gengar

Oh, please. Rarity is a relative term. Heck, there is a vehicle that has annual worldwide production 1/30th of your 1500/yr and I don't think anyone considers it particularly rare. I've ridden in one 6 times already this year, I think.


Read the thread, as I already did. The rarity of the car certainly had no bearing on my purchase.


I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

LexFather

http://ask.cars.com/2008/01/new-cars-sold-i.html

Just counting cars — not trucks or SUVs — Automotive News Data Center reports that there were 7,884,601 cars sold in 2007. There were 8,269,351 trucks and SUVs sold, making for a total of 16,153,952 new vehicles sold in 2007. Compared to the 2006 calendar year, overall sales were down 2.5%, with car sales down 3% and truck sales down 1.9%.


So again, 1,500 GT-Rs or any car, is not rare? With nearly 8 million cars sold and over 16 million vehicles sold in 2007.

1,500 is not rare?

What is rare then?

Even a popular luxury car like the ES 350, which sold 75,000+ cars is RARE, when you think that is what less that 1% of all new cars sold?? We might THINK we see tons of them (and of course that depends greatly on WHERE we live and shop/eat etc) and it is not rare.

So 1,500 is what, .002% of 8 million? (my math might be off!)

gengar

You're just saying the same thing I said in my last post: It's all relative. The annual production isn't as relevant when talking about car rarity, because most of us all see several thousand cars a day. That's the point I was making when talking about other things that are produced far more "rarely" than 1500/yr, yet not being considered rare whatsoever (in my case it was something even in the same related class - a vehicle).

Dave600hL

The only issue here is supply and demand, the demand for the GTR will die after a year or so if they were to produce say 3000 cars a year, that is the only reason why they are only producing 1500 cars a year so that they don't get stuck with dead stock!

GlobeCLK

iTrader: (5)

IMO everyone lives in different areas with different sightings. The majority of us see Camrys and Accords everyday and those are certainly not rare (judging by both the sales figures and sightings). However, someone who lives in Newport Beach or near the Car and Coffee Meet might see Ferraris on a daily basis, while only driving by one riced out Civic a day. To that person, a Riced out Civic is rare, and a Ferrari is not.

Hence, to speak about "rarity" for cars, I think the import figure is probably the only thing that can be accurate for the entire market in question (1500/yr in the US in this case).

If my neighbor gets a GTR, I will think it's one of the most common vehicles I see. But oddly enough it might only be one of the 30-something GTRs in California! (if Mike's math is right lol)

btw my Vote goes to the GTR. There are people who will buy the M3 just because it's a fast BMW and it attracts the ladies. People who spend 70k+ on a Nissan is definitely looking for performance. (well most of the time.) (probably.)

Tekknikal

a couple things for gengar-

1. no denying the fact that the gt-r will be more exclusive than the m3, is-f, c63, and many other cars. no matter how you feel about it or what that may mean.

2. the degree of driver involvement and requirements on the driver does not necessarily translate to more or less fun- which is the bottom line. the gt-r has been praised for its accurate steering among other things. as an overall sports/gt car, its unquestionably seen as being as good as its price. if its steering ruined the experience, it would not be cast in that light. when it comes to fun, there are many other factors involved besides how much work the driver has to do. no offense but it appears that perhaps you havent driven very many sports cars for you to be making these sort of comments?

combined with your sig, it appears to me that your viewpoint seems to be based on bias as well as a lack of experience.

DASHOCKER

iTrader: (2)

I hear there will be an Infiniti version of this GT-R. I would wait to see what that car looks like.. The GT-R drivetrain and platform seems to be killer for sure.

RocketGuy3

iTrader: (1)

Definitely go with the GT-R.

The GT-R and the IS350 would make a hell of a couple. Or are you selling the IS350? ... Well, either way.

gengar

This was exactly my point about being relative. I disagreed with the assertion that production of 1500/yr makes it a car that we'll see only "every couple of months". As I said, there are plenty of cars that sell less than 1500/yr - or around that amount - that plenty of us see more frequently than that.

The debate on whether 1500/yr is truly rare was really just an offshoot of that initial response, and not something that I care that much about. I must admit it garnered some interesting discussion though, in terms of how people qualify rarity.


Is this a "couple things for me" or a "couple things I said"? Because I stated in my first post in this thread that the GT-R will have lower production that the M3. I just wanted to point that out, in case you haven't actually read what I said and are just conjuring up imaginations about what I said.

Which is subjective, and I have also already stated this. Of course "drivers" all look for different aspects of the car to blow their hair back. Obviously, as evidenced by this thread and others, some people apparently prefer less driver involvement even in a driver's car. And apparently, as evidenced by threads all over automotive forums on the internet, fun is determined by numbers on a piece of paper. One of my coworkers has probably never driven his 430 Spider over 90mph (or with the top up, no matter the weather, for that matter). To each their own. Fun is entirely subjective.

It has also drawn various criticisms in reviews. In fact, Autoweek opposes your statement, saying they didn't like the steering as it was too soft (although noting that this makes the GT-R a better DD... commentary that I hope will generally be reserved for compromise cars like the IS-F). The driving experience has also been described as "detached" (Autocar), like a "videogame" such as Gran Turismo (Automobile Mag), and having too much interference from stability control mechanisms (Best Motoring), referring to a track test when artificial understeer was induced during cornering - which Mizuno even admitted was "intentional", as a "safety mechanism".

As much as you try to attack me and dismiss my opinion, it is not like there are not reviews from which I have gathered my current opinion - that the GT-R is going to be much like Skylines past: uninvolving to drive. That makes the car not fun to me. You may disagree and be completely reasonable in doing so - and in the future, hopefully without having to personally attack me in order to do so.

In a similar vein, I suppose I should assume - based on your sig - that you have never even driven a car (except for a very short GT-R test), and therefore state that your opinion is worthless? "No offense", of course.

Please spare the reckless personal attacks. Your defensiveness is getting the better of you.

speedflex

Can you look that word up in a dictionary and let us know what you mean by it because I can't see how you're using it here.

"Uninvolving" in the sense that the driver is not involved in the driving experience? That's hard to believe. See my post above of the video from the Autocar track test and see if that driver is "uninvolved".

Maybe you mean not as challenging? I don't know... you'll have to explain.

gengar

You know, you could just look up "involving" in the dictionary. And then, if you really need to, look up the "un-" prefix. Or, you could also use the context - of the reviews, which I clearly stated helped me to form my current opinion - to understand exactly what I mean.

speedflex

Well, "uninvolving" doesn't show up in any dictionary of the English language I can find so I asked you. After all you should be able to explain your position better than me trying to research it.

How did such international cult enthusiasm develop around a car which is "uninvolving" to drive?

I take you to mean that the GT-R is too easy to drive fast. Unlike a Porsche, (which has a tendency to persistently understeer and slip its tail out) which demands more driver concentration. That could mean that the Porsche is more challenging and requires a truly seasoned driver to push it to the limit than a driver with the GT-R.

But that doesn't make the GT-R "uninvolving" (???) to drive. It just makes it less demanding of the driver as the Porsche. And for the record... I'm not talking about specs or numbers on paper.

gengar

Which is why I gave you very clear instructions on looking up "involving" and the "un-" prefix, not to mention gave you plenty of references alluding to the uninvolving nature of the GT-R - which, of course, you have ignored here just as you did in the other thread. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are, in fact, capable of reading and following those instructions, and are just being mouthy so the moderators will warn us off again.

P.S. Considering there is a cult following for the Mustang, I'm not sure the same for the GT-R is implicitly saying much.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

errr... guys, gtr vs m3 here, am i missing something?

speedflex

Well, gee why should I have to do homework to figure out what the heck you're saying. Never mind. I'm done talking to a brick wall.