1961 Porsche 356 B Coupe 1600s on 2040-cars

Auto blog

249 reasons you want to go to Goodwood Revival

At its most basic, Goodwood Revival is a long weekend worth of car races featuring cars made before 1970. There are lots of those, though, including some pretty great ones all over the world. But nothing is like Goodwood Revival because it's so much more than "just" vintage car racing.  First, you have to look the part. Attendees are strongly encouraged to dress in period clothing from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, with a strict dress code enforced should you want to enter the paddock. The goal is to create a more authentic atmosphere to match the cars and the meticulously restored and recreated paddocks, grandstands and other facilities of the reborn Goodwood circuit. Now, the dress code was relaxed this year since the Saturday was literally the hottest Sept. 9 on record in that part of England, and the organizers didn't want people dropping dead because they needed to wear an ascot. Some people definitely took the "relaxed" bit too far, but there was still plenty of atmosphere maintained. It really does make a big difference, as those "relaxed" individuals were often akin to seeing a Starbucks cup in a scene from "Game of Thrones."  You can see what I came up with below along with former Autoblog editor Reese Counts and various other Goodwood attendees. Second, there's the parking lot. But I'll let this entire separate post detail that. Third, there's the enormous carnival-like area featuring vintage-looking rides and various boutiques. Both of those are on the outside portion of the track, and honestly, you could easily just spend your entire day in the parking lot and carnival/shopping area without even crossing over into the circuit area. There you'll find more shops, food and drink opportunities, plus obviously, race car paddocks and the track itself.  Fourth, there are airplanes! I heard there are fewer than in the past, but they're there and they're cool. The Goodwood circuit started out life as the perimeter road around the World War II airfield RAF Westhampnett.  Fifth, with all of the above, Goodwood Revival really is fun for the whole family. It isn't just a bunch of old guys sitting around in lawn chairs. There are plenty of women and adorably dressed children, including babies in vintage prams. It's also not an event that's exclusively for the uber rich, even if they are certainly in full force given who has the sort of money needed to go vintage racing.

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.