2011 Porsche 4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche Cayenne shows a bit more face, plug-in spotted

Porsche was first rumored to be working on a plug-in hybrid (PHEV) version of the Cayenne over a year ago. However, we had never seen it, until now. The new model was caught almost completely undisguised while testing. In another stroke of luck, we got a glimpse of the upcoming facelift for Porsche's SUV (pictured above) as well.
According to the spy shooter, it was windy during the cars' cold weather testing. The cover blew off of the facelifted Cayenne, and there was enough time to snap these pictures before it could be hidden again. The changes are all quite minor but jive with what we saw the last time it was spied. The rear still wears some cladding but is expected to be hiding lights similar to the Macan.
The second gallery shows off the upcoming Cayenne PHEV. It looks nearly identical to the standard model, except for the extra panel on the driver's side of the car that hides the electric port. One image even shows the car plugged in. The new version is expected to use the same supercharged 3.0-liter V6 and 9.4-kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery pack with a combined 416 horsepower and 435 pound-feet of torque from the Panamera S E-Hybrid. We enjoyed the system when we tested it last year. It's rumored to debut on the SUV sometime this year.

2015 24 Hours of Le Mans live race report

Check back regularly for more race updates every few hours. No, you don't need to stay up for the entire 24 Hours of Le Mans, but if you want to catch any of the action, Autoblog friend Reilly Brennan has a handy guide. And to keep you up to speed on the latest race events, we'll be posting live from Le Mans with regular race reports.Hour 1: Five laps in, Audi breaks up the three Porsches at the front, with the #19 919 Hybrid, driven by Nico Hulkenburg, passed by all three R18s. Hulkenburg eventually took back fifth position only to fall back again after the first pit stop. Meanwhile, clutch trouble kept the #23 Nissan GTR-LM in the pits until 15 minutes into the race. The other two Nissans were forced to start at the back of the grid after failing to the meet the 110 percent qualifying speed regulation. At the end of the first hour, just 7.5 seconds separated the first six cars. Then the factory team #92 Porsche GTE car caught fire, with the the #13 Rebellion P1 car taking frontal damage in the ensuing carnage. With the safety car out, the field is once again bunched up.Hour 2: The slugfest between Audi and Porsche continues, with neither side backing off. Halfway through the second hour the #7 R18 passes both leading Porsches for the top position. After another round of pits stops Porsche regains the lead until lap 30, when the Audi overtake once again and quickly pulls out a three-second gap. Nico Hulkenburg passes the other two Audis to join his Porsche teammates. At the beginning of the third hour it's Audi #7, Porsche #17, #18, and #19, followed by Audi #8 and #9. 33 seconds separates this group, with Toyota a minute back from the front car.Hour 3: On track the action refuses to stop. Although it's early, Audi is looking strong with the overall lead in the #7. What's more is that the Audis run four stints per set of tires, while the Porsche cars have to change rubber every third stop. But after a quick refueling, the lead R18 gets a tire puncture and comes back in 3 laps later, allowing Porsche to take over the top two spots. Then as the hour closes out a yellow flag causes traffic to bunch up and the #8 Audi gets stuck with nowhere to slow down. Driver Loic Duval dives for the side of the road but hits the guard rail and careens across the track, damaging the front and rear bodywork. The rest of the car is still intact, though, and once in the pits Audi replaces the entire front and rear of that in only three minutes.

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.