Hemmings

After a period of quiet evolution, Audi is revitalizing its brand with a groundbreaking new design philosophy, signaled by the reveal of the all-electric Audi Concept C sports car. Unveiled in Milan and slated for a public appearance at the IAA in Munich, this two-seater convertible is a bold step forward, channeling the legacy of the beloved TT and the iconic R8 into a single, minimalist electric halo car.

The production version of the Concept C, expected to launch in 2027, promises to reshape Audi’s identity and capture the hearts of sports car enthusiasts. It represents a “TT moment 2.0,” a blend of clear design and emotional performance that signals a new electric era for the brand.

The Audi Concept C was led by Massimo Frascella, Audi’s Chief Creative Officer since June 2024. Before joining Audi, Frascella was the Head of Design at Jaguar Land Rover, where he was credited with shaping the current Range Rover design language.

The birth of “Radical Simplicity”

The Concept C is the first full expression of Audi’s new “radical simplicity” design language. Overseen by Chief Creative Officer Massimo Frascella, who also worked on the modern Land Rover Defender, the new aesthetic is defined by uncluttered surfaces and purposeful lines. Key design elements include:

• Vertical frame grille: Inspired by the legendary 1936 Auto Union Type C racer, a new upright vertical frame now defines the front end, giving the Concept C a distinct and modern face.
• Monolithic body: The overall silhouette is characterized by broad, muscular surfaces punctuated by a single, sharp character line. This gives the car a solid, anchored look, amplified by the cab-back proportions made possible by its central-battery layout.
• Quad-element lighting: A new four-element light signature, seen in both the headlights and taillights, creates a new visual identity for the Audi brand that will appear on future models.
• Retractable hardtop: In a first for an Audi roadster, the Concept C features an electrically retractable hardtop with two folding panels. This offers the best of both worlds: the security of a coupe with the freedom of a convertible.

A refined and distraction-free interior

Audi’s shift to simplicity extends to the cabin, which offers a stark departure from the multi-screen interiors of many current models. The Concept C embraces a “shy tech” approach, with a focus on high-quality materials and tactile feedback.

• Foldable screen: The 10.4-inch center infotainment display folds away into the dashboard when not in use, creating a minimalist and distraction-free environment.
• Tactile controls: Anodized aluminum switches and controls provide satisfying, mechanical feedback, a clear response to complaints about the capacitive touch controls found on other Volkswagen Group products.
• Sustainable materials: The interior features wool and recycled textiles instead of leather and plastic, signaling Audi’s commitment to sustainable luxury.

Performance and platform details

While specific performance figures for the Concept C are not yet available, we know a few crucial details about its powertrain and platform:

• All-electric: The production version of the Concept C will be electric-only, built on the same 800V architecture as the upcoming electric Porsche 718 (Boxster and Cayman).
• Powertrain options: Buyers will be able to choose between a single-motor, rear-wheel-drive setup or a dual-motor, all-wheel-drive system.
• Targeted range: With the shared Porsche architecture, the Concept C is likely to offer over 300 miles of range.

Production timeline and positioning

The production version of the Concept C is scheduled to arrive in 2027, with sales limited to the “low five-digit numbers” globally. Its price point is expected to land between the discontinued TT and the R8, likely in the six-figure range, offering a new entry into Audi’s performance car lineup.

This car is more than just a replacement for the TT; it is a statement of intent. As Audi streamlines its portfolio and shifts its focus, the Concept C proves that the brand’s spirit of high-performance and innovative design is ready for its electric future.

Audi Concept C Photo Gallery:

The post Audi reveals Concept C electric sports car to replace TT and R8 appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

The automotive world is buzzing, and the noise is deafening. Toyota has officially pulled the wraps off the V8-powered GR Supra that will storm the track in the 2026 Australian Supercars Championship. It’s the moment purists have been waiting for: a factory-built V8 Supra, backed by Toyota’s Gazoo Racing division, returning the legendary nameplate to its muscle-car roots.

A V8 Supra: The dream is real (for the racetrack)

For years, the idea of a V8-powered Supra has been the stuff of forums and engine-swap fantasies. Toyota is now making that fantasy a reality, though with a crucial catch: this is a purpose-built race car, not a street-legal version for the public. The Supercars-spec Supra will feature a 5.2-liter quad-cam V8, based on the high-revving 2UR-GSE engine found in Lexus performance vehicles like the LC 500.

Enthusiasts got their first thrilling taste of the engine’s sound in August 2025 via a teaser audio clip, with one Toyota executive calling the roar “absolutely spine-tingling”. The full prototype was unveiled in Sydney in September 2025, just ahead of its public debut at the Bathurst 1000 in October. Listen to the new Toyota Supra Supercar’s V8 engine roar at this link.

What this means for the Supercars Championship

Toyota’s entry into the Australian Supercars Championship in 2026 marks a historic return to the series and a new rivalry. For the first time in nearly two decades, the championship will feature three manufacturers, sparking new excitement and competition. The V8 Supra will go head-to-head with the American muscle of the Ford Mustang and Chevrolet Camaro, bringing a fresh, high-performance dynamic to the track.

The Supra’s new V8 engine boasts a racing pedigree, and Toyota has committed to a multi-year program to ensure the Supra is competitive from the start. The car will be fielded by top-tier teams, with Walkinshaw Andretti United and Brad Jones Racing already confirmed to run cars.

The end of one era, the start of another

The reveal of the V8 race car is bittersweet news for some fans. It coincides with the end of the current fifth-generation (A90) Supra’s production run, which is scheduled to conclude in 2026. The outgoing model, developed in partnership with BMW, is being given a proper send-off with a “Final Edition” model that features performance upgrades.

However, Toyota has reassured fans that a sixth-generation Supra is already in the works, promising to shorten the gap between models. This time, development will be done entirely in-house by Toyota’s Gazoo Racing division, likely featuring a new hybrid powertrain.

Toyota bid farewell to the A90 GR Supra with special Final Edition models that are expected to fetch big money. Despite the closing out of a generation, Toyota says the Supra nameplate is here to stay.

The post V8 Supra is Real: Toyota Unveils 600HP Racecar for 2026 Supercars Championship appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

Lawmakers in California rejected “Leno’s Law,” otherwise known as Senate Bill 712, during a hearing on Friday, August 29^th. The bill, which had bipartisan support in the Senate and was backed by Jay Leno and the SEMA organization, would have exempted classic cars older than 35 years from the state’s biennial smog checks. The Assembly Appropriations Committee’s decision effectively killed the bill, despite its appeal to classic car enthusiasts. The law was seen as a way to protect and celebrate California’s car culture.

The bill was not passed due to concerns from environmental groups, public health organizations, and state regulators regarding potential increased smog, potential financial costs to the state, and reduced revenue from smog checks and fees. The rejection means owners of vehicles from 1976 and newer must continue to endure California’s biennial smog testing requirements, a process many find challenging and expensive for older cars. The sentiment is that these infrequently driven hobby cars should not be subject to the same stringent rules as daily drivers.

Major supporters of Leno’s Law included its sponsor Senator Shannon Grove, comedian and car enthusiast Jay Leno, the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), and various California car clubs. A host of car enthusiasts, including clubs dedicated to lowriders, hot rods, and other American classics, voiced their support. They championed the preservation of these vehicles as “rolling pieces of history”.

Many California classic car collectors and enthusiasts, along with the bill’s sponsor Senator Shannon Grove, have expressed deep disappointment that the state legislature failed to prioritize the classic car community. The bill was viewed as a step toward preserving California’s automotive heritage. Some social media comments from enthusiasts suggest a feeling that their hobby is not respected by lawmakers. Many feel the government is out of touch with the reality of maintaining and driving classic cars

Why Leno’s Law Was Rejected

After passing the Senate, Senate Bill 712 was sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for further review.  The bill had bipartisan support in the Senate but failed to gain enough traction in the Assembly committee. The committee ultimately thwarted the bill, bringing its progress to a halt.

Public health groups, air districts, and environmental organizations opposed the bill, arguing it would increase smog and negatively impact air quality, particularly in low-income communities with high asthma rates. State regulators, including the Bureau of Automotive Repair and the Department of Motor Vehicles, warned that the bill could cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars annually by reducing revenue from smog checks and vehicle license fees. Claims also state that the passing of Leno’s Law could have costed the California Air Resources Board $1.2 million to hire new staff to collect updated data for air quality models and to revise California’s federally required pollution-reduction plans.

Assembly member Buffy Wicks of Oakland, in her introductory remarks at the start of Friday’s hearing, said the state needed to rein in costs.

“Obviously, we have an enormous amount of budget constraints still,” Wicks said. “We have to ensure that we are serving our most vulnerable folks in our communities and making sure that we are doing everything we can to put our best foot forward for a strong social safety net.”

The rejection also reflects a broader political stance in California, where the state has a long history of strict air quality regulations and a commitment to reducing emissions.

What “Leno’s Law” Would Have Done

Leno’s Law, if passed, would have created a rolling exemption, meaning any vehicle 35 years or older could be exempt from smog checks, rather than the current fixed-year cutoff. Under current law, only cars manufactured before 1976 are exempt from smog checks.

The law would have exempted classic cars from passing a smog check when a vehicle was sold and it would have waived the biennial (every two years) smog checks required for most vehicles, provided that the owners had historical license plates and collector insurance

Jay Leno testified that the current smog check requirements are a significant barrier for owners of classic cars manufactured before modern emissions standards were in place. With a modern car, it’s “plug in, get your money – boom – get out. It’s very quick to get a smog check with a modern car,” Leno said. “It’s not impossible in an older car, but it’s tricky. It takes time and often causes charges four, five, six times more than a regular car.” Leno also mentioned that many classic car owners struggle to even find a shop with the equipment needed to test them.

Senator Shannon Grove said she was “deeply disappointed that once again, the California state Legislature did not prioritize California’s classic car culture and the enthusiasts who were relying on this measure to pass.”

“Sadly, today California said ‘no’ to helping preserve these rolling pieces of history and let down classic car clubs across the state from lowriders, to hot rods and every American classic in between,” she said in a closing statement.

The post Leno’s Law is Dead: California Kills Classic Car Smog Exemption Bill appeared first on The Online Automotive Marketplace.

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.

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.

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.

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.