migs647

iTrader: (19)

Ok I know this is for Ralliart guys, but I have an MR and I want to chime in on some misconceptions...

+1. The SST software is designed to guess what the user is doing by analyzing attributes like torque, speed, brake pedal, gas pedal, etc. One of the BIG drawbacks of the SST is with the brake and gas both pressed at the same time... the transmission starts slipping. Because it is confused if you're accelerating or braking. So it starts engaging / disengaging. Pretty much you're slipping the tranny to hell. Keep in mind this DOES NOT apply to the MR SST Launch Control. They added that mode (must go through many steps to enable) to avoid this situation.

While I am not aware of the differences in the Ralliart SST vs the MR SST, I will say there are very few MR SST guys that have had issues. Seems to be Ralliart guys that are having all the issues. And the MR comes with 240whp factory. Most guys have Cobb AP and ECU Tunes. Most are putting down 300+whp. I know this is one example but a guy in Eugene, OR has a FP Green and other mods on his MR, an aggressive tune, and 25k+ miles. No symptoms yet. Still works as good as the day he purchased it.

So with all that being said, I gotta wonder why the Ralliart SST has more failures than the MR that comes with much more power factory? To me that means there are differences. Whether it's upgraded clutches, software programming, etc.

As you know didn't produce the SST. Getrag did, and a lot of the technology came from the GTR. The GTR transmission costs ~20k to replace, the SST transmission costs ~12k to replace. There is a few differences between them, but the general idea and parts are the same.

It's not pointless to bring up, because they are from the same technology and same company. And it's also worthy to note that the GTR has had many many transmission failures that Nissan has mostly declined to fix. Most of the GTR guys that have had failures have had to pay over $20k to have them replaced.

+1.

I would argue the opposite. There have been many less SST failures than the GT-Rs have had (at least publicly). Granted, the GT-R pushes much more power in factory form, but so far the SST in the MR has been a pretty solid transmission.

tipoytm

^ Very informative post good sir! Jazket, you need to do more research before reaching your own conclusions

migs647

iTrader: (19)

I want to point out the $12k to replace the SST is for the MR. I'm not sure on the ralliart pricing.

GPTourer

Not that it matters, but I thought it was Ricardo or Borg-Warner that builds the GT-R trans, not Getrag. Point is a lot of car companies go to someone else for transmissions, Aisin, Tremec, Borg-Warner, etc.

I don't see how any good can come of this because it involves fraud. Putting a car back to stock and then reporting it to the NHTSA so that Mitsu pays out money for a recall or a free trans is just fail. Man up and learn to deal with the consequences of modding a car or don't play.

And to the guy wanting to trade out of his car a year or so after having it. Well good luck with that on your next "good" non-Mitsu car. I can tell you after years in this business that is never going to work out unless you make it a point to never finance your vehicles for longer then 36 months and you always put 20% down. I mean you can do it anytime of course, but massive negative equity is a reality for any new car owner wanting out this soon.

migs647

iTrader: (19)

I stand corrected, the GR6 (2009 GT-R transmission) is built by Borg-Warner. The R34's transmission (V160) was built by Getrag. I thought Getrag was still building it because of this:

Either way, it doesn't take away the fact that Nissan has denied a lot of the warranty work on them claiming it was due to turning off VDC (which is needed to use launch control).

I don't agree necessarily it's fraud. Not with mitsubishi. They have a reputation of denying warranty claims that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE modified part. In order not to get trapped in that scenario it's often necessary to return it to stock. However, I do agree if you broke that part because of your own stupidity you should eat the cost, not

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

It's fraud no matter how you try to rationalize it.

migs647

iTrader: (19)

How is it fraud replacing a part that has nothing to do with the incident?? It's the consumer's car, they can take all the parts OFF if they want to. Doesn't mean it wasn't a manufacture defect and should still cover it but won't. I would like to point to webman's huge thread of giving him a run around on a "stock" car that was sold to him (with an aftermarket downpipe which he was unaware of). It should not take 9 months to get something fixed and threatening a lawsuit against .

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

Why would said part need to be removed unless the individual is legitimately concerned it could have caused the problem? Generally this "return it to stock" talk only comes up when there's a chance it's related.

migs647

iTrader: (19)

I know you haven't had too many 's so I'll excuse your ignorance to it, but for someone who has 13k posts on an evom forum, you should know this. has a large reputation of denying warranty work for aftermarket parts that have nothing to do with the part or system that failed. I have a friend that was denied by in Beaverton, OR (no longer in business) for a failed ECU because he had a catback. You and I both know the two have nothing to do with each other's longevity. Had he had a stock catback on, there would have been no denial.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

I'm well aware that Mitsubishi, along with many other manufacturers, takes a dim view of modifications. However, you're missing the point. If your engine pops and you have springs installed, why would you bother taking them off? Do you really think they'll blame the springs? Of course not but that is essentially what you're suggesting, that any and all modifications should be removed if they decide to blame one, which is wrong. If you want to modify your car, modify your car, don't try to hide it from Mitsubishi.

migs647

iTrader: (19)

I honestly wouldn't put it passed to deny because of springs. That is how bad they have got in some areas. They seem to think that any mods in view means there "could" have been other mods. If this was a different manufacture, I'd have no problems keeping my mods on... but has got really bad about it. I can't remember what major magazine it was that posted the new alert to all dealerships about Evo warranty. Basically all evos are considered guilty until proven innocent. I wish I saved that link... was a pdf. I don't know, just seems like a losing battle for the consumer.

AGAIN I completely agree that if you broke the part or put parts on that broke that part you should pay for it and not . But I don't think the consumer should be harassed for modding something that has nothing to do with the part which is very common.

(I used to have a really cool quote from a guy... Evo's have a 36 minute/36 mile warranty ... after that everything is considered "customer abuse".).

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

Part of why they have the attitude they do (paranoia) is because people try to convert the car back to stock before they come in.

migs647

iTrader: (19)

I agree. There is always people that ruin it for the others. The other part of that attitude is because they hardly have any money from their 4k cars sold each month.

boondoc

iTrader: (4)

So from what i understand about what migs said is that the SST as a whole is not the problem, it has to do with the clutches and TCU programming of the RA's version. I'm pretty sure Mitsu skimmed us on ours to keep the cost down which is expected. I have seen these COBB MR's pushing big numbers w/o issues which leads me to believe we have an inferior set up. Honestly it doesn't surprise me one bit and with the 09's being the first batch meaning we will see issues pop up from time to time whether abused or not, stock or modded. It sux but that is just the way it is. Knowing this i still dont regret buyin my RA or buyin a Mitsubishi as some here have stated, the car is great but with new, unproven technology you have to expect issues, major and/or small.

migs647

iTrader: (19)

Yah, again I don't know all the differences, I'm just point out the few I know of. And I'm pointing out a track record.

Ryan Gates bought a 2010 Sportsback (blue of course) a few months ago. Apparently they are going to modify it in a BIG BIG BIG way. It's being documented over on the other evo site.

Also I wanted to point out something cool that Bryan from GST performance found yesterday, after tweaking the SST tables a bit he could get an MR to hold 25psi through every single shift. Just goes to show what some software tweaking can do. https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/mi...-plot-sst.html