Porsche Boxster 96k On Body/ 42k On Engine on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Petrolicious details why the Porsche 911 is something special

The Porsche 911 is a special car, if for no other reasons than it's been continuously produced since 1964, with nearly every generation regarded as being at or near the top of its class. But why the rear-engined icon has done so well among enthusiasts and regular drivers alike can't always be explained easily. To truly understand the 911, you have to experience the whole package, and that means driving one.
While just about every publication has raved about the Porsche, commercial director, race driver, photographer and 911 owner Jeff Zwart explains to Petrolicious why he was drawn to the legend as a young child, and why he still loves them today.
Zwart's professional and personal life are inextricably linked to the 911, and hearing him talk about the car and its history makes for fascinating viewing. Watch the video below to hear Zwart's story and see him drive a couple examples from his collection: an early 911 and the 964-generation Carrera 4 he won Pikes Peak with for the first time - a car that happens to be equipped with the 959 Paris-Dakar's fascinating torque-split transmission. Enjoy!

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.

Porsche again staring down another $1.8B in hedge fund lawsuits

The sequence of events from 2007 that began with Porsche's secret attempt to take over Volkswagen, and instead lead to Porsche being taken over by VW, continues to instigate lawsuits against the Stuttgart sports car manufacturer. A group of hedge funds that suffered over $1 billion in losses sued the car company in New York. Porsche had publicly stated it wasn't trying to buy VW, the hedge funds in question were shorting VW stock, and when Porsche's actual intentions were revealed, the stock shot up and the hedge funds took a beating.
The case was thrown out over the issue of jurisdiction, then appealed, only to see another suit filed on top of that. After that, most of the hedge funds withdrew their claims in New York and Porsche offered a 90-day window to refile in Germany where it is already fighting a number of other suits over the same issue. The hedge funds accepted the offer, refiling in Stuttgart for $1.8 billion in damages. According to Bloomberg, Porsche hasn't commented on the refiling, but as the same plaintiffs are involved, it's safe to assume that the carmaker still feels the case is "unsubstantiated and without merit." It has fared alright so far even in German courts, with two lesser cases against it thrown out last year.