True, but that’s kind of the point. There’s no need to raise HP numbers unless weight goes up, which hasn’t been a necessity in recent years. A 1990s 911 is still substantially faster than you can get much use out of in the real world (aside from track days).

I’ll never understand why Porshe (and all the similar manufacturers) insist on adding more and more power with turbos and don’t offer a more reliable, more fun, higher revving NA engine with less power.

While it’s hardly sacred, there is/was a 4-rotor Gallardo built at one point, and I’ve seen a few rotary Mustangs.

Lowering your car, even to the ground: OK

Vacuum lines, in the RX-7 at least, serve basically the same purpose as wires.  Wires that degrade way more quickly than they need to.

First gen RX-7s were reliable (and are probably the most reliable rotary engines you can buy even today). Second gens were pretty good as long as you didn’t buy the turbo. Third gens? Nope, well, at least not compared to the earlier cars. 80-100k out of a stock engine is entirely reasonable, 200k+ like the earlier…

I think it’s actually pretty common for people to drive their dogs around.  Dogs need walked, and their size makes cars more practical for a dog than a cat.

I honestly am completely lost by this story.

So if you park just outside your window the car is perpetually unlocked?

It’s hard to crash when you can’t even travel on about half of the roads in the country without bottoming out (which is technically still crashing, just slower).

Reliability to some people is not how much work you have to put into the car, it’s how often the car is going to let you down when you don’t expect it to.

You’re also more likely to actually, you know, replace the rubber lines, address rust, replace the old tires, etc. if you’re buying a car where you know ahead of time it needs to be done, and thus that car is less likely to break down than one that you just get in and drive. As a bonus, it’s easier to do said…

I think a big part of this question is the aftermarket.

What if they’re both already worn out, though?  A 100k car from 2010 is going to be a lot harder to maintain than a 100k car from 1990, provided they both start in similar condition.

I have heard that it’s illegal in some countries to raise the price with the sole purpose of reducing it with a sale (i.e. advertise 50% off, double prices the day before).

So, who are you going to borrow money from, then?  There’s nothing inherent to bitcoin that lets someone spend money they don’t have, which is pretty much the foundation of the US economy.

If you daily drive a sportscar of pretty much any variety, winter tires make sense simply because the alternative is driving a RWD car with summer tires in below zero weather.  Admittedly, in some climates, it makes more sense to have all seasons for the ‘winter’ and summers for the warm months.

You’d still need all of those things were people to adopt bitcon en-masse though.  You do not need any of the computation used by mining for normal currency.  People aren’t going to stop borrowing money because it’s stored/accessed a different way.

And, of course, the dollar doesn’t eat up processor time just for the sake of existing.

How can it possibly be the right path to literally waste thousands upon thousands of hours of computing time for no purpose?