1959 Pontiac Catalina Tri Power on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Porsche 911 Speedster spied with an angry driver

Porsche gave us details and showed us a concept of the 911 Speedster at the Paris Motor Show. Today, we bring you spy shots of what appears to be the production version of that concept with a few changes on board. They're rather minimal modifications, but the Speedster's driver appears especially angry with our spy photographer as he extends his middle finger directly toward the camera. Sorry, not sorry, Mr. Test Driver. Public testing of pre-production cars always comes with photo risks, and Porsches tend to attract more attention than others. You'll notice what appears to be a Cayenne Coupe prototype we've previously spotted running around with the 911. The Speedster Concept we saw in Paris had epic retro mirrors and fuel cap on the front hood, but both those design touches are absent from this pre-production car. It's tougher to see, but we lost the vents in between the two humps, as well. Everything else appears to have made it to production-spec. We can't say we're surprised these concept car features probably won't show up on the production car, but it is a tad deflating. You'll notice the Speedster is based-off the 991.2 generation of 911 and not the new 992. Porsche did a similar thing when the 997 generation was coming to an end with a Speedster model paying tribute to that car's life. The chassis is said to utilize parts from the 911 GT3, and the wonderful naturally aspirated flat-six engine gets carried over from that car, too. Porsche didn't specify if power will be exactly the same as the GT3, but we'll be expecting about 500 horsepower and a 9,000 rpm redline. We were told the six-speed manual would be offered on the Speedster in Paris, too. Let's just say that we strongly approve of that combination. Production will be limited to only 1,948 cars and begin in the first half of this year. We'll expect a reveal with a full spec breakdown soon, possibly for the upcoming Geneva Motor Show. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

This or That: 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 vs. 1984 Pontiac Fiero

Welcome to another round of This or That, where two Autoblog editors pick a topic, pick a side and pull no punches. Last round pitted yours truly against Associate Editor Brandon Turkus, and my chosen VW Vanagon Syncro narrowly defeated Brandon's 1987 Land Rover. In fact, it was, by far, the closest round we've seen, with 1,907 voters seeing things my way (for 50.8 percent of the vote) versus 1,848 votes for Brandon's Rover (49.2 percent). Sweet, sweet victory! For this latest round of This or That, I've roped Editor Greg Migliore into what I think is a rather fun debate. We've each chosen our favorite terrible cars, setting a price limit of $10,000 to make sure neither of us went too crazy with our automotive atrocities. I think we've both chosen terribly... and I mean that in the best way possible. 2005 Chrysler Crossfire SRT6 Jeremy Korzeniewski: Why It's Terrible: Taken in isolation, the Chrysler Crossfire isn't necessarily a terrible car. In fact, it drives pretty darn well, and there's a lot of solid engineering under its slinky shape. Problem is, that engineering was already rather long in the tooth well before Chrysler ever got its hands on it, having come from Mercedes-Benz, which used the basic chassis and drivetrain in a previous version of its SLK coupe and roadster. Granted, the SLK was an okay car, too, but even when new, it hardly set the world on fire with sporty driving dynamics. Chrysler took these decent-but-no-more bits and pieces from the Mercedes parts bin – remember, this car was conceived in the disastrous Merger Of Equals days – and covered them with a rather attractive hard-candy shell. Unfortunately, the super sporty shape wrote checks in the minds of buyers that its well-worn mechanicals were simply unable to cash, though an injection of power courtesy of a supercharged V6 engine in the SRT6 model, as seen here, certainly helped ease some of those woes. In the end, Chrysler was left with a so-called halo car that looked the part but never quite performed the part. It was almost universally panned by critics as an overpriced parts-bin special, which, I must add, was damningly accurate. As a result, sales were very slow, and within the first few months, dealers were clearancing the car at cut-rate prices, just to keep them from taking up too much of the showroom floor. Why It's Not That Terrible, After All: I can speak from personal experience when discussing the Chrysler Crossfire. You see, I owned one. Well, sort of...

1969 Pontiac GTO Judge vs. 2006 GTO, which Goat gets your vote?

The Pontiac GTO was perhaps the most iconic muscle car of the '60s and early '70s. With its beefy V8 and color palette screaming for attention, it summarized in a single vehicle everything that made the era so appealing to many young people. Pontiac tried to collect just a few drops of that aura again in the 2000s with a revived GTO, but with decidedly mixed results. The performance was still there with its big V8, but the looks never quite lived up to the powertrain. Now, Generation Gap wants to know which of these Goats is the one to own.
Things are skewed immediately because the 2006 GTO here is a real ringer. It comes from famous tuner Ken Lingenfelter's collection, and it's a one-off example partially fettled by GM Performance boasting a twin-turbocharged LS2 V8 with a claimed 750 horsepower and a wide-body kit. This Goat definitely isn't what you're going to find just browsing for one to buy in the newspaper. Still, dip the throttle just a little, and this GTO pulls like a freight train. It's enough to turn the two hosts into giggling schoolboys behind the wheel.
The '69 GTO Judge here is also out of Lingenfelter's collection, but this one is all stock with a 400-cubic-inch (6.6-liter) V8 and a Ram Air hood for a claimed 366 hp. It might not have the unbelievable power of the turbo '06, but it makes up for it with style to spare.