2012 Porsche Panamera 4 Awd Sunroof Nav Rear Cam 6k Mi Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche Cayenne GTS, base models revealed ahead of LA

Porsche unveiled a slew of refreshed Cayennes just a few months ago, but the base model (right) and high-performance GTS trim (above) were conspicuously absent from that list. There's no more reason to wonder about them, though, because the German brand plans to unveil both at the upcoming Los Angeles Auto Show on November 19.
Sitting below the Turbo in the lineup, the latest GTS still offers plenty of performance. It drops the previous version's naturally aspirated V8 in favor of a tuned version of the twin-turbo 3.6-liter V6 from the Cayenne S for some added oomph. The tweaks bring power up to 440 horsepower and 445 pound-feet of torque, which is enough to rocket the model to 62 miles per hour in an estimated 5.2 seconds. The bump also equates to 20 hp and 39 lb-ft more than the current S and more importantly 20 hp and 62 lb-ft more than the previous GTS, according to Porsche.
In addition to the extra muscle, Porsche also decks the GTS out with some added features. It comes with a standard sport exhaust and Porsche Active Suspension Management system with an air suspension lets the chassis sit about three-quarters of an inch lower (20 millimeters). To bring things to a halt, the high-performance models also takes its brakes from the Turbo model.

Autoblog editors choose their favorite racecars of all time

If you like cars, there is a good chance that you like racecars. There's something about the science and the art of going faster, of competition, of achievement, that accelerates the hearts of enthusiasts. It doesn't matter the series, the team or the manufacturer – there's something about racing that stirs emotions and lifts spirits. It's that way with many of you, and it's that way with our editors. With that in mind, we offer a list of our favorite racecars of all time. Of course, we'd like to hear some of yours in the comment section below. 1970 Porsche 917 Compared to some of the obscure choices by my colleagues, I feel like the Porsche 917 is almost so obvious a pick as to not be worth mentioning. Still, when coming up with my answer, my mind invariably went back to this classic racer – specifically in its blue-and-orange Gulf livery – while watching Le Mans on DVD and later Blu Ray with my dad. Long, low and curvaceous, few vehicles have ever looked sexier lapping a track than the 917. More than just a pretty face, this beauty had speed, too, thanks to several tunes of flat-12 engines over the course of its racing life. In the early '70s, Porsche was a dominant force throughout sports-car competition, and the 917 (shown above at the 1970 24 Hours of Daytona) was the tip of that spear, including back-to-back victories in the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Largely without dialogue or really much of a traditional plot, Le Mans is like a tone poem of racing goodness. While the 917's importance to motorsports history is undoubtedly fascinating, it's still this cinematic depiction of the Porsche racer that draws me in most, especially with the volume cranked. – Chris Bruce Associate Editor 1964 Mini Cooper S How could everyone not be selecting the 1964 Mini Cooper S piloted by Paddy Hopkirk and Henry Liddon? That car, 33 EJB, took the first of British Motor Corporation's four Monte Carlo Rally wins (it should have been five, but French judges got the British Minis [and Fords] disqualified on a technicality regarding headlights... which its own car, the winning DS, was also in violation of). The tiny red car and its white roof beat out Ford Falcons, Mercedes-Benz 300SEs and scores of Volvos, Volkswagens and Saabs. This, along with the several years of dominance that followed, cemented the idea that not only could the tiny, two-tone Mini be a real performance vehicle, but that family-friendly city cars in general could be fun.

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.