2016 Porsche 911 Carrera S on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Motor Trend hits Laguna Seca with Ferrari F12, Chevy Corvette, Porsche 911

According to the crew at Motor Trend, we should think of the video below "as an addendum to Best Driver's Car," a test the magazine put together that elevated the 2013 Porsche 911 Carrera 4S above all others in the category of driving joy. It seems the brand-new 2014 Chevy Corvette Stingray wasn't able to take part in the magazine's official test, and neither was the Ferrari F12 Berlinetta.
And so Motor Trend did the only logical thing: It procured both the 'Vette and Prancing Horse as soon as it could, and put them both on track with the Driver's Car-winning 911. Of course, these cars don't actually compete against each other - the Ferrari offers up 731 horsepower and wears an asking price of $434,144 as tested, which means you could buy four loaded Corvettes for the price of one F12, and still have money left for a garage to store them in - but that's not the point of this particular test.
The point of this test isn't to listen to the beautiful sounds coming from the Porsche's flat-six-cylinder, the Corvette's pushrod V8 or the Ferrari's luscious V12, either, but the video below is worth watching for those three reasons alone. You know what to do.

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.