15 Months,31K Miles, $8200 In Maintenance Fees And 16 Dealer Visits: Is The GT-R STILL Worth It?

A Few Details To ponder

Total Routine Maintenance Costs (over 15 months): $3,953.58
Additional Maintenance Costs: $4,334.56
Warranty Repairs: 6
Non-Warranty Repairs: 5 — windshield, three sets of tires, body damage
Scheduled Dealer Visits: 6
Unscheduled Dealer Visits: 10
Days Out of Service: 67 (37 + 30 for body damage estimate/repair)
Breakdowns Stranding Driver: 0

True Market Value at service end: $62,828
What it sold for: $52,600
Depreciation: $16,965 or 23% of original paid price
Final Odometer Reading: 31,067

Another lexus fanboy up to no good stirring up problems. I wonder what the LF-A fanboys have to say about this. Anyways I know Agent63 on a personal level and that guy punches his car to its limits but he never encountered any issues whatsoever. Out of our whole Pacific Northwest Car Club it was in fact the GT-R's that has issues which were mainly caused by that launch control. It was simply used too often and the tranny couldn't take it anymore.

"Non-Warranty Repairs: 5 — windshield, three sets of tires, body damage"

thats all the onwers fault and depreciation happens to any vehicle. the GT-R will still costs less than its rivals no matter what. dont buy a car if you're worried about the depreciation rate.

Badgewhore: U totally nailed it.

But, some people feel honored kissing German ass, so...... be it. In a way I feel they should. :)

badgewhore: what car do you own if you don't mind me asking. I never bothered to ask before.

An owner would NEVER experience that on a new 911.

The inherent flaw on the GT-R is that it is tuned SO close to the edge, owners are bound to have these large expenditures.

And after speaking with one of the Inside Line guys on a recent trip, they claim there is not even ONE GT-R on the road today, that isn't a rats nest full of problems.

001

I think a 70k price tag can be a good thing and a bad thing. Sure the tuning is one thing, but so is the cost cutting. Maybe manufacturers can't offer a 70k supercar because they simply can hold up without additional reinforcement that would obviously raise the pricetag. Exotic materials and proper construction is costly, so maybe this car isn't a value at all. Maybe its just cheap...

I think the Nissan nameplated kind of gave everyone the notion that it's a Japanese car and that it should be reliable. So with that in mind a fast car that is reliable and packs some punch must be a bargain. It's not a bargain with the costs that come with it. Anyone who bought this car thinking it will be a breeze to fix or maintain obviously didn't think hard enough. The reason why it has so many problems is because Nissan probably outsourced many parts to 'after-market' parts companies and crammed it all in one 'factory tuned' package. It's not impossible for this to be true either. So if that is the case, in essence this car is technically just as much as a rice rocket as it's Skyline siblings, just in a nice clean Nissan suit. Otherwise it couldn't have attacked a 911.

Deboost me all you want but I foresaw all these issues come up from the get-go. My friend from Arizona has had issues with his GT-R as well. That's why I am awaiting my new baby, the 2010 911 Turbo. My R8 was fun but that had to go sooner or later.

LOL

001 & 63: I DON'T think a 911, not even turbo, will be RELIABLE if it's driven by DIFFERENT person, EVERYDAY, who DOESN'T even own the car.

It's just that simple.

So what is wrong with it being driven by different drivers every day who do not own the car? Are you saying they are unlikely to treat the car as nicely? That is very debatable...

Tierry

I can almost Guarantee that most people when given a chance to drive a High Performance vehicle that they do not own, will treat it with little respect.

Thats why i have a Rule:

Never let anyone who cannot afford or already own a vehicle worth the same as yours drive your vehicle.

Learned from experience. Dents/Litter/Punctures.......

I don't know. I drove my R8 on tracks pretty hard and drove everywhere I could with it on the weekends and it never skipped a beat nor did it have any issues. On several occasions I took it to the track 3 days straight and the only thing I had to replace were the tires :).

Knowing how to drive a car is one thing but in digital camera terms the GT-R is a point and shoot whereas my R8 was a DSLR, catch my drift? Shouldn't my DSLR mess up more from turning them knobs and shoving that clutch in hard wear and tear away things faster? clearly not the case.

BAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA A63 THAT'S SOMETHING U'D SAY!! lmao

Another lexus fanboy up to no good stirring up problems. I wonder what the LF-A fanboys have to say about this. Anyways I know Agent63 on a personal level and that guy punches his car to its limits but he never encountered any issues whatsoever. Out of our whole Pacific Northwest Car Club it was in fact the GT-R's that has issues which were mainly caused by that launch control. It was simply used too often and the tranny couldn't take it anymore.

Not that it's 100% true but I've heard this as well.

911 rules. But it rules because it's been around so long and has remained a mainstay in virtually every enthusiasts stable. That kind of longevity also lends itself to the reliability of the 911. It takes decades of real world testing to perfect an automobile, not saying the 911 is perfect. But it does have several decades on the GT-R.

Another issue here though is expectation, I think we all expected the Nissan GTR to not have the cost, and unreliability that is associated with cars of this calibur. Lets be realistic, you expect outrageous running costs from Ferraris, Porsches, Maseratis and Lamborghinis and other cars. Alot of people bought the GTR under the impression it wasn't going to be as fragile, and expensive to own as its lofty competition as a result people like coworker who bought one now are left with thinking whether going with a much more expensive Porsche (which though very expensive to maintain is reliable) would have just been better to offset the upkeep cost/headache of his GTR..... It doesnt take away from the fact though as an overall package nothing if anything can touch the GTR as a performance car the 911 is to compromised as a vehicle to beat the GTR as a package the GTR is at least useful as a regular car the 911's packaging is to compromised in order to offer a rear engine.

1) your post makes little to no sense at all...

2) I actually purchased my Porsche with very little expectations of "outrageous running costs".

3) I feel my car has very little to no compromises at all and will keep up if not surpass the GT-R at 1000mi, 10,000mi, or 50,000mi in ALL aspects...

this is quite surprising. quality and reliability have always been expected on japanese cars.

these kinds of maintenance and repair costs are totally unacceptable. if bmw can make an M3 with stupendous performance and zero repair costs and zero unexpected maintenance over the same period, why can't nissan?

i'd take the M3 as a daily driver over this any day....it's more comfortable, quieter, more reliable and overall a better car.

I think honestly the car simply isn't as mature of a design as a Porsche.

Porsche has decades of experience designing cars of the performance potential. They simply know what it takes and where to place the attention. While Nissan started with a clean slate, they never have done this before so some issues are to be expected.

WE have to remember that other than a very few limited edition Skylines that were swooped up by collectors, Nissan has never produced anything close in performance caliber to the GT-R. The original Skyline gained notoriety from hot-rodders NOT from factory performance figures.

The most damning blow may have been the last few comments about this car is it not a daily driver maybe 4 days a week. That is a pretty sad departure from the original intent of a supercar for the masses.

FYI 009, this wasnt a "clean slate", the Skyline GTR has been around for decades. This is the first one sold in the USA. You did know that, right?

Wasn't the previous skyline's lack of performance due to japanese maximum hp laws, I thought that was why the skyline was built to withstand modifications that are cheap and make lots of power.

M35MT- What are you talking about? The new GT-R has nothing to do with the original. So YES they started with a clean slate with no lineage to the original. Just like an original VW Beetle in the 60's and a current one.

Really? The last GTR didnt have a twin turbo six cylinder engine, all wheel drive and challenged supercars at a fraction of the cost?

Really?

This is the problem with generalizing and stereotyping Japanese cars as reliable. I'm not saying they are not, I'm just saying when you are expecting one thing and get another, the problem seems bigger.

any car that has repair cost of more than 10% of the purchase price in the first 15 months has BIG PROBLEMS. it doesn't just seem big, it is.

to the rocket scientists who deboosted me: so what you're saying is it's just fine for maintenance costs to run !0% of cars purchase price. no wonder you can't afford any of the cars you talk about on here.

I dunno enthusiastx11, I think you and I are targets of some eco hippies, I'm pretty sure they search our profile for every post we make so they can deboost us regardless of what we post.

FYI the quarter of oil (shell) for the Enzo is 60.00$, and it needs 12 so doing math that's 720.00$ just in oil.....Imagine the rest. I think that the GTR is great.

The Enzo is a whole other league, with a buyer of a different caliber.

the enzo is NOT an $80,000 car, it's currently a $1MM car. maintenance costs are irrelevant. furthermore, enzo are not driven daily.

comparing the GTR to cars in its class, these costs and 16 dealer visits are OUTRAGEOUS.

Yonder, you are just incredibly stupid!!!

So your reply is telling me an Enzo "with a buyer of a different caliber." can have a extra high maintenance and repair cost but since GT-R do not fall into this realm, it is ok to classified as a high maintenace cost car????

Come on Agent009 and Edmunds, I wish you both will get your hands on the Enzo and see how many complains you are going to get after driving the same distance and take the same beating. The cost probably going to cost way more.

The car is engineered to perform at extreme level but at a down to earth purchase price. If you can't shell out few thousand to maintenance the car per year, you have no business owning a car like this.

For a car to have maintenance costs 10% of its purchase value is not only expensive, it is absurd.

If the ENZO was made as a daily driver and the repair costs in the first 15 months exceeded $65,000 (10%), then yes, that is expensive, but just to hold the ENZO and the GT-R in the same regards is just plain dumb.

So according to you, the Cobalt SS is a much better car than an ENZO and a GT-R because it can cost $0 to maintain? WOW!

SOURCE: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4199769.html

for perspective, 15 months of maintenance costs on the GTR would cover the bulk of the lease payments for an M3 over the same period.

The M3 is not a GT-R competitor. If I was in the market for an M3 there is no way I'd cross-shop it with a GT-R.

you're right. the M3 is actually reliable, great looking and a star performer in every category. it's just a better car.

Should have bought a viper. Same price, same performance, less costly to upkeep, and imo better looking.

oh and better mileage/more "eco friendly" bahahaha

Yes, it's very much worth it.

Half are screaming mad at the cost, reliability issues and now the low resale value. The other half are still impressed with how much car this is for under $80 grand. Even including our repairs, this exercise still cost $40,000 less than the purchase of a 2010 911 Turbo, which carries an MSRP of $133,775.

While it was certainly a test of metal, this was also a test of perception and patience. The combination of mechanical failures and a high level of required attention is not a good one, especially from a nameplate like Nissan, from which U.S. consumers expect trouble-free performance in a way that they don't demand of an exotic nameplate like Porsche. But at the end of the day, you get what you pay for. As long as you don't expect the GT-R to be as reliable or cheap as your Altima just because it wears a Nissan badge, the GT-R is a solid buy. Daily driver? Probably not. 4/7? Absolutely.

They just drove a 70k finely tuned exotic more than most daily drivers. What do you expect to happen. People don't buy these to drive every single day, on the track, off the track, home and back from work ALL THE TIME. Sure you can argue the reliability and costs over the given period. But for me, I drive 20-25,000 a year along in my 05 Matrix, but you took this thing 2,000 miles a month on average! Oil changes alone would have been every two months, assuming you took care of it like you should have. But given that each person drove it like they stole it most likely (note first article where they got pulled over, nice break in period), I expected this.

So personally I'm not shocked given you took a car and drove it more than double what a standard 12-15k lease would have covered. 90% of people who actually OWN This car would baby it and treat it much better I'm sure.

Good point, whelan. I still think its to much power and ability with not enough structural engineering.

I agree with you. When you have a car that seems "Too good to be true", then people puts it under the microscope and examine every aspect of it and gloat at its short comings. Doesn't make this car bad, just makes some people realize that there is a reason it is only 80K.

I can't wait to see this article this time next year but with the word GT-R swapped with LFL

Looks like Nissan cut a few too many corners to keep the price low enough to meet their target sales and underestimated the fact that owners were going to treat them as a car to drive rather than as an investment to stare at.

Who cares? In about a year the LF-A will be the only game in town.

I keep reminding myself sarcasm right.

If this is the same white GT-R as I looked at at the dealership last year, it was already a used car owned by one of the Tennessee Titans.

They couldn't give that car away cause of the color.

-00J

Two words- Lexus LF-A.........

Sure it will cost way more but I think it will be just the opposite of the GTR. Better build quality/reliablity, better resale, better looking....

If the GTR is Godzilla then the LF-A has to be Gamera......lol

two words: nobody cares.

I think the Lexus LFL will be worse, think about it, Lexus has no experience in building super cars. Just between the amount of carbon fiber, and having a 9500rpm v10 engine very little of their already tested and proven designs will cross over. At least Nissan has built awd twin turbo v6 cars before.

Thanks Nissan, but for $74K MSRP I'd go with a 2010 Range Rover Sport SC. I'd say that is a much better vehicle value by far. What you get for the money is a real factor here...

LMAO!!!

range rovers are near THE BOTTOM on reliability lists!

Huh....wtf is this guy talking about? RR Sport....ha ha. Talk about unreliable and expensive. Rovers are one of the fastest depreciating cars on the road because of their issues. Hope you didn't buy one new.

"After a few GT-Rs blew their transmissions while being launched with heedless abuse by amateur goons (we launched like professional goons), Nissan backtracked, cited a technicality in the owner's manual that says all events while traction control is off are not covered by the warranty..."


this ONE sentence explains it all.

what can one expect when a highly sophisticated machine is allowed to be abused by a bunch of baboons!?

they even ADMITTED to being a bunch of "professional goons!" meaning they were even MORE serious at being mindless goons than the amateurs.

and that applied to only the tranny. how did the REST of the car endure? the rate of tire replacements also says a lot.

What irony. Here we all thought that the GTR was benchmarked against the 911 turbo when in reality, its benchmark was the 360 Ferrari. How clever of Nissan to build a car with Ferrari reliability for 1/3 the price and 5% of the panache and looks. It does clearly outperform the 360 Ferrari, though. Guess I'll have to stick with my 2010 911 turbo, boring, reliable and with significantly faster acceleration than the GTR.

The Nissan GT-R has issues but so does a Ferrari F-430 in comparison.
The Ferrari would have needed 3 clutches during this time period at 5000 a peace that's 15k...yes Ferrari clutches only last 10,000 miles! But if they also had to replace the flywheels its 2k a peace. so figure 15,000-21,000

It would have also had about 3 major 2000 dollar services...a Ferrari service changes all fluids, engine oil, tranny, differentials, and brake fluid. That is 6000 dollars

Thank god the F-430 uses chains and no longer requires a new engine belt at 30,000 miles like the old 360 did.

You would have went threw 3-6 sets of tires on the Ferrari as they only last about 5000-10000 miles. so that would be about 6000-12,000 in tires.

You would also need brake pads only as Ferrari uses carbon fiber brakes at about 1250 dollar a pair you are looking at another 2500 plus installation so about 3000 dollars on the brake job.

So add it all up and your F-430 would cost you $30,000 to $42,000 in regular routine maintenance provided that nothing else failed such as bushings, and broken unobtanium.

For the two geniuses who are 'experts' on RR Rover Sport stats... you might double check on the depreciation figures on the RR Sports. They are one of the best in their class. Bottomline -- If you could afford to own a RR Sport you'd buy one so fast your checkbook would catch on fire. And also, we own two 2006 Land Rovers and we have had ZERO problems with reliability, so not sure what you drive, but we love and recommend Land Rover. Good luck with your $80K Nissan...

Get a 2010 997 Turbo with the stuff you want on it and call it a day!