Hacker News Reader

Comment by esotericn | Hacker News Reader

The car market in its' totality has always struck me as being irrational.

It takes a large amount of number crunching to determine that an old small Japanese car has the cheapest TCO.

The same follows across the categories (e.g. the article's specific focus on sedans).

A whole bunch of mid-market brands seemingly exist for no reason other than for some groups of not-wealthy people to waste money in an attempt to impress other groups of not-wealthy people.

e.g. the German cars which seem to exist as some sort of indicator that someone can afford to burn money maintaining a depreciating asset.

It's basically the (non-smart) watch market, right. You wear a Casio-level watch if you don't care, a Rolex-level watch if you're signalling, and other stuff is basically an enthusiast market.

View on HN

You are completely discounting the subjective experience of driving different cars. Some cars are just flat-out much more enjoyable to drive. When people are spending significant portions of their lives driving, getting more enjoyment or comfort out of that time matters to people.

It's completely rational to want to enjoy your time driving a vehicle if you spend a lot of time in the car. Driving a chevy cobalt is just awful compared to driving a higher quality vehicle.

You're also far more likely to be able to avoid an accident when you have better handling and more powerful brakes. Even horsepower/torque can be a safety feature for certain accident avoidance situations.

I think esotericn is classifying that as the "enthusiast market". "More enjoyable to drive" matters, sure. But for most of us, it's not the primary driver of the buying decision - practicality is.

> Some cars are just flat-out much more enjoyable to drive.

The counterpoint to that is Audi ( A4 in particular ); dreadfully unbalanced whale-like FWD with the engine hanging out over the front wheels. Objectively dynamically inferior to the humble Ford Mondeo. But sold in droves in spartan-spec because of badge cachet.

They have recently started to tidy up their handling but still lag more humble brands.

The Mondeo/Fusion's F-R balance is actually worse than the A4's.

Since the engine in the Fusion is mounted transversely with an inline transaxle the majority of the weight is in front of the front axle.

The A4 has a longitudinally mounted engine with the transmission and PTU (output to the rear wheels) behind it, which means the weight straddles the front axle.

Audis used to be extremely nose-heavy but their engineers have spent a lot of effort over the past few generations to move the drivetrain's center of mass backwards. They also offer things like differentials with electronically controlled multiplate clutches that allow torque to be transferred to the wheel(s) with the most traction in a matter of milliseconds to improve traction in cornering or in wet/snowy conditions.

So "badge cachet" is definitely not the only difference.

I remember wanting to buy an Audi during my entire 20s specifically because of the movie Ronin.

Don't forget that these cars are a huge pain to maintain.

They're German. Germans expect that you will take care of things on a schedule if you are told to do so. That's why German cars have a much more detailed list of required maintenance than American cars do. The Germans don't think it's unusual.

Indeed, I'm planning to buy a (probably German) used car in Germany around April, and pretty much the first thing I've figured out is you never buy anything that doesn't have its full service history meticulously documented, with receipts.

Come on now, there's a hell of a lot more going on with the reliability of vehicles coming out of Germany than slack maintenance cycles.

It seems it really depends. My '12 Jetta TDI was super reliable, never had a single problem apart from it destroying the earth and lying about it. But other people with the same year, same car, had all sorts of problems. I feel like there's perhaps quality control issues coming off the line in Mexico.

Our new-used '13 Audi Q5 is made in Bavaria. So we shall see how its quality compares. So far no problems.

Yeah, but what portion of the market can realistically afford the luxury, and what portion of the market cannot afford it but buy in anyways?

How do you explain away the people like an old high school friend of mine that was so brand loyal to the concept of a european luxury car that they got the only such model they could afford (purely in cap-ex terms) which was aging and constantly being maintained (could have easily leased a late model asian economy car instead, with money to spare) and from which all of the subjective experience features were gone (sounded awful, felt awful, smelled awful, and had little remaining intact interior materials)?

Also, there are cars that manage to have both terrible TCO and lack any positive subjective experience features but manage to make it onto the roadways regardless.

There should be an elastic luxury portion of the market where you have the typical dealership experience -- but it should be a tiny minority. The rest of the market should be very concrete, where you show up and just pay a simple price for a simple commodity vehicle that competes with the others through simple metrics (fuel economy, cargo capacity, crash test performance, power-to-weight ratio, warranty terms, etc.) I get an independent party's TCO estimator where I can fill in my average miles per year, how often and how much I might haul, number of years I plan to own it before selling, etc. and they use past data to project costs of ownership (down to considering things like "this model engine has been in use for many years so we can be very confident about its cost of maintanance) to get a TCO for all the models in this segment to easily consider before ordering, and no grubby salesmen are required -- it's mostly between me and the engineers that conspire to build a reliable machine -- no executives to decide that the model line needs to be segmented in such and such a way to trick me into paying more to get much less with by putting a single economy feature (like durable LED headlamps) in the top of the line model with a bunch of other things I really would rather not have (wood texture details and crap).

Edmunds has good data on TCO.

https://www.edmunds.com/tco.html

Can easily get more comfort in a budget car by adding packages.

Comfort, maybe. Driving, hardly. I drive both a Ford Focus and a small sports car. While the Ford Focus, my usual commuter car, is not bad at all, I still take the sports car to work about once a week, and it just doesn't compare.

In some ways, the Ford Focus is more "comfortable", but the control and precision that the sports car offers even when just cruising through normal traffic through the city is amazing. The Ford, again not a bad car, feels like "swimming" in comparison.

This is, to some extent, similar in the difference between, say, driving a Chevy and driving a BMW. Subjectively, one just drives much better than the other one, and given how much time you are forced to spend in a car in the US, why would I not opt for a car that implements the driving aspect better?

Well, this assumes that it’s all about TCO or status.

But have you ever driven a Mercedes, BMW, Porsche or Audi? The driving expierence is superior to everything else! Tesla gets close...but I can’t think of any other brand that does.

I think it's fair to say this falls under grandparent's "enthusiast" category. Nothing wrong with being an enthusiast, but I think the characterization as "irrational" is probably correct.

Few human decisions are rational if you start taking that approach. You can always live in a smaller dwelling, wear worse clothes, eat cheaper food, avoid all paid entertainment, etc.

It would be better to state that the car market is not primarily based around the simple act of transportation. Which should be pretty obvious anyway.

> You can always live in a smaller dwelling, wear worse clothes, eat cheaper food, avoid all paid entertainment, etc.

Indeed. And the more of these you can check, the happier and more satisfying your life is likely to get. Why maintain an unused mansion when a small, cozy place will do? Why follow the latest fashion trends when your four year old OCBD is in fighting form? Why eat lobsters all the time when beans are so nutrient-dense and cheap?! Why sit on your ass wasting away at the behest of a mediocre film when you could read a book instead?

The other major difference, of course, is that there are few irrational decisions quite as expensive as buying an idiot pickup truck to show off. Maybe a boat or an aircraft, but not much more.

Why have a small, cozy place when you could live in a van down by the river? Why buy clothes when you can drape yourselves in discarded blankets? Why eat beans when you can haunt the dumpsters behind the local restaurants?

Reductio ad absurdum

Yes, exactly. Calling it "irrational" to spend resources on pleasure leads to absurd conclusions. Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.

Of course it's a fallacy. One has to draw a line at some point. To me that line would be a way, way cheaper expense than a big, polluting truck. But it seems that to you, if I can't own a truck, I must go all the way to living in shanties/favelas and dumpster diving.

How do you decide where to draw the line? What’s the rational way to put some pleasures under the “rational” category and others under the “irrational” category?

You calibrate on what people were satisfied with thirty or a hundred years ago, eliminating modern status-seeking. You ask yourself "Would I be horrified to live like that, or do I just think I'm too good for it?" Like there's no way I am going to live as a boarder with another family, but I can definitely make my own lunch.

Why thirty or a hundred? Why not two, or ten thousand?

The top level post was edited to add the line about enthusiasts after this was posted.

Life is too short to make saving money the first priority on every decision. Drive whatever you can afford and makes happiest (and makes sense for the use case you have in mind for it, offroad, snow, racing, commute time, etc).

BMW's recent models are mostly a joke in dynamics. See almost any review of many of their new models for further explanation. This unfortunately isn't 2010 anymore.

Mercedes hasn't been kenown for driving dynamics, but perhaps their solidity is great. Porsche is absolutely renowned for the driving experience they provide.

There are plenty that can match these in every class. If you only consider brands based on an overall perception, then sure, maybe not.

The Cadillac ATS and Alfa Romeo Giulia are almost universally regarded as dynamically superior to their 3-series equivalents, for a common example.

> The Cadillac ATS and Alfa Romeo Giulia are almost universally regarded as dynamically superior to their 3-series equivalents, for a common example.

Exactly, my 2017 Focus RS is so much fun to drive and has a lot more power than any German car of equivalent price. I mean where else can you find AWD, 350 HP and 350 ft/lb torque with a 6 speed manual for under $40,000?

A used R32 or Golf R and a stage 2 ecu tune (downpipe) will easily do it, and be a better car overall.

I like the RS a lot, but not $40,000 a lot.

Your comparing the price of a used car vs a new car? Of course the used car will be cheaper. A Golf R brand new is more expensive then a new Focus RS. Also I'm a Minnesotan I need a real AWD system not the Haldex system in the Golf R, which is basically FWD unless it detects low traction then it will engage the back wheels. Also the Golf R has only 288HP and 280FT/LB torque compared to my cars 350HP and 350FT/LB torque so I'm not sure why you think the Golf R is the "Better" car.

> where else can you find AWD, 350 HP and 350 ft/lb torque with a 6 speed manual for under $40,000?

Not Ford, anymore.

Yea sure, but we all knew the Focus RS was a limited production release and they would only be making it for a couple years.

The Audis were better than any other Japanese car I test drove.

That's quite reasonable, and I may agree depending on what exact cars you test drove, but that's a rather different statement than the one made in the comment I replied to.

S series yes (have an S5 and an SQ5). A series pretty much drive like a Toyota minus the reliability.

Had a B8.5 S4, now a B9 A5 with sports suspension. The power/transmission leave a little something to be desired, but the A5 is otherwise a very nice ride, and not too wallowy for an Audi. I have also a much more powerful sports car for the weekend, but the A5 has its charms too.

I love the A4 drive as well.

I would believe that for Acura or infinity, but Lexus?

Completely agreed. Similarly, most cars in Jaguar's current portfolio have good Dynamics.

Is that true in typical urban driving conditions of stop and go, or at least slow traffic? I think the only thing that would help make my driving experience better in this traffic would be radar cruise control that can handle stop/go traffic.

I've found that the best driving experience in my commute conditions is a $500,000 bus because I can get some work done or relax so the length of the commute doesn't mattter so much.

    > The driving experience is superior

Driving experience only goes so far in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Those aren't cars that people "need". Most lux car owners will also have a "beater" car that they use for real life.

Status is an important motivator and should not be dismissed.

That’s no longer true with the driver assistance systems available now. Some cars provide a vastly superior driving experience in heavy traffic now.

But people don't drive only in bumper-to-bumper traffic. That is the most common use, but nearly everyone has some open road time now and again.

Driven Benz, BMW, Porsche, Audi, Tesla, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc.

No way in hell is a C-Class Benz worth it's price. Tesla drives way better and is much more fun.

I think it's about TCO, status, reliability and maybe fun-factor.

Nobody buys an Audi or Benz for 'fun-factor'. Especially not when they get AMG or i versions.

Nobody buys an AMG for fun?

they mean the majority of people get them for the badging, AMG are definitely the most fun sonically but most people arent bothering with straight piping or any fun performance mods. its mainly a flex

Right, that's the enthusiast market.

I had driven BMW 3s and Minis via ReachNow. Did not feel anything special vs my Honda, or any rental I had.

none of those cars are supposed to feel anything special, the 3 series is the entry level scrap bmw puts out to get people onto the brand and the newer bmws are last among the germans

mini, owned by bmw, is.. mini.. theyre the car parents get their daughters

I love my Audi S4, but I find the Tesla Model S to be even more fun than my car. Unfortunately it's too expensive.

I bet that you could not pick a BMW or Audi from equally priced car from other companies.

I didn't downvote you, but I bet I could [pick them out]. They just value different things compared to american counterparts, especially in older models.

I (regrettably used to) own a 2002 BMW M3 -- relatively cheap to buy, and compared to anything else in its year or price category was unequivocally better as a "driver's car". But, many people don't really care about a driver's car -- they index higher on other things like electronics, safety, styling, etc. That's fine, it's only preference, but for raw performance nothing similar could compare.

My experience is that a lot of people equate "expensive car" or "german car" with "nice car", and for them "nice car" means something specific other than raw performance numbers, like comfort, safety, features, or Consumer Reports ranking. For enthusiasts, it means something totally different, and those qualities are indexed on by BMW/Merc/Audi (and some rare American and Japanese exceptions to be fair).

You think it's all about TCO vs. signaling. The trade space has a lot more dimensions, and you're getting a lot of pushback, especially about the "driving experience" dimension.

I'd like to add "reliability" as another dimension that does not seem to have been mentioned yet.

I just exited a beloved "old small Japanese car" (1998 Civic), partly because parts were starting to break down. Usually it was nuisance stuff, but it takes time to fix. The TCO of the old car was well less than (say) the payment on my new car, but I couldn't deal with the unpredictability and the lost time.

It's bonkers if you take the narrow view that cars are strictly about transportation. But of course people desire and enjoy cars and trucks for all kinds of reasons--including aspirational signaling like you describe, but also the experience of driving or riding in them, or even just an appreciation of artful styling or impressive engineering.

The sales trends observed in the article seem to be explained by a mass shifting of tastes.

I don't know about a taste shift -- as the article said, Corollas and Camrys and Civics have seen no such shift. I personally can't see any reason to take a chance on an (historically bad) American car, even with the "but we've changed!" story, when so much good stuff is available elsewhere.

> The car market in its' totality has always struck me as being irrational.

Consumers aren't known for their rationality.

> It takes a large amount of number crunching to determine that an old small Japanese car has the cheapest TCO.

How so? It's trivial to get the average maintenance costs of a car based on model and year. It doesn't take an excel spreadsheet to conclude that something like a 2010 Toyota Corolla would have lowest TCO

I know why I drive a Volkswagen - it fits. Every American car I have ever driven doesn't work for my 6'5 narrow frame (I'm also long-legged, short torso). There's also the tendency to load up the dash with every possible piece of information and turn the radio into some kind of Microsoft supercomputer.

It's a car - it needs to get me reliably and comfortably from point A to point B with a minimum of distraction, look presentable and connect to my iPhone for music.

The TCO on VWs, in my experience, is very low, mostly because they don't have complex add-ons that break constantly.

Whenever my wife's Beetle breaks in any way, the repair cost is easily 5-10x what a comparable repair is for my Accord. She's had to do repairs on her car three times since she got it. I've had to do repairs on mine... zero. The cars have been in our possession for about the same time and are almost the same age.

I daresay that the TCO on Volkswagens is higher than "very low."

Completely agreed. Unfortunately when you have to see the same mechanics who also work on Porsche, Mercedes, Audi, and BMW, you get reamed on the repairs. parts are expensive too.

IF you do your own work VWs aren't too bad. Parts are more expensive, but not too much. However you have to know going in that only German car mechanics($$$) will have the tools to work on it, and they are the only ones who won't put in standard anti-freeze (or oil) which work on every other car but will break something in yours.

Some would argue that the extra tools you have to buy is a factor, but you need special tools for every car anyway. So long as you know you need them it isn't a big deal.

I think I can take apart a whole Toyota with an 8mm and 10mm socket wrench.

German cars are odd like that. I know 3 really tall guys; one is 6'8" and the other two are 6'10". They all drive German cars because they FIT. For some reason an A4 and a Golf fit the 6'10" guys just fine; one of whom would look out the REAR side window driving an Infiniti Q45 ("full size" luxury sedan).

There's just something about German car design that is sizing magic. I could even fit behind my 6'10" friend driving his A4, which for all intents and purposes (in the US, at least) is an entry-level/compact luxury car.

Germans are a bit taller than Americans, on average, and Dutch people are even taller. With $6-7/gallon gas, fuel efficient cars that 2m (6’6”) guys can drive comfortably will always be in demand.

I used to notice something similar about Japanese cars and trunk space when renting: It seemed that for a given external size, a Japanese car would always have considerably more trunk space than an US car.

Recently, I started including carplay as a must have feature when renting, and since Toyotas are lagging in that respect, I started looking at US cars again, and I must say that the Chevy Cruze has about as big a trunk for its size as anything I've seen.

I am 6'8", also long legged with a (relatively) short torso. In general, it holds that the Japanese companies build small cars for small people, American companies build big cars for big people, and European companies build small cars for big people.

Exceptions can be found of course, but this is overwhelmingly the rule. Even Japanese cars that /should/ be big are not made to accommodate larger occupants - see the Lexus LS series for instance, their largest luxury sedan - for some reason the front seat stops well short of sliding back and occupying all the room it could, therefore my knees are crammed up into the dash. Same goes for Toyota Avalon, Sienna, various Acuras I've tried, Honda Accord, etc. etc.

Contrast my experience in Japanese cars with the smaller Audi A4, or my (much, much smaller) 1984 5-series BMW, where the front seats are able to run back as far as touching the back seat, resulting in ample leg room when needed.

For American vehicles, at least when you pony up the $$ for the larger models, you actually get occupant space to match - in my experience all American vehicles based on a half ton or larger truck frame offer ample interior space even for someone of my stature - this is Silverado, Tahoe, Yukon, Escalade, Expedition, etc.

I moved to VW from hondas and toyotas. Overall i love the car but i would say that maintenance is much much more expensive than japanese cars. German auto mechanics and VW parts are just so much more expensive than japanese. I have no dealership in my city so I have to see independent mechanics. It's insane how expensive they are!

That and VW's customers in home market (EU) have different expectations WRT the cost and frequency of maintenance. To grossly generalize American consumers want cars that above almost everything else require as little maintenance as possible and use the cheapest parts/consumables.

European customers on the other hand are more likely to think nothing of a car that needs regular care and feeding, including using manufacturer-specific fluids and consumables, in order to achieve higher levels of other things like efficiency or performance.

It seems like 87.4% of this discussion revolves around differences in definitions of "better".

You know, there are German cars that are priced competitively.

When I went shopping for a new hatchback moving on from the 20 year old Hold Civic, I did look at Honda Civic, VW Golf and tons of other small hatchbacks and I ended up with the WV which wasn't even the most expensive choice.

> It takes a large amount of number crunching to determine that an old small Japanese car has the cheapest TCO.

Is there some way to include the environmental cost as well? A 10 year old Honda Civic is going to cost less in that regard than a 10 year old BMW 318. But what about a 10 year old Prius?

Sure; taxation should be pricing in externalities.

Buying a less polluting car that costs more is effectively a charitable donation.

Most individuals don't make charitable donations of $1000+.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons Tesla are so great. It's fun to drive, so the extra cost isn't purely charitable.

One point that I'm not seeing clearly articulated in this sub-thread: The US is widely rich. A lot of people can afford to buy things for status-signaling, no matter how silly you and I find it.

Japanese cars annoy the heck out of me. I occasionally (forced to) drive a Toyota Venza. Here my issues:

1. low torque at low RPMs.

2. suspension is too soft.

3. it beeps at me constantly. Lock/unlock door, open door, start car, etc.

4. complicated (too many buttons) screens and radio.

5. doesn't allow me to do things I want: a) open door while in drive, b) turn off all my lights when i turn light switch to off, c) use certain screen functions when i drive.

6. hatch door doesn't open if battery is dead.

I'm sure I'd have more if I actually owned the vehicle. The BMW I own doesn't treat me like an idiot.

> a) open door while in drive, b) turn off all my lights when i turn light switch to off, c) use certain screen functions when i drive

As a fellow driver, I wish there were more cars on the road like this.

I would argue that disabling screen functions while the car is moving is more of a safety hazard than not doing so. Unpredictable interfaces are distracting. Would you rather drive next to me while I reach over and adjust the bass on my car stereo or while I spend a few minutes screwing with my car stereo only to learn that I cannot adjust the bass while the car is moving? In many cars, I could simply ask my passenger to adjust the bass. But in my car I will need to pull over on the side of the freeway to adjust the bass and then merge back into traffic from a dead stop. It's a safety feature.

VW/Audi group also seems to be designing cars with the 'idiot' perspective now. Rented a 2018 Q5 earlier this year and had same issue with not being able to open door while in drive or reverse (which sucks for checking parking spaces). Our 2013 Q5 we own doesn't do this. My old Jetta liked to lock the doors the moment the ignition turned on, which meant my kids would reach for the door to enter and find it locked even though I just unlocked the doors. Things like that, highly irritating.

Car controls should be predictable and easily accessed through muscle memory.

It depends on the car. My Honda is super simple, let's me do what I want, and has firm suspension. Even BMWs of the same period were ridiculously complicated and less about being fun to drive. Having all the power high up in the rev range is just something you have to get used to. It's fun.

I'm curious how important "6. hatch door doesn't open if battery is dead." is -- I can count the number of times my battery has died in the past decade on one finger - and that time it still had enough power to unlock the doors, it just couldn't start the car. (door not closed all the way all weekend so the interior lights were on)

My car doesn't have an electric-only trunk lock, but if it did, I could just fold the seats down for access to the trunk... and I could crawl in and pull the emergency release if I really needed to open it.

I'm more lamenting the electrification of something that doesn't need to be.

My mother drives the Venza short distances. Since the Venza is so electronic, the battery dies constantly on her since it doesn't charge enough while driving. So much so that I bought an external battery to boost the car for her - probably once a month if I forget to drive it myself (longer distance). Multiple mechanics say battery and alternator are fine.

> I could just fold the seats down for access to the trunk.

In the Venza, the lever to fold the seats is accessed via the trunk. But you can't open the trunk when battery is dead. Luckily the Venza is a station wagon, so I did crawl over back seats to get the battery.

I find japanese products to have excessive electronics, buttons and beeping. I'm happy to pay for a higher priced German car (in response to the lower TCO comment)

Put the car on a Battery Tender. There are quick-connect kits so you can even avoid fiddling with the battery terminals.

1 and 2 are signature Toyota characteristics, and I'd expect them to be apparent on a big vehicle with little performance emphasis like the Venza. There are a lot of good Japanese cars that have lots of available torque and road-feel. Mazda and Honda feature on just about every enthusiast magazine "Car of the Year" list for good reason.

Um... Honda is the poster child for "virtually torqueless but screams at high RPMs".

Performance Hondas are great cars, sure, but not for low-end torque.

Thank you. What you describe is exactly what I've noticed after delving into the car world via rentals.

If you're buying a sedan -- Toyota/Honda/Kia.

If you own a BMW/Audi/Benz, you're not wealthy and you're just signalling to other non-wealthy individuals. It's interesting because most of the BMW/Audi/Benz look terrible and are way cheaper than most expect yet still a terrible, arrogant waste of capital.

Only a few brands don't match this. Tesla and Range Rover. The former for obvious reasons. The latter because no comparable high-end SUV exists.

If you bought a Ford/Chevy, you're asking for reliability issues.

"If you own a BMW/Audi/Benz, you're not wealthy and you're just signalling to other non-wealthy individuals."

Err, the median income of a 2017 Mercedes-Benz E-class buyer was nearly $200,000 [1]. That qualifies as pretty high income. The numbers are similar for BMW and Audi.

You can argue that they aren't "wealthy" (as this isn't a measure of net worth), but people with high incomes are more likely to be wealthy than people without. Someone making $200K a year certainly isn't the stereotypical person "faking being rich" you portray them as here.

"Look terrible and are way cheaper": well, "look terrible" is all about personal taste. If it doesn't float your boat, then fine, but it apparently floats enough boats that the companies sell a lot of them.

"Way cheaper" is almost objectively false. Most reviewers like the cabins of the luxury brands far more than they like the cabins of the non luxury. You may think they aren't worth the extra dollars, but when someone is wealthy, the marginal value of those extra dollars is lower.

[1] https://www.jdpower.com/cars/expert-reviews/powersteering-20...

$200k for a household is not high income by any measure. That sentence explains your entire perspective in your comment.

E-Class = Poor people

If you consider these cars expensive, that’s your problem.

$200k in annual income is nearly four times the US median income. Sure, it's not "ultra-rich", but it the 94% percentile.

Don't know how what you consider "high income", but if "more than 94% of the population of one of the richest countries in the world" doesn't qualify, then there is basically no one who does.

If you want to know what the self-driving truly wealthy drive, in the USA it's mostly Jeeps, Chevy Tahoes, and the like. Sometimes a Land Cruiser or an old Benz, preferably a wagon. Standing out in a fancy vehicle like a lottery-winning rube isn't it.

Ford and Chevy are pretty reliable. BMWs are fun to drive. Porsches are a step above BMW in terms of fun factor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com