2024 Porsche 911 Turbo Coupe 2d on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Singer 911 gorgeousness explored and experienced by Chris Harris

Few things get us as cranked up as a Porsche 911. Generation after generation, this rear-engined oddity has exhilarated our senses, and the new 991 is the most capable iteration yet. Even so, there's a lot to be said for the older models, from their lighter weights and more modest dimensions to their air-cooled thrums.
That elemental vintage Porsche appeal hasn't been lost on Los Angeles-based Singer Vehicle Design, which has endeavored to take the best bits from every generation of 911 and combine them into one impossibly sexy rear-engined machine. Based on a 964 donor car, we knew that a lot of work would need to go into everything from the structure to the bodywork to realize the Singer's cohesive aesthetic and dynamic vision, but we didn't know just how much until we watched this Drive video featuring Chris Harris. The auto journo gets time with the 350-horsepower, Cosworth-motivated coupe on both mountain passes and at the track, but what could be the most interesting thing about the 27-minute-long video is his in-depth plant tour.
Check it out by scrolling below, but not before paging through our new Singer 911 gallery.

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.

Porsche Macan Turbo vs Cayman GTS in track battle

"Well this is stupid." On the surface, that was our reaction to this video, as well. Why would you compare the hottest Porsche Cayman with a crossover of any kind, even if it is the 400-horsepower Macan Turbo?
We're guessing because it'd be bloody good fun, as evidenced Auto Express's latest track battle. To be fair, there is some interesting stuff here. The two do have a similar starting price, separated by less than $3,000 here in the US market. And, factoring in the Macan's hefty horsepower and torque advantages - 60 horsepower and 126 pound-feet - does make for a slightly interesting comparison.
We won't spoil the verdict, so check out the full video from Auto Express, and then let us know what you think in Comments.