Porsche 930 Ruf Btr Ii on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche Cayman GTS in track battle with 996 GT3

Here's your tough question of the day: Would you rather drive a new Porsche Cayman GTS or a slightly older, 996-era Porsche 911 GT3? Certainly, both cars have their plusses. The Cayman is the more modern proposition, sure, but the GT3 is, well, a GT3. So yes, it's a tough decision.
If you're one of the lucky souls that have to make that choice, then this video from Evo should prove pretty helpful. It's a track battle, starring Jethro Bovingdon with a new GTS and an old GT3.
Calling the GTS "fantastically agile" and "fast, but it's also hilariously good fun," Bovingdon bangs home a solid lap time of 1:05.2 before switching to the GT3. It's remarkable to see just how dated the 996-generation 911 looks after viewing the newer Porsche, and from where we sit, it's further proof that the old car's headlights are something that's best forgotten. Styling qualms aside, though, can the GT3 keep up with its racy younger cousin?

Porsche Cayman GT4 spot has us reaching for our driving gloves

We've got to hand it to Porsche for finally unleashing the potential of the Cayman, and not worrying about it infringing on 911 territory. The latest Cayman is, by all accounts, a superb sports car in its own right, gets even better as the Cayman S and that much more so in GTS spec. But the new Cayman GT4 takes things to a whole other level with a 3.8-liter flat six driving 385 horsepower to the rear wheels through a six-speed manual. Old school is what it is, and certifiably off the leash. We brought you the full skinny on the new GT4 late last night when it surfaced, but now Porsche has released a video clip highlighting what makes its new pocket rocket look so great. It's got Nurburgring graffiti, intimidated neighbors, barking fluffy dogs, gape-jawed children, and of course footage of the Cayman GT4 itself doing what it was designed to do. All we need now is to get our driving gloves on its Alcantara steering wheel and ball-shaped shifter.

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.