fungoolie

I'm confused now as to what the differences are between the 09 and 10 brakes for the $5K difference in the conversion..... And if the main change between the 10 and 11 brakes is just a caliper spacer then what do you change on the 09 to go to 11?. Calipers, pads and spacer? Can't imagine that if they're charging $5K for just the spacer that a caliper and pad change will add "only" another $5K. At the drive day Mizuno told me that a spacer was all that was required but I don't recall that I had mentioned it was from an 09 to an 11. He would probably have assumed a 10 to an 11. What's interesting is that when I bought my 09 I was told that a complete brake pad and rotor change would cost $20K for front and rear brakes, it appears now that if you wanted to go down the OEM path it will cost you no extra to convert to the MY11 brakes than what it would have cost to just re-rotor and pad your 09 back to original brakes! And the increased cooling is primarily due to the increased surface area and (thermal) mass of the rotor. There is increased braking force for the same amount of brake pressure because of extra leverage due to the centre of friction being further away from the rotating axis but this does not improve temperature performance because the same energy is being absorbed by the brakes anyway you cut it. You are actually correct in a way about the "time" aspect even though you didn't state it clearly because if the pad length is the same yet the rotor is increased in circumference the size of the angular arc the pad covers is actually reduced therefore any point on the swept part of rotor surface actually spends a greater percentage of the rotation period time exposed to the air and less time under the pad undergoing friction and warming up thus improving cooling efficiency. It's effectively a change in the duty cycle. It's not hard to visualise if you just exaggerate things up to bike tyre size etc for it to make more sense.

From my understanding once you've owned something OS for more than 12 months which for a personal import has to be the case then they will value the car based on what it is worth in Australia, not what you paid for it less depreciation..You only pay taxes on purchase price less depreciation if the car is less than 12 months old but if you haven't owned it for more than 12 months you cant bring an R35 in. Kind of catch 22 really....

These are refurbished rims not new. Still good value though...

There was a reality car show waiting to happen with this build. Should have mentioned it a network! Boyd Coddington eat your heart out.....

So if you were going down the R888 path and didn't have the 10.5" rims for the front you'd still go 285 R888s all round? They may be too wide for the front but at least you'd have the optimum fitment for the rears?

You're thinking of the first GTR test on Aussie top Gear. The Pommy version 09 GTR wasn't speed limited.

^ +2 Cheers Blah Blah its just that I use a gross up rate of 2.0647 (assuming GST Input Credit entitlement) and on a $125K car at 20% stat rate with FBT at 46.5% I still only get $24K. And apologies for not mentioning the gradual phasing in of the new Statutory rates. I guess whats most important though is that the message gets through for the OP go see a professional to discuss his options so he can tailor something specific for his circumstances assuming he wants to still go down this CRAZY path.... Joking.... Nup serious....

I assumed the OP didn't own a business hence why I suggested a novated lease as the best method with which to own the vehicle. Not sure where you got FBT of 31K. Since the may budget the kms travelled have become irrelevant and the % value of the vehicle that FBT is levied on is now fixed at 20% and you pay FBT at your marginal rate on that amount if you utilise the contributions method. For a vehicle of this expense the OP will be dropping his taxable income significantly in order to make payments so may be below the 47% bracket as well as increasing his Family Tax benefit and Child Care rebates and allowances. You have to take all of these other effects into consideration when assessing how much the vehicle ends up costing you.

Basically a car lease is just a car loan. What makes it a lease vs a hire purchase agreement has more to do with the taxation treatment of the payments. You would just be drawing down more funds to fund your car purchase. A hire purchase agreement is a loan where you only claim the interest but you get to claim depreciation on the car. This is only a useful instrument if you can purchase the vehicle for company use. This option is not available if you are a salaried employee. A car lease is a loan where you can claim the principal AND interest payments against your tax thus effectively deducting the principal. On the other side you don't get to claim depreciation however the principal should be the equivalent to the depreciation if you choose a residual that is equal to what the car is worth after the lease period has elapsed. The bank gets to depreciate the vehicle with a car lease. As you can see if you choose a residual that is lower than what the car is worth at the end of the lease period you actually get larger deductions than what you would have had if you simply depreciated the vehicle. The downside is that you have larger payments because you actually build equity in the vehicle as you pay it back faster than it depreciates. Upside is that you receive that equity back when you sell the vehicle and the "profit" (meaning what you get when you sell the car over what you pay out on the loan) is not taxable. This means you effectively converted the equity built in the vehicle from taxable to tax paid dollars. As a salaried employee you can utilise a novated lease to own a car using this method. You make the payments out of your pre-tax salary. The only tax you pay (as of the May budget) is a constant. It is levied at your marginal rate on 20% of the vehicle value per annum (The FBT value). Any payments made towards running the vehicle (including lease payments) over and above this amount is all out of your pre tax income. Why don't we all go for a 0% residual? Well this would be great if the govt allowed it because it would mean that we could effectively pay off the car with pretax dollars in its entirety (FBT component notwithstanding) and then get it all back tax free when we flog the car. The govt will only let us go as low as 65% for a one year lease, 55% for a two year and 45% for a three year from memory. If you own a car and you do not run a business, the novated lease is the cheapest way to own it due to the tax benefits afforded to us. What other non business asset does the govt effectively let us use pretax dollars to purchase part of it's capital cost? Not even our principal place of residence. The car is meant to be the security for the loan but I've found that banks still like to see something else besides the car as security even if you go for an accelerated payment low residual lease. I think this is a symptom of people who don't think this through properly and opt for a high residual in order to minimise their payments and thereby increase the hurt when the lease is up and they find themselves owing more than the vehicle is worth. They lose the tax benefits described above as well as have to find money which they probably don't have to pay the lease out. Banks cannot rely on predictions of vehicle's worth three years out. Because of this you would have to get the lease from your property investment lender who already has the registered first mortgage over your property. Going back to your first post, keep in mind that the hardest thing to do in this game is to get started. You have already done so. Just because it came easy doesn't mean you can repeat the process just as easily next time if you choose to sell the house to buy the car and turn your $170K into $80K in 4 years time. Markets and asset cycles are fickle things and you might find yourself waiting 5 years or more for advantageous conditions again. Just something to keep in mind if you can be swayed on the decision to go now rather than wait. (In two years time you can get yourself a nice pre-loved MY09 for around $90K and your property(s) equity may well be approaching $300K if you continue making payments into your investment loans. 2 years isn't that long. Some food for thought....

Welcome to the community. God I sound like a born again Christian! Mind you once you've been brainwashed by the intoxicating ride you may as well be stuck in a cult.... Love the username

I guess you will have to do your sums and you haven't really provided enough info for anyone to provide any form of concrete advise. That being said I am also not holding myself out to be an financial adviser and you should consult a licensed adviser before making any decisions. Obviously selling your real estate and buying a car of equivalent value to your equity in your property will set you on a path of losing net worth cf gaining as you currently are (not counting the income from your work). One thing you didn't mention was what the value of the property is. You only mention you have $170K equity. I presume that because you are renting and also own an investment property that the investment property is significantly more valuable than the house you are renting. If you really have your heart set on the R35 and the discussion here isn't whether or not you should buy the car but rather what is the most effective and cheapest way to own that car, then I would recommend, (assuming your L/V Ratios are adequate), to keep the property, use the investment property (and other property you kind of mentioned) as security and lease the car. If you have enough equity in the property you must be positive geared by now meaning the property is cashflow positive. This extra income will assist you in making the lease payments on the car. The car payments will be fully deductible beyond the FBT value of the vehicle so you have some tax effectiveness in your car loan. If things remain relatively stable then your vehicle will be depreciating approx $15K per annum but you will be getting around $5K back on that in tax assuming you structure the lease properly. This net $10K loss should more than be compensated by by the $25 - $30K?? per annum you believe the property will appreciate. On top of this you have to add the increased interest you will be paying (~$10K per annum extra due to the car lease). Speak to a financial adviser who you provide access to all the facts and figures and I think some basic modelling will show that you will still be better off owning the property just as you are better off owning the property whilst you are renting assuming you can manage the cashflows. And as far as your comment about getting gains without selling?? Your statement is very common and always comes from people early in their investment life. They see the potential capital gains but they dont see much income because it is all spent paying the loan interest.. This is my answer when this question is posed. Heres a scenario. You have expenses of say $50K per annum. You own investments earning you (income not capital gains) say $100K per annum. Do you think your motivation will be to sell those investments to "realise" the gain or perhaps more likely be constantly on the lookout for more investments to buy? Trust me you will be in this position down the track. Most importantly, you're 28, Good on you for doing what you've been doing to date. If you choose to go down this path don't lose track of what you started out to do. Don't let the GT-R be something that breaks your investment habit. Moderation is the key. Enjoy some and invest some..... It keeps you from running off the rails down the track.. (Also when you have enough in your super consider a self managed super fund and buy or transfer one of your properties into it). The tax benefits are significant.

Wow, those results are so definitive. Very much the case of holding back something when first developed so you have something to market when the new model is released. We'll have to call it the new "Apple iGT-R" Based on this and the availability of the Cobb TCM software one would think we can get old and new GTRs launcing relatively similarly and giving identical acceleration figures.

Yeah why would someone own a gun? Maybe because they enjoy sporting shooting or to control feral animals on their property. Go figure! But I'm probably a thousand times more likely to die at the hands of an immature dumbster driving an overpowered car recklessly than some nutjob with a gun. Is there a valid reason other than for recreational purposes to own a car with far more power than is required to simply get from A to B? I think not but I'll defend my right to do so. It was refreshing whilst over in the US recently to watch an ad for a car which showed it just laying rubber for a full 30 seconds. How many years ago was it when we could watch the same here? I think some posters on this forum won't stay laughing at the US for much longer because whilst we may be looking in at the yanks and ridiculing their strange ways, the advent of the new draconian hoon laws and mega fines for tiny infractions of traffic laws in Australia makes me feel there's far more critical eyes looking in at us as a community.....It's this mentality of, "Well I don't care for it much so you shouldn't either" that will make us the most unbearable nanny state in existence..

There is no 5K service. It must have been an xx months one? At least they aren't too pedantic on this from the looks of it... I wouldn't know. I do 25000 kms a year... Oh and there are alternatives to the Nissan Fluids. Have a look at Willall fluids if you're happy to try something different. Some NHPCs will use them with their blessing apparently.

Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong. But short of fluids sitting around for years I can't imagine that trans fluid in your GR6 is going to deteriorate measurably in the time period that we are talking. Engine oils might be a different matter especially if the trips have all been short and the motor not warmed up properly to evaporate off the water and acids. If mine had only done 5000 kms and it was 18 months old and had never been very hot as in seen a racetrack the only reason I'd be changing it out is to maintain my warranty and service record.

Nope its 18 months or 30,000 whichever comes first so Nissan will change it no matter what. If you do kms they would have inspected your fluid at 20K and found it to be OK otherwise they would have changed it then meaning the next inspection would be at 40K and mandatory change at 50K if it checks out OK at 40K. I wouldn't be too fussed either way because a couple years ago the trans fluid change interval for JDM delivered cars went up to 60K. Can't imagine there would be any reason why ours can't be the same.

And for many years thats how limits were set. They'd measure how fast the general population would travel along the road and set the speed at that which 85% traveled below. Logic being that the vast majority of people have an innate ability to assess the risk and set their speed accordingly. It worked well but didn't do much for the revenue raising side of things. Hence also why they keep edging the tolerances on speeding lower and also keep lowering limits on roads that have not materially changed in years. Well if travelling 5 KPH over doubles your risk of accident as the TAC loves to keep telling us, all these roads that have had their limits reduced by 10 or 20 KPH should have seen a quartering or 1/16th of the accident rate...I think not. But we wont be seeing those statistics from MUARC or TAC now will we...But I bet revenue from speeding fines increased exponentially as you start heading into the meat of that revenue bell curve. Speaking of hypocrisy... I'm reminded of the time when suburban limits arbitrarily dropped to 50 from 60 a few years back and a mate who I was a passenger with got booked at 58 in a 50 zone literally 3 months after the new limits came in. Initially he just took it but I just had to give the officer a serve when he started getting all sanctimonious by telling us how the residents were all sick and tired of "you people speeding" (at 60) up and down that road. I laughed... Wow, drop the limit by 10 KPH and suddenly that steady stream of traffic that had always been doing 60KPH past their houses was suddenly obnoxious and antisocial?? I asked him if he felt any remorse for all the years up to that point 3 months previous that HE also traveled up and down that same road at 60KPH scaring the poor residents witless and risking murdering so many innocents. He gave me some robotic innane answer that indicated he had not even grasped the point I was trying to make so then I rephrased and asked him if he in any way felt even slightly hypocritical given that up to three months earlier literally no-one, not even him, would have even questioned traveling up that road at 60 kph...But what had changed? NOTHING! Roads were just as wide, houses didn't move any closer to the road, kids didn't suddenly start riding their bikes more recklessly, nothing of the sort. Not even the "law abiding" pious people on this forum would have questioned doing 60 up that road...But straight after that universal change they'd seemingly want to string you up for doing what they themselves had been doing for years! I hope you saints are all traveling everywhere at 40 KPH in case you have an accident because it's inevitable one day that we will also drop to that limit so in order to be able to live with yourself when the govt decides that 50 KPH is too fast you'd better be doing it already to allay the guilty conscience you will surely suffer when you get told you were being so reckless all these years.

Why is defending yourself in order to cop a more lenient decision contempt? I have a colleague who used the defence that 40+ over on an outer suburban road at 2am on a weeknight without any other people in sight wasn't as bad as doing it during peak hour and the magistrate saw the logic in the argument and reduced his "automatic" loss of licence to a fine and 6 points. Or if I've read this wrong and you're arguing that telling a judge he's an idiot after he's done such a thing is contempt then Trozzle is dead right. If on the other hand you're telling him what a good job he just did, ummmm I can't imagine that would be contempt....

Sorry Martin, I left the vid camera behind and my phone was nearly dead. As they say in the classics...Spewin'....

You wont believe this. I drove past at exactly 4:08 when you posted this!! My phone log doesn't lie. I almost dropped in but was running late for an appointment....Did look sweet in the late arvo sun..

Do it Munro! Busting to see what a nice tune will net on these new ones. And agreed on the colour. You always had a soft spot for blue didn't you.....

Why'd you go for the optional super silver when you bought the car Seb? Oh and it was more impressive watching your loosely termed "course car" tearing up wickhams hill than 90% of the competitors!

What if the purchase price of the vehicle overseas is still cheaper than the valuation over here after taking depreciation into account? Can you still choose to use the lesser of the two?

He doesn't have to. I've driven both and what I expected to be the case based on what I had read etc turned out to be exactly how it was. "Better" is easy to judge once you have the criteria to judge against and when those criteria are all about performance the motoring journalists generally get it right personal biases aside. "More fun" is completely different and totally up to personal opinion and what gets your rocks off. The only thing the GTS did "better" is do cool drifts and consume rear tyres doing burnouts. That's definitely fun for me initially but only because I don't normally get the car or place to do it. I imagine if I had a car that was capable of that I would do it a bit and then stop after a while as it gets expensive and probably boring and hard to do often without getting your car impounded. Disconnect the front wheels and as shown by the video elsewhere on this forum you could get the GTR to do that stuff as well. Other than that, with the GTS the rest of the time, you're driving something that makes you feel totally detached from the car and the road you're driving on compared with the GTR. So when you're not making rear tyre smoke it's no where near as much fun..... But that's just me....Like comparing a Harley with a Jap bike really....People buy both for different reasons...

I still dont get this wank about how the GTR is so "technological" and the GTS and others aren't. All usually (misguidedly) based on the dashboard display which from what you're saying is as high tech on the GTS as it is on the GTR. GTS has traction and stability control and lots of computers as well. Only thing lacking in comparison is a torque vectoring diff. The ATTESA system has been around since the first GTR and last time I looked Ferraris and Porsches all had electronic aids helping distribute power to all 4/2 wheels. Yet no-one accuses Ferrari of having no soul or being tech overkill because of this. The more I read the more think the belief is that noise+ oversteer=soul and jap = soul-less. Well on that basis my 460 XC coupe must be the most emotionally inspiring car in the world.. Shit yeah it's fun..That's if you can keep your licence and car long enough driving like that on our roads. But it's also so much fun feeling that incredible out of this world slingshot when you power the GTR out of a corner flat knacker! Whatever floats your boat. Get yourself a midpipe if noise is what's lacking in your GTR. After years of similar reporting there's too much confirmational bias in this argument now for it to be balanced anymore. GTS isnt slow because of lack of electronics. Its slow because its a big tall 2 wheel drive compromised family car ....