1986 Porsche 944 Turbo With Extra Parts Low Reserve!!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche wants you to 3D print your own Cayman

Have you got access to a 3D printer? Well lucky you, because as we're rapidly learning, the possibilities are virtually endless. And if your tastes lean towards the automotive (as we'd assume they do if you're reading this page), we've got good news.
Porsche has just released 3D printing data for the Cayman S so you can three-dimensionally print out your own and customize to your heart's content. Now Porsche hasn't specified just to what scale the data will allow you to print your Cayman, but we have a feeling that'd mostly be limited by the size of the printer at your disposal. Check it out in the video below and follow the link to the Porsche site to download the file.

Our hats are off to Porsche's 2014 911 Turbo Cabriolets

Porsche has just debuted its two latest decapitated rocket sleds today at the LA Auto Show, the new 911 Turbo Cabriolet and Turbo S Cabriolet, which share their coupe counterparts' 520-horsepower and 560-hp 3.8-liter twin-turbocharged flat-six engines. That kind of power ought separate a lot of hats (and toupees!) from heads.
The rear-engined Porsches put their power down through all four wheels, which allows them to launch from 0-60 in 3.3 seconds or less (the Turbo S Cab takes just 3.1 seconds), and both of them top out at 195 mph.
The 911 Turbo Cabriolet starts at $160,700, while the Turbo S Cabriolet can be had for a grand total of $193,900 (plus $950 for destination). Is the S model's 40 extra horsepower worth $33,200? We're not so sure, but we imagine Porsche won't have any trouble selling it.

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.