2005 Midnight Blue Boxster Roadster S, Low Miles, Bi-xenon Lights! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Ferrari IPO may turn out to be good news for enthusiasts

Sergio Marchionne's strategy to spin off Ferrari from FCA and make the Italian automaker a publicly traded company has been met with ire from a vocal contingent of enthusiasts ever since rumors about the plan began to surface a few years ago. Some of these particularly pessimistic automotive pundits have voiced fears that with stockholders in the mix, it would not only spell the demise of the exclusive Italian supercar maker as we know it, but would in fact "ruin" the company. Call me dense, but I fail to see what the issue is. That isn't to say that I don't understand what's causing the fear. When profitability becomes a higher priority for a brand that's historically relied on exclusivity to keep its products in the highest echelons of desirability, there's a high potential for internal philosophical conflict. And then there are concerns about the sorts of products that Ferrari might develop that aren't the high-performance sports cars that the brand is known for. But individuals with those apprehensions seem to forget that Ferrari has already lent its name to a multitude of things that are not LaFerraris, 488 GTBs, or F12 Berlinettas, including clothing, headphones, and even laptops. But let's assume for a moment that the core anxiety is about future vehicles – including the unspeakable notion that Ferrari might develop an SUV. Why wouldn't Ferrari build an SUV, especially after seeing how incredibly successful that endeavor has been for Porsche? I think it's likely that Ferrari will put engineers to task creating some sort of crossover or high-rolling cruiser with room for the whole family at some point in the near future. And why wouldn't it, after seeing how incredibly successful that endeavor has been for Porsche? After all, the Cayenne accounted for more US sales in 2013 than the Boxster, Cayman, 911, and 918 combined, and it only gave up about a thousand units of sales last year to make room for the Macan crossover, the latter of which Porsche sold nearly as many of as it did Boxsters and Caymans. People want these vehicles, and they're willing to pay quite a bit of money for them. If we use Porsche's recent trajectory as a foreshadowing metric for what's in store for Ferrari, the future actually looks pretty good. After all, those SUV sales keep plenty of cash in Porsche's coffers for the low-volume projects that we enthusiasts love, like the 918 Spyder and the 911 GT3 RS.

Porsche revisits its remarkable SC East African Safari rally car

Porsche and motorsports just seem to go hand-in-hand. The brand has defined itself by its ability to compete on the track with the concept that racing bred better road cars. While we are used to seeing 911s speeding along circuits around the world, the rear-engine icon's success in rallying is somewhat less well known. The Porsche Museum aims to fix that by highlighting a 911 SC that competed in the 1978 East African Safari Rally.
The 911 rally car definitely projects a '70s vibe. You wouldn't see too many racecars with a pink brush bar sliding through the stages these days, but it looks amazing. Its bank of spotlights and two, giant, hood-mounted horns definitely give away the car's purpose. Best of all, that fantastic Martini livery defines the looks of Porsche racers from this era.
The 911 SC performed well in the East African Safari Rally, but some suspension damage meant that this particular one never raced again. It's been a part of the Porsche Museum ever since. Scroll down to learn a little more about one part of the brand's off-road legacy.