2002 Porsche 911 Turbo Coupe Upgrades!!! 26k Miles Only $54,888.00!!! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jack Olsen built a Porsche 911 to drive every day and conquer Willow Springs

Almost two years ago we wrote about the 12-Gauge Garage Jack Olsen built to house his multifarious Porsche 911 - its 1972 bodywork hides four decades of Porsche parts, like the transaxle from a 1977 911 and the engine from 1995 911, for example. It weighs 2,400 pounds and has 272 horsepower, and Olsen uses it daily driving and for track days, the latter excursions featuring homemade, bolt-on aero parts. German magazine Auto Bild stopped by Olsen's house to look in on the Porsche called "Black Beauty II," and we get a few more details about the mods he's made, like swapping out for fiberglass body panels and welding Fuchs wheel centers to wider Corvette barrels so he could run different tires. Most importantly, though, Olsen divulges his passion for lowering his lap time at Willow Springs. Randy Pobst set the lap record for a production car around the 2.5-mile Big Willow track in a Porsche 918 Spyder at 1:23.54 during a Motor Trend test (the outright record, according to Willow Springs, is held by Michael Andretti at 1:06.050 in a CART car). Further down the list, Steve Millen drove a 415-hp 911 GT3 RS around the same track in 1:33.14 - a car 600 pounds heavier than Olsen's. Over the past 14 years of tinkering with his car, Olsen says his data shows his lap time is now down to 1:26.88, achieved on the day of filming the Auto Bild video. That time would put him in between the 1:26 flat posted by Dominik Farnbacher in a 608-hp Dodge Viper SRT-10 ACR and the 1:28.93 put up by Pobst in a 400-hp, 991-series 911. You can hear Olsen tell it in his own words in the video.

New Porsche 4-cyl engines to range from 1.6L to 2.5L

Recent rumors of a turbocharged, flat-four-engine from Porsche for the Boxster (pictured testing above), Cayman and maybe other models go back over a year. The latest scuttlebutt indicates that there could be three variants on the horizon with 1.6-, 2.0- and 2.5-liter displacements and power as high as 360 horsepower.
Car magazine in the UK claims to have access to the specifications for the project and thinks the 2.0- and 2.5-liter versions are guaranteed for production for the Boxster and Cayman. However, it believes a question mark still looms over the 210-hp 1.6L because the engine would go into a new, smaller sports car that still doesn't have a green light for production.
Regardless of displacement, the new fours would be turbocharged and direct-injected. The 2.0-liter would produce around 286 hp and 295 pound-feet of torque, and the 2.5-liter would make about 360 hp and 347 lb-ft. Earlier reports pegged some parts sharing with the current flat-six.

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.