Skip to main content

For someone born in the early 1980s, this 1933 Chevrolet Series O 1.5-ton flatbed is an absolute antique. It is the kind of vehicle you would expect to see in a hometown parade or giving hayrides at a pumpkin farm in the fall. The tall and narrow radiator and headlights-on-a-crossbar are unmistakable early 1930s visual cues, and the combined width of the dual rear wheels are eclipsed by the mag wheels on the rear of a 1970s street machine. It is difficult to come to terms with the age of this vehicle when you were born just in time for 5.0-liter Mustangs, Jeep CJ-8 Scramblers, and the DeLorean. However, I think I have a way to explain the age of this truck in a way that’ll make perfect sense.

Photos: Author’s collection

Meet my grandfather, Ken. Ken was born in Iowa in late 1918. This truck would’ve been brand-new when he was fifteen years old, working farm jobs near Des Moines. There’s a solid chance that he drove a truck like this back in the day. There’s a certain chance that he rode on one or in one as he busted his backside to make sure there was food on the table during the height of the Great Depression. You can picture him working with a couple other young men his age, chucking bales of hay onto the bed in a field somewhere. And keep in mind, just because automobiles had been around for a while at this point didn’t mean that horses and buggies were a thing of the past yet. This was just another workhorse… except it didn’t need any hay.

Take note of the license plate on the truck: 1956. A couple of decades on, Ken was in the middle of his military career. He joined the United States Army Air Corps as a lieutenant just in time for World War II, had married a fiery woman from Oklahoma and was starting a family. By the mid-1950s he had made the transition to the Air Force and was leading combat communications units, a role that he would continue with until his retirement as a full-bird Colonel in the early 1970s. In the Fifties, the Chevy was another used truck on the scene. No flashy chrome, no two-tone paint, no V8 moving it along. It was a relic, a throwback, or any period-correct slang used to describe how out-of-date it was. When Ken retired, trucks like this Chevrolet, if they were still in service at all, were working close to the farms that muscle cars and station wagons roared by.

Photo: Author’s collection

That photograph was taken in 1988, when I was five. A truck like our featured Chevrolet was an antique. Most of the ones that were still in one piece were yard art items or museum pieces. A working flatbed truck of this vintage was the odd man out. There were more comfortable, more powerful options available that were still simple to maintain and operate. There were competent pickup trucks that could do the work and provided creature comforts like air conditioning and automatic transmissions. Ken certainly had moved on with the times. Deep into his retirement, he had just traded a 1984 Chrysler E-Class for a 1989 Chrysler New Yorker, while his trusty 1978 Ford F-250 Camper Special was parked next to the house, ready for the next mission.

It’s 2025. This Chevrolet is a few years short of a century of service, still running, still more-or-less unchanged from the day somebody handed over a few hundred hard-earned dollars for what may have been their first powered vehicle. Ken passed on in 2007, a month or two after his wife. His grandchildren are enjoying adulthood, from my college-aged cousins to myself, who is past the mid-way mark and is getting close to that hill everyone talks about. Decades of history and major world events have passed by since this truck was delivered to the dealership that sold it. The world went from horse-drawn implements to the Atomic Age and beyond any wild dream a kid from 1933 would’ve had. How would you explain things like supersonic aircraft, space exploration and the internet to a farm kid from Iowa? He’s just floored that a new flatbed Chevrolet has pulled into the farm, ready for its first day of work.

In 2025. My joints crack, my bones ache, I still have many miles to go myself, and I’m just floored that this truck is still in one piece, weathered but original, and is still ready to work. 

The post This 1933 Chevrolet Flatbed Has Seen Many Lifetimes’ Worth Of History appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

When it comes to European-style grand touring cars, the U.S. hasn’t produced many. The most prominent one that comes to my mind is Studebaker’s superb 1962-’64 Avanti and its successors. The Studebaker Hawk series, to include the Silver Hawk, Golden Hawk, GT Hawk, etc., also qualifies, in my opinion. Nash-Healey doesn’t—it’s more a sports car. Buick Reatta and Cadillac Allanté, on the other hand, are fine examples of grand tourers, and great cars. Other than a few efforts by a handful of the smallest Independents, like Cunningham, that’s about it.

Even rarer are U.S.-made Euro-style supercars. The list of American supercars produced prior to the 1990s includes…what? Shelby Cobra? I don’t feel it qualifies, because it’s basically a hot rod, an AC sports car with a V8 stuffed under the hood. The 1953-2000’s Corvettes are great sports cars but they fall short of supercar status.

However, at least two American cars from the 1946-1989 era qualify as supercars. The first supercar title goes to the fabulous Ford GT40, produced from 1964 to 1969. Number Two? That would be American Motors’ AMX/3.

Before you head over here with pitchforks and torches, let me explain my reasoning. The AMX/3 has all the requisite attributes of a supercar: incredibly sexy styling, exotic mid-engine chassis, and a potent V8 engine for extraordinary performance. Sure, it’s a little difficult to call it an American car since many of its mechanical bits were designed in Europe, including its chassis and OTO Melara transmission. But the same might be said of the GT40.

I think some background on AMX/3 might help convince you. In 1966, AMC investor (and later chairman) Roy Evans began pushing a stronger performance image for the company. He greenlighted the new Javelin and insisted AMC’s two-seat “AMX” concept also go into production. Soon, Evans and AMC Chairman Roy D. Chapin Jr. began to consider outdoing the Corvette by fielding a mid-engine supercar. Designer Bob Nixon created a full-size mockup dubbed AMC/2. Its low, sleek, over-the-top styling was an immediate hit with audiences. Then Styling VP Dick Teague came up with a design thought to be even more appealing, and it was chosen.

Chassis development began at Bizzarrini in Italy, with assistance by American Motors engineers. The body/chassis was semi-monocoque, with a body height of 43.5 inches. An AMC 390-cube V8 was mounted behind the cockpit, hooked up to a ZF transaxle on the first car, a Melara unit on subsequent cars. A 3.54:1-axle ratio provided blistering acceleration of 0-60 in 6.1 seconds and a 160-mph top speed. For production, AMC considered Karmann, Coggiolla, or Bizzarrini but, in the end, chose Autofficina Salvatore Diomante.

AMX/3’s U.S. debut at the New York Auto Show in April 1970 drew rave reviews. However, AMC management was beginning to realize its beautiful car couldn’t be put into large-scale production. Costs were the problem. An original goal of selling 5,000 cars a year proved unrealistic. The next goal, 1,000 cars annually, would have meant a minimum selling price of $20,000 per, and even that might be unprofitable. Chapin told me they finally decided $12,000 was the most they could hope to charge; roughly double that of Corvette. He decided building cars on which AMC would lose $8,000 each wasn’t a good idea.

Officially, only six AMC/3s were built, but several people later announced “discovery” of more examples, some reportedly constructed from leftover parts.

Whatever the actual number is, these rare cars are extremely expensive and worth every penny. I knew and liked Roy Chapin, but his decision was wrong; if AMC had offered even just 25 AMX/3s for sale per year, their reputation for performance and innovation would have soared. But as they say, hindsight is always 20/20.

Lead Photo: In a Javelin Racing Team jacket, racing legend Mark Donohue appears with the third of the six AMX/3s at Michigan International Speedway in 1970.

The post Independent Thinking: America’s Second Supercar? appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

We can look at brochures and dealer books and learn what was available for a particular model year, but those won’t provide a complete picture of things as they evolved over the model year. Our Pick of the Day is one of those cars that you won’t find in most literature; that’s because it was a promotional package created by a marketing department early in the calendar year. This 1967 Plymouth Belvedere Silver Special two-door hardtop is listed on ClassicCars.com by a dealer in Elkhart, Indiana.

The Silver Special name has been used by Plymouth since 1958. It was first applied to a mid-year promotion for Plaza two- and four-door sedans to kick sales up a notch. Equipped with whitewall tires, deluxe wheel covers, fender ornaments, and anodized aluminum “Sportone” side trim with a matching metallic silver roof, the Silver Special was a nicely dressed version of Plymouth’s cheapest model.

The Silver Special was revived for 1966, though now applied to the Fury II four-door sedan. The Silver Special was available in five colors (white, light blue, light metallic blue, dark metallic blue, and silver) and included these extras as standard equipment: whitewalls, deluxe upper door moldings, special wheel covers, and a blue vinyl interior.

The Silver Special reappeared for 1967, now based on the Belvedere II two-door hardtop and four-door sedan—again, a specially equipped, specially priced mid-range Plymouth. “It worked before…work it some more,” said the special brochure created for this promotion. There were two packages available: Package A included Buffed Silver paint or any other regular color save Light Tan metallic, a special silver and black vinyl interior, deluxe wheel covers, whitewall tires, and sill moldings; Package B added a special textured vinyl top in a silvery charcoal color. If air conditioning or a 383 four-barrel was ordered, a $50 discount for each was implemented.

You may not have heard of the Silver Special because, other than the special interior,  there’s not much that makes it stand out from your typical Belvedere II. Additionally, the Belvedere II was not a performance model, so it’s often modified by enthusiasts, sometimes losing its identity. According to the seller, this Gold metallic 1967 Belvedere Silver Special has what’s “believed to be 21,500 original miles,” adding that it is powered by a “well-built, fuel-injected 360 cubic-inch V8 backed by its 3-speed automatic transmission” that “has been nicely upgraded with Hooker long tube headers, aluminum heads, Edelbrock mild-rise EFI intake manifold, Edelbrock electronic fuel-injection, and aluminum radiator with electric puller fan.” Other features include power front disc brakes, an aftermarket Optimus AM/FM stereo with a cassette player, and more.

Sure, there’s nothing on the outside to show that this Plymouth is more interesting than any other Belvedere out there, but the silver lining is in the cabin. For $34,995, is this Mopar gold?

Click here to view this Pick of the Day on ClassicCars.com

This 1939 Lincoln-Zephyr coupe is a running-and-driving project that was built into a street rod before the seller’s acquisition in 2015, and it is powered by a 460ci Ford V8 with Holley Sniper EFI and a Billet Specialties Tru Trac serpentine accessory drive. The engine is backed by a four-speed automatic transmission and a 9” rear end, and the car rides on an Air Ride Technologies air suspension, a Scotts Hotrods independent front assembly, a triangulated four-link rear setup, and 15” wheels. Other highlights include rear-hinged doors, a split bench seat, air conditioning, power windows, a Juliano’s steering wheel, and rack-and-pinion steering. The cabin upholstery is incomplete, and the body is finished in black primer. This modified Zephyr is now offered at no reserve with a Texas title in the seller’s name.

The body was decked, and the doors were shaved and mounted on concealed rear hinges before the car was refinished in black primer. Details include a split rear window, fender skirts, a chrome rear bumper, and dual exhaust outlets. Imperfections around the car can be viewed in the image gallery below.

Chrome 15” wheels are mounted with 225/60 front and 235/60 rear Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 tires. An Air Ride Technologies air suspension has been installed along with a Scotts Hotrods Mustang II-style front assembly and a triangulated four-link rear setup. The car is equipped with rack-and-pinion steering, and braking is handled by front discs and rear drums assisted by a booster mounted below the floor.

A split bench seat is trimmed in brown and black, and the painted dashboard fascia is accented with a burl woodgrain finish. The remainder of the cabin upholstery is incomplete. Insulation material has been applied to the floor and rear bulkhead, and rubber mats line the footwells. An aftermarket air conditioning system, power windows, and three-point seatbelts have also been added.

The Juliano’s banjo-style steering wheel is mounted to a tilt column and sits ahead of an aftermarket 100-mph speedometer with inset auxiliary gauges. The five-digit odometer does not work and currently shows 190 miles. The seller estimates that 500 miles have been added under current ownership.

The 460ci Ford V8 is equipped with a Holley Sniper electronic fuel-injection system, an Edelbrock Performer intake manifold, a Billet Specialties Tru Trac serpentine accessory drive, and a dual exhaust system with AP Emissions Xlerator mufflers. The radiator is cooled by dual electric puller fans.

Power is sent to the rear wheels through a rebuilt AOD four-speed automatic transmission and a 9” rear end.

The car is titled as a 1939 Lincoln using VIN H76467, which the seller is unable to locate on the car. The title carries a “VIN Certification Waived” remark.

For as long as he could remember, Danny Wilson had a soft spot for the clean lines and raw potential of a 1967 Chevy II. It wasn’t just a car it was the one that got away, the kind of machine that had lived in the back of his mind since his twenties. Back then, his first car, a Chevy II Nova, had been a defining part of his youth and though life moved on, the itch for another never faded.

His friend Scott Reynolds knew all about Danny’s obsession. Scott also happened to own a flawless, totally stock ’67 Nova. But there was a catch: Scott had no interest in watching his pride and joy gutted into a full-blown drag car, and he knew Danny’s love of racing might tempt him to do just that. So, for years, the Nova sat in Scott’s garage, just out of reach.

That all changed on a crisp December day in 2018. Without warning, Danny’s wife LeAnn and son Adam led him out to the garage to “check out something.” The door rolled up, and there it was: a gleaming black ’67 Nova. Danny froze, instantly recognizing it.

“Is this Scott’s car?” he asked, half in disbelief.

“No,” LeAnn smiled. “It’s your car.”

It was the ultimate Christmas surprise and came with one important promise to Scott: The Nova would stay true to its street roots.

The car already had a fresh coat of deep black paint and a recently refreshed interior, making it an ideal starting point. Danny’s vision was clearly building a street-ready, show-stopping Nova with modern drivability and just enough muscle to remind people why these cars became legends.

He turned to R&P Machine in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, to make it happen. Out went the stock suspension, replaced by Aldan coilovers, a Classic Performance Products (CPP) front suspension, and a TCI rear torque arm setup. Wilwood 11-inch disc brakes were fitted on all four corners, and a CPP power steering kit replaced the original unit. To make room for the 18×11 Billet Specialties rear wheels, the team installed mini-tubs out back.

Under the hood, the factory 327 got a serious wake-up call. Bored and stroked to 383 cubic inches, the new small-block pushed out a healthy 400 horsepower. A 2004 GM 4L60E transmission with a 3000-stall converter handled the shifting duties, giving the Nova the perfect balance between boulevard cruising and backroad fun.

When the Nova finally returned home, Danny was over the moon. The stance, the rumble, the way it carved through corners it was everything he had imagined, and then some. Today, it’s less about quarter-mile passes and more about evening cruises with his family, windows down, soaking in the nostalgia.

Danny credits the whole build to the support of LeAnn and Adam. “Without them,” he says, “I couldn’t have pulled this off. There’s nothing like loading up everyone in the car and heading out for a cruise. This Nova is part of the family now.”

The post The Story Of The Surprise Gift 1967 Nova In The Garage appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

In August 2025, the all-electric Ford F-150 Lightning SuperTruck set a lap time of 6:43.482 on the Nürburgring Nordschleife. Driven by French racing driver Romain Dumas, this performance made the SuperTruck the fastest pickup-style vehicle to ever complete the track and placed it among the top five fastest prototypes in history. What could be cooler? Ford releasing the video footage for the world to see, that’s what.

We’ve mentioned the Ford F-150 Lightning Supertruck EV before when it was first revealed in June 2024, and again in July 2024 when it took first place at the famous  International Pikes Peak Hill Climb.

Ford SuperTruck Spec Summary

Ford’s 1,400 HP SuperTruck is a purpose-built, electric race truck designed for the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb, sharing the nameplate with the F-150 Lightning but featuring radically different, one-off bodywork and a three-motor, 1,400-horsepower electric drivetrain. It’s engineered with extensive aerodynamics, including a large rear wing and front splitter, to generate 6,000 pounds of downforce at 150 miles-per-hour, while also employing a custom in-board suspension, carbon ceramic brakes, and Pirelli P-Zero tires on forged magnesium wheels.

As a rolling laboratory, the SuperTruck’s specifications are adaptable, with its motor configuration and horsepower varying for different challenges like the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb and Nürburgring runs. One configuration is said to feature  four motors generating 2,200 horsepower.  Adjustments are also made to its ride height and downforce depending on the event. The primary goal of the prototype vehicle is to demonstrate Ford’s electric vehicle capabilities and to break records at Pikes Peak, carrying on the legacy of previous EV demonstrators like the SuperVan 4.2.

The Record Nürburgring Run

The SuperTruck prototype achieved a peak speed of 163 miles-per-hour on the Nürburgring’s main straight, which was a testament to its extreme electric performance. It proved to be faster even than the non-production NIO EP9, Xiaomi’s underdog SU7 Ultra Prototype, and even the new Chevrolet Corvette ZR1X. The sub seven-second lap is just one-tenth of a second slower than a Manthey Racing-prepped Porsche 911 GT2 RS, and it beats the 6m 52. the072s time posted by the track-focused Mustang GTD back in May by almost a full 10 seconds. Granted, the Mustang GTD wore road-legal tires for its run, while the SuperTruck ran motorsport-derived slicks.

Get ready for a record-chasing ride on one of the world’s most legendary circuits:

Though Ford doesn’t provide too many details about the run itself, the Blue Oval’s official announcement does state that “every breakthrough goes straight into the trucks you’ll actually drive.”

The post Video: Ford’s Electric SuperTruck Sets Blistering Nürburgring Lap Time appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

In August 2025, the all-electric Ford F-150 Lightning SuperTruck set a lap time of 6:43.482 on the Nürburgring Nordschleife. Driven by French racing driver Romain Dumas, this performance made the SuperTruck the fastest pickup-style vehicle to ever complete the track and placed it among the top five fastest prototypes in history. What could be cooler? Ford releasing the video footage for the world to see, that’s what.

We’ve mentioned the Ford F-150 Lightning Supertruck EV before when it was first revealed in June 2024, and again in July 2024 when it took first place at the famous  International Pikes Peak Hill Climb.

Ford SuperTruck Spec Summary

Ford’s 1,400 HP SuperTruck is a purpose-built, electric race truck designed for the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb, sharing the nameplate with the F-150 Lightning but featuring radically different, one-off bodywork and a three-motor, 1,400-horsepower electric drivetrain. It’s engineered with extensive aerodynamics, including a large rear wing and front splitter, to generate 6,000 pounds of downforce at 150 miles-per-hour, while also employing a custom in-board suspension, carbon ceramic brakes, and Pirelli P-Zero tires on forged magnesium wheels.

As a rolling laboratory, the SuperTruck’s specifications are adaptable, with its motor configuration and horsepower varying for different challenges like the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb and Nürburgring runs. One configuration is said to feature  four motors generating 2,200 horsepower.  Adjustments are also made to its ride height and downforce depending on the event. The primary goal of the prototype vehicle is to demonstrate Ford’s electric vehicle capabilities and to break records at Pikes Peak, carrying on the legacy of previous EV demonstrators like the SuperVan 4.2.

The Record Nürburgring Run

The SuperTruck prototype achieved a peak speed of 163 miles-per-hour on the Nürburgring’s main straight, which was a testament to its extreme electric performance. It proved to be faster even than the non-production NIO EP9, Xiaomi’s underdog SU7 Ultra Prototype, and even the new Chevrolet Corvette ZR1X. The sub seven-second lap is just one-tenth of a second slower than a Manthey Racing-prepped Porsche 911 GT2 RS, and it beats the 6m 52. the072s time posted by the track-focused Mustang GTD back in May by almost a full 10 seconds. Granted, the Mustang GTD wore road-legal tires for its run, while the SuperTruck ran motorsport-derived slicks.

Get ready for a record-chasing ride on one of the world’s most legendary circuits:

Though Ford doesn’t provide too many details about the run itself, the Blue Oval’s official announcement does state that “every breakthrough goes straight into the trucks you’ll actually drive.”

The post Video: Ford’s Electric SuperTruck Sets Blistering Nürburgring Lap Time appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

A federal court in Florida found Tesla partially liable for a 2019 fatal crash, after evidence presented at trial proved the company had withheld crucial data. The lawsuit was filed by the family of Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed, and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, who was severely injured when a Tesla Model S on Autopilot crashed into their parked SUV in Key Largo. After repeated denials that the data existed, the plaintiffs hired a hacker who recovered the evidence, leading to a jury awarding $243 million in damages.

If this case sounds familiar, you could have already read an article posted earlier this month which briefly covered the topic. This is a follow up to that quick news piece.

The crash and Tesla’s initial claims

The incident occurred on April 25, 2019, when a Tesla Model S driver, who was distracted after dropping his phone, crashed into a legally parked SUV. Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo were standing outside the SUV at the time. The driver, George McGee, settled with the family separately and was found to be 67% at fault by the jury, while Tesla was assigned 33% of the liability.

For years, Tesla denied having the “collision snapshot”—data from the car’s sensors and cameras capturing the moments before and after the crash. The plaintiffs’ legal team repeatedly tried to obtain this evidence during discovery, but Tesla insisted it was corrupted or deleted. In reality, the data was uploaded to Tesla’s servers and the local copy on the car was marked for deletion shortly after the crash occurred.

“The information was key for a wrongful death case the survivor and the victim’s family were building against Tesla, but the company said it didn’t have the data,” the Washington Post said. “Then a self-described hacker, enlisted by the plaintiffs to decode the contents of a chip they recovered from the vehicle, found it while sipping a Venti-size hot chocolate at a South Florida Starbucks. Tesla later said in court that it had the data on its own servers all along.”

A hacker’s discovery and the game-changing evidence

Stonewalled by Tesla, the plaintiffs hired a forensic data expert, or hacker, to examine the car’s hardware directly. The expert was able to recover the “missing” collision snapshot, which contained crucial information about what the Autopilot system was “seeing” in the moments before impact.

The recovered data revealed three major details about Tesla’s actions and the Autopilot system’s failure:

  • The Autopilot system had not issued a “Take Over Immediately” alert, despite approaching a T-intersection with a stationary vehicle and pedestrians in its path.
  • Map data within the Autopilot ECU included a flag that the area was a “restricted Autosteer zone,” yet the system allowed Autopilot to remain engaged at full speed.
  • The data showed that Tesla’s servers received and acknowledged the collision snapshot minutes after the incident, contradicting the company’s claims that it did not have the data.

The trial and jury’s verdict

During the trial, the jury was presented with clear evidence that Tesla had tried to hide data and mislead investigators. Tesla’s trial attorney admitted the company’s handling of the data was “clumsy” but denied misconduct, a claim the jury ultimately rejected. The jury’s verdict reflected their disapproval of Tesla’s conduct and the Autopilot system’s failure. Tesla was ordered to pay $243 million to the victims, including $200 million in punitive damages.

The substantial punitive damages suggest the jury was heavily influenced by Tesla’s attempts to conceal evidence. The plaintiffs’ attorneys stated that they had declined a lower settlement offer because their clients wanted to expose Tesla’s behavior and promote safety, which was more important to them than seeking financial compensation.

Wider implications and industry impact

This landmark verdict is significant for both Tesla and the broader autonomous vehicle industry. The case brought increased scrutiny to Tesla’s marketing of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features, which plaintiffs argued misled drivers into over-relying on the technology.

The verdict emphasizes the critical importance of data transparency for automakers involved in liability cases and sends a clear message to the auto and tech industries that their legal duties to protect consumers supersede market hype. By setting a precedent that companies can be held liable even when the driver is also at fault, the case’s outcome could embolden more individuals to sue manufacturers over failures in advanced driver-assistance systems.

What happens next?

Tesla has already filed a motion to overturn or reduce the verdict, arguing that the award was improperly influenced and excessive. Regardless of the outcome of any appeal, the Florida federal court’s decision has already had a lasting impact, highlighting the intersection of advanced technology, corporate responsibility, and consumer safety.

The post Hacker Uncovers Data: Tesla Found Withholding Evidence in Florida Wrongful Death Case appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

A federal court in Florida found Tesla partially liable for a 2019 fatal crash, after evidence presented at trial proved the company had withheld crucial data. The lawsuit was filed by the family of Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed, and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, who was severely injured when a Tesla Model S on Autopilot crashed into their parked SUV in Key Largo. After repeated denials that the data existed, the plaintiffs hired a hacker who recovered the evidence, leading to a jury awarding $243 million in damages.

If this case sounds familiar, you could have already read an article posted earlier this month which briefly covered the topic. This is a follow up to that quick news piece.

The crash and Tesla’s initial claims

The incident occurred on April 25, 2019, when a Tesla Model S driver, who was distracted after dropping his phone, crashed into a legally parked SUV. Naibel Benavides Leon and Dillon Angulo were standing outside the SUV at the time. The driver, George McGee, settled with the family separately and was found to be 67% at fault by the jury, while Tesla was assigned 33% of the liability.

For years, Tesla denied having the “collision snapshot”—data from the car’s sensors and cameras capturing the moments before and after the crash. The plaintiffs’ legal team repeatedly tried to obtain this evidence during discovery, but Tesla insisted it was corrupted or deleted. In reality, the data was uploaded to Tesla’s servers and the local copy on the car was marked for deletion shortly after the crash occurred.

“The information was key for a wrongful death case the survivor and the victim’s family were building against Tesla, but the company said it didn’t have the data,” the Washington Post said. “Then a self-described hacker, enlisted by the plaintiffs to decode the contents of a chip they recovered from the vehicle, found it while sipping a Venti-size hot chocolate at a South Florida Starbucks. Tesla later said in court that it had the data on its own servers all along.”

A hacker’s discovery and the game-changing evidence

Stonewalled by Tesla, the plaintiffs hired a forensic data expert, or hacker, to examine the car’s hardware directly. The expert was able to recover the “missing” collision snapshot, which contained crucial information about what the Autopilot system was “seeing” in the moments before impact.

The recovered data revealed three major details about Tesla’s actions and the Autopilot system’s failure:

  • The Autopilot system had not issued a “Take Over Immediately” alert, despite approaching a T-intersection with a stationary vehicle and pedestrians in its path.
  • Map data within the Autopilot ECU included a flag that the area was a “restricted Autosteer zone,” yet the system allowed Autopilot to remain engaged at full speed.
  • The data showed that Tesla’s servers received and acknowledged the collision snapshot minutes after the incident, contradicting the company’s claims that it did not have the data.

The trial and jury’s verdict

During the trial, the jury was presented with clear evidence that Tesla had tried to hide data and mislead investigators. Tesla’s trial attorney admitted the company’s handling of the data was “clumsy” but denied misconduct, a claim the jury ultimately rejected. The jury’s verdict reflected their disapproval of Tesla’s conduct and the Autopilot system’s failure. Tesla was ordered to pay $243 million to the victims, including $200 million in punitive damages.

The substantial punitive damages suggest the jury was heavily influenced by Tesla’s attempts to conceal evidence. The plaintiffs’ attorneys stated that they had declined a lower settlement offer because their clients wanted to expose Tesla’s behavior and promote safety, which was more important to them than seeking financial compensation.

Wider implications and industry impact

This landmark verdict is significant for both Tesla and the broader autonomous vehicle industry. The case brought increased scrutiny to Tesla’s marketing of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features, which plaintiffs argued misled drivers into over-relying on the technology.

The verdict emphasizes the critical importance of data transparency for automakers involved in liability cases and sends a clear message to the auto and tech industries that their legal duties to protect consumers supersede market hype. By setting a precedent that companies can be held liable even when the driver is also at fault, the case’s outcome could embolden more individuals to sue manufacturers over failures in advanced driver-assistance systems.

What happens next?

Tesla has already filed a motion to overturn or reduce the verdict, arguing that the award was improperly influenced and excessive. Regardless of the outcome of any appeal, the Florida federal court’s decision has already had a lasting impact, highlighting the intersection of advanced technology, corporate responsibility, and consumer safety.

The post Hacker Uncovers Data: Tesla Found Withholding Evidence in Florida Wrongful Death Case appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

All images by Terry Shea/Hemmings

1962 AC Ace Bristol

1962 AC Ace Bristol, front quarter, Vineyard Green, race car, Pebble Beach Concours

1958 Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa Spyder

1958 Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa Spyder, white with blue stripe, on the grass at Pebble Beach Concours

1914 Mercedes 115 HP Grand Prix

1914 Mercedes 115 HP Grand Prix, front quarter, on the grass at Pebble Beach Concours

1925 Bugatti Type 35

1925 Bugatti Type 35, rear quarter, with the Pebble Beach crowd behind

1964 Ferrari 250 LM

1964 Ferrari 250 LM, front quarter, on paved path leading to Pebble Beach show field

1971 Lamborghini Miura P400 SV

1971 Lamborghini Miura P400 SV, front quarter, driving into the show field at Pebble Beach Concours, Verde Metalizzato.

1953 Jaguar C-type

1953 Jaguar C-type, front quarter, white with blue stripe, entering the Pebble Beach show field.

1960 Scarab Formula 1

1960 Scarab Formula 1, side view, with other period F1 cars behind it, on the show field at Pebble Beach

1955 Moretti 750 Gran Sport Mota Spyder

1955 Moretti 750 Gran Sport Mota Spyder, yellow, rear quarter view, on the grass at Pebble Beach

1954 Alfa Romeo 1900 CSS Berlinetta

1954 Alfa Romeo 1900 CSS Berlinetta, front view, entering the lawn at Pebble Beach Concours

1921 Duesenberg 183 Grand Prix

1921 Duesenberg 183 Grand Prix, front quarter, number 16, on the grass at Pebble Beach with the bay behind it

1956 Maserati A6G 2000 Coupe

1956 Maserati A6G 2000 Coupe, side view, entering the lawn at Pebble Beach with Pebble Beach sign behind it.

1955 Mercedes-Benz W196 R Formula 1

1955 Mercedes-Benz W196 R Formula 1, front quarter, on the lawn at Pebble Beach with the ocean in the background

1957 Ferrari 205 GT Tour de France

1957 Ferrari 205 GT Tour de France, front view, with Pebble Beach crowd behind car

1910 Benz 21/80 Renn Wagon

1910 Benz 21/80 Renn Wagon, side view, car driving on the grass at Pebble Beach Concours

1925 Amilcar CGS Grand Sport

1925 Amilcar CGS Grand Sport, front quarter view, car on pavement entering the Pebble Beach concours

The post The Sports and Competition Cars Gallery from Pebble Beach 2025 appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.