Well, it is the 4th, and this is a free country....but at least you gave up on the "battery recycling" and "electric pollutes more than gas" arguments!:cheers:

Happy 4th!

I'm not hear to argue in the first place. I know electric cars are the future, but at least you stopped trying to insinuate that a Leaf would be as fun to drive as a 911.

Happy 4th! :cheers:

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I didn't make the video comparing the two!!!

Now the Tesla S.....that might be a different story. 0-60 in 4.2 seconds...pretty sure that beats the 911?

Same 0 to 60 as a base 911, but the base 911 is $4,000 less then the Model S, even after the $7,500 tax credit the Model S gets.

You might want to double check your info.

2013 911 base 0-60 is 4.6 - here's the model lineup times

2013 Porsche 911 Carrera: Niello Porsche-Rocklin Porsche Dealer-Sacramento Porsche

You might also want to check your math.

Base 911 is 82,100, Tesla S Performance package is 87,400 (here's the site - Model S Options & Pricing | Tesla Motors) - 7500 federal tax credit, most states also have a 5,000 tax credit.

1k less (or 6k, depending on state) for a car that is .3 faster...we can all agree, that's utterly amazing, and built right here in the US of A!!!

Sorry I thought you had 4.6 in your post. :cool:

The site shows me the Model S Performance is $88,570 in which that price includes a $7,500 tax credit.

Click on the cash button. Model S Design Studio | Tesla Motors

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4734/97wq.jpg

So the Model S Performance price is actually $96, 070, which is still cheaper and quicker 0-60 then the 911 Carrera S 0-60 of 4.3s at $98,900. I'd still take the 911 Carrera S over the Tesla Model S, but that my take on those two. If I was going to buy an American car in this price range, it would be the new Corvette Stingray.

Oh dear lord, whatever you do, don't buy a Vette. Junk, just plain junk...no way around it. A porsche is like cutting butter with a hot razor...my '10 vette was like smashing potatoes with a sledgehammer - totally unrefined. And it broke just as much as consumer reports said it would.

your link also says the Tesla S might have from 7500 to 15000 tax incentives - which could bring the faster Tesla S in around 81000...or about 1k less than a 911!!!

I could see that with a C5, but a C6?

C6 Reliability - Corvette Forum

Not to belittle the Corvette message board fellas, but I have 2009 Consumer Reports in my hands. On page 82 it lists the corvette as "Used cars to avoid" In it's description of the new model, it ranks it a black dot (the lowest mark possible) for reliability.

My online version of consumer reports rates the 2013 as half a black circle (second from lowest rating). For 2012, it received a black dot.

I didn't mind it breaking, but the worst was having to fight Chevy to cover warranty items. Could not sell it fast enough..go test drive a base '13 911, then a '13 Zr1/z06...yup, a lot faster, but what a difference in build quality.

I've never let Consumer Reports make my purchasing decisions for me... bias.

Bias? Really? That's the first I've heard of that...they are one of the only magazines that doesn't make money from advertisers...in-fact, most consumer experts consider Consumer Reports the most un-biased magazine ever.

I won't call it the Bible, but it's a lot smarter then making a decision based on a message forum, no?

You're kidding right? You've never heard that before? No I will not make a purchased based off Consumer Reports.

Kram, you do understand that Consumer Reports only complies the reliability data, and the data is taken directly from car owners who are mailed confidential surveys? You did know that, right?

Maybe you could suggest another magazine or news source that compiles data in the same way, that doesn't take money from Advertisers, and is a non-profit?

Of all the funny things said so far in this thread (and there have been some good ones) relying on a internet forum to make your car buying decision over the "biased" data collecting of Consumer Reports is high on the list!!:)

Have a read.

Statistical problems of Consumer Reports auto ratings

and I never said to base a purchase from an internet forum. If had done that I wouldn't own a 2003 Boxster because of all the IMSB failure posts around here, when it's probably a 2% issue in these cars?

Kram, the site you sent me is from allpar - Chrysler, Dodge, Ram Jeep - all of which are some of the lowest rated cars on Consumer Reports. You do understand that car companies literally hire writers and pay them for stories like this, right? Need proof?

Here's one for you....from the #1 consumer advocate in the US, Clark Howard (on the folly of using internet forums for product reviews!!) http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/shopping-retail/be-wary-blogger-reviews-products/nPgHR/

CNN, MSN, a national organization of 280 Consumer Advocate Specialists, and the most honest consumer advocates in the United States all point to Consumer Reports as the most respected, trusted, unbiased magazine in the US.

I personally don't think it's the bible, but you'd have to be very foolish not to use it as a tool in your decision making process, don't you think?

I see you made a bias decision about that website calling them bias just because of their website vehicle content. Did you fact check them on their info?

You acted like nobody had ever said a thing about CR being bias. I'm not the first, won't be the last.

Again, no I will not make a vehicle purchase decision based on Consumer Reports. You do whatever you want on making your purchasing decisions, doesn't matter to me.

I hear ya, I was just like you. I refused to do the research, because I thunk, heck, that Vette is nice, what could go wrong? I learned the hard way...and the consumer reports view was spot on.

But certainly, no one can force you to listen to someone like Clark Howard, or CNN, or MSN, or even Consumer Reports - clearly you have devised a "more educated" system of determining a vehicles reliability:)...One would have to be mighty foolish (like I was) not to at least read it, and make a more educated decision before you made a major purchase. That's all in the realm of common sense, don't you think?

Why do you keep asking me the same question at the end of your post?

No I will not use Consumer Reports. I think it's crap.

Maybe this will blow your mind even more. This is the first time I've head the name Clark Howard. CNN and MSN lean directions and feed people with agendas they want pushed. So what they recommend bears nothing to me.

I'm not mindless, don't need to be told how to spend my money or what to buy with it.

No, that doesn't blow my mind....I can assure you, I've never "head" the name Clark Howard either!!!!. We can agree to disagree. I personally think it is mindless to not factor every piece of information into a decision that can cost 80k...and so do all the experts and consumer advocates. There is no such thing as exposing yourself to too much information, even if you question the source - especially when it comes directly from the owners. But if you think having less is better, more power to you!

I personally hope (if you get one), that you get a good one, with miles of trouble free driving!:cheers:

You did gather I meant heard, not head? You could figure that one out on your own, right?

To be honest, I did zero checking into Boxsters before I bought mine. It's used, it's 10 years old. I expect to have issues with it, just hope it's not an IMSB failure lol.

If I wanted to use rankings by the owners. I'd use JD Power for the info.

I'd buy a C6 Vette, no matter what you or CR says about them.

There's no telling what someone who thinks Consumer Reports is crap might mean when they say they haven't "head" someone;) LOL!

Haha, nice one. Welcome to the forums. :cheers:

To each his own! You do realize that JDPower has paid advertisers, right? And you understand having paid advertisers could be biased, right?

Go easy on him...he's had one of those days!:cheers:

Yes.

I just wanted to reply "Yes", but it's too short of a post and not allowed.

damn these message boards, that and waiting 60 seconds to post! All kidding aside, Clark Howard has been our nations leading consumer advocate for 30 years. He's sold about 8 NYC Times best selling books, has a daily radio talk show syndicated from coast to coast, and is on CNN daily. He has two areas of expertise...financial advice and cars.

Clark, in his 30 years, has never once sponsored or endorsed a product. He has been offered millions, but refused. Clark claims to have 2 wives..."Lane" his real life wife, and Consumer Reports.

I've listend to him for 20 years....he's literally saved me tens of thousands of dollars, if not a hundred. You can download his daily podcasts for free....you sound youngish, so starting to listen to him now could help you retire earlier.

kram, it never hurts to keep an open mind, and question every source (yes, even Consumer Reports). I didn't even know JDpower did used car surveys - I'll check that out.

Interesting OP ED story in Forbes
 

From Forbes: If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We'd All Save Some Money - Forbes

CHICAGO, IL - NOVEMBER 03: A Tesla Roadster S...
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/patrickmich...05/300x200.jpg
A Tesla Roadster Sport. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Snippet from the story:

...Tesla didn’t generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by selling sleazy emissions “credits,” mandated by the state of California’s electric vehicle requirements...

This is an accurate statement. Tesla's stock value isn't based on its cars, but on its ability to generate cash in the emissions credit market. Its better than being a Columbian drug lord in terms of being able to generate quick cash with almost zero cost of doing business.

To be fair, that's not Tesla's fault. What they are doing is legal and legit. I find fault in the gov idiots who created a "market" for emissions credits in the first place.

Wow!!!!! A Trev0006 topic that has generated 4 pages worth of response, I never thought I'd see that.

Regarding Tesla stock, it's sure had a great run but IMO be VERY wary of investing in anything the government meddles in.

Finally, the facts about batteries are coming out and they make Love Canal look like a nice city park.

Tesla Motors' Dirty Little Secret Is a Major Problem - DailyFinance

Fear has nothing to do with the toxicity of Li-ion batteries. Its real and the EV industry needs to address it.

Awww, c'mon! That picture is funny :D
What you posted is a bit exaggerated and blown out of proportion, but it does have its points. Innovation is never easy and there are always hurdles, but nitpicking at one small aspect of that innovation is indicative of the natural fear of change.

Lithium is but one electron storage technology and it's already on its way out. Change is always difficult and even painful. This change is going to happen and there isn't much point in trying to argue the fine points. Time and effort are much better spent solving problems instead of talking about them ;)
Just look back in history...Edison spent countless dollars and time to discredit and ridicule Tesla and his AC. Why? Did he really think that AC was as dangerous as he made it out to be? No. He did so because Tesla's AC threatened his wallet and pride...it scared him. It's the same story repeated over and over. So, you see, debate is useless in the face of real innovation. I'd rather be on the side of innovation, not the side that fights it.

I completely respect your opinion, even if I don't fully agree, but I'm a problem solver so I'll leave the debate to the debaters.

Then why not hydrogen?