2006 911 Carrera Cabriolet on 2040-cars

Auto blog

1973 Porsche 911 Carrera RS takes center stage with Petrolicious

Today, one of the most exciting track toys available is the Porsche 911 GT3. Its forbearer, though, was an altogether different beast that was every bit as exciting. Yes, we're talking about the old 911 Carrera RS that blessed the early 1970s. With a mere 1,580 cars built, meant specifically to satisfy the FIA's homologation requirements, the RS is one rare pre-Malaise era cars.
Complete with a 2.7-liter flat-six engine, this RS of Mark Haddawy is one of the earlier examples of the breed (later cars received a larger, 3.0-liter engine). Still, it can scamper to 60 miles per hour in a very respectable 5.6 seconds and will happily hit 150 mph in a straight line. Sporting Porsche's iconic duckbill rear spoiler, the equally iconic Fuchs wheels, as well as slew of options, as Haddawy points out, each of the nearly 1,600 RS models is its own unique iteration on the Porsche performance formula.
Take a look below for the latest video from the crew at Petrolicious.

2013 Porsche 911 Carrera 4S

I don't care who you are; when a new Porsche 911 rolls up in your driveway, that's a pretty good day. This was my very first experience with Porsche's 991 911, and after having spent time with just about every tune and trim of the last car, I was hotly anticipating comparing and contrasting.
Somehow (I don't remember sending out any cash-filled, unmarked envelopes) I'd scored a week in the 911 Carrera 4S over a long holiday weekend, too. That meant that I'd get to A) log a ton of miles in one of the best cars in the world, B) get to show-off the Porsche to family and friends and C) tempt cops in three states to pull me over. Good thing I've got the Autoblog traffic lawyer on speed dial...
Driving Notes

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.