1986 Porsche Carrera 38,800 Original Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

1983 Motorweek showdown pits Porsche 928S vs. Chevy Camaro Z28

Last month, Motor Trend threw the Camaro Z/28 and Porsche 911 GT3 into the bear pit and let them fight it out. Way back in 1983, MotorWeek had the same idea, comparing the Camaro Z/28 to the Porsche 928S. At the time, the Camaro was America's best selling sports coupe, the 928S was Porsche's top-of-the-line model that also had the highest top speed of any car sold here. And the price differential was even more stark then: $13,600 for the Camaro, $45,000 for the Porsche. That put the Z/28's cast-iron, 5.0-liter V8 with 190 horsepower and 240 pound-feet of torque against the all-aluminum 4.7-liter V8 with 234 hp and 263 lb-ft in the 928S. Even with that and the Camaro being 14 inches longer than the Porsche, the American was a surprising 40 pounds lighter than the German. The show took them to Summit Point Raceway in West Virginia to see how close a relative performance bargain could hang with a the German GT. Both had five-speed manual transmissions, but the high-speed corners and tight sections of Summit Point would test other handling variables, including the "bone-rattling" Camaro's solid rear axle and disc and drum brake setup vis-a-vis the four-wheel disc brakes and independent suspension on the "firm-but-smooth" Porsche. Paradoxically, the larger disparity 22 years ago resulted in a closer result. Check out the video to see how the Summit was won. News Source: MotorWeek via YouTube Chevrolet Porsche Coupe Luxury Performance Classics Videos chevy camaro z28 porsche 928 retro review

All Porsche 911s to get turbos in 2015?

Currently, Porsche builds two turbocharged 911s - the Turbo and the Turbo S (and their cabriolet counterparts). The rest of the 911 range, meanwhile, is motivated by either 3.4- or 3.8-liter flat-sixes of varying outputs. This clear separation could be set to change in the very near future, though, as rumors continue to swirl that Porsche's rear-engined range could switch exclusively to turbocharged power.
This time, it's Car projecting that the 911 range will go turbocharged as part of a mid-cycle refresh, with the base Carrera's 3.4-liter dropping to 2.9 liters and adding an iron lung, bumping the entry level 911 up to 400 horsepower. Yes, a 400-horsepower, entry level 911. The Carrera S, meanwhile, will retain its 3.8-liter engine, but will also benefit from turbocharging, increasing output to 530 horsepower and 520 pound-feet of torque. So basically, it sounds like the current, 520-hp 911 Turbo will become the next Carrera S.
What does that mean for Porsche's traditional high-performance models? Well, it's a safe bet that the Turbo, Turbo S and eventual GT2 will be producing seriously huge power figures. Based on pure speculation, we wouldn't be shocked to see a 600-hp Turbo, with the S and GT2 increasing output markedly from there.

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.