Who will be first to swap new 2.4 into previous gen

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Sure we could all move to within a mile of where we work or just quit our jobs and work where we can take public transportation.
You have it backwards anyway. People have always had a NEED for transportation. That is why cars were developed in the first place. They couldn't make what there was no tech for earlier though so they could not have been around sooner. In fact that is a really silly idea.
You can wax philosophical all you want there is a distinct need for many people.

I whole heartedly disagree.

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

I whole heartedly disagree.

I believe you're treading somewhere between "need" and "require". We certainly aren't required to have a vehicle or a quick means of transportation most of the time, but there is absolutely a need for it, for many.

Any person can change their lifestyle to no longer "need" a vehicle for transportation. But if we were to take away everyone's need for a vehicle based on their lifestyle, we would be living in a far different world with far more condensed towns and cities. So I guess you can make the argument that humanity can settle for that lifestyle and therefore not NEED a vehicle, but at that point I think it's off topic, as it does not represent current reality.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

I believe you're treading somewhere between "need" and "require". We certainly aren't required to have a vehicle or a quick means of transportation most of the time, but there is absolutely a need for it, for many.

Any person can change their lifestyle to no longer "need" a vehicle for transportation. But if we were to take away everyone's need for a vehicle based on their lifestyle, we would be living in a far different world with far more condensed towns and cities. So I guess you can make the argument that humanity can settle for that lifestyle and therefore not NEED a vehicle, but at that point I think it's off topic, as it does not represent current reality.

It has happened before during the industrial revolution and the results were not pleasant.
BUT even then there was still a NEED for vehicles.
They were just horse and carts at first.
Then the railroads came along and improved things.
Those were followed by the automobile which allowed people to spread out a bit and conditions improved.

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

I believe you're treading somewhere between "need" and "require". We certainly aren't required to have a vehicle or a quick means of transportation most of the time, but there is absolutely a need for it, for many.

Any person can change their lifestyle to no longer "need" a vehicle for transportation. But if we were to take away everyone's need for a vehicle based on their lifestyle, we would be living in a far different world with far more condensed towns and cities. So I guess you can make the argument that humanity can settle for that lifestyle and therefore not NEED a vehicle, but at that point I think it's off topic, as it does not represent current reality.

If humans needed cars for survival, every human would have one, and that simply isn't the case. It's a want. Not a need.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

If humans needed cars for survival, every human would have one, and that simply isn't the case. It's a want. Not a need.

where are all these $70k+/yr jobs that require zero commuting? because there sure ain't any in my area, and ironically, the area's that do have those jobs and require commuting require one to make at least $120k/yr to pay property taxes alone if one were to live close enough to not require commuting...

[Dzmitry]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

If humans needed cars for survival, every human would have one, and that simply isn't the case. It's a want. Not a need.

So again, I get what you're saying, but with what you're implying, we really don't need anything other than a little food and water in life. This is true of course, but we're not living in caveman times. So our needs have technically changed. What was once wanted has become a necessity to many in order to function and live properly in modern society. But sure, in a sense you're right. No one needs anything at all in life aside from what keeps them living.

[BrahmaBull1990]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

If humans needed cars for survival, every human would have one, and that simply isn't the case. It's a want. Not a need.

Are cell phones a need?

Because here in WA homeless advocacy groups convinced the government they are so now homeless people all have them.

Not sure how this relates, just wanted to be apart of the argument.

Thanks.

[Sasquachulator]

Cars arent a need, they are a want but they are also a neccessity in many cases depending on lifestyle.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

If humans needed cars for survival, every human would have one, and that simply isn't the case. It's a want. Not a need.

If you are talking sustenance levels only as a "need" then that is a whole different picture. A bit too narrow to be realistic though. I would move it a bit further along and say that for the last 200 years or so that transportation, of which cars are a part, is a need in order to meet that sustenance level. In the modern world transportation is no longer a want it is a survival necessity. With urbanization and the dependance that the human race has developed on transportation about 70% of the population would starve to death within two weeks of a total transportation shutdown. That is a need if ever I saw one.

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by soundman98

where are all these $70k+/yr jobs that require zero commuting? because there sure ain't any in my area, and ironically, the area's that do have those jobs and require commuting require one to make at least $120k/yr to pay property taxes alone if one were to live close enough to not require commuting...

People choose their career paths, and where they live based on wants.

Originally Posted by Dzmitry

So again, I get what you're saying, but with what you're implying, we really don't need anything other than a little food and water in life. This is true of course, but we're not living in caveman times. So our needs have technically changed. What was once wanted has become a necessity to many in order to function and live properly in modern society. But sure, in a sense you're right. No one needs anything at all in life aside from what keeps them living.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

Cars arent a need, they are a want but they are also a neccessity in many cases depending on lifestyle.

Your lifestyle is your choice.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

If you are talking sustenance levels only as a "need" then that is a whole different picture. A bit too narrow to be realistic though. I would move it a bit further along and say that for the last 200 years or so that transportation, of which cars are a part, is a need in order to meet that sustenance level. In the modern world transportation is no longer a want it is a survival necessity. With urbanization and the dependance that the human race has developed on transportation about 70% of the population would starve to death within two weeks of a total transportation shutdown. That is a need if ever I saw one.

I said nothing about transport. The discussion is about cars. Perhaps I should have stated personal automobiles, but I doubt it would have made a difference.

At any rate, the argument was presented that no one actually needs a "the ultimate winner 97% of the time". If we're simply to accept that as a statement of fact, no one needs anything that laps the 'Ring in any time at all. The point was, I actually agree, but it was a ridiculous statement that I stretched to a ridiculous extreme. We're an enthusiast group. We geek out on the best of this, fastest of that, quickest of those, etc. and the Cayman is the better car than the 911 because the Germans are too stubborn to admit they made the glaring mistake they made with 911 and have done some seriously spectacular engineering over the last 60 years to make it something truly great. Can you imagine if the Cayman had 60 years of the same intense development, how much MORE better it would be than the 911?

[Ernest72]

Personally, I think the cayman is the better car for public roads because it has less power. A 911 turbo S, GT3, GT2 are nuts and you can’t really even use then on local roads without risking yourself and the unwitting public. They are great cars, but really made for the track or showing your wealth. A regular camera S is all you really need, if that.

This pony race is just that, an arms race to sell people cars they don’t need or can’t use to the cars potential. These cars are in a plateau region where the improvements are minor just to say they improved something, so the fanboys buy the next new shiny one. Magazines, you tubers journalists go along because if they say something bad they won’t get the next press car. I am no longer impressed by supercars, it’s basically more of the same. But I get it, if thousands were pennies to me, I would be first in line to buy them, because why not.

[dpfarr]

I would forgo vehicle ownership to live to downtown SF.

[CrowsFeast]

What was this post originally about again?

[Ernest72]

Originally Posted by CrowsFeast

What was this post originally about again?

How Subaru is offering free 2.4 swaps to original owners of the previous generation.