2012 Porsche 911 Turbo S Coupe on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche's high-tech 'mirror' turns every car into a Macan

Porsche calls it the "Magic Mirror," but it's less a reflective device and more 12 high-def screens that track drivers pulling into the valet area at a mall in Los Angeles. As they pass the screens in their cars, they get to see what they'd look like pulling up in a Macan, Porsche's newest and smallest crossover. It could be considered the experiential evolution of a prior campaign that let people imagine how a Porsche would look in their driveways, an idea that was taken even further by a dealer in Toronto a few years later. Check out the video to see how it was done and how it was received.

Top Gear brings together LaFerrari, McLaren P1 and Porsche 918

Earlier this month, Top Gear released a brief video of the comparison test between three hybrid hypercars we'd all been waiting for: the Ferrari LaFerrari, McLaren P1 and Porsche 918 Spyder. The story was done by the print magazine and not by the television show, and the video they released was barely over half a minute long, reserving the full version for subscribers of the iPad edition. Now the British mag has put the full video on YouTube, and while it's still only a minute and a half long – three times the length of the previous teaser – it's packed with electrified exotic goodness. The test surely took some serious wrangling to put together, and though the metal (or carbon fiber, as the case may be) was apparently furnished mostly by private owners, to hear Top Gear tell it, the manufacturers – Ferrari, McLaren and Porsche – were eager and helpful in putting the showdown together. For the final conclusions, we're afraid you'll still have to buy the magazine, but for a rare chance to watch all these three world-beaters on the same road at the same time, you'll want to scope out this latest video clip. Related Video: News Source: Top Gear via YouTube Ferrari McLaren Porsche Hybrid Supercars Videos porsche 918 spyder mclaren p1 ferrari laferrari

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.