1970 Porsche 911 E, Restored, Coa, #'s Matching, Correct Tangerine, Records on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Overnight action from the 24 Hours of Le Mans

We won't go into a recap here, but there are still leading positions being fought for in all classes - it's so close that leads are changing when a car goes into the pits. We'll let the recap wait until the end of the race, so for now enjoy some shots from last night's action at the 24 Hours of Le Mans.

Porsche resurrects V8-powered 911 prototype from the Eighties

These days, we take it for granted that the Porsche 911 uses a flat-six engine. That's because every version of the iconic rear-engined sports car has had one. Right? Well, for the most part. There was the 912 that joined the original in the late Sixties with a flat-four. And in the mid-Eighties, Porsche toyed around with the idea of a V8-powered 911.
After the first-generation 911 had been in production for over two decades, Porsche began development of its successor, the 964, in the 1980s. And one of its ideas was to use a V8 engine. So it took a 964, borrowed a V8 from Audi, gave it the rear bodywork from a 959 and dubbed it the 965.
The idea was to create a more affordable successor to the 959 that included its advanced all-wheel drive system and active suspension. The Audi V8 would have been replaced with one of Porsche's own design - possibly based on the it had built for Indy racing - but Dr. Ulrich Bez (who was then head of Porsche R&D long before taking the reins at Aston Martin) ultimately killed the project.

What do J.D. Power's quality ratings really measure?

Check these recently released J.D. Power Initial Quality Study (IQS) results. Do they raise any questions in your mind? Premium sports-car maker Porsche sits in first place for the third straight year, so are Porsches really the best-built cars in the U.S. market? Korean brands Kia and Hyundai are second and fourth, so are Korean vehicles suddenly better than their US, European, and Japanese competitors? Are workaday Chevrolets (seventh place) better than premium Buicks (11th), and Buicks better than luxury Cadillacs (21st), even though all are assembled in General Motors plants with the same processes and many shared parts? Are Japanese Acuras (26th) worse than German Volkswagens (24th)? And is "quality" really what it used to be (and what most perceive it to be), a measure of build excellence? Or has it evolved into much more a measure of likeability and ease of use? To properly analyze these widely watched results, we must first understand what IQS actually studies, and what the numerical scores really mean. First, as its name indicates, it's all about "initial" quality, measured by problems reported by new-vehicle owners in their first 90 days of ownership. If something breaks or falls off four months in, it doesn't count here. Second, the scores are problems per 100 vehicles, or PP100. So Power's 2015 IQS industry average of 112 PP100 translates to just 1.12 reported problems per vehicle. Third, no attempt is made to differentiate BIG problems from minor ones. Thus a transmission or engine failure counts the same as a squeaky glove box door, tricky phone pairing, inconsistent voice recognition, or anything else that annoys the owner. Traditionally, a high-quality vehicle is one that is well-bolted together. It doesn't leak, squeak, rattle, shed parts, show gaps between panels, or break down and leave you stranded. By this standard, there are very few poor-quality new vehicles in today's U.S. market. But what "quality" should not mean, is subjective likeability: ease of operation of the radio, climate controls, or seat adjusters, phone pairing, music downloading, sizes of touch pads on an infotainment screen, quickness of system response, or accuracy of voice-recognition. These are ergonomic "human factors" issues, not "quality" problems. Yet these kinds of pleasability issues are now dominating today's JDP "quality" ratings.