the "go" pedal.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: cmd51231
2 wheels at 480HP, even with slicks, would have a hard time launching a 3800+ lb car from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. Gonna need AWD for that.
The cars in question are capable of ~10.5 second 1/4 mile runs, so I'm guessing their 0-60 (on the race tires obviously) is quite a bit less than 3.5 seconds. The one has gone 10.3. Originally Posted By: cmd51231
OK, you just kind of agreed with me, heh.
You said:
1) 500+ rWHP (over +100 wHP)
2) 3300 w/out driver (minus more than 500 lbs)
3) 0-60 ???... I suspect would do it under 4 secs with slicks.
I said:
1) 480 crank HP (<420 wHP)
2) 3800+ w/out driver
3) 0-60 in 3.5 seconds... street tires.
... which I claim is the impossible part if it was only 2-wheel drive. The GT-R is a hog when it comes to weight to power ratio. Without that AWD technology, no way in [censored] it would do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. It's just simple physics.
So, what were you disagreeing with me on again? :P
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: cmd51231
OK, you just kind of agreed with me, heh.
You said:
1) 500+ rWHP (over +100 wHP)
2) 3300 w/out driver (minus more than 500 lbs)
3) 0-60 ???... I suspect would do it under 4 secs with slicks.
I said:
1) 480 crank HP (<420 wHP)
2) 3800+ w/out driver
3) 0-60 in 3.5 seconds... street tires.
... which I claim is the impossible part if it was only 2-wheel drive. The GT-R is a hog when it comes to weight to power ratio. Without that AWD technology, no way in [censored] it would do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. It's just simple physics.
So, what were you disagreeing with me on again? :P
Gotta disagree with you there. Have a couple of friends with 525RWHP (650-ish flywheel) and 534RWHP respectively who's cars hook solid on a set of 10.5" slicks quite readily.
These cars are about 3,300lbs; about 3450 with driver.
Its a different environment on the drag strip on a tire. These cars will readily obliterate drag radials at 120Km/h with a downshift and touch of the "go" pedal.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: cmd51231
2 wheels at 480HP, even with slicks, would have a hard time launching a 3800+ lb car from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. Gonna need AWD for that.
The cars in question are capable of ~10.5 second 1/4 mile runs, so I'm guessing their 0-60 (on the race tires obviously) is quite a bit less than 3.5 seconds. The one has gone 10.3.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: cmd51231
OK, you just kind of agreed with me, heh.
You said:
1) 500+ rWHP (over +100 wHP)
2) 3300 w/out driver (minus more than 500 lbs)
3) 0-60 ???... I suspect would do it under 4 secs with slicks.
I said:
1) 480 crank HP (<420 wHP)
2) 3800+ w/out driver
3) 0-60 in 3.5 seconds... street tires.
... which I claim is the impossible part if it was only 2-wheel drive. The GT-R is a hog when it comes to weight to power ratio. Without that AWD technology, no way in [censored] it would do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. It's just simple physics.
So, what were you disagreeing with me on again? :P
Last edited:
RWD door slammer Mustang, and probably a good 500+ lbs heavier than the 7 second Skyline too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KMxv-lu_Wk
6 second 4.6L Cougar, RWD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7h5kpfpstc
That car goes 6.30s @ 220+ nowadays.
i know Martin at Willall is using 10w60 oil for the GT-R
what does everyone on here think about the 10-60?
"Not a fan of the 0w-40 in these engines. It tends to breakdown and become very thin at high temperatures which means it will struggle to lubricate the engine properly when it needs it most. You dont need to take my word for it either" martin
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=26757
Yeah, you can't beat good old American muscle for straight line. The Cougar is also pretty famous for high power if I'm not confusing things... same engine as that old school Eclipse where people were getting over 1000 HP right?
Which brings me back to why I'm not into drag... love the circuit racing and twisties. Always have... even with the BMW's I owned... and always will. :)
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
RWD door slammer Mustang, and probably a good 500+ lbs heavier than the 7 second Skyline too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KMxv-lu_Wk
6 second 4.6L Cougar, RWD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7h5kpfpstc
That car goes 6.30s @ 220+ nowadays.
Last edited:
While I agree with most of what you said d00d, the fact remains that the transmission oil that Nissan chose... also ridiculously priced at $90 per liter... is inadequate for the extremely precise DCT in the GT-R. If you visit any of the GT-R forums where actual owners visit, you will see many complaints about how bad the transmission sounds with just a few thousand miles.
In fact, several people have done transmission oil changes at just a few thousand miles and see lots of metal shavings in the oil! Some people that have tracked with the factory fill even had their cars throw a transmission overheating error and shut down...
The problem is Nissan made no attempts to release who makes the oil so that they can be the middle "markup" man. All we're left with as owners is to look on our own for alternatives.
There is a company in AU called Willall that has even gone off the ranch to produce their own oil... and with much positive feedback/reviews from users (quieter, smoother, no more overheating). While this is more appealing than the factory fill, it's still too new to confirm its long term effectiveness.
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: buster
Some are using Castrol 10w-60 in the GTR's when tracking them.
A fellow GT-R owner in Texas was nice enough to post his Blackstone analysis of both the engine and transmission oil at 6007 miles.
From what I understand, he's a spirited driver with a few minor track visits (specifically mentioned he did NOT track the car heavily).
Both oils are recommended factory fills... M1 0W-40 engine oil and Nissan GT-R specific DCT transmission oil GR6.
**NOTE**: This was pulled from nagtroc, so all credit goes to the original poster and actual owner, wefordus.
Last edited:
Yep, looks like it. There is still a question of whether or not "metal particulates" in the tranny oil that wefordus even witnessed are of actual concern. Two reasons for this... 1, this is the main marketing push from a tuner shop that is aggressively promoting his aftermarket tranny oil... and 2, would this still be a concern up to the first recommended transmission oil change, which is 18,000 miles for the car?
I mean, literally, the oil looks spotless, but there were metal particulates in it.
I, personally, am probably going to get it flushed out well before then. But, the question still remains as the 18k miles is Nissan recommended...
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
So they did do their homework on fluids. Who'd have thought. 
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
