Automotive Unicorns

"E90M3" (e90m3) 08/10/2016 at 10:31 • Filed to: None

1

30

What makes a car a unicorn. Is it some common car with a very rare option, or is it something uncommon like an R63 AMG with very low production numbers. What are your thoughts and what are some unicorns?

I’m bored and I talking with my friend the other day about the R63 and we were trying to think of other unicorns.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > E90M3 08/10/2016 at 10:35

1

To be pedantic, I’d say it’s when it never makes it past the concept stage.

E90M3 > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/10/2016 at 10:38

2

Possibly, but I’d argue it had to actually exist and has to be on sale not in some limited numbers like a 1M. I get unicorns aren’t real, but as far as automotive unicorns go, I’d argue they actually exist in some minuscule numbers.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > E90M3 08/10/2016 at 10:41

2

I think we nee a new name for “unicorn” cars.

Future next gen S2000 owner > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/10/2016 at 10:46

0

Maybe something like “a 500 car”, something that denotes production volume for the entire model run ended up being under 1000 for a specific car or highly desirable option.

Example:

The R63 is a 500 car. You don’t ever see them.

TheHondaBro > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/10/2016 at 10:46

4

Someone yesterday suggested platypus.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/10/2016 at 10:47

0

To be frank, however, the difference between “doesn’t exist” and “almost doesn’t exist” is marginal in terms of “is the person you tell this to likely to call bullshit?” The implied calling bullshit is the making of a unicorn - in the sense that (almost) nobody in the modern age would ever claim to have seen a unicorn, but somebody in an earlier age might’ve.

In short, “unicorn” is fine. Don’t try to fix what isn’t broken.

MUSASHI66 > E90M3 08/10/2016 at 10:47

1

I say both - either a rare model like your R63, or a more common model with a rare option, like a manual on cars produced mostly with automatics. Or, just a very desirable car in stock for after all others have been destroyed.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > Future next gen S2000 owner 08/10/2016 at 10:48

0

http://oppositelock.kinja.com/someone-yester…

and 100 more > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/10/2016 at 10:49

1

We had a thread about this about a year ago or so...

I floated the term ”platypus” as an option - something that exists, but is a bit of an oddity and noteworthy for having seen one.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > TheHondaBro 08/10/2016 at 10:49

2

This is the new name. Oppo needs to know.

BeaterGT > E90M3 08/10/2016 at 10:50

2

Solstice GXP coupes? Manual G8 GXPs?

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/10/2016 at 10:53

0

By your own definition, we need a new word.

If someone said they’d seen a unicorn, I’d call bullshit. If they said they’d seen a Zonda or Huayra, I wouldn’t.

And claiming to see rare cars is not something of a bygone era. That said, people still claim to see unicorns and bigfoot...

Come at me bro, I’m in the mood for an argument :)

and 100 more > TheHondaBro 08/10/2016 at 11:03

0

Thank you. :)

Kent > E90M3 08/10/2016 at 11:03

3

I usually think of unicorns as cars that were equipped with an option that only a very small percentage of that model had. For example I think there were only 64 W8 VW Passats that came from the factory with a manual transmission in the U.S.

Another good example of a unicorn? A flash green metallic Volvo V70R with a 6-speed manual, 3rd row seat, and Atacama interior. Volvo enthusiasts refer to this car as the “trifecta” because it has those 3 very desirable options and is incredibly rare. So I would also say that sought after or rare color combos can make a car a unicorn as well.

and 100 more > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/10/2016 at 11:04

1

My contribution:

http://oppositelock.kinja.com/platypus-unpop…

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/10/2016 at 11:11

0

Somebody in past age says “I saw a unicorn”. 98% of people say “bullshit”. Somebody in modern age says “I saw a Stout Scarab”. 98% of people say “bullshit”. I wholly disagree that unicorn is an invalid word on that basis - particularly since it carries connotations of something literally magic. I will only concede that by that definition “something almost impossibly rare to the point it may not exist (in one’s state, country, etc.), and unique enough that it seems magical when you see it” does not apply to most cars people describe as unicorns.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/10/2016 at 11:23

0

I’d like to meet these 98% that call bullshit. I’ve certainly never met one, at least as far as I can remember.

Even if that’s the case, popular opinion doesn’t matter. What matters is the fact that the unicorn does not exist and the cars do. Therefore, unicorn=/=rare car. But this is the same thing I’ve just said, so we’ll leave that aside.

Next point, the unicorn still has a place in car slang, but there is a category that suits it better. The concept car. You can say you saw a picture of a unicorn, a model of a unicorn or a horse dressed up as a unicorn—you can’t truthfully say you saw a unicorn. Likewise with the concept car. You can say you saw a concept render, you saw an auto show display or you saw a test mule. But if someone says they saw a 2014 Chevy Code 130R on the road, that’s BS.

The rare car is best served by “platypus” or something of the sort. It’s an uncommon sight, kind of special, and it_actually_exists.

Dave the car guy , still here > MUSASHI66 08/10/2016 at 11:24

1

Answer this. Since my 2008 A3 3.2 is one of the roughly 2000 made of the quattro models for 4 yrs does it qualify as rare? From what Audi says, there are only 725 of my year world wide.

jasmits > MUSASHI66 08/10/2016 at 11:30

0

I almost bought an early BMW X5 for this one. Then I remembered it was still a BMW X5, unicorn or not.

Tapas > E90M3 08/10/2016 at 11:36

1

Manual Solstice GXP Coupe!

MUSASHI66 > Dave the car guy , still here 08/10/2016 at 11:39

0

It does qualify as rare, but afaik, there isn’t a huge demand for those, or a cult status, or any enthusiast desirability, so I would not call it a unicorn. I might be wrong though, I don’t hang on Vortex :)

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/10/2016 at 11:42

2

Contrariwise: I absolutely would call bullshit if somebody said they saw a Stout Scarab on the road, particularly around here. I would assume they saw something that superficially looked like one (say, a goggomobil) and demand SR20. Why? Because a Stout Scarab does not exist *here*, and to be seen on the road anywhere (a valuable car counted on one hand which is transported as little as possible) is a near total impossibility . Almost entirely not existing and not existing at all in certain areas are absolutely a kissing cousin to not existing at all, anywhere, and is certainly close enough for the purpose of rhetoric. Rhetoric admits exaggeration to a dissimilar type of object if the dissimilarity is irrelevant in most cases - and this would include the class “does not exist, but people used to think it did” compared to the class “does exist, but is so unspeakably rare that people question whether it does anymore”.

To sum up: any car that you strongly and legitimately doubt without proof that someone actually could have even seen is similar to an item which a man in a previous age would have strongly and legitimately doubted anyone to have seen without proof. Any further quibbles are nonsense - assuming that a rhetorical device must comport in all respects with what it is used to describe figuratively is the very essence of masturbation.

It’s overused. Fine. That doesn’t mean it isn’t conceptually or rhetorically useful. Saying you saw a platypus is not only completely unevocative but also nonsensical - because seeing a platypus in the wild almost anywhere is actually the same probability as seeing a unicorn: exactly zero.

“I saw a unicorn yesterday” - “Oh, you saw something majestic that you couldn’t possibly have seen because it doesn’t (or nearly) doesn’t exist and which has now captured your imagination?”

“I saw a platypus yesterday” - “Oh, you were off in Australia for no damn reason and saw a lumpy brown rare mutant freak?”

In short, fuck “platypus”. I’m not going to use it, because it sucks. It may describe better a lot of what people describe as unicorns, but it has no grace . Poor imagery.

MUSASHI66 > jasmits 08/10/2016 at 11:59

0

4.8 is? Those were awesome, like an X5M before those were a thing

nrj > Kent 08/10/2016 at 11:59

1

I had no idea that manual W8s were that rare. I’ve passed on an opportunity to buy 2 of them. Even knowing their rarity, I still probably wouldn’t have bought them, but it would have made it tempting.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/10/2016 at 12:09

0

I’m going to lump these all together. You wouldn’t expect to find a Platypus anywhere but Australia. However it’s a theoretical possibility. We have had plenty of non-native species, regardless of how long they survive. That would be akin to finding a Skyline or kei car in the USA. Improbable, but possible. No matter how remote the chances, I would argue that the key point is “possible” vs “impossible”, not the actual numbers. On something like a Skyline, there’s actually a pretty good chance of seeing one, but that’s still closer to the platypus than the unicorn. With the Scarab, I’d say the chance of seeing one in the USA is still probably greater than seeing a platypus, and therefore still closer to the platypus than the unicorn.

In short, the odds of seeing a platypus are also extremely low, and also subject to regional constraints. Being thus, it is still a better match for the rarest car on the planet, as no matter how low the odds are of finding one, it’s still closer than to those of seeing a unicorn.

And you can fuck what you want, but you’re going to have to take that one up with the Aussi’s :)

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/10/2016 at 12:31

0

I completely understand your argument, I just don’t find it convincing. The term is about people making claims about what they saw, so fundamentally it’s a term that needs to have relevance with people and their reactions to things. A metaphysical term, not one with absolute 100% biological 1:1 physical similarity of existence. You’re focused on the argument that might be had with a car guy about whether or not you could have seen something after the “I believe you” or “I don’t believe you” moment, with both sides having access to research. “No, this says that they weren’t even sold anywhere but Szechuan Province” “Yeah, but there are some Chinese people in {town}”. With respect, the term needs to evoke that sense of “I thought I’d never see one of those - wow”, and “platypus” does not measure up.

If you’re describing it to a non-car person or even a moderately involved car person, the idea, “there are only five in the world and there aren’t supposed to be not in museums” and “I’ve been looking for one like that for twenty years and never seen one” are both adequately expressed by “unicorn”. Nobody ever in a poetic or any other sense headed into an enchanted wood for a glimpse of a platypus. There is nothing of a pleasant dream quality there, which makes it an awkward metaphor unless you’re telling someone you saw a patina’ed Renault Fuego.

I can appreciate saying “in actual physical numbers it’s more like a platypus”, but in every other descriptive measure (unless the car in question is an actual physical freak) the descriptive term falls flat or features detracting attributes. To insist it needs to be a numbers/limited real existence based term to the detriment of all other description is, let’s not mince words, sperging.

Mmm, cloaca.

AfromanGTO > E90M3 08/10/2016 at 12:34

0

A lot of cars seem like they are becoming unicorns. I would say the G8 GXP with a manual is an Unicorn. Along with all Solstice coupes not just the manuals are GXPs. What about a stock Evo or STI? I barely see any GTOs or SS anymore. What about 1st generation Lightnings? Would you consider a Rousch Stage 3 Convertible Mustang or those red 04 STis with white stripes from the turner a Unicorn?

jasmits > MUSASHI66 08/10/2016 at 12:36

1

No, the 3.0. I mean it’s not a terrible car but to me it sits awkwardly between a wagon and a proper 4x4, it loses the driving dynamics but doesn’t really add much capability(especially in comparison with an awd wagon).

I bought an early 90s 4Runner instead, to compliment my E36. While I would prefer a BMW 3.0 straight 6 to the 3.0 V6 in the Runner and there’s no argument that the X5 would’ve driven better on road(90+% of it's use if I'm honest with myself), if I’m buying an suv it better have a proper transfer case.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/10/2016 at 12:52

0

I get the “never think I’ll see one” from the platypus, but I’m DEFINITELY not everybody,

Dunno—I’d probably look for one but again I’m not everybody,

OK, here we go again... the meat. How it appears to me is 0.000000001%>0%, therefore more similar to platypus. How it appears to you is 0.000000001% rounds to 0%. As far as detracting attributes go, substitute “unique”. And anyway like I said the unicorn has a much better fit elsewhere in automotive culture. Sperging... is fun.

And lastly, LOL. Literally.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer 08/10/2016 at 12:57

2

I’m provisionally okay with terming rare “WTF” encounters as platypus, because being shocked and very confused is different than having a vision . Usually. Of course, in the case of something that shouldn’t even exist anymore, I’d say “dodo”. Which yes, extinct, but by the same token as unicorn>platypus, is more evocative than “coelecanth”.

Also, by the appearance of concept cars at car shows and museums, that’s akin to knowing exactly what forest to go to, which trees to make offerings to the dryads at, and being guaranteed a unicorn, because it has a known way to be seen and a natural habitat. Concept car as unicorn is a poor fit to me for that reason.

All of this comes out of the difference between what a word describes and a more broad sense of what it *means*. Atomizing the English language to try to bug-on-a-pin everything within destroys a lot of its ability for imagery - but it’s easier to teach how to type than how to write. So to speak.