GTP Cool Wall: 2001 BMW M3 GTR Road Spec

[MatskiMonk]

Steve McQueen is no longer cool, because he can no longer Steve McQueen anymore, and I can't Steve McQueen at all.

 

[Albert E]

My father had one of these beauties, he loved and enjoyed the car so much that my mother would say that he was married to the car than her at times. The time he spent cleaning the car and maintaining the car would get to her at time. But she got over it when she found out why he got the car in the first place. He got the car because it reminded him of her every time he drove, cleaned and maintained the car. "A clean smooth piece of work that always turned him on when he looked at her" Though I fell in love with the car the first time I got to drive it when I was nine, from then on I was a BMW man.

 

[Famine]

Yes it is. Yes they are. Yes they are. And you just defined them as such.

Establish any of this, please.

You've been beating this same drum for a long time now and there are those who will automatically agree with you due to your status here, but such assertions are ridiculous.

Whether or not anyone agrees with me is irrelevant, as is my "status".

It seems you are attempting to exert some sort of existentialism here but it's incredibly wonky.

Not at all - merely pointing out that something that cannot be used for the function that it is designed for no longer fits the description of that type of object.

Is a gun you cannot fire a firearm, or a mere objet d'art?

Your definition of the word "car" is admirably unique, but unfortunately needlessly complex and contrary.

Really? It seems rather simple from where I'm sitting. It's a self-propelled vehicle with three or more wheels.

For once in your life, just give it a rest.

What an extraordinarily aggressive and unnecessary sentence.

Perhaps come up with a reasonable and rational argument for your counter-position rather than railing against me and my "status" for an opinion you don't agree with. Or not ask questions you know that you aren't going to like the answer to?

 

[Tyger]

Dictionary.com:

car1

[kahr]


noun
1.
an automobile.
2.
a vehicle running on rails, as a streetcar or railroad car.
3.
the part of an elevator, balloon, modern airship, etc., that carries the passengers, freight, etc.
4.
British Dialect. any wheeled vehicle, as a farm cart or wagon.
5.
Literary. a chariot, as of war or triumph.
6.
Archaic. cart; carriage.
Origin

I think it's safe to say that in this context, we are looking at "an automobile". And I've yet to see any definition of an automobile as something which is widely available or has a specific production number, or isn't a concept model, or a homologation model, or anything along those lines. These are all still CARS.

No aggression, but honestly your incessant pushing of bizarre points does get a little tiresome.

Oh and a gun which doesn't work is still a gun. A gun that doesn't work. It doesn't make it no longer a gun. If you live your life by that, well, that is frankly bizarre, and I pity your "car" when it doesn't pass its MOT and is immediately no longer a car.

 

[Famine]

I think it's safe to say that in this context, we are looking at "an automobile". And I've yet to see any definition of an automobile as something which is widely available or has a specific production number, or isn't a concept model, or a homologation model, or anything along those lines. These are all still CARS.

You could try looking for a definition of "automobile", maybe? I wonder what the same source you used there would say.

Just because it amuses me to do so, I'll point out two things you're probably aware of. "Mobile" means "movement" and "auto" means "self". So "automobile" literally means "self-propelled".

It's a self-propelled vehicle with three or more wheels.

Gosh!

No aggression, but honestly your incessant pushing of bizarre points does get a little tiresome.

You see them as "bizarre points" because you don't agree with them. And it's hardly incessant if I haven't mentioned since... I don't even know when until you asked why such vehicles aren't cool.

Incidentally, I didn't say anything about rarity or road use - I was pointing out why cars that are now only museum pieces are no longer cars.

 

[Tornado]

For once in your life, just give it a rest.

I'd say you're the one who needs to give it a rest if your best response to an answer you requested is accusing people of sheep mentality and posting dictionary definitions.

 

[Tyger]

You could try looking for a definition of "automobile", maybe? I wonder what the same source you used there would say.

Just because it amuses me to do so, I'll point out two things you're probably aware of. "Mobile" means "movement" and "auto" means "self". So "automobile" literally means "self-propelled".Gosh!You see them as "bizarre points" because you don't agree with them. And it's hardly incessant if I haven't mentioned since... I don't even know when until you asked why such vehicles aren't cool.

Incidentally, I didn't say anything about rarity or road use - I was pointing out why cars that are now only museum pieces are no longer cars.

Ooookay, so car museums are actually-what-museums? Why are you defining a "car" by its mobility or availability? In a funny kind of way I do see what you are saying, but only because I have some far-out ideas on reality. For the purposes of these forums however I would subscribe to the more consensual definitions, or make it explicitly clear where I am "coming from" rather than pretty much saying this is not a car.

 

[Famine]

Ooookay, so car museums are actually-what-museums?

Museums.

Why are you defining a "car" by its mobility or availability?

Probably because a car is defined by its mobility. I believe you have literally just proven that to yourself by looking up "car" on dictionary.com.

In fact the word "car" specifically derives from the French "carre" and, previously, the Latin "carrum" - carriage. Many of the terms we use to describe them come from terms used to describe carts and carriages (sedan, coupe, yadda yadda). However it's a specific contraction of "autocar" (self-carriage), the English equivalent to the French "automobile" (self-moving) - and the name of our very first motoring magazine. In that publication's own words from 1895, Autocar was launched for the topic of "the mechanically propelled road carriage".

The ability to move itself is intrinsic to the definition of the object.

 

[Tyger]

Museums.Probably because a car is defined by its mobility. I believe you have literally just proven that to yourself by looking up "car" on dictionary.com.

In fact the word "car" specifically derives from the French "carre" and, previously, the Latin "carrum" - carriage. Many of the terms we use to describe them come from terms used to describe carts and carriages (sedan, coupe, yadda yadda). However it's a specific contraction of "autocar" (self-carriage), the English equivalent to the French "automobile" (self-moving) - and the name of our very first motoring magazine. In that publication's own words from 1895, Autocar was launched for the topic of "the mechanically propelled road carriage".

The ability to move itself is intrinsic to the definition of the object.

No it isn't. That's its intended use, but a broken down car or carriage is still a car or carriage, again, by definition. It's not some indefinite other object. A leg is intended for one to perambulate but if it doesn't work, it is still a leg.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Even if they built 10,000 of these, it'd still be seriously uncool due to the hideous bodykit.

Famine's point amplifies that massively, particularly considering that the bodykit makes it very much the opposite of the sort of thing one goes to a museum to see.

 

[Tyger]

Even if they built 10,000 of these, it'd still be seriously uncool due to the hideous bodykit.

Famine's point amplifies that massively, particularly considering that the bodykit makes it very much the opposite of the sort of thing one goes to a museum to see.

No it doesn't? What?

OK I'm done, and this ca...thing..is seriously uncool because by definition, it is not actually a "car", as defined by its lack of availability and it not moving. Peace.

 

[Famine]

No it isn't. That's its intended use

Intent seems to play very little role in the dictionary definition you posted...

but a broken down car or carriage is still a car or carriage, again, by definition. It's not some indefinite other object. A leg is intended for one to perambulate but if it doesn't work, it is still a leg.

Who said anything about "indefinite"? I'm pretty sure I said that "cars you can't drive aren't cars". That means that if you can drive it again, it becomes one again - just as a decommissioned gun is no longer a firearm, it can become one again if recommissioned...

Legs, for reference, are not defined by their mobility - in fact "leg" seems to be an incredibly old word that, through millennia, seems to have always meant a lower limb - but cars are, as per the definitions you shared with us.

 

[Tyger]

Intent seems to play very little role in the dictionary definition you posted...Who said anything about "indefinite"? I'm pretty sure I said that "cars you can't drive aren't cars". That means that if you can drive it again, it becomes one again - just as a decommissioned gun is no longer a firearm, it can become one again if recommissioned...

Legs, for reference, are not defined by their mobility - in fact "leg" seems to be an incredibly old word that, through millennia, seems to have always meant a lower limb - but cars are, as per the definitions you shared with us.

No, a decommisioned gun is a decommissioned GUN, as you just said. Sheesh. It doesn't make it no longer a gun, just as a blunt knife is still a knife.

 

[Famine]

No, a decommisioned firearm is a decommissioned FIREARM, as you just said.

It's is certainly not a firearm if it is not something with which you can arm yourself that fires things. Though I'm sure you could arm yourself with it to beat things.

I'm sure dictionary.com has something useful to say about the definition of a firearm, if you like?

 

[Tyger]

It's is certainly not a firearm if it is not something with which you can arm yourself that fires things. Though I'm sure you could arm yourself with it to beat things.

I'm sure dictionary.com has something useful to say about the definition of a firearm, if you like?

OK boss. All things are defined by their functionality. Good luck ;-)

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Famine]

OK boss.

Once again, my "status" is not relevant.

All things are defined by their functionality.

No, only things that are defined by their functionality. I mean, you even quoted me saying this:

Legs, for reference, are not defined by their mobility - in fact "leg" seems to be an incredibly old word that, through millennia, seems to have always meant a lower limb

Unfortunately as you have now proven to yourself, "car" and "firearm" are amongst the things that are defined as such.

I don't for even a fraction of a second expect you to accept this - you set your stall out pretty early on - but then as I responded initially:

Whether or not anyone agrees with me is irrelevant

 

[Tornado]

 

[JR98]

Uncool - It's a one-off track M3 that will never be seen by anyone and will be left to rot in some German BMW museum. The engine saves it from being SU as that 4.4L V8 is just fantastic. The bodykit looks hideous. Standard M3 is much better than this museum piece.

 

[All Your Base]

Uncool - It's a one-off track M3 that will never be seen by anyone and will be left to rot in some German BMW museum. The engine saves it from being SU as that 4.4L V8 is just fantastic. The bodykit looks hideous. Standard M3 is much better than this museum piece.

Hmm... you voted SZ, but you're saying it's uncool.

 

[jeffgoddin]

In before the lock...

but seriously, I feel like, subjectively for me, in order for a car to be cool, it has to be something that people can drive... if I can't drive it, maybe at least I can see somebody driving it and think, wow! that's cool! Appreciating a car for it's excellent design is something other than coolness. Nerdy appreciation maybe, but not coolness, for me anyway.

 

[SVX]

My father had one of these beauties, he loved and enjoyed the car so much that my mother would say that he was married to the car than her at times. The time he spent cleaning the car and maintaining the car would get to her at time. But she got over it when she found out why he got the car in the first place. He got the car because it reminded him of her every time he drove, cleaned and maintained the car. "A clean smooth piece of work that always turned him on when he looked at her" Though I fell in love with the car the first time I got to drive it when I was nine, from then on I was a BMW man.

We have a large case of Ludicrous Claims thread material. Chop chop!

 

[Vegard]

I was pointing out why cars that are now only museum pieces are no longer cars.

Do you know for a fact that the BMW in question falls into that category though?

And more importantly; do museum cars automatically become unable to move under their own power?

 

[ToyGTone]

First thing: "it's known because of this game or that = SU."
ME: Whats wrong with that?? I actually knew some cars because of movie, car show, video games...etc i think this reason is pretty much dumb.

Second thing: "it's a car that you couldn't drive at all, SU"
ME: By your logic, i couldn't even drive a 2005 ford mustang or Toyota GT86 or nissan 370z so does it make these cars SU?

You know that i'm living in a country where it's filled with some freakin' piece of crap cars like an old nissan sunny or toyota cressida or echo or tercel or some slammed 90's honda civic or toyota corolla without hubcaps because they couldn't afford to buy a better trim of the car. what else?? chevrolet aveo, some toyota land cruiser suv, some cheap mazda 6...etc now imagine if i try to find something like a 2002 trans am or corvette or nissan GT-R or some AMG merc's or porsche boxster...etc well good luck to find one.

So by your logic a car like lamborghini murcielago is the same compared to this as i couldn't drive it and by your logic the Mclaren F1 and Miura which they have one of the most Subzero votes in the GTP Cool wall are Super uncool because i couldn't even see one.

Now moving on into the real reason of hating it, the ugly bodykit right? and the fact that BMW Drivers are 🤬🤬🤬 so i'm going to vote it meh...
...but right after i voted i was surprised to see some people voted it cool.

and Now there's a problem with me, it's my name and my avatar, now everyone is gonna hate me, i called my name on a LMP which's a race car that's included in GT, I think i should change my name right now.

 

[TheCracker]

1. Second thing: "it's a car that you couldn't drive at all, SU"
   ME: By your logic, i couldn't even drive a 2005 ford mustang or Toyota GT86 or nissan 370z so does it make these cars SU?
   
   You know that i'm living in a country where it's filled with some freakin' piece of crap cars like an old nissan sunny or toyota cressida or echo or tercel or some slammed 90's honda civic or toyota corolla without hubcaps because they couldn't afford to buy a better trim of the car. what else?? chevrolet aveo, some toyota land cruiser suv, some cheap mazda 6...etc now imagine if i try to find something like a 2002 trans am or corvette or nissan GT-R or some AMG merc's or porsche boxster...etc well good luck to find one.
   
   So by your logic a car like lamborghini murcielago is the same compared to this as i couldn't drive it and by your logic the Mclaren F1 and Miura which they have one of the most Subzero votes in the GTP Cool wall are Super uncool because i couldn't even see one.

   
   The point is, you could drive all the cars you mentioned if you travelled to, say, Florida. You could never drive the M3 GTR because it probably sits in a museum and may never have even been road registered. There are no set of potential circumstances where you could possibly drive this car.
   

 

[Vegard]

You could never drive the M3 GTR because it probably sits in a museum and may never have even been road registered. There are no set of potential circumstances where you could possibly drive this car.

Definitely maybe?

 

[MatskiMonk]

My father had one of these beauties, he loved and enjoyed the car so much that my mother would say that he was married to the car than her at times. The time he spent cleaning the car and maintaining the car would get to her at time. But she got over it when she found out why he got the car in the first place. He got the car because it reminded him of her every time he drove, cleaned and maintained the car. "A clean smooth piece of work that always turned him on when he looked at her" Though I fell in love with the car the first time I got to drive it when I was nine, from then on I was a BMW man.

Pics or it didn't happen

Uncool - It's a one-off track M3 that will never be seen by anyone and will be left to rot in some German BMW museum. The engine saves it from being SU as that 4.4L V8 is just
fantastic. The bodykit looks hideous. Standard M3 is much better than this museum piece.

Couple of points:
Possibly it will never be seen, but "left to rot" just isn't true, just google BMW Motorsport Museum or BMW Mobile Tradition.
The engine isn't a 4.4l V8, it's a 3997cc V8
Personally, and this might just be me, but the bodykit reflects the racecar, which would have been designed totally as function before form. Hideous would be subjective, there is at least a purpose behind it, and I don't mind that.

 

[JR98]

Pics or it didn't happen



Couple of points:
Possibly it will never be seen, but "left to rot" just isn't true, just google BMW Motorsport Museum or BMW Mobile Tradition.
The engine isn't a 4.4l V8, it's a 3997cc V8
Personally, and this might just be me, but the bodykit reflects the racecar, which would have been designed totally as function before form. Hideous would be subjective, there is at least a purpose behind it, and I don't mind that.

The bodykit looks great on a racing car but awful on a road car, I mean, how would the new M3 look if it had a bodykit like this

 

[MatskiMonk]

The bodykit looks great on a racing car but awful on a road car, I mean, how would the new M3 look if it had a bodykit like this

Conspicuous, mental, and awesome

 

[Famine]

Do you know for a fact that the BMW in question falls into that category though?

No, but since I didn't mention the BMW in question...

And more importantly; do museum cars automatically become unable to move under their own power?

In the words of Data, not always, but often:

It wouldn't even surprise me to learn that it has been rendered incapable of functioning - because museums tend not to be fans of having their displays leaking oil and transmission fluid everywhere, and engines tend not to be fans of not having any for a long time.