2024 Porsche 911 Gt3 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2017 Porsche Macan receives delayed CARB certification

Customers waiting for delivery of their 2017 Porsche Macans will soon receive their vehicles after several weeks of delays. The California Air Resources Board certified the performance crossover for sale Monday. Several outlets reported the certification had been held up in the aftermath of parent company Volkswagen's diesel woes, as regulators are now making much more thorough inspections of the vehicles. Without certification, Porsche could not deliver those vehicles to customers in 13 states that abide by CARB certification, including California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida, several of the largest markets for luxury automobiles in America. Not only did dealers need to stop sale of Macans they had on their lots, but an unknown number could not be released from port. Porsche Cars North America (PCNA) imports its vehicles through ports in Jacksonville, FL, Davisville, RI, Houston, TX, and San Diego, CA. A spokesman for Porsche told Autoblog the issue has been resolved, and that the Macans received certification Monday. "Shipping has already been initialized," spokesperson David Burkhalter wrote. Pressed for details on the circumstances behind the delay, he said the process was simply "now the normal business procedure for certification." The Macan is a pivotal model for Porsche, particularly in the US market, which accounts for 22 percent of its worldwide sales. Last year, the Macan was the second-best selling Porsche model in America. Its 13,533 units sold trailed only the 16,473 Cayennes purchased by US buyers. Diesel models of the Cayenne manufactured between 2013 and 2016 contained the defeat devices at the center of Volkswagen's emissions cheating, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The company offers the Macan with a range of turbocharged six-cylinder engines ranging in output from 340 to 400 horsepower. While a diesel version is not offered in the United States, Porsche has now started importing a less powerful, but more accessible (and slightly more fuel-efficient) version with a 2.0-liter turbo four. Related Video:

Chris Harris pits Aston GT12 vs 911 GT3 RS vs McLaren 650S

The Geneva Motor Show is never lacking in exciting performance machinery. And this year was no exception. Our eyes, like those of Chris Harris, were drawn by two hardcore, track-focused versions of existing sports cars. Both wore the name GT3, and now Harris has brought them together for a supercar shootout. And he's thrown one more in for good measure. Those natural rivals are the Aston Martin Vantage GT12 and Porsche 911 GT3 RS, the latter manufacturer having pressed the former to drop the GT3 name to which it claims exclusive domain. There's a great deal that separates them, of course: one's got a V12 up front, the other a flat-six way in the back. But what binds them together is a common approach of taking an existing model, stripping it down, and tightening everything up to make it more of a weapon than a grand tourer. What that means in the Aston's case is a rather high price tag, much higher than that of the Porsche. But scarce demand and speculation on the open market have left British customers, at least, paying as much for the GT3 RS as for the limited-edition Aston. And that takes both into proper supercar territory. So to show what else that kind of money can get you, Monkey has brought along a McLaren. Not the similarly track-focused 675LT, but the standard 650S... Spider, no less, and with worn hard rubber. So which one performs best on the road? Which clocks the fastest lap time on the track? And which gets Harris' vote? You'll have to watch the video for yourself to find out, but it's well worth the 25 minutes of your lunch break. News Source: Chris Harris on Cars via YouTube Aston Martin McLaren Porsche Videos porsche 911 gt3 chris harris mclaren 650s

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.