1985 Porsche 944 Base Coupe 2-door 2.5l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

New details mooted about Porsche's '988' Ferrari rival

We could be on the verge of a big expansion at everyone's favorite rear-engined German sports car manufacturer. Porsche is allegedly preparing a four-car assault that will be led by a proper challenger to the Ferrari 458 Italia (sorry 911).
Code-named "988," the new model will reportedly feature a mid-engined layout and, get this: a flat-8. Autocar, which has the story, expects that engine to displace about 4.0 liters, while the car itself will draw styling inspiration from the 918 Spyder. 600 ponies and over 400 super-accessible pound-feet of torque should be on tap with the new mill.
Joining the 988's supposed eight-cylinder is a new family of four- and six-cylinder boxer engines that Autocar claims will have a focus on power density and fuel economy. These new mills will be available in naturally aspirated, turbocharged and hybrid forms.

Porsche calls in The Committee for Boxster and Cayman GTS

Porsche is set to offer up the very first GTS variants of its more affordable Boxster convertibles and Cayman coupes. This is very good news for enthusiasts. Aside from our original post announcing the hotted up models, though, Porsche hasn't given us much to go on.
And you know what? This video isn't much of help either. It's called The Committee, and we're guessing it's meant to highlight the lengths that Porsche went to in designing what are essentially sportier trim levels for its two most affordable entries. Still, it's a stylized and entertaining video with a few entertaining driving scenes scattered throughout, and it gives just a small glimpse of Porsche's view of the vaunted GTS badge.
Take a look below for the full video.

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.