Pristine Black Porsche Carrera 911 Targa Convertible Low Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Evo sets up duel of Porsche 911s

What's better, rear-wheel drive or all-wheel drive? That question has occupied auto enthusiasts for years, and so far, we've not really had a solid answer one way or the other. Evo has opted to take another whack at this tough question by pairing a pair of Porsche 911s against each other for a track battle.
In one corner, we have the two-wheel-drive 911 Carrera S, complete with the lickity-split PDK transmission, a sports suspension and carbon-ceramic brakes. In the other corner, it's the all-wheel-drive 911 Carrera 4S in a much mellower spec, with a seven-speed manual, as well as standard brakes and suspension. While the results seem like they'd be a foregone conclusion, some very British weather is there to act as the great equalizer.
We've got the full video down below. Have a look, and let us know if you agree with Evo's results.

LaFerrari, McLaren P1, Porsche 918 and Agera R take to Assen

It's the show-down (sort of) we've all been waiting for. The battle of the hybrid hypercars from the performance powerhouses of Europe: Ferrari LaFerrari, McLaren P1 and Porsche 918 Spyder. No one publication has managed to get their hands on all three just yet, but this video has - and with a Koenigsegg Agera R thrown in for good measure.
The video was shot by our (unrelated) Dutch compatriots at Autoblog.nl at the TT Circuit Assen in the Netherlands. The track has played host to Champ Cars and all manner of racing bikes, but this could be the ultimate grid of actual production machinery that's ever lined up behind its start/finish line. Shame the weather was rainy and this unsurpassed array of supercars weren't really racing - more showing off for the crowds. But what a show it was. Scope out the footage in the video below.

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.