One-owner Clean Carfax 29k Miles!! Heated Seats,bose,18carrera Whls,xenon on 2040-cars

Auto blog

911 beware! Porsche testing new top-trim Boxster

The Boxster and Cayman are like the scrappy siblings compared to their star brother – the Porsche 911. And now it looks like the rivalry is about to get even more serious, as our spies have captured this hotted-up Boxster doing some winter testing. We've already seen Porsche evaluating a higher-performance version of the Cayman, rumored to be called the GT4. It would reportedly offer a taste of the thrills of the 911 GT3, but at a lower price. The coupe appears to have a convertible twin in this Boxster prototype. The biggest giveaway of their possible relationship is the shared front bumper with larger intakes and an extra opening at the tip of the hood. Although, this one lacks the Cayman's big, rear spoiler in favor of a smaller decklid unit. The good news for fans of shifting for themselves is that this tester is fitted with a manual transmission, according to our spies. Being a prototype, though, there's no guarantee that the gearbox makes it to production. At least in Cayman trim, these higher performance models might use a tuned version of the 3.4-liter flat-six with between 370 and 400 horsepower. Though, an earlier rumor suggested that a turbocharged four-cylinder could sit behind the driver. Until we know for sure, glance at the gallery to see a Porsche that might try to challenge its big brother.

Porsche offers detuned Boxster and Cayman 211 in Europe

Looking at a new Porsche Boxster? First of all, we commend you on your choice, because in its latest iteration, the Boxster has sped out from under the shadow of the 911 and into its own. But now to choose: do you get the base model with 265 horsepower, the Boxster S with 315 hp, or the top-of-the-line Boxster GTS with 330 hp? It's a daunting question, considering the $10k+ price gap between each model that you could put into the gas-and-rubber jar. Same goes for the Cayman, albeit with ten more horses across the board. But as if that's not confusing enough, there appears to be another player on the field. (That is, at least, in certain European markets.)
Appearing on the company's Belgian and Norwegian sites are the Boxster 211 and Cayman 211. As you might have guessed, they pack a less substantial 211 horsepower, undercutting what we know as the base models. Instead of using a smaller engine, though, the Boxster and Cayman 211 get the same 2.7-liter boxer six, just with less power.
As a result, they're a bit slower off the line: the Boxster 211 takes between 6.1 and 6.4 seconds to get to 62, depending on exact specifications, compared to the 5.5- to 5.8-second range for the 265-hp Boxster, while the Cayman 211 is quoted at 6.2 seconds versus the 275-hp Cayman's 5.4 to 5.7 seconds. Fuel consumption and emissions, on the other hand (and as you'd expect), are better in the 211. But while Porsche Norway charges around $10k less for the 211 models, Porsche Belgium charges the same for the 211 models as it does for the next most powerful versions (from which they appear to be visually indistinguishable).

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.