Well, this thread is dedicated to discussing whether buying a rare car is a good idea. Post your opinions and arguments. What are the pros and cons? Would you own one or suggest it to other people? This thread is not about vintage (40+), super- and hypercars and alike! A rare car means you'll struggle to find parts, but on the other hand, it is much less likely to be stolen since it is hard to hide, hard to sell (there must be a reason it's rare) and nobody wants its parts. Plus, you'll be standing out of the crowd, however, not all people like it.
It's a Nissan Maxima without the Interstate system that would make use of the Maxima's big wallowy sedanness, but with less power.
Luxury fullsizes by non-luxury brands always have poor sales. Technically, yes. However, they lack most advantages of rare cars while retaining most disadvantages. 1.) If you chose a rare engine/transmission, you'll struggle to find replacement parts. 2.) Your car has the exact same body panels as all other trims. This means your car may be taken by thieves who seek body parts. At least finding used body parts won't be a problem. Anyway, if you like the car and it suits your needs, why not.
I would say if it was rare, it would have a better chance of being stolen as it's worth more. I could go either way owning a rare car. It's eye catching, but you have to be protective of it...
I once owned a rare car (a Lotus Elan M100). Not only it was kinda difficult to find parts... It ended up being stolen, and never retrieved to this day. It's almost certainly scattered around Europe in a million pieces now. Because, well, it's relatively rare and... parts are difficult to find.
1.) Rare cars aren't always more expensive than common ones. 2.) If not talking about exotic or vintage cars (this thread is not about them), a rare car is rare because little people want it. Why would anyone steal something that is not desired by anyone except a small group? Stuff like that happens...if parts become too rare, thieves move in - the loop is closed.
Most rare cars aren't eye catching/worth more. They are usually rare because they were poorly built or didn't sell well in the first place.
Well that is true, kind of like the DMC-12. But some rarer cars are a bit eye-catching. Not necessarily supercars, but classics (such as a 20's car). A vintage could be considered rare.
Sorry but you won't be standing out in a VW Phaeton. In fact you'll be doing the exact opposite. There's a reason it's called stealth wealth Though I would totally be down with owning a rare vehicle. Parts don't even have to be super hard to get. For example, the Citroen AX Cabriolet. These are ultra rare, but parts are actually easy to find. All the drivetrain, suspension, bodywork etc. is mostly the same as a standard AX, the only difference being the convertible part.
I'd love to own anything late 70's to early 90's one day. Some cars (out of hundreds) I'd love to own: Most of these were made in large numbers and/or shared many parts with other models so they shouldn't be a pain in the *** to keep on the road.
To actually address the OP, I wouldn't consider the rarity of a car when buying one. Replacement parts for new cars aren't a worry and for old cars I wouldn't really care in most situations. Generally easy enough to work something out in the absence of OEM parts if you're creative enough. This is coming from the guy whose boat is approximately 0% of how it left the factory in 1985 though.
The renault fluence is rare too --- Post updated --- But talisman is luxury and really common in my city
The Fluence is only rare in the 1st World, where the association of wagons with tradesmen has been shaken by the lack of a car appearance society. Poor countries buy sedans, because they think that makes them look like important businessmen. Rich countries don't need to.
