Gorgeous 2000 Porsche Boxster S W/hardtop 6 Spd 10,150 Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Popular Science magazine's Best Of What's New 2012 all ate up with cars

Popular Science has named the winners in its Best of What's New awards, the victors coming in the categories of aerospace, automotive, engineering, entertainment, gadgets, green, hardware, health, home, recreation, security and software. The automotive category did not go wanting for lauded advancements:
Tesla Model S: the Grand Award winner for being "the standard by which all future electric vehicles will be measured."
BMW 328i: it's 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder gets called out for being more powerful and frugal than the six-cylinder it replaces.

Porsche's Tesla-fighter could have 600 hp and 300-mile range

Will this be the Ragin' Pajun? Some details on the all-electric "Tesla fighter" from Porsche have been revealed by UK's Car magazine, and, to put it bluntly, the model that has preliminarily been dubbed the 717 will be an absolute beast when it hits the road as early as 2019. With some technological help from parent company Volkswagen, Porsche is planning a model that will have about a 300-mile single-charge range, and a version that may deliver as much as 600 horsepower. The four-door will also be four-wheel-drive, with one electric motor per axle, and four-wheel steering, all for the sake of consistency, Car says. Additionally, unlike the Tesla Model S, with its battery packs running flat along the floor of the vehicle, the 717's battery layout will be far more complex, complete with bulkhead walls and 108 separate battery pouches. Last month, German publication Auto Motor und Sport reported that the Panamera's junior variant, aka the Pajun, was indeed going to be an all-electric affair. Still, beyond a few digital renderings and an estimated single-charge range of 250 miles, few details were revealed.

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.