1967 Porsche 911 Targa 5 Speed #2+ Condition! 1 Family Owner 1 Of 718 #'s Match on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche Cayman S and Caterham 7 go head to head on the drag strip

We recently saw the standard Porsche Cayman go up against a Subaru WRX STI in a one-mile drag race with surprising results. Apparently, Evo had a similar idea of evaluating the Cayman's quickness. However, it opted for the more powerful S model and chose a flyweight Caterham Roadsport 140 as the challenger. Will the results of this battle be as close at the end of the kilometer-long (0.62-mile) drag?
Neither of these are cars you'd usually associate with drag racing, but they are nearly evenly matched. Evo selected them based on power-to-weight ratio, with the Caterham offering a scant 140 horsepower in a lithe 1,213-pound package. The Porsche is a quite svelte 2,910 pounds but has 325 hp to haul it around.
Of course, power-to-weight ratio isn't everything. There are a ton of other variables like aerodynamics and gearing that play a huge role, as well. Can the little Caterham's weight advantage overcome the better aero and additional power of the Porsche? Scroll down watch the video and find out.

1986 Porsche 959 Prototype at Barrett-Jackson sees gavel fall at $440,000 [UPDATE: w/video]

Fans of Porsche in America have longed for the chance to buy a 959 ever since the German automaker produced and sold it (well, sold it everywhere but the United States...) in the 1980s. Well, they just had their chance. The car you see above is a Porsche 959 prototype built in 1986, and only one other running prototype still exists.
The 959 prototype can't be driven on public roads, as it carries no such certification. Somehow, we doubt that matters all that much to the new buyer - this one is probably going to be sitting in a collection. When the gavel finally fell, bidding had reached $400,000, plus a 10-percent buyer's fee.
Check out our high-res image gallery above to see this prototype up close, and scroll down below to watch a video of it crossing the auction block and for its official auction description.

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.