2006 Porsche 911 Carrera S on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Force India F1 driver Nico Hulkenberg will drive a Porsche at Le Mans

Sahara Force India Formula One driver Nico Hulkenberg is officially part of the Porsche factory team for next year's 24 Hours of Le Mans; the last time a current F1 driver got permission from his team to compete in the world's biggest endurance race was in 2009 when Toro Rosso let Sebastien Bourdais pilot for Peugeot. That will make it an even busier May and June for Hulkenberg, who will get to know the 919 Hybrid in race trim by driving the 6 Hours of Spa on May 2. He'll follow that with two F1 races in May, then do the Le Mans practice day on May 31, race for Force India at the Canadian Grand Prix on June 7, be in action for Porsche at Le Mans the next weekend, then back in a Force India the following weekend in Austria. Hulkenberg is the first driver to be named for Porsche's third LMP1 in next year's race, and we already know that former F1 colleague Mark Webber will be in one of the other cars. The other two drivers joining the German haven't been named yet, but speculation is that Porsche GT drivers in the manufacturer team are on the shortlist. Numerous observers also think it could be a suitable job for a certain Englishman who might have competed in his last race for McLaren...

Preserving automotive history costs big bucks

$1.8 million is spent each year to maintain GM's fleet of 600 production and concept cars.
When at least two of the Detroit Three were on the verge of death a few years back, one of the tough questions that was asked of Ford, General Motors and Chrysler execs - outside of why execs were still taking private planes to meetings - was why each company maintained huge archives of old production and concept vehicles. GM, for example, had an 1,100-vehicle collection when talk of a federal bailout began.

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.