Beautiful Guards Red Cabriolet. Excellent Condition.runs Great! Clean Carfax on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2013 Porsche 911 Carrera 4S

I don't care who you are; when a new Porsche 911 rolls up in your driveway, that's a pretty good day. This was my very first experience with Porsche's 991 911, and after having spent time with just about every tune and trim of the last car, I was hotly anticipating comparing and contrasting.
Somehow (I don't remember sending out any cash-filled, unmarked envelopes) I'd scored a week in the 911 Carrera 4S over a long holiday weekend, too. That meant that I'd get to A) log a ton of miles in one of the best cars in the world, B) get to show-off the Porsche to family and friends and C) tempt cops in three states to pull me over. Good thing I've got the Autoblog traffic lawyer on speed dial...
Driving Notes

Porsche ready to pick itself up after Le Mans failure

It's safe to say that things for Porsche didn't go quite as well at Le Mans this year as it might have hoped. After a sixteen-year gap, the winningest manufacturer in endurance racing history returned to the Circuit de la Sarthe this year hoping maybe not for outright victory in its first time back, but definitely a strong finish on which it could build on for next year. All the while it undoubtedly hoped its 911s would hold their own in the GT classes.
Unfortunately for Porsche, neither happened. After racing around the clock, and despite actually leading the festivities for some time, the best its 919 Hybrid could manage was an eleventh-place finish, lagging lamentably behind not only the other LMP1s (like the race-winning Audi) but also a handful of LMP2s. Meanwhile the LMGTE Pro and LMGTE Am titles went to the factory-backed teams of its arch-rivals Ferrari and Aston Martin, respectively.
Not a stellar result, in other words, but Porsche is taking it all in stride - accepting that it has a ways to go while congratulating its vanquishing rivals in the video below. It's good sportsmanship if we've ever seen it. Next year's race starts now.

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.