2003 Porsche Carrera 4s Original Paint No Accidents No Scratches No Paintwork on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2015 Porsche Cayman GTS

The Porsche Boxster and Cayman will forever nip at the heels of their big brother, the 911 Carrera, and perpetuating this tradition are the latest GTS variants, which add yet another arrow to the quiver of the plucky mid-engined platform.
The GTS' performance enhancements boost horsepower by a mere 15 and shave a tenth from 0 to 60, but Porsche's clever product planners and engineers have stuck to their familiar formula in making the Cayman GTS more desirable than the Boxster for dyed-in-the-wool performance enthusiasts. More on that shortly.
Laps around Spain's Circuito Mallorca RennArena and the nearby Serra de Tramuntana mountain range would shed further light on how the GTS differentiates itself from lesser Caymans.

Porsche Macan fails moose test, Stuttgart responds

Different countries have different safety standards, but most of them revolve around a similar set of tests: front impact, side impact, offset impact, rollover... the usual. But Sweden has its own test. It's called the Moose Test (or the Elk Test), and it's unique to Scandinavia: a car has to be able to avoid a theoretical antlered mammal on the road while traveling at 43.5 miles per hour and return to its previous course without flipping over. The Jeep Grand Cherokee ran afoul of the uniquely Nordic maneuver a couple of years ago, but even more surprising is the way the Porsche Macan has reacted.
Under testing by Sweden's Teknikens Värld, Porsche's downsized crossover - specifically the Macan S Diesel, for what it's worth - didn't flip over, but it skidded off course. In real-world conditions, it follows, the vehicle could run off the road or into oncoming traffic. The testers ran the test several times, and even removed excess weight from the vehicle, and each time it reacted the same way.
In response, Porsche has explained that the behavior is the result of its Active Rollover Protection system kicking in. When the system detects that the vehicle could drastically oversteer, flip over or lose its tire, it momentarily applies the brake on the front outside wheel, allowing the vehicle to shed the cornering forces without losing it completely.

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.