2016 Porsche Cayman Gt4 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche acquires ANDIAL, will integrate with in-house motorsports

Porsche has purchased longtime motorsports and tuning house ANDIAL.
The Fountain Valley, California-based tuning house ANDIAL has been around since 1975, when it was formed by the Arnold Wagner, Dieter Inzenhofer and Alwin Springer (the company got its name by combining two letters from each of their names). The three men met while working in a Porsche dealership in Southern California and then left to start a business that would put Porsches in victory lane all over the country.
Porsches prepared by ANDIAL won IMSA GT and Supercar Series championships, the SCCA World Challenge, four Pikes Peak class titles and the 24 Hours of Daytona six times. Alwin Springer left the company in 1997 to run Porsche Motorsport North America until 2004 and remains a consultant with PMNA, Wagner passed away in 2011 and Inzenhofer plans to retire this year. ANDIAL is still a going concern, Inzenhofer presiding over a scaled-down engine parts and restoration business. But Inzenhofer is retiring at month's end, making it a good time for Porsche to step in and take over the company's operations.

Porsche gives Nick Murray exactly what he deserved [w/video]

The tale of Nick Murray and his lemon Porsche 911 appears to have come to a satisfactory end. As noted in the original story about Murray, he and Porsche Cars North America met and came to a resolution. However, we didn't know exactly what that meant, until now.
Murray has created a new video explaining that PCNA offered to buy back the car at full price or give him an exact replacement for it. This was exactly what he was asking for. Murray remains pro-Porsche in the new video. "I am definitely considering reordering a Porsche 911," he says.
Porsche also posted a message on its Facebook page that clarified the situation. "We at Porsche have always sought excellence in all that we do. We know you expect it of us. And when we don't meet that standard, we make every effort to improve," said a portion of the note.

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.