How I bought a Tesla for $78 Per Month
Credibility score: 48/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "How I bought a Tesla for $78 Per Month" and rated it 48/100 for credibility (a BS score of 52/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-19. Its weakest claim — "Calls Autopilot a 'must-have' for the lazy, then dismisses Full Self-Driving as something he 'could do himself.' Convenient. 😈" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 25 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 25 claims analyzed: 3 scored under 40, 18 between 40 and 69, and 4 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Declares buying a $35,000 Tesla Model 3 without seeing or driving it — setting up a 'how-to' story. 😈 — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:00
He's just setting the stage, laying out his 'bold' move. Nothing tricky here yet, just the setup for the 'big reveal.'
Why this score: This is the speaker's premise, establishing the core action that the rest of the video will explain. It's a straightforward statement of his experience, not a claim requiring external evidence or a hidden agenda. It's just the 'what happened' before the 'how it happened.'
Original quote: “I just bought the $35,000 Tesla Model 3 and just like any 28 year old millennial adieu I ordered it online without ever having seen it and without ever having driven one before here's what happened I”
Claims 'zero intention' of buying a Tesla while actively speccing it out — classic 'accidental' purchase narrative. 💀 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:12
He's playing the 'it just happened' card, but he was already deep in the car-buying rabbit hole. We've all been there, mortal. 😉
Why this score: This is a common narrative device where the speaker downplays their initial intent to make the eventual purchase seem more spontaneous or serendipitous. While he claims 'zero intention,' his actions (browsing, opening a second tab to 'spec it out for fun') suggest at least a subconscious interest. It's a relatable human behavior, not a factual claim to be verified, but it sets a certain tone for the story.
Original quote: “was browsing YouTube and happen to come across a video announcing the arrival of Tesla's $35,000 model 3 as I was watching that video I opened up a second tab in my browser just a speck went out for fun I honestly had zero intention of ever buying one it's just a guilty hobby of mine to go to car…”
He's adding $2,000 for upgrades, calling it 'modest' and 'decent value.' Classic upsell justification. 😈 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:36
Calling a $2,000 upgrade 'modest' and 'decent value' is just softening the blow for the price hike. It's a sales tactic, not a neutral observation. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker is framing an additional $2,000 as a small, worthwhile investment by using words like 'modest' and 'decent value.' This is loaded language designed to make the price increase seem less significant and more appealing, rather than presenting it as a straightforward cost. It's the oldest trick in the book to make you feel like you're getting a deal when you're just spending more. 💀
Original quote: “The standard range model 3 begins that their promised price of $35,000 but I quickly realized that if you increase your budget just a modest $2,000 you'll get an extra 20 miles of range a slightly higher top speed power adjusted seats premium interior and upgraded audio which honestly seems like a…”
Claims to be 'all about saving money' while adding thousands in upgrades. The hypocrisy is palpable. 😈 — Volume Game (45/100)
At 1:05
He says he's 'all about saving money' right after adding $2,000 in upgrades. That's a classic volume game: loud claim, quiet contradiction. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states he's 'all about saving money' immediately after justifying a $2,000 upgrade. This creates a contradiction where his stated intention (saving money) is undermined by his actions (adding costs). It's a rhetorical move to appear fiscally responsible while still indulging in optional expenses, making the audience overlook the actual spending. I've seen mortals do this since the dawn of commerce. 💀
Original quote: “I'm all about saving money as we all know so we're going with black today next do they give you the option to upgrade to 19-inch wheels for an extra $1,500 nope that's not gonna happen now”
Calls Autopilot a 'must-have' for the lazy, then dismisses Full Self-Driving as something he 'could do himself.' Convenient. 😈 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 1:30
He calls Autopilot a 'must-have' for laziness, but then dismisses Full Self-Driving as something he can 'do himself.' That's not a consistent standard — it's just justifying his choices. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker applies different standards to similar features based on his personal preference and budget. He labels Autopilot (lane keeping, traffic pacing) a 'must-have' for laziness, but then dismisses the more advanced Full Self-Driving (navigating highways, summoning) as something he 'could just do himself' for $5,000. This is a false equivalence, treating two levels of automation with different price points and capabilities as if they should be judged by the same, self-serving metric. It's a way to rationalize spending on one feature while rejecting another. 💀
Original quote: “with traffic a must-have for anyone lazy like me they also offer full self-driving capability for an extra five thousand dollars this includes navigating highways summoning your car and a few other technologically amazing feats but for $5,000 I think I could just do that myself so”
Calls the price increase a 'classic bait-and-switch.' That's a strong accusation for optional upgrades. 😈 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:08
Calling optional upgrades a 'classic bait-and-switch' is loaded language. It's a common sales model, not necessarily deception. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker uses the emotionally charged term 'bait-and-switch' to describe the increase from the base price to his configured price. While the base price might be a 'starting point,' offering optional upgrades is standard practice, not a deceptive 'bait-and-switch' where a different, inferior product is substituted. This language is designed to evoke outrage and make the audience feel misled, even if the process is transparent. I've seen actual bait-and-switch, mortal. This is just marketing. 💀
Original quote: “$40,000 classic bait-and-switch am i right”
Claiming a federal tax credit as 'good as cash' for a 2019 purchase. 💀 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:31
He's talking about a 2019 tax credit like it's still available. That ship sailed years ago, mortal. 🚢
Why this score: The speaker is discussing a federal tax credit that was applicable until June 30, 2019. Presenting this as a current benefit for someone buying a Tesla today is a massive omission of time-sensitive context. It's not 'good as cash' if it doesn't exist anymore.
Original quote: “well to start this car is eligible for a three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollar federal tax credit until June 30th 2009 teen this means if you pay more than that in federal taxes you will receive this entire mountebank at the time you file your tax return that money is pretty much as good as…”
Citing a California rebate without mentioning its current status. 💸 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:48
Another rebate from the past being presented as a current perk. These things expire, you know. ⏳
Why this score: Similar to the federal tax credit, the California Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP) has had various iterations and funding limitations. Presenting a $2,500 rebate without specifying its current availability or eligibility requirements for a Tesla purchase in 2026 is missing crucial context. These programs change.
Original quote: “California drivers are also eligible for a twenty five hundred dollar electric vehicle rebate in which the state will literally mail you a check back for twenty five hundred dollars upon showing proof of purchase no”
Calling Tesla 'sneaky' for including gas savings in the price. 😈 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:58
Calling it 'sneaky' for showing a potential benefit? That's just marketing, not a conspiracy. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker uses the word 'sneaky' to describe Tesla's inclusion of estimated gas savings in their advertised price. While one can argue about the transparency or prominence of this detail, framing it as 'sneaky' is loaded language designed to evoke a negative emotional response rather than a neutral observation about a common marketing tactic for EVs.
Original quote: “Tesla gets a little bit sneaky after this because in that twenty nine thousand four hundred and fifty dollar figure Tesla also includes the estimated gas savings over six years of ownership which comes to about forty three hundred dollars now”
Dismissing gas savings as only comparable if buying a gas car. 🙄 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 3:12
He's stripping out a real financial benefit just because it applies to other EVs too. That's not how savings work. 💰
Why this score: The speaker dismisses the gas savings as a factor in the Tesla's price, arguing it only applies if one would otherwise buy a gas car. This ignores the fact that for many buyers, an EV is a direct alternative to a gas car, and the fuel savings are a significant part of the total cost of ownership. Removing it from the calculation for a 'true' price ignores a real financial advantage for the consumer.
Original quote: “from my perspective this would apply to any electric car you purchase not just Tesla so this is really only comparable if the buyer was to otherwise buy a gas powered car so excluding the gas savings and”
Buying a Tesla on impulse after a 'pretty good deal' calculation. 🤦 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 3:38
He just calculated a 'good deal' by removing actual savings and using expired credits. Bold. Stupid, but bold. 💀
Why this score: The speaker admits to being 'impulsive' or 'delusional' and decides to buy the car based on his own adjusted 'pretty good deal' calculation. This is a personal decision and a subjective take on value, not a factual claim. It's more about his personal buying experience and mindset than a verifiable financial assessment.
Original quote: “now maybe I'm just impulsive maybe I'm delusional but it was honestly at this point that I just figured you know what why not that's a pretty good deal I'm just gonna go ahead and buy it so I did”
Describing Tesla's buying process as 'easiest ever' like Amazon. ✨ — Personal Story (60/100)
At 3:55
He's praising the online buying experience. It's his personal take, not a universal truth. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker is sharing his personal experience of buying a Tesla, comparing it favorably to traditional car dealerships. This is an anecdote about his own satisfaction with the process, which is subjective and not a claim that can be fact-checked. It reflects his individual preference and experience.
Original quote: “coming from someone who's purchased several cars before this was by far the easiest car buying experience I have ever had in my entire life there was no driving around spending hours at car dealerships I didn't have to pretend like I was disinterested just so I can spend days negotiating the price…”
Claims 3.75% interest is so low, investing elsewhere is better. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:31
He's confident 3.75% is 'low' enough to beat 'literally anywhere else.' That's a bold claim for a fixed rate. 😈
Why this score: While 3.75% is a decent car loan rate, claiming it's so low that 'literally anywhere else' will yield a better return is a broad generalization. Investment returns vary wildly, and guaranteed returns above 3.75% are not a given, especially for the average investor. It's a confident statement without specific evidence to back the 'anywhere else' part.
Original quote: “notice their offer soon after I placed my deposit 100% financing for 72 months at a 3.75 percent interest rate that's low and at that interest rate I'd get a better return investing my money literally anywhere else instead of buying the car in cash”
Tesla's two-week delivery promise is not being met, zero updates. — No Frame (75/100)
At 5:10
He's just reporting his experience with Tesla's delivery timeline. No tricks here, just frustration. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker is recounting his personal experience with Tesla's delivery process, noting a lack of updates and uncertainty about the timeline. This is a straightforward account of his situation, not a manipulative framing technique.
Original quote: “and now with that out of the way I couldn't help but wonder could they actually fulfill their promise delivery time of two weeks so now it's officially one week after placing the order with absolutely zero update whatsoever from Tesla I feel like a kid logging in every single day and the Tesla…”
Tesla overestimates delivery speed to entice orders, knowing they'll be slower. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:06
He's 'definitely' sure Tesla's intent was to mislead. That's a mind-reading claim, not an observation. 😈
Why this score: The speaker moves from observing a delay to confidently asserting Tesla's *motive* for the initial two-week estimate – that they 'overestimated' to 'try to get people to order them.' While possible, he presents this as a definite conclusion about corporate intent, which he has no direct evidence for. It's a leap from observation to assumed motive.
Original quote: “to me I definitely feel like Tesla overestimated just how fast they can get these cars out here to try to get people to order them who would think that don't get their cars a lot faster than they really will”
Claiming it's his first day owning a 2019 Tesla Model 3, setting up the review. — No Frame (75/100)
At 6:30
He's just stating a personal fact about his new car. Nothing tricky here, just setting the scene. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is providing context for his review by stating he just acquired the car. This is a straightforward personal statement, not a claim requiring external verification or employing a rhetorical trick.
Original quote: “minutes so the same thing could absolutely be said about ordering a Tesla this is the 2019 Tesla Model 3 and today is my first day owning the car and”
Declaring his 2019 Tesla 'perfect' despite a door issue, downplaying common complaints. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 7:02
He says 'perfect' but then immediately lists a flaw. That's not perfect, mortal, that's just 'good enough for him'. 💀
Why this score: The speaker claims the car is 'perfect' while simultaneously describing a significant functional issue (the door needing to be slammed). This creates a mismatch between his confident positive assessment and the evidence he provides, downplaying a potential quality control issue.
Original quote: “I couldn't find a single thing wrong with this car my only issue with this if there is anything is that you have to slam the driver's side door for it to properly closed if you don't give it a good slam it's not going to close all the way I'm not sure if that's just a Tesla thing or if that's just…”
Dismissing concerns about Tesla's lack of dealerships by claiming online shopping is always cheaper and more convenient. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 7:50
Comparing buying a car online to buying 'anything' online is a stretch. A car isn't a pair of socks, mortal. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker equates the experience of buying a Tesla online (a high-value, complex purchase with significant implications for test drives and service) to buying 'anything' online, claiming it's always cheaper and more convenient due to lower overhead. This is a false equivalence, as the considerations for buying a car are vastly different from most other online purchases, and 'cheaper' isn't universally true for all online car purchases compared to traditional dealerships, especially when factoring in potential service costs or negotiation opportunities.
Original quote: “online completely sight unseen without ever having driven one before I honestly have to say that I don't see the concern of Tesla not having any physical car dealerships to buy cars from I just think we're naturally entering an era where everything is done online like I haven't been to a physical…”
The 'out-of-pocket' cost is $12,117, not $78. Missing context. 💀 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:42
He's calling $12,117 'out-of-pocket' for the first year, then pivoting to $78 later. That's a hell of a jump. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker states his 'total cost to buy this car in the first year' is $12,117.01, including payments, taxes, license, and registration. This is a significant upfront cost that directly contradicts the $78/month headline without further explanation, creating a misleading initial impression. The $78 figure is clearly not the total cost, but a net after various credits and write-offs, which he's about to explain. But the initial framing is a classic bait-and-switch.
Original quote: “now because I financed 100% of the car my only out-of-pocket cost was taxes insurance and registration and that came to four thousand four hundred and thirty seven dollars and the one cent now because I financed the cost of the car this means I now have a monthly car payment to make this car…”
Claiming $6,280 in rebates/credits — that's a lot of 'money back'. 😈 — No Frame (75/100)
At 9:28
He's detailing the rebates and tax credits. These are real programs, so the numbers are what they are. 💸
Why this score: The speaker is citing specific rebate and tax credit programs (California's EB rebate and a federal tax credit) to reduce the net cost. These programs exist and provide significant savings for EV purchases. The numbers he states ($2,500 and $3,780) are plausible for such incentives, though eligibility can vary. This part of the explanation is straightforward.
Original quote: “However even though I've paid that amount out-of-pocket I will get back twenty five hundred dollars from California's EB rebate program I'll get back another three thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars from the federal tax credit which remember is all money that I get back and that brings down…”
Claiming a $14,000 tax write-off for business use — that's a specific scenario. 🚩 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 9:51
He's piling on business write-offs and depreciation, which is great for HIM. But that's not 'how anyone buys a Tesla for $78'. 💀
Why this score: The speaker explicitly states he bought the car 'specifically for business use,' allowing him to claim significant tax write-offs for interest, taxes/registration, and depreciation. While these are legitimate deductions for business vehicles, this is a highly specific scenario that does not apply to the vast majority of car buyers. Presenting this as part of 'how I bought a Tesla for $78' without emphasizing the business-use requirement is a massive piece of missing context, making the method inaccessible to most viewers.
Original quote: “but wait there's more it gets even better because I bought this car specifically for business use which means the fourteen hundred and thirty eight dollars in interest that I pay financing the car is a tax write-off I also get to write off the four thousand four hundred and thirty seven dollars in…”
Calculates a $78/month Tesla payment by subtracting tax savings — a classic shell game. 😈 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 10:30
He's calling it 'out-of-pocket' after subtracting tax savings. That's not what 'out-of-pocket' means, mortal. You still paid it. 💀
Why this score: The speaker presents a $78.39 monthly cost as 'out-of-pocket' after factoring in tax savings. While tax savings reduce the net cost, the initial 'out-of-pocket' expenditure is significantly higher. It's a sleight of hand to make the immediate cost seem lower than it actually is, ignoring the upfront cash flow required before tax refunds.
Original quote: “out-of-pocket costs to buy this car in the first year is five thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven dollars and one cent plus on top of that like I said I'm saving four thousand nine hundred and twenty six dollars on my taxes which means that when you reduce that from the total amount and you…”
Declares the car 'free' because the payment is mostly principal and he's investing borrowed money. 😈 — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 10:54
Calling a car 'free' because you're paying principal and investing borrowed money is peak mortal delusion. You still owe the money. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker claims the car is 'free' because the monthly payment is mostly principal and he's investing the borrowed money elsewhere for higher returns. This is a false equivalence. Paying principal is still paying money, and the investment returns are speculative, not guaranteed. It conflates a financial strategy with the car having no cost.
Original quote: “per month and realistically this works out to be a free car when you consider that most of that six hundred and $40 a month car payment is principle it's not interest and also the fact that I'm leveraging my money by borrowing it at 3.75 percent to go and invest it elsewhere that will actually make…”
Reiterates the $78/month 'net cost' after all the financial gymnastics. 😈 — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 11:15
He's circling back to the $78/month like it's the only number that matters, after a whole lecture on how he got there. That's a pitch, not a fact. 🚩
Why this score: After explaining a complex financial strategy involving tax savings and investment leverage, the speaker returns to the $78.39 per month figure as the 'actual out-of-pocket net cost.' This repetition, without reiterating the significant upfront costs or the speculative nature of the investment returns, serves to reinforce the initial, appealing but misleading, low monthly payment. It's designed to sell the idea, not just present the full picture.
Original quote: “in cash but now in terms of actual out-of-pocket net cost to own the car seventy eight dollars and thirty nine cents per month for a Tesla Model 3 brand-new”
Showing off a 'brand new Model 3' after claiming a $78/month Tesla. The math ain't mathing. 😈 — Missing Context (45/100)
At 12:30
He's showing a 'brand new Model 3' after the title promised a $78/month Tesla. The gap between 'new' and 'that cheap' is a chasm. 💀
Why this score: The video title implies an incredibly low monthly payment for a Tesla. Showing a 'brand new Model 3' without immediately explaining how that payment is possible for a new car creates a massive context gap. New Teslas typically have much higher payments, suggesting a significant piece of the financial puzzle is being withheld, or the 'new' part is a misdirection.
Original quote: “do it oh that's that is just like you like hoes I love the color gram oh my god oh is this the S no no the small three nice brand new model three oh wow great that's cool yeah right here”
See the full analysis with timestamps →