Blur Poster

ctpaddler2000 · Post by **ctpaddler2000** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:36 pm

I saw this on another scootering web site.

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 5:37 pm

ha! Troll!

Wait, I'm the troll…

Bb.

EP_scoot · Post by **EP_scoot** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:01 pm

While talking to Philip during the Cabin Fever Rally in Minneapolis he hinted (strongly) that a 250cc BLUR is in the works and there are a couple color variations and do NOT involve safety orange.
I said if the timeline was in the 2 year range and he said it would be sooner than that.

FYI

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:07 pm

I don't think displacement was a problem on the Blur, I'm still stumped as to why it wasn't a big seller, but you just never know. I certainly love mine.

There were rumors (I don't know if they ever made it to this list) about a rotary-engine crazy-high-horsepower scooter from Genuine and I thought it was all just crazy talk, but I since heard that it was a real project, centered around the Blur frame. I keep meaning to dig into that a little deeper and see what I can find out.

lobsterman · Post by **lobsterman** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:26 pm

I actually think the success of the Buddy is the reason why the Blur didn't sell.

I looked at a Blur and sat on it and liked it when I went scooter shopping, but the cost/performance of the Buddy was tough to beat. I couldn't justifying spending the extra money on the Blur. Of course, at the time I didn't have a clue what some of the less obvious differences would mean, but the Buddy was just as fast and handled great and cost several hundred dollars less than the Blur.

A 200 or 250 Blur would be mighty interesting to me in a year or two.

voodoosix · Post by **voodoosix** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:34 pm

i agree, i think the Buddy 125 killed Blur sales.

babblefish · Post by **babblefish** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:53 am

I love my Blur (not in the kinky sort of way). I like the sports scooter look better than the classic Vespa look plus the Blur handles like it's on rails. The fact that I can flip myself over the handlebars with the front brake is kinda cool, too.

BTW: A 250 already exists - as a matter of fact, it's been around for almost a year...just not in this country. It's known as the PGO G-Max 250 and basically looks like the Blur 150 (which is known as the PGO G-Max 125 elsewhere). It uses two standard coil-over rear shocks instead of the multilink due to the larger water cooled engine. An excerpt from a review in TAG magazine says: "The liquid-cooled single cylinder four-stroke has stomp by the bucketload, making the ride both fun and very rapid. The engine is both torquey and revvy, making the most of any available acceleration". They also noted that it will do 80+mph. I sure hope they bring this baby here!

EP_scoot · Post by **EP_scoot** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:40 pm

justscooten, make sure to let us know if you finally get the Blur so illnoise can update the poster to "eleven".

The poster is now my desktop wallpaper.

Post by **ericalm** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:44 pm

I kind of think that the US scooter-buying public just isn't ready for a sporty-styled scooter that's not a maxi. (Speaking of which, 2strokebuzz has a similar poster to this one, only funnier, with a Burgman. I won't post it because some Burgman riders—well, any, really—would get offended. So get thee to 2sb!) The Blur just didn't conform to what most Americans think a scooter is or should be, and didn't offer enough of a performance difference with the Buddy to lure people away from those preconceptions. A 200/250 might be a different story.

The rotary engine rumor has been floating around for a while. Good to hear there's some validity to it. I probably wouldn't buy one, but it would be interesting to see what it could do and how well it would fare in dealers.

lobsterman · Post by **lobsterman** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:13 pm

My local dealer sold every Blur it got in, they just didn't sell as rapidly as the Buddys.

For comparison, the same dealer sells lots and lots of Buddys (and now Stellas again), but the Kymco and TGB scooters seem to be gathering dust there. Those are good scoots too.

So, they sell Buddys no problem, and sold all their Blurs eventually, but the other brands seem to just kind of sit there.

Might be an interesting Market Analysis for a class at UC or Xavier (both nearby).

My guess is that the Buddy is the perfect storm for sales. It has really good performance, costs less than many slower bikes, it's very reliable, and it has a strong base of existing riders who talk it up.

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:29 pm

lobsterman wrote:My guess is that the Buddy is the perfect storm for sales. It has really good performance, costs less than many slower bikes, it's very reliable, and it has a strong base of existing riders who talk it up.

For sure. If I was buying my first scooter, I probably would have gone with a Buddy, but I already have vintage bikes so I wanted something sportier and with better suspension/brakes.

I wish I could find sales figures, I honestly believe that the buddy is outselling the vino and metropolitan, if it's not, it's because the Vino and Metro are available in far more markets.

Bb.

jrsjr · Post by **jrsjr** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:32 pm

Bb, did you make that poster?!? That's hilarious. Hahaha... Whew, okay, I'm better now. I just opened this thread to make sure nothing bad was happening, saw that poster and just about fell out of my chair laughing.

Seriously, I see the rest of the discussion about Blur sales and I want to say that I agree up to a certain point, but I also think that the Blur hit a pretty high price point for what was, at the end of the day, a 150cc scooter.

I also heard about the rotary motor. And I still think that a 180-200cc direct-injection DI two-stroke power plant would turn the Blur into the fire-breathing dragon it so desperately wants to be.

Long live the Blur!

afriendofcheese · Post by **afriendofcheese** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:41 pm

Judging by the amount of activity in this forum compared to the Rattler/Black Cat forum, I'd have to think the Rattler (especially the 50) is maybe 6 owners strong and counting! And the Black Cat, well...
I went with the Rattler over the Buddy mainly because I like is styling better, but now I'm glad I did because of the amount of extra leg room it has and from what I gather, better suspension. I'm also a big fan of the handlebars, and not so much of the Buddy and its "can" light. For the most part, it's a nice looking scoot, though.
I can't help but to keep looking at pics of the Blur..it sure is is one sweet looking scooter!

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:49 pm

jrsjr wrote:Bb, did you make that poster?!? That's hilarious. Hahaha... Whew, okay, I'm better now.

It's just some dumb "make your own poster" site, the link is at the top of the poster. I made it in response to that burgman poster that I now see was part of a flame war on the BBS. Why do I even bother with the internet?

Yeah, I guess it wasn't really a bargain. I think part of it is that maybe the style of the buddy attracts more 'social' people so they're all online talking about their bikes, but Blur owners aren't as passionate or social, or literate. And Black Cat owners are hillibillies without internet connections, heh. (I just made that up) Sales are much lower, sure, but there are plenty more blur/black cat/buck ten owners than there are on this site, that's for sure. (I guess the same could be said for buddies).

The big question is… where's the Roughhouse forum!?

Bb.

afriendofcheese · Post by **afriendofcheese** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:13 pm

illnoise wrote: The big question is… where's the Roughhouse forum!?
Bb.

Isn't the Roughhouse basically the Rattler 50s 2008 replacement? Maybe they should just be added to that forum? We need all the people we can get over there!

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:20 pm

afriendofcheese wrote:Maybe they should just be added to that forum? We need all the people we can get over there!

For sure, I was just being silly. Maybe bring it up in the BK/Rattler forum and decide if/how/when you'd like to change the forum name or description and let ericcalm know. It'd probably be good to get 'roughhouse' in the forum name or description just to attract google searches and such.

Bb.

EP_scoot · Post by **EP_scoot** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:14 pm

Maybe the BLUR will end up becoming a cult item, ha !
I spent some time at lunch surfing at that poster site and this is what I found . . . yes, the internet . . . such a blackhole.

justscooten · Post by **justscooten** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:33 pm

EP_scoot wrote:justscooten, make sure to let us know if you finally get the Blur so illnoise can update the poster to "eleven".

The poster is now my desktop wallpaper.

I got it i sent in a deposit to hold it till next weekend so im the new owner of a 07 black blur!!!!!

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:28 pm

justscooten wrote:I got it i sent in a deposit to hold it till next weekend so im the new owner of a 07 black blur!!!!! :D :D

I see you're into Oldsmobiles, way to pick the winners, heh. Do you have a Pentax camera and a turntable?

Congrats, welcome to the list and Blurdom!

Bb.

EP_scoot · Post by **EP_scoot** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:35 pm

justscooten, congrats ! ! !
Welcome to the group of the few, the proud, the Blur owners.

Is the weather over there good enough to take it out already?
I can't wait for spring . . . this winter is just dragging and now we go back into single digits, such a drag.

justscooten · Post by **justscooten** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:58 pm

as a matter of facted i do have 3 turntables (go vinal) but i do have a canon. and for the oldsmobile its a 1984 Hurst/Olds check out www.hurstolds.com. mine is #78 of 3500 made. and no the weather sucks south west michigan still under snow were looking at about 3 more inch. this weekend. my scoot will set in the garage for another 2 month or so. BUT ITS MINE

but anyway thanks from all of you it feels good to be part of something great.

and being that the blur is shall we say rare thats cool to. my blur will be the only one in town.

babblefish · Post by **babblefish** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:07 pm

Yeah, I also have a couple of turntables along with vacuum tube audio gear. And yes, I happen to have a couple of Pentaxs' (and Nikon and Canon and Minolta and Rolliflex and Yashica and Olympus). No Oldsmobile, just a '66 fastback Mustang GT-K.

golfinguy · Post by **golfinguy** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:43 am

justscooten wrote:as a matter of facted i do have 3 turntables (go vinal) but i do have a canon. and for the oldsmobile its a 1984 Hurst/Olds check out www.hurstolds.com. mine is #78 of 3500 made. and no the weather sucks south west michigan still under snow were looking at about 3 more inch. this weekend. my scoot will set in the garage for another 2 month or so. BUT ITS MINE but anyway thanks from all of you it feels good to be part of something great.

and being that the blur is shall we say rare thats cool to. my blur will be the only one in town.

I'll bet that beta vcr looks cool next to the turntable

justscooten · Post by **justscooten** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:05 am

ill do ya one better how bout a rca video disc player . im big in to vintage sound and video. if you want great sound you have to go analog. anyway happy scooting!

bicyclerider · Post by **bicyclerider** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:23 pm

analog vs. digital
we have 56 channel digital audio mixing consoles where I work and I know you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Although, I still have my turntable and and are you ready - my 8 track recorder, too bad Radio Shack no longer sells blank 8 tracks. Ha ha.

I love my Blur too - but certainly would sell it in a minute if there was a 200 cc in the US. My parents had a Mazda truck in the early '70's that had a rotary engine in it. Ran great, fast & quick.

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:19 pm

bicyclerider wrote:analog vs. digital
we have 56 channel digital audio mixing consoles where I work and I know you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I've had this argument with a lot of people. I'm still torn, I know of many digital recordings that sound great, and it doesn't make sense that a scratchy record would sound better than a CD, I don't really buy the "warmth" argument, but to me, records (and analog recordings) just sound better than CDs, and I have three explanations:

1) Engineers using analog equipment are generally more experienced and really know their equipment and know how to get the best out of it, whereas people using current technology (in many cases) don't have the background in old-school electronics to understand the processes involved and really nail down the sound later, or don't bother because they can fix things later on the computer.

2) LPs (at least for pop/rock music) seem to generally be mastered better than CDs, probably for two reasons,
a) The specialization and experience of LP master-ers.
b) CD are usually mastered too loud because these days consumers and labels demand it that (ipod/radio-friendly) way, but people mastering LPs know that LP fans are probably more likely to prefer a more realistic and dynamic recording.

3) the "warmth" thing might just come down to nostalgia, the hum, crackle, and even the ritual. Cleaning the needle, cleaning the record, dropping the needle on the record, and sitting there looking at a 12" album cover just makes the listening experience more familiar, personal, and enjoyable for me.

Just my take on it, I'm no expert or anything. I'm a big Steve Albini fan, engineers like that are rare, he's more of a scientist than a musician or 'artist,' he can give you a record that's so clean and dynamic, with so much depth and so realistic that it sounds like you're standing in the studio. I prefer the clean, simple, live-in-studio sound with no (or minimal) overdubs, and he nails it every time. Nothing makes me more nuts than on pseudo-lame "alternative" records or whatever where the singer's like whispering and playing an acoustic guitar, then suddenly everyone's screaming and playing loud, distorted guitars, but the volume of the recording doesn't change at all (Thanks Butch Vig!).

Bb.

bicyclerider · Post by **bicyclerider** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:04 pm

IL,
good stuff here - Steve Albini - two words BIG BLACK.
super cool you are well informed here on this subject. I do agree kids these days miss out on the minor details that vinyl records brought to the game.
Heck I even had certain cassette tapes I would only record on because they always seemed to sound better.
I am such a audio geek, I rip all my CD's at 48k and 256/320 kbps, they take up more space on my iPod, but sound better by a mile.

Vig did what others were doing for years, Multi-band compression - like you stated, it made songs on the radio appear louder compared to others. Steely Dan's old engineer was pretty good at it too.

RE: engineers using analog being more experienced....hmmmm
I guess the big issue here is everyone and their mom can put a studio in their basement now and call themselves an 'engineer'. This is where many many bad cd's come from. But there are some great digital studios out there, with quality senior level engineers making some nice stuff. I remember reading when Lenny Kravitz was all analog man, till he found pro-tools. His new cd, sounds pretty fat, so maybe he's found a away to get it close.

great conversation

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:31 pm

bicyclerider wrote:RE: engineers using analog being more experienced....hmmmm
I guess the big issue here is everyone and their mom can put a studio in their basement now and call themselves an 'engineer'. This is where many many bad cd's come from. But there are some great digital studios out there, with quality senior level engineers making some nice stuff.

Oh for sure, but it just requires a lot less general electronics knowlege than it used to, which is good (it's easier to do) but bad (some of the details have been forgotten). It's a lot like digital photography, it's not the medium, it's the photographer, but the majority of people getting into photography now just don't know the science behind what they're doing (because they're never forced to learn it to make things work), and most of the time it's not a problem, but they're not getting the best pictures they could be, and they're doing a lot of post-production work that, yes, is easier than it used to be, but it's stuff that they shouldn't even have to mess right if they were exposing/lighting properly in the first place. And of course old-timer film photographers were able to make the transition pretty easily, and are doing work equal to their old quality. It's nice to not have to remember fixer mixing formulas, and developing times, and need a roomful of equipment, but people that took the time to learn all that usually seem to have a better grip on what they're doing, even in the digital world.

The worst part is the compression, though, almost everything major-label is like that these days, and it sucks. People just don't want any jarring transitions in their music, but for me that's the best part. Like PJ Harvey's "Rid of Me" (produced by Albini). If you start it out at an audible volume, you need to keep getting up to turn it down, but when you're REALLY listening to it, it's perfect, every layer makes it louder, just like it should if you were seeing the band in person or watching them rehearse in the studio. And yeah, when you rip it to MP3s, it just doesn't sound the same. A lot of stuff doesn't get affected by MP3 conversion, but that record, or Flaming Lips, or Fugazi, they sure do.

Bb.

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:01 pm

Soooo off topic, sorry. Someone just sent me this just now:

http://www.hometracked.com.nyud.net/mp3 ... tabuse.mp3

ugh! See, when even "experienced" and/or "big-time" producers fall back on digital crutches like that, you start to understand the analog purists, just because they do everything "For real." I'd rather hear a crystal-clear reproduction of someone singing out of tune with wild emotion and abandon than hear a glossed-over, digitally stuttering "Perfect voice." All modern radio-friendly music has the musical equivalent of a Liz-Taylor soft-focus lens blurring it out.

Bb.

justscooten · Post by **justscooten** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:26 pm

looks like i started somthing here im sorry i think.....

lou76 · Post by **lou76** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:33 pm

[quote="illnoise] ...or Flaming Lips....[/quote]
slap keith cleversley in that pot with albini...
anyone who could make sense out of the lips has skills...
wish i still had a four-track to master the stacks of cassettes i have in a milk crate...

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:47 pm

lou76 wrote:slap keith cleversley in that pot with albini...
anyone who could make sense out of the lips has skills...

yeah, him and Dave Fridmann, I've never been able to tell which of them did what, but all their stuff's great. All the Inner Ear/Dischord stuff always sounds great, too "Repeater" is like the perfect-sounding record, to me.

lou76 wrote:wish i still had a four-track to master the stacks of cassettes i have in a milk crate...

I bought a four-track in like 1994 to try to learn how to record stuff, and it got "stolen" from my friends' practice space like a week later. Then I found out they sold it to their other friend that was moving out of town. They never offered to pay me back for it, and I've seen the other guy around since, and he acts like he doesn't know me. I had some stupid friends back then.

justscooten · Post by **justscooten** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:26 am

well if were still on vintage audio i have a akai reel to reel and akai 8-track recorder and akai linear tracking turntable and a akai semi automatic turntable and a monster akai receiver about 300 watts and about 200 lp's 50-60 8-track tapes 40-50 reel to reel tapes about 200 cassette tapes and a pair of realistic 15" 3way floor speakers from 1979 that just rock. to me analog just sound fuller . and a new lp will sound better than most cds. on the digital side i do have a pioneer elite cd player im a vintage audio nut... on a full sony 7.1 home theater with 51" hd wide screen.
i still use the reel to reel to record my keyboard work a roland e-500

lou76 · Post by **lou76** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:09 pm

illnoise wrote:I bought a four-track in like 1994 to try to learn how to record stuff, and it got "stolen" from my friends' practice space like a week later. Then I found out they sold it to their other friend that was moving out of town. They never offered to pay me back for it, and I've seen the other guy around since, and he acts like he doesn't know me. I had some stupid friends back then.

ahh the nostalgia of the midwest in the mid-nineties, drinking pabst before it was ironically cool to do so... i'm from champaign, and played in a few underachieving bands back then... schuba's, fireside, the hideout... playing at the empty bottle ranks up there as one of my favorite hazy memory... and pooping on myself on stage (on accident) at schuba's... oh, and the hallowed "practice space"... i can still smell the mold and the months-old malt liquor and i'm pretty sure urine... good times... kind of...

jrsjr · Post by **jrsjr** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:40 pm

lou76 wrote:
illnoise wrote:I bought a four-track in like 1994 to try to learn how to record stuff, and it got "stolen" from my friends' practice space like a week later. Then I found out they sold it to their other friend that was moving out of town. They never offered to pay me back for it, and I've seen the other guy around since, and he acts like he doesn't know me. I had some stupid friends back then.
ahh the nostalgia of the midwest in the mid-nineties, drinking pabst before it was ironically cool to do so... i'm from champaign, and played in a few underachieving bands back then... schuba's, fireside, the hideout... playing at the empty bottle ranks up there as one of my favorite hazy memory... and pooping on myself on stage (on accident) at schuba's... oh, and the hallowed "practice space"... i can still smell the mold and the months-old malt liquor and i'm pretty sure urine... good times... kind of...

Clearly I missed out on all the fun. I'm sitting here being nostalgic for that cool cool sound of a vacuum-tube amp when the voltages bend non-linearly at the rails instead of just cutting off like in a transistor amp...

justscooten · Post by **justscooten** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:28 am

well back on topic seens im the eleventh blur owner ill have pics of it up this weekend check back sunday more news to come. but i think ill but that in the right thread.

jrsjr · Post by **jrsjr** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:41 am

justscooten wrote:well back on topic seens im the eleventh blur owner ill have pics of it up this weekend check back sunday more news to come. but i think ill but that in the right thread.

Man, the moderators on this site need to get after the folks who hijack threads!

Sorry about that, justscooten, We're huge fans of the Blur and we're totally looking forward to seeing pix of yours. Here's to #11!

lou76 · Post by **lou76** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:51 am

jrsjr wrote:Clearly I missed out on all the fun. I'm sitting here being nostalgic for that cool cool sound of a vacuum-tube amp when the voltages bend non-linearly at the rails instead of just cutting off like in a transistor amp...

clearly my lungs were much too polluted in those days to understand such a concept...
and congratulations, justscooten, on the blur... if i had it to do over again i MIGHT (big might) have gotten a blur instead of a buddy... and for god's sake, if we ever get a blur 200 over here, i will sell someone's baby to have one...

BlueMark · Post by **BlueMark** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:32 am

justscooten wrote:well back on topic seens im the eleventh blur owner ill have pics of it up this weekend check back sunday more news to come. but i think ill but that in the right thread.

Unfortunately you have to remove mine from the count ... back to 10.

I think the extreme styling and high price is what hurt Blur sales. Once you ride it you want it. Definitely the most fun you can have at 150cc.

It was fast for a 150, but no faster than the Buddy 125 - and felt slower because it was so steady - it could easily handle a lot more power.

-Mark

babblefish · Post by **babblefish** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:55 am

That's funny that you should say that because I personally am more used to the "sport" styling of the Blur to the "classic" styling (of which I don't care for too much) of the Buddy/Vespa. It's probably because I come from a sport bike background and from working/living in Asia were sport type scooters were the norm and classic type were rare.

justscooten · Post by **justscooten** » Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:49 pm

HERE IT IS THE DAY I PICKED IT UP !!

the last blur that scoot around town of ypsilanty mi had

babblefish · Post by **babblefish** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:08 am

That's beautiful! I'm sure you're going to have a lot of fun riding it. My Blur doesn't have that huge rear fender extension though - I wonder if that's a dealer added item?

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:09 pm

babblefish wrote:That's beautiful! I'm sure you're going to have a lot of fun riding it. My Blur doesn't have that huge rear fender extension though - I wonder if that's a dealer added item?

My Blur came with it in a plastic bag in the pet carrier and I never put it on.

jrsjr · Post by **jrsjr** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:32 pm

It's a beautiful machine. Sigh...

Have fun. Be careful out there.

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:48 pm

jrsjr wrote:I also heard about the rotary motor.

I heard this weekend that the crazy-horsepower rotary-engine Blur is maybe still in the works, but it would be very limited and very expensive, a salt-flats/collector sort of deal. We'll see.

Maybe Genuine's got some sort of plan to bring in the 200 or 250 4-valve and sell it as a premium sports scooter, and the rotary-engine concept might just be a way of attracting more attention to the regular model. Hypothetically, (I'm basically making this up) A 4-valve Blur 250 for $4250 looks expensive next to a Buddy, but it would look cheap next to a Bonneville-record setting Blur for $9000, and $9000 is still a lot cheaper than most motorcycles. Again, that's all totally speculation.

Or maybe they're just looking for something fun to do with the extra Blurs they have sitting around. I'm still flabbergasted they're selling a Prima pipe for it, even stamping "Prima" on a pipe their supplier was already making seems like a lot of effort for the ten of us. I feel guilty for not buying one.

I don't think we've seen the last of the Blur, or at least I hope not.

Maybe that was the Blur's problem, it wasn't expensive enough. : )

justscooten · Post by **justscooten** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:48 pm

the word is that the blur will back a comeback as early as 09 with a 200 and 250 cc
this i read somewhere on this forum quoted from philip of scooterworks

jfrost2 · Post by **jfrost2** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:42 pm

If the blur comes in 200c/250cc I'm sure we could do a Blur vs ninja250 test to see what bike really is better in speed/power.

Would be nice to see a scooter beat a motorcycle.

babblefish · Post by **babblefish** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 5:15 am

So, how many are we up to now?

Should that poster be updated yet?

groovedirk · Post by **groovedirk** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:35 pm

Looking at the different threads there's at LEAST 3 more in/around Chicagoland now (though I don't pick mine up until next Saturday). But I'd love to know how many Blurs have sold in the US (rather than how many of the owners show up here), anybody have even rough numbers??

I'm remember being pretty surprised when I read only about 50k Mazda 6 cars sold in the US each year when I bought mine...is the number of Blurs in the 100s or 1000s? Anybody got a spy at Genuine who would say how many got imported?

--Dirk--