View Single Post
Old 05-10-2012, 05:44 PM   #98 (permalink)
cossie1600
A True Z Fanatic
 
cossie1600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: californee way
Posts: 5,380
Drives: 370, Leaf
Rep Power: 30
cossie1600 has a reputation beyond reputecossie1600 has a reputation beyond reputecossie1600 has a reputation beyond reputecossie1600 has a reputation beyond reputecossie1600 has a reputation beyond reputecossie1600 has a reputation beyond reputecossie1600 has a reputation beyond reputecossie1600 has a reputation beyond reputecossie1600 has a reputation beyond reputecossie1600 has a reputation beyond reputecossie1600 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

You are absolutely right that the result varies, but that is more related to the drivers (btw if you still run with your VDC, chances are that you won't hit it) and not the car. Are you going to have variance between cars? Absolutely, but it's not going to be by much. This is assuming gas tanks and fuel pump assembly are the same for the 4 year run, which seems to be the case based on the part numbers. My gas tank is a new, replaced at 13K miles or something. I hit fuel starve with the first tank, and this tank also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wstar View Post
Well, I think the point is that while we know the tank design is faulty in hard right corners, there's a question of degree. Some of that's driving conditions and style, sure. But there might be some real variances that make the problem more dramatic for some people than others.

We already know the fuel gauges on this car are totally unreliable, and since dots on the fuel gauge is what most people are reporting the fuel starve problem by, we have a data accuracy problem on knowing how severe this is. We know we've also had a couple reports of some baffle plate in the fuel tank coming loose and flopping around inside. There could be variances or failures in the pump / fuel cup assembly too. It wouldn't shock me if, in addition to the basic tank design problem, there are other compounding factors that vary car to car.
I have been tracking for 10+ years, there are very few cars (below 75K) that you can take straight to the track from the showroom and be able to do a full sessions at speed. Brake pads and fluids are usually the minimum you have to do. Oil cooler and fuel starve to this level are indeed very rare, but then it's not out of the norm given the performance you get from this vehicle. I am not happy about spending the $700 on the oil cooler, but I can understand why I have to spend it. I don't think doing 20 minutes track session is the test requirement on most cars being sold on the street, sports car or not.

Btw, the ceremic brakes on the 911 are advertised as track brakes, yet I can tell you they will MELT after one complete 20 minute track sessions. People who have them usually swap to regular brakes before each track day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleLion View Post
It isn't that I think of my car as a race car. I think of it as a car to take to the track for HPDE days. I am very sure that Nissan, like other sports car manufacturers are well aware of this use. Tracking and racing are not the same. It would be dumb for a manufacturer to market a race car to the public. That is a specialized market. However, over the last decade, motorsports (read that as "tracking") has been the fastest growing hobby in the US (according to Proformance Racing School).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mt Tam I am View Post
If catastrophic fuel starvation occurs, is it possible to engage the clutch in order to save yourself?

I assume the car locks up in gear and you careen off the track.
I don't know if anyone has blown a motor due to the fuel starve, but the engine doesn't seize up in my experiences. It is basically like hitting the fuel limiter except the car won't fire or struggles to fire.
cossie1600 is offline   Reply With Quote