1987 Porsche 911 Leather on 2040-cars

Auto blog

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.

Road & Track names its 2013 Performance Car of the Year

Road & Track recently staged its first annual Performance Car of the Year test, pitting 13 new and updated performance cars against each other on track, then graduating the top six to a road test before picking a winner. Additionally, the magazine staff picked the best automobiles of the year in eight categories.
But first, let's cover the PCotY segment. Here's the list of cars brought to the comparison test: Audi R8 V10 Plus; BMW 435i; BMW M6 Competition Package; Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Z51; Ferrari F12 Berlinetta; Ford Fiesta ST; Jaguar F-Type V8 S; Jaguar XFR-S; Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG S-Model Wagon; Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Black Series; Mini John Cooper Works GP; Nissan GT-R Track Edition; and Porsche Cayman S.
To find out the results of the comparison, head over to Road & Track's website or check the press release below, where you'll also find the magazine's top-rated vehicles in eight categories. Want more? Head over to the 2013 PCotY hub. But before you do that, take a stab at guessing the winner of PCotY (we'll give you one hint: it isn't a Porsche).

2017 Porsche 911 Carrera experienced from the passenger seat

Autoblog joins Porsche for Rennsport Reunion V at Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca, the fifth international gathering of all things Porsche. If you've ever had a picture of a Porsche on your wall or dreamed of owning a certain model, either that very car or one just like it is here. Watching three 917 racers blaze over the rise at the front straight and down into turn one can make a viewer think, "So this is how Steve McQueen felt..." It was a modern Porsche that delivered one of the highlights of the first day, though: we rode shotgun for three hot laps of the track in the new turbocharged 991.2-series 911 Carrera S, with Thomas Krickelberg, director of powertrain for the 911 model line, our pilot. We cornered him and August Achleitner, vice president of the 911 product line, for a few questions about the changes. What do you call the standard 911 now that it has turbocharged engines? Carrera. If you're wondering what to call the standard 911 now that they have turbocharged engines, the answer is: Carrera. Krickelberg said, "In-house we call them 'little turbo' and 'big turbo,'" but the Carrera is a model line within the 911 model line, the big boy 911 Turbo is a second model line within the 911 family. One will continue to be called Carrera, the other simply Turbo. The move to turbocharging came to serve the twin kings of performance and fuel economy, but engineers played around with numerous configurations. A non-turbo engine displacing about 4.0 liters – that's as big as the 9A1 engine block can go – was considered, but that setup couldn't deliver the desired fuel efficiency. Krickelberg said engineers considered a small-displacement block of around 2.0 liters, but that was abandoned because "takeoff behavior was worse" because the turbo was called upon to do too much of the heavy performance living. Krickelberg added, "Not only that, but there was a too big a gap between real-world fuel economy and homologation fuel economy." Base Carrera and the Carrera S models haven't used the same engine displacement since the 996 series departed at the end of 2004. Achleitner said, "We found 3.0 liters is the best solution to get the best mix of fuel and air in combustion chamber - it offered the best geometry, bore and stroke, and the size of the walls.