2005 Porsche 911 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Evo makes the case for the world's best driving road in Majorca

What good is a sports car if you haven't got a great place to drive it? It's a common refrain that we've heard time and time again. But few are as familiar with the problem as they are in the UK, where the number of people, cars on the road and traffic cameras keep growing to conspire against the joy of driving. Leave it to Evo, then, to depart in search of the greatest driving road in the world.
It's a pursuit that's taken the British car mag across Europe, most recently to Romania's Carpathian Mountains where it added the Transalpina Pass to its short list. But its latest journey has taken Evo to the Spanish island of Majorca, where Henry Catchpole found not one, but two spectacular driving roads from behind the wheel of the new Porsche Boxster GTS. We could drone on about the smooth, empty ribbons of twisting tarmac with excellent visibility and panoramic vistas... but you really want to see the video for yourself. Don't miss Evo's previous trip to Romania in the Jaguar F-Type, which we've included below, as well.

2014 Porsche Panamera Turbo S is a 911 Turbo for the family man

In the event that the Porsche Panamera Turbo's 520 horsepower and 189-mile-per-hour top speed aren't enough to sate the appetite of the speed freak, Porsche has just given the auto show debut to the faster, more powerful Panamera Turbo S.
With 570 horsepower being pumped from a 4.8-liter, twin-turbocharged V8, the Panamera Turbo S promises even faster acceleration, hitting 60 mph in 3.6 seconds, a 0.3-second improvement over the standard Turbo. The top speed, meanwhile, climbs to 192 mph, which is kind of ridiculous for a car with four doors and a trunk.
Other enhancements that come with this Panamera's extra syllable include carbon-ceramic brakes and the entirety of Porsche's active chassis systems, including Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control and Porsche Active Suspension Management. The performance goodies come standard, but that doesn't mean the Panamera Turbo S is cheap.

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.