Which car is the real king of the 911 range? Is it the 911 Turbo? Is it the 911 GT2? Or is it this new GT3? I'll get back to this thought later. After all, I am meant to be introducing this brand spanking new GT3 to you...

I'm going to get the figures out of the way, how 'bout that? Traditionally (...) the GT3 is a naturally aspirated engine, and instead of taking the bog-standard (...) 3.6 flat six from the Carrera, it instead gets a tuned version of the new 3.8 litre flat six in the Carrera S, which now gets 320kW, but is still less powerful than the twin-turbocharged engines in the Turbo and GT2. Which is also a tradition, apparently.

So I could tell you that it goes from 0-100kmh in 4.1 seconds, and will blast you all the way to 310kmh, but according to Porsche, that's not really the point of the GT3. The point of the GT3 is to achieve the most perfect blend of chassis cornering ability and outright power - which I thought was the point of every 911, or at least the GT2, but I must have misunderstood something somewhere. It's all a bit confusing.

But what is clear is that the new GT3 will be a force to be reckoned with on the track - just to the prove this point to every customer, Porsche offers a complimentary racing course at Silverstone in Great Britain with every purchase of a GT3. And Porsche certainly have enough acronyms to back up their claims (because every sports car needs a bunch of acronyms to sound technologically advanced, it seems) - PSM, UHP, PCCB, VTS, PADM, just naming a few, and PASM, which is one little letter away from spasm. Imagine rattling off all them to your mate who thinks his Commodore Calais V is technologically advanced because it has ESC.

But what does all that mean? Not a whole lot really, they're just special Porsche names for regular things like brakes, steering, suspension, tyres and the like. They're all highly advanced versions of these common-place items, mind. Porsche will make sure that they're all as close to perfection as they can do, believe you me. Don't ever tell a Porsche engineer that the chassis on a 911 GT3 is average - they will summon an army of glasses-wearing scientists in white lab coats who will remove your internal organs and replace them with mechanical ones they've made themselves that are approximately 236.43% better.

And did I mention that the 911 GT3 has the most ridiculous and precarious rear spoiler I have ever seen?!

So where does the GT3 fit in? Is it the ultimate 911? It's not the fastest, because the GT2 takes that cake. But both the GT2 and GT3 are almost track-day specials in comparison to a 911 Turbo, which probably renders them irrelevant. So is the Turbo the real king, because it is just about as fast as it's race-car brothers? Or is it the GT2, with it's outright power? Or this new GT3, with better balance than a Russian gymnast, the real king?

I'm getting really annoyed. I want the number one 911, right here, right now. None of this "whatever suits your driving style" crap. I want the best Porsche can do. Period. Otherwise, any description of a new range-topping Porsche 911 will involve a lot of these - (...)

NEWS: Porsche 911 GT3 Wonders If It Should Be King

Alright, as the title suggests, I don't like the Porsche Panamera. But I don't think it is because I have a general dislike for Porsches (they're just backward in terms of style!) - I genuinely believe the Panamera is stupid. Perhaps not as stupid as the Cayenne, but seriously stupid nonetheless.

I don't need to tell you it looks ugly. You can see that 911 styling just doesn't translate to a car with four doors and is over 5-metres in length. You're eyes aren't decieving you, it really is that long. It's bulky and looks heavy (even though it probably isn't, knowing Porsche). So, I'm wondering. It doesn't really seem to be much of a sports saloon (you can't tell me that something 5.2 metres long with a huge wheelbase is going to quick and agile), and it can't be a luxury car, because Porsche don't make luxury cars. Who is this car for?

At least the Lamborghini Estoque (which recently seems to be becoming more likely to go into production by the minute) looks properly sporty, if a bit confused. The Panamera looks like a big fat lumbering blob. Harsh maybe, but you have to think about the competition. Already established in this segment is the Maserati Quattroporte - stunningly stylish, ridiculously luxurious, fairly fast, incredibly customisable. The Bentley Continental Flying Spur - more leather and woodgrain than you can poke a stick at, fast (in a straight line), very comfortable. Do I think the Panamera has what it takes to sell well against these rivals? No, because it lacks desirability.
If a car has desirability, it makes you want to own it even though you know buying one would be a stupid thing to do. Think Fiat 500, a Citroen C6, or a Mercedes-Benz SL. Because the Panamera has nothing else in its favour, it at least needs desirability to win buyers in its favour. I cannot think why someone, however weird, would want this. As stupid as the Porsche Cayenne is, people buy it because they want the biggest, baddest, and fastest SUV on the planet. It also happens to be a Porsche.

So that is all that is left for the Porsche Panamera. It is a Porsche. If you want a Porsche that badly, buy a Boxster - it is cheaper. The Panamera will cost $250,000 plus. Perhaps the Panamera will be an excellent drive - but if you are buying a Panamera because it is an excellent drive, why not buy a 911? It will surely be a more excellent drive. Are you beginning to get my drift? There aren't any rational arguments for buying this car over something else. I'm told it will get around 500 horsepower (373kW) from it's top of the range V8, but really, what's the point of having 500 horses pulling a cart that is so ugly you wouldn't touch it with a 500-foot pole?

NEWS: Porsche Panamera Unveiled and Uncool

Meet the new Ferrari California - proof that hard-topped convertibles can look fantastic top down and top up.







If you thought Ferraris were just fast on a racetrack, think again. This car's mechanism means that the entire opening/closing cycle is completed in 14 seconds. Impressive.

This new "mini" supercar is based on the 1957 250 California (left), which was legendary for its track credentials, and its sunshine loving style. The 2009 version, like its 50-year-old ancestor, looks absolutely brilliant - I think this is a contender for the world's coolest convertible. Not to mention that it will be just about the fastest. Just enjoy the pictures.

NEWS: 2009 Ferrari California

Lamborghini won't say if its four-door Estoque concept will go into production. It does seem to look suspiciously close to production, and it would make sense that Lamborghini produce a saloon to rival the Maserati Quattroporte. However, where the Maserati is curvaceous and smooth, the Estoque is hard-edged and technical.

It only partly works - it's more of a dilution of the design theme we've seen in the Murcielago and Gallardo. The front lights seem uninventive, and the rear end looks fussy and unresolved. But there's is no doubt that it has the overall desired effect - "woah". If you saw a bright yellow Estoque coming to a snobby-private school to pick up the kids, you'd laugh too. Although billed as a sports tourer, Lamborghini say that it would recieve the V10 engine from the Murcielago LP560-4, which is hardly the engine of a relaxed touring car.

Nevertheless, it poses an interesting question: what about the people who want ridiculously priced and wild-mannered sports cars, but have a family to cart around? What should they drive, a Bentley Continental Flying Spur? Surely, that's a little tame.

PARIS MOTOR SHOW 2008: Lamborghini Estoque Concept