1997 Porsche Boxter In Black With Only 33k Miles! Tiptronic Excellent Example on 2040-cars

Auto blog

eBay Find of the Day: Your choice of new, unregistered mid-2000s supercars

If you didn't quite find what you were hoping to see under the tree this year, maybe it's about time you buy yourself something nice. Something like an unregistered 2005 Porsche Carrera GT. The car has never been titled and has just 83 miles on the odometer. With one owner since new, the Carrera GT is likely to be as nice an example as you're likely to find outside of a museum. Porsche only built 340 of these machines back in 2005, and with a 610 horsepower V10 kicking at your spine, you can lap Santa's sleigh next year. Currently, the Carrera GT has a buy it now price of $457,325 with around six days left on the auction.
Not flashy enough for your tastes? Stroll on down to West Hollywood and you'll find a similarly untitled 2004 Ferrari Enzo up for grabs with a sticker of $1.8 million. Technically a Euro-spec car, the Enzo isn't legal to operate on US roads, but could be modified to satisfy Uncle Sam with a little effort. The seller calls this car the "last brand-new Enzo in existence" and with 175 miles on the clock, that may be a true statement. You can head over to eBay Motors for a closer look if you're feeling spendy.

Driving 50 years of Porsche 911 history

Raiding The Porsche Museum For A Fun Track Day
It seems everyone is celebrating anniversaries this year: it's Aston's hundredth, Lamborghini's fiftieth, Ford Mustang's fiftieth, Chevy Corvette's sixtieth - and Tesla just turned ten or something. It's been a little out of hand, frankly, all these forced marketing festivities, but if we had to pick one milestone to really celebrate hard and party all night, the Porsche 911 would be at the top of our list.
Get ready for a major 911 blowout bash at next week's Frankfurt Motor Show. It was on September 12 back in 1963 at this very show where Porsche unveiled its "901" painted in a rather boring shade of beige. Though drably finished, the car caused a worldwide frenzy in the budding German sports car sphere.

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.