2002 Porsche Turbo 6 Speed, Two Owner Car, Low Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche 918 Spyder gets tiny recall for rear control arms

As the recent US recall of a single Koenigsegg Agera shows, even low-production supercars aren't immune from safety campaigns. Now, there's another example that even the fastest cars can have their faults. The Porsche 918 Spyder is a pretty fantastic vehicle for its ability to mix hybrid fuel economy and incredible amounts of power, but Porsche has a problem on a few units of its halo model.
According to the recall document from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Porsche needs to inspect and possibly repair five 918s in the US because the rear axle control arms may break, which could cause a loss of control while driving. In the full defect notice, Porsche says that it first noticed the problem on June 26 when the parts failed during "heavy duty durability testing (extreme race conditions)" at the Nardo test track in Italy. It transported the components back to the company's lab for inspection, and on July 18 it issued a stop-sale to inspect the suspension parts on the supercar. The automaker also contacted owners by phone to warn them not to use the car on track, until repaired.
The affected 918s will be inspected, and if the cars have the bad parts, the control arms are will be replaced. Obviously, this will be done at no cost to owners. According to a Porsche spokesperson speaking to Autoblog, in addition to the five US cars potentially affected, there were 45 worldwide. All of the cars have now been checked. Scroll down to read the report from the regulator or download the full defect notice as a PDF, here.

J.D. Power: Vehicle dependability at all-time high, Lexus and Porsche lead

Each year, J.D. Power and Associates surveys original owners of three-year-old vehicles to find out what kinds of problems they have had experienced over the last 12 months, and then it uses this data to create its annual Vehicle Dependability Study. This means that the models in the 2013 study are 2010 model year vehicles, and J.D. Power rates each make as well as the top individual models based on how many problems were experienced per 100 vehicles (PP100).
Debunking the idea that carryover models are more dependable than new or updated models, the 2013 study found that the average carryover model experienced 133 PP100, while all-new or redesigned vehicles for the 2010 model year had 116 PP100; vehicles that received minor changes fared the best with just 111 PP100. The overall average for all makes was 126 PP100, which is the lowest figure since the findings were first issued in 1989.

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.