Your wrong here though. I remember this coming up with BMW in the 90s. If you asked BMW owners they would rate their cars as some of the most reliable on the roads. Objectively they were crap in reliability though. It's all people justifying things.
Nobody bought a BMW because of their reliability no matter what they claimed unless they were a fanboi who couldn't be bothered to actually look at the data. This is true of most luxury car brands with a few notable exceptions. Furthermore your argument is nonsense because CR rates reliability based on surveys to actual owners of those cars. Sure you might find a braggart who is delusional or honestly hasn't had any problems with their BMW but those are the exception rather than the rule. Similarly nobody buys a Tesla because of its reliability no matter what they are claiming.
Cars that are bought for reliability market that fact front and center. BMW markets their cars as the ultimate driver's cars. Tesla doesn't ma
The Ferrari is a red herring, anybody even remotely familiar with any of the super cars knows they're god awful for reliability, but that's not what you're buying it for and nobody will argue for their reliability
Incorrect. It's an extreme example of my point but you are confirming what I'm saying. People don't buy Tesla vehicles with reliability as a primary concern. I'm sure it's on the list somewhere but it's not the main consideration. Consumer Reports however they regard reliability as a top concern even when the buyers of the vehicle in question do not.
Yet objectively they're somewhere between average reliability and crap reliability.
Objectively the average reliability of cars today is actually extremely good. So someone who says their car is reliable when the data says it is average probably isn't lying. The difference between top and mid-tier reliability these days is really not a big difference. This is quite a change from 20 years ago when there were rather substantial differences in reliability between brands.