2005 Porsche Boxster S Seal Grey One Owner. on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Watch this Koenigsegg CCX hit 211 mph on a runway, outpacing McLaren's P1

Vmax200 in in England organizes events where those who care to show up with a supercar can run them down the two-mile runway at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground. Evo attended the latest event, bringing an impressively green Lamborghini Aventador to test its girth and gaping vents against other precious metals like the McLaren P1 and F1, Ferrari F12 Berlinetta and Enzo, a Porsche Carrera GT and enough 911 Turbos to start a dealership. Speaking of those Porsches, nine of the top ten slots in the top speed competition are claimed by modified 911 Turbos.
A monochrome Swede ruled them all, though, a black-and-white Koenigsegg CCX setting fire to the speed trap run after run, hitting 211 miles per hour at its quickest. It was followed by, surprise, a 911 GT2 modified by 9E that did 210 mph. You can watch the EVO video below, GT Spirit has a bigger breakdown of the day, and we've included another vid showing the tandem launch of the CCX and McLaren F1.

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.

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.