Which companies have the most cars in the game? Find out here.

[imported_eSZee]

Luminis, you're wasting your time.

 

[Populuxe]

You seem to think I'm either not understanding what you're saying, or willfully disagreeing. Neither are true. We have a difference of opinion on what that chassis and body represent. You say it's a component of a car. I say it is the car. Unfinished, certainly, but it is the car. Engines, brakes, suspension, steering, interior, etc. Those are components. To me, it just seems common sense. Porsche designs, engineers and manufactures that chassis for their own use. Then RUF works out an agreement for Porsche to build a small run of those chassis to sell to them without a VIN. You don't have to dig deep to figure out the origin of a RUF. Your own eyes will tell you that it's a Porsche.

This may surprise you, but I've enjoyed this conversation. The ability to discuss and argue something with civility and respect is rare on the internet. I've read your posts in much of the rest of this forum, and I've enjoyed reading what you have to say. I quite often agree with you. I believe we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one subject.

 

[buickgnx88]

What about something like the '04-'06 Pontiac GTO? Would you call it a Holden Monaro? It was built for Pontiac by Holden, given a Pontiac VIN, and given Pontiac-specific body parts. However underneath, it is exactly the same as a Holden Monaro. It was designed, engineered, and built by Holden, yet was used by Pontiac. See where he's going?

 

[CWR63]

If I removed RUF from the VW Group, that still leaves them with 100 cars in the game come May 22nd - still the largest. I only included those Saleen and Shelby vehicles that were distinctly Ford models (models just using some Ford components didn't make the count) and were defined by whether they had, or would have, been sold at Ford dealerships.

If I were to be more OCP about this, I would dismiss all duplicates from the list that usually occur in the R1-R3 portions of the game's inventory - of the 6 Australian Falcons on the list of Fords, there are 4 which are no more than paint variations.

My take on the RUF argument is when you remove Porsche's contribution to a RUF, are you left with a car, or are you left with a pile of parts? When I removed Ford's contribution from certain Shelbys and Saleens, I still had a recognizable car and so those models were left off the Ford list.

Now I have to eliminate those race duplicates - for all manufacturers...okay, I've edited those changes to the first post and the only real effect is that Toyota and Honda swapped places at 7th and 8th.

 

[imported_eSZee]

What about something like the '04-'06 Pontiac GTO? Would you call it a Holden Monaro? It was built for Pontiac by Holden, given a Pontiac VIN, and given Pontiac-specific body parts. However underneath, it is exactly the same as a Holden Monaro. It was designed, engineered, and built by Holden, yet was used by Pontiac. See where he's going?

Those are still both GM. So they would fall under GM.
Not the same thing, not even close.

 

[Populuxe]

Those are still both GM. So they would fall under GM.
Not the same thing, not even close.

Exactly.

 

[Luminis]

You seem to think I'm either not understanding what you're saying, or willfully disagreeing. Neither are true. We have a difference of opinion on what that chassis and body represent. You say it's a component of a car. I say it is the car. Unfinished, certainly, but it is the car. Engines, brakes, suspension, steering, interior, etc. Those are components. To me, it just seems common sense. Porsche designs, engineers and manufactures that chassis for their own use. Then RUF works out an agreement for Porsche to build a small run of those chassis to sell to them without a VIN. You don't have to dig deep to figure out the origin of a RUF. Your own eyes will tell you that it's a Porsche.

I wouldn't even disagree with that. The similarity between RUFs and Porsche aren't coincidental, obviously. But, as I said, this thread is entirely about technicalities, about official relationships between companies. And while the origin of a RUF is easy to spot, it's technically no Porsche - and that's what we're debating

Otherwise, I would ask that, say, Ferraris are removed from the FIAT company's total. It'd be the same argument, just turned upside down: Those cars share little in common, but belong together despite that. RUFs and Porsche have a lot in common, but don't belong together despite that.

This may surprise you, but I've enjoyed this conversation. The ability to discuss and argue something with civility and respect is rare on the internet. I've read your posts in much of the rest of this forum, and I've enjoyed reading what you have to say. I quite often agree with you. I believe we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this one subject.

First off, thanks

Also, I'd like to point out that I agree with you; I like debating and the conversation was a good one. No mudslinging, no hard feelings, the way it should and the way it is enjoyable. I just think that the topic is a bit worn out and, well, frankly doesn't allow for a good debate - unless there was a thread dedicated to the question whether RUF should be considered a manufacturer by the German government or not... And I don't know whether the staff would like that

 

[Populuxe]

I just think that the topic is a bit worn out and, well, frankly doesn't allow for a good debate

Agreed. I'm happy to drop it and move on to something a little more interesting.