2011 Porsche 911 Turbo S, Black, Only 1,370 Miles, Fantastic Condition! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche Cayman GT4 speeds back into view

We're all familiar with the succession of numbers that follow the letters GT on a hard-core Porsche 911: the GT1 that was Stuttgart's Le Mans contender in the late 90s, the GT2 that packs turbochargers but without the Turbo's all-wheel drive and excess weight, and the naturally aspirated GT3 that's the enthusiast's choice. But a GT4? That's something new, and exactly what Porsche has in store.
Spied testing in Germany once again is the upcoming GT4 version of the Porsche Cayman, set to supersede the existing GTS and take the place of the previous Cayman R at the top of Porsche's junior sports car range. This latest batch of spy shots doesn't show us much more than the last crop, but gives us a much clearer view at what promises to be the most hardcore Cayman to date.
As you can see, the Cayman GT4 packs a much more aggressive aero kit and rolling stock than any version we've seen to date. It's got a lip spoiler, big air dam and GT3-style vent in front of the hood, deep air scoops along the flanks, a set of spindly alloys packing oversized brakes, a diffuser with twin central exhaust tips around back and a rear wing that's likely to be replaced with a sleeker unit before the GT4 reaches production.

Audi and Porsche squabble over future product platforms

In the buildup to the 2014 24 Hours of Le Mans, Audi delivered an amusing video that worked on the playful rivalry between the German brand and its favorite frenemy, Porsche. We called it sibling rivalry, and at the time, it may have been just that. But just like sibling rivalries, it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt, and that's just what seems to be about to happen in the formerly peaceful Volkswagen Group family.
A new report from Automobile calls out the growing animosity between Porsche, who is backed up by Bentley, and Audi, whose primary ally is Lamborghini. No blows have actually been thrown, although there is a fair amount of "he said, she said" going on.
As Porsche tells it, for example, the new global fullsize SUV architecture being developed by Audi isn't up to snuff, citing size and structure issues, as well as an inability to accommodate a wide variety of engines.

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.