Porsche 1996 993 Carrera Cabriolet 911 6-spd Manual 2nd Owner on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Porsche unlocks secrets of its mid-engine 911

Porsche is beginning to realize that it's sitting on a goldmine of automotive history with its secret vault full of rare cars. Autoblog toured it a few months ago, and we were amazed at all of the curiosities hidden inside. Now, it's starting to let more folks in thanks to a new series of YouTube videos. The first covered the 965 prototype that shoved a water-cooled, Audi V8 into one of its cars. Next up, a mid-engine 911 that acted as the powertrain test mule for the Boxster.
The Porsche 911 is inextricably linked to its rear-engine layout. They go together like peanut butter and jelly. However, at the time Porsche was developing the Boxster, the company didn't want to lay all of its cards out of the table during testing. As opposed to using camouflage, it put a whole different car on top. The prototype looked just like any other 911 Targa of the day, but the biggest giveaway that something was amiss was the heavily tinted rear window. By obscuring it, inquisitive journalists couldn't peak at the new engine that replaced the backseat.
It might not look like anything too important on the outside, but this is a major piece of Porsche Boxster history underneath. Scroll down to watch the video about this fascinating prototype.

Editors' Choice: Top Five 2015 Frankfurt Motor Show Debuts

Consider the 2015-16 auto show season officially kicked off. The Frankfurt Motor Show offered a great look at the newest crop of production cars and conceptual machines, and brought some old favorites back into the spotlight for a closer look. (The Alfa Romeo Giulia, for example, debuted in June, but this was the first time most of us saw it.) Now that the dust has settled and we're all on flights back to the US, our editors cast their votes for their personal favorites from the Frankfurt show. These are the cars we truly loved seeing the most. But unlike other shows, there was no one runaway winner – all of the Top Five received positive praise from our team. We won't spoil the results, though. Scroll down to see what we liked most from this year's Frankfurt expo. 5th Place – MERCEDES-BENZ IAA CONCEPT View 12 Photos MIKE AUSTIN: The clean lines on this concept have me excited for a more elegant beauty to future Mercedes-Benz vehicles. Next to the Concept IAA, the lovely S-Class Coupe looks like an overstyled barge. DAVID GLUCKMAN: Yeah, the extendable rear is neat and all, but I'm more interested in the front-end styling of this one. It looks like the Tron version of a 300SL, in a good way. I'm hopeful it portends the future of Mercedes design. STEVEN EWING: I was super impressed when Mercedes said that, with the rear end extended, this concept has a drag coefficient of just 0.19. That's crazy aerodynamic. I'm not head-over-heels about the styling, but I think the lessons learned from this concept are really important, and will play a huge role in the future of Mercedes' products. 4th Place – ALFA ROMEO GIULIA View 15 Photos SEYTH MIERSMA: I can hardly express how in love with this car I am. The styling feels creative, modern, and evocative, without going over the top. The proposed performance is spectacular. And the Alfa badge speaks to a legacy of romantic motoring. DAVID GLUCKMAN: Pretty Italian car makes big promises and will probably deliver on about three quarters of them. I think that will still be enough for me. JEREMY KORZENIEWSKI: I'm really intrigued by the Giulia. It looks great, sounds awesome, and I'm expecting it to have a load more character than its German rivals. I hope I'm not disappointed. 3rd Place – JAGUAR F-PACE View 15 Photos GREG MIGLIORE: It's the first SUV for Jaguar, and I think they nailed the design, capability, and electronics. It's the right car at the right time.

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.