[cjackson1906]

Disclaimer up front: I don't claim to be an expert or a seasoned enthusiast. What I am is reasonable and logical. If you tell me this is not about reason or logic, then I can live with that even though I may not understand it.

So, I have a simple question when it comes to these sort of comparisons: Why do we compare cars that are not equal in cost or close in cost? Yes, I'm talking about the Porsche Pan Turbo in this comparison. Every other factor seems to be somewhat close except cost. Is it fair to compare Jessica Biel, Mila Kunis, or Halle Berry to the chic that works in your office or you met out a bar last week?! Sure they all may be hot, but would it be fair to compare them head-to-head w/o factoring in cost/"pay-to-play" factor?

Sure, there are other comparisons that get us riled up (coupes v. sedans, exotics v. non-exotics, AWD v. RWD, 400 HP v. 560 HP, etc.,), but there's something about comparing cars where the price difference (before negotiating) is b/w $40k-$90k. The Pan Turbo and Turbo S start at $141k and $180k. Price is only one factor in the comparison, but it seems to be the factor that is the widest margin and one of the least subjective in these comparisons. If you don't care about money, then why not include the AM Rapide S, MB S63, Maserati Quattroporte GTS, etc.,? I know the OP reviewed the cars he likes and test drove, so I'm not knocking him or his choices.

Note: Sorry to be that guy that equates women to cars, but those are two things that came to mind when I thought of "hot." People are not objects...I get it.