"good" is a very murky term here. They are certainly more high-tech, but are they as simple? As reliable? As easy to service?

You really need to define "good" in this context.

Reliability has always been a criticism of Aston Martins. Apart from that though, stunning cars to both look at and drive. A friend is a car dealer and he lent me a Vantage V8 for a while. This was the cheapest, most base level Aston Martin, but still a stunning piece of kit in every department. Have to say, despite the reliability criticisms, it didn't fail in any way.

One thing that I didnt expect was how easy it was to drive. Im a rubbish driver and one thing I hate is changing cars. I get used to my car and other cars a like aliens to me, until I get used to them. But I was at home in the Vantage with in a mile. So, so easy to drive.

Quite what Tesla will get out of it though, Im not sure. Perhaps its a quality / value / production thing. I do think that in context Aston Martins are very good value.

you're asking if something is as simple as a ferarri?

I think he was trying to argue that "good" is subjective. That Ferrari/Porsche aren't necessarily good, as it depends on what you value. If you value simplicity and reliability, perhaps you would view Toyota/Honda as superior.

Actually, Porsche has been #2 in reliability (J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Survey) for two years running (behind Toyota's Lexus brand), #4 in 2011, and was the leader in 2010.

However, to be perfectly fair, your average Porsche sees far fewer miles per year than a bread-and-butter mid-size sedan.

They're perfectly usable as daily drivers.

Guy on my block parks his 911 Carerra 4S on the street, drives it every day. It makes me happy that he actually uses it, and also makes me feel better about parking my normal car on the street.

They're not exactly exotics or anything. If he DD'd a GT3 or something that would be more impressive.