Not really, not if you are looking at averages; which is what I said in my post. A US $250K fire-breathing Porsche is in a category of it's own.
Interestingly enough, one of my cars is a Toyota GT-86. I actually chose it over a Porsche 911. I could have bought the 911. In fact I visited the dealer and was ready to commit. On my way back home I drove by the Toyota dealership and decided to go take a look. I left with the Gt-86.
Why?
The car was fun to drive. It handles very well (I've taken it to the track). And, here's the clincher: I don't have to worry about it one bit. Cost was not an issue. Yet, when you have an expensive car in a place like Los Angeles, well, one could make an argument it isn't the best idea. I was after a fun-to-drive sports car, not a daily commuter. The GT-86 filled that role just fine at a fraction of the cost. If I trash it at the race track I can buy three more before I spend what the 911 would have cost.
Not a perfect comparison but perhaps an interesting perspective.
Yeah, well, I bought a Porsche for barely more than a third of a GT-86.
How does it make any sense to say "I bought this car rather than that car for all these reasons" as a follow up to saying cars are interchangeable?
X and Y fill the same role is not in any way a claim that X and Y are indistinguishable (except for marketing), especially when you obviously chose one over the other.
Reliability wise? Sure they are not far off.