2000 Boxster Very Low Miles, Nice Condition, Second Owner, Always Garaged on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Super Bowl car commercials: Follow along as we riff on them live

Join Autoblog editors Sunday starting around 6:30 p.m. ET as we react to all of the car commercials during the game. We know Hummer, Porsche, Hyundai and others will have splashy ads, and naturally, there's usually a few surprises. Whether you're a Chiefs or 49ers fan — or don't care about football — the commercials are always a highlight. And for us, the car spots are the most intriguing. Weigh in with your own thoughts in the comments section. Let's kick off.   FIRST QUARTER Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore liveblogs the first quarter. F9 We'll count this as a car commercial. The latest edition of the Fast & Furious looks like it well, will have cars. We'll punt on further comment. PORSCHE I like it. Creative. Sort of a Night at the Museum feel. The guards stage a theft and then a car chase. The Taycan looked good. Get fired up — the future for Porsche is electric. The spot is meant to illustrate how fun that can be. I don't need any convincing.    SECOND QUARTER Associate Editor Byron Hurd is liveblogging the second quarter.  HYUNDAI Hyundai checked in super early with their Sonata "Smaht Pahk" commercial, which manages to score points for being both cute and clever while also being a fairly good commercial in a vacuum. We saw it last week, so there were no surprises here, but we enjoyed it nonetheless.  Fun note: If you go to the Sonata landing page on Hyundai's web site, you can choose "plain old English" or "the Boston way" for your language; the latter will translate the page. Enjoy.  FORD Hi ho, West Coast Editor James Riswick here. Apparently, the guys in Detroit didn't get the Mustang Mach E ad featuring Idris Elba and a whole boat load of awesome old Mustangs. Pretty sure it's bound to be viewed the exact same way as the car itself: traditionalists will be aghast, while non-car people will be intrigued by a new, all-electric, crossover version of one of the few cars they've heard of.  GENESIS They're coming more rapidly now. Genesis gets some love thanks to Chrissy Teigen and John Legend; this was another known quantity, but Hyundai's luxury brand managed another solid entry here thanks to its choice of stars. Teigen and Legend got the chance to throw back to the latter's "Sexiest Man Alive" honors, which Teigen often teases him for. Another solid all-around spot.  GMC/HUMMER Are there just no surprises left? Don't tell me; I know the answer. LeBron James fronts the revived Hummer, which will be an EV sold as a GMC.

Magnus Walker turbocharges his love for the Porsche 911

He's had his fill of early, long-hood Porsche 911s - he owns at least one from each model year, from 1964 to 1973 - so Magnus Walker, a fanatic of the Stuttgart, Germany-based automaker, recently set his sights on the early Porsche 930, as documented by this XCAR video called 'Turbo Fever.' Let us translate: pretty soon Walker will own all of the earliest, non-intercooled 911 Turbos - at least one from each model year, starting at 1975 and ending at 1977 (though the 1975 911 Turbo Carrera never officially was imported to the US by Porsche, so it'll be tougher to find one Stateside).
Any Porsche enthusiast can tell you why they love their car, and it often comes down to the small details that differentiate one model year from another. One of many examples is the mid-'80s 928. They look similar, but the basic difference between a 1984 Porsche 928 S and a 1985 928 S (US-spec) is two camshafts and 54 horsepower, though each car's V8 has its own pros and cons. We'll let Magnus Walker tell you all about the 930 and what makes the first three years special, as he's becoming quite the expert on early, air-cooled 911s. When the nearly 15-minute mini-documentary was filmed, which you can view below, he already had added four early 930s to his collection!

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.