2004 Porsche 911 Carrera Coupe 2-door 3.6l,factory Fitted Spioler,auto,warranty on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Lanzante building 11 Porsche 930 restomods with actual F1-raced engines

In " Casino Royale," James Bond gets a lesson in tailored clothing when Vesper Lynd gives him a new dinner jacket. Bond tell her he already has a jacket, and Lynd replies, "There are dinner jackets and dinner jackets. This one is the latter." News from Lanzante makes us paraphrase that line in saying, "There are 911 restomods and 911 restomods." Lanzante's is definitely the latter. The English engineering firm is building 11 Eighties-era Porsche 930s with genuine TAG-branded Porsche engines that the McLaren Formula One team used to win 25 races. From 1984 to 1987, Porsche built a 1.5-liter turbocharged V6, branded as the TAG-Porsche TTE P01, for the McLaren MP4/2 and MP4/3; if the naming seems odd to cover four years, it's because McLaren raced the MP4/2B and MP4/2C in 1985 and 1986. The engine produced more than 1,000 horsepower in qualifying trim, and 750 hp in race spec. In its first three years on the grid, the engine powered McLaren to two Constructor's Championships, and three Driver's Championships for Niki Lauda and Alain Prost. During that time, McLaren built a prototype Porsche 930 with that TAG engine, but kept it so far out of sight that people spoke of it as a rumor. The English carmaker finally proved the rumor true a few years ago when it put the prototype on display in the lobby of its Woking headquarters. Enter Lanzante, which has a history with McLaren going back to at least 1995, when it prepped the Veno Clinic McLaren F1 GTR that won Le Mans that year. More recently, it built road-legal P1 GTRs called the P1 GT, and a one-off P1 Longtail. McLaren sold Lanzante the 11 engines for this run of monstrously overpowered Porsche coupes, and Lanzante showed off the first example at the recent Rennsport Reunion at Laguna Seca — news that somehow got lost in the general Porsche overdose and Moby Dick revival. Built just like the original McLaren-Porsche prototype, no one will think anything's astray with the new version's white bodywork and RUF wheels. The camouflage continues inside, where a pair of upholstered racing buckets might offer a small clue. The instrument panel gives things away, containing a tachometer branded "TAG Turbo" with a 9,000-rpm redline, and a water temperature gauge. Cosworth is restoring the engines for the program, and each of the 11 examples gets a plaque in the engine bay listing its engine's race history.

'Faster. Farther.' dives into the history of Porsche racing tech

No doubt, Porsche has produced some of the best endurance racecars around, such as the turbocharged, slant-nose 935 of the 1970s and the ground-effects-enhanced 956 and 962 of the 1980s. But the company's most famous racecar, its first overall winner at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, was the 917.
The 917 embodied many of Porsche's technological achievements up to that point, such as the company's first 12- and 16-cylinder engines (the flat-16 was never used in competition), fiberglass bodies that implemented early aerodynamic practices and the use of new, exotic materials, such as magnesium and titanium.
The racecar was commissioned by the head of Porsche Motorsports, Ferdinand Piëch, to win overall at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1970, after he realized a loophole in the rules that allowed cars to compete with engines up to five liters in the Sport category if they were also production models. Piëch saw opportunity: the top prototype class was restricted to three liters; the production minimum to compete in Sport was 25 cars. And so, with much effort, Porsche assembled 25 "production" 4.5-liter 917s and had them parked in a neat line for the race inspectors to verify their legitimacy. It didn't take long before people realized the new Porsches were much faster than the prototype racers, with a top speed approaching 250 miles per hour.

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.