[natch]

I think they do it for the intentional Streisand effect.

In other words it generates a new thread on social media once in a while, with people talking about whether or not there are cost of ownership savings, with the truth generally coming down in Tesla's favor. And still regardless of how you interpret the cost equation, the controversy brings attention.

And more in line with Occam's razor it just spurs awareness in the user reading the web page. You could say "no, it deceives the user." I think it doesn't; more deceptive is having a published MSRP when dealers add thousands to that published price and lie about EVs while they sell legacy cars.

[ethanbond]

“The competition does shady things too” isn’t really an argument for this not being a simple case of posting misleading prices…

[natch]

For the record you’re not quoting me. I said no such thing.

Misquoting is not an argument.

It’s not shady because it’s clearly labeled.

[ethanbond]

It wasn’t a direct quote but did you edit your comment? Pretty sure it was originally framed that MSRP was somehow evidence Tesla’s behavior is not simply misleading the customer. Apologies if you didn't edit and I just misread it the first go-around.

Anyway, it’s kind of silly to say MSRP is “more misleading” when MSRP literally stands for “manufacturer suggested retail price.” It says right there in the name the retail price may be higher or lower.

I don’t think this is some clever Streisand effect marketing ploy. It’s just slimy pricing practices.

[natch]

If anything I’ve saved more on maintenance than is reflected in Tesla’s claims so really the savings they show don’t go far enough. Not to mention the savings from accidents averted by the automated active accident avoidance systems. It’s insane really how much better value for money there is.