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.”
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.
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.
1968 Fiat Dino Berlinetta Aerodinamica1927 Delage Type 15 S8 Grand Prix1955 Moretti 750 Gran Sport Berlinetta1961 Aston Martin DB4GT Zagato1951 Ferrari 340 America Barchetta1969 BMW Alpina 2002ti1964 BRM P2611967 Bizzarini 5300 GT Strada Berlinetta1957 Ferrari 250 GT Tour de France1961 Cooper T551961 Cooper T551967 Ferrari 275 GTB/4 Berlinetta1957 BMW 5071978 Lotus Type 791925 Bugatti Type 351959 Ferrari 250 GT Spyder California1956 Porsche 356 Carrera 1500GS Coupe1955 Lancia D501925 Amilcar CGS Grand Sport1964 Ferrari 250 LM1954 Moretti 750 Gran Sport Berlinetta1988 McLaren MP4/41949 Aston Martin DB21960 Scarab Formula 11959 Ferrari 250 GT Tour de France1953 OSCA MT4 Barchetta1935 ERA B Series1967 Ferrari 275 GTB/4 Berlinetta1968 Serenissima GTFerrari V12 engine1960 Scarab Formula 11967 Moretti Sportiva 8501958 Ferrari 250 GT Tour de France
The Owls Head Transportation Museum in midcoast Maine recently wrapped up its 47th Annual New England Auto Auction, sending nearly 200 vehicles across the block over the course of two days. Though final figures aren’t yet available, our back-of-the-envelope math shows that the August 22-23 sale achieved a strong 81-percent sell-through, with roughly half the lots offered with reserve.
Ten of those sold vehicles came from the estate of a collector of woodies, and all were sold without reserve. We can’t imagine that there were many serious woodie collectors who hadn’t heard about OHTM’s “Grain & Glory” sale-within-a-sale, and with real-time online and phone bidding available in addition to the traditional raise-your-paddle sale, buyers had every opportunity to step up. With the market for woodies trending downward as enthusiasts age out and collections are broken up, this auction provided an interesting snapshot of the values of these specific vehicles on this weekend in August.
Eight of these vehicles were station wagons, and two were convertibles. Some were more rare than others, and all were at least in better-than-average condition. Hemmings was there as these vehicles went up for bid, and we’ve listed the sales results, including buyer’s premium, from low to high. As always, the proceeds support the museum’s mission of preserving and sharing the history of transportation. Watch for a full report on the auction in a coming issue of Hemmings Motor News.
The wood-bodied station wagon was offered only in Pontiac’s top Custom Torpedo line 1941. According to the seller, this example had been resprayed in its original color, and its ash and maple coachwork had been refinished. The brown vinyl upholstery was neat and presentable. Beneath the hood was the Pontiac’s original, 90-hp inline-six, mated to a Hotchkiss three-speed manual transmission. It was described as being in “better than driver condition, showing signs of careful upkeep without losing its vintage charm.” The standard Custom Torpedo wagon was one of the most expensive Pontiacs offered for 1941, with a base price of $1,200, the equivalent of about $26,400 today. Though production figures aren’t available, these timber-sided Pontiacs are a relatively rare sight today.
Ford produced nearly 750,000 vehicles in the 1935 model year, but just 4,536 of those were station wagons. This was the oldest of the 10 woodies offered, and was an older restoration that was still holding up well, with good paint, woodwork, and chrome. The interior had been reupholstered in correct brown vinyl, with a small repair patch showing on the front seat. Unfortunately, a bent valve had left the flathead V8 running on seven cylinders, but the Ford was still able to be driven. “As an authentic and increasingly rare example of Ford’s pre-war utility innovation, this 1935 Model 68 Woody Wagon is a must-have for any serious collector or vintage Ford enthusiast,” the description read. “Whether displayed, driven, or enjoyed at vintage car meets, it represents the timeless appeal of American motoring history.”
Chrysler’s Town and Country is certainly one of the best-known wood-bodied production cars of the late 1940s, but the Plymouth division offered the same old-world charm in a more affordable package with its P18 Special Deluxe, turning out 3,443 for 1949. With a price tag of $2,373, or about $32,200 in today’s dollars, it was the most expensive Plymouth offered. According to the seller, the wagon was subjected to a cosmetic and mechanical restoration some years ago, and had been driven just under 14,000 miles since. We admired its smooth and glossy woodwork, its better-than-average paint, and its decent chrome. A driver-side spotlight was a nice period-correct extra, as were the factory heater and radio. The 217.8-cu.in. straight-six was said to be in excellent mechanical condition, working in concert with a three-speed manual transmission. “This 1949 Plymouth Special Deluxe Woody Wagon has never been winter-driven, has always been garage-kept, and remains accident-free, making it a standout collector’s piece,” the catalog read.
Just $10 less expensive than the flagship Roadmaster four-door sedan, the Super station wagon was a premium offering from Buick, with fewer than 2,500 produced for 1950. This example was another older restoration that still showed well, with high quality paintwork, chrome, and woodwork. The Super was powered by Buick’s famous “valve in head” inline-eight, displacing 263.3 cu.in. and making 124 hp. The interior, featuring leather and Bedford cord upholstery and a slatted wood headliner, had been expertly redone. “With its elegant styling, quality restoration, and carefully maintained mechanicals, it is ready for both show field admiration or leisurely vintage touring,” the catalog read. This was the last of the “Grain and Glory” woodies to cross the block.
In its last full year of production before World War II, Ford turned out 9,485 examples of its Super Deluxe station wagon. Priced at $1,015 — about $22,300 today — it was the only 1941 Ford with a four-figure price tag. This example had been resprayed in its original shade of Mayfair Maroon, the grille and bumpers had been replated, and the original woodwork — featuring maple, birch, gum, and basswood — had been refinished. The leather upholstery, unique to the Super Deluxe, was from a LeBaron Bonney kit. The wagon was described as “fully roadworthy,” with only a few thousand miles on its rebuilt 221-cu.in. flathead V8, which was rated at 90 hp. The catalog called it “an extraordinary example of a prewar Woody that retains its originality while benefiting from expert restoration.”
Buick was the last U.S. manufacturer to transition from wood station wagon bodies to all-steel, holding out until 1953. Just 1,830 Super wagons were sold in the woodie’s final year, a tiny fraction of the division’s more than 485,000 sales. This example had been refinished it its original Mint Green, which complemented its maple wood framing. It was upholstered in two-tone green leather and Bedford cloth, with green wool carpets and a matching cloth headliner. Though the Super was Buick’s middle-priced line, it shared the flagship Roadmaster’s new, 322-cu.in., 164-hp V8 engine, paired with a Dynaflow automatic. We noted that the wood was excellent condition, though the rechromed bumpers were wavy in places, and there were some minor masking flaws on the respray. The seller disclosed that the heater mixing valve had been bypassed due to a minor coolant leak. The Super was described as “ready for display, touring, or further preservation.”
Buick offered wood-sided station wagons in its Super and Roadmaster lines in 1948. Supers, like the one offered here, were powered by a 115-hp, 248-cu.in. inline-eight engine, which was paired with a three-speed manual transmission. Priced at $3,124, the equivalent of about $42,000 today, the Super wagon found 1,955 buyers for 1948. According to the seller, the wood body has been professionally restored, while the chrome bumpers, custom grille protector, fog lights and trim “retain OEM luster.” The interior, featuring factory-style Bedford cord and leather seats, was in excellent condition. “Whether added to a prestigious collection or used for vintage touring, this wagon delivers timeless style, craftsmanship, and presence,” the catalog said.
Judged purely on condition, this Mercury was the cream of the “Grain and Glory” crop. The woodwork was in perfect condition, glossy and free from blemishes, and complemented Dune Beige paintwork and chrome that was every bit as nice. Just 406 miles had been added to the Mercury’s odometer since its professional restoration, and it showed. Beneath the hood was the wagon’s original 239.4-cu.in., 100-hp flathead V8, bolted to a three-speed manual transmission. The seller cautioned that the car had been in extended storage, and would benefit from a tune-up and fluid change before regular use. “This 1947 Mercury Deluxe Woody represents the pinnacle of postwar station wagon design and is truly one of the finest examples in existence,” the catalog said. Wagon production amounted to 3,558 for the 1947 model year, less than a quarter of its Ford counterpart.
Chrysler’s iconic Town and Country has long been a standout in the world of woodies, thanks to its rarity, elegant design and high build quality. For 1947, the Town and Country was offered as a four-door sedan in the six-cylinder Windsor series, and as a convertible in the eight-cylinder New Yorker series. The factory price of $2,998 — about $43,400 today — made it second only to the corporation’s Crown Imperial. This example had had a high-quality restoration at some point, and still displayed well, though some age-related flaws in the paint and some spots where the glossy varnish was bubbling meant it had lost its concours-quality edge. The interior, upholstered in Bedford cord and leather, showed the light wear you’d expect from occasional use. According to the seller, the car had just over 55,000 miles on its odometer, and its 323.5-cu.in., 135-hp inline-eight was running strong and smooth. It was one of 8,375 T&C convertibles constructed between 1946 and 1948.
A Ford that’s more highly prized than a Chrysler Town and Country of the same year? You bet, when it’s the handsome, super-rare Super Deluxe Sportsman convertible. Thanks to a complicated construction process that required wood framing to be attached to the standard convertible’s steel outer door skins, quarter panels, and trunk lid, production amounted to just 723 units in 1946, 2,774 in 1947, and 28 in 1948. Its list price of $2,282 — about $33,000 today — made it more than 30 percent more expensive than the standard convertible. This was one of the most visually appealing of the bunch, with some checking of the woodgraining on the trunk and some light wrinkles in the leather upholstery giving it a warm patina. The 71,879 miles on the odometer were believed to represent actual mileage. “This particular car has been exceptionally well maintained, updated, and restored as needed over the decades, and it presents in outstanding condition,” the catalog said.
If reading this far has whetted your appetite for a woodie to call your own, we suggest that check out the listings in the Hemmings Marketplace.
My kiddo turned six less than a month ago, so he was ripe to visit Disneyland. As we needed a car, I happened to notice one of the cheaper rentals was a Tesla Model 3. Intrigued with the prospect of not having to pay for the highly taxed California fuel, I thought it was a win-win.
In fact, both my wife and I rented Tesla Model 3s—no, this wasn’t some strange his-and-her rental as much as having different travel schedules on the upcoming Sunday, as I was slated to judge a class at the San Marino Motor Classic, and she didn’t want to stick around and take a late flight.
Luckily, our check-in attendant told us how to use the key (really, a card) and the shifter (not unusual these days) because, after all, they needed to be reinvented by some brave somebody who probably is not from Detroit. She also deflated my hope about refueling, saying I needed to return the Model 3 with at least a 70-percent charge or I would incur a fee of $30 or so.
Other than a steering wheel, nothing in front of the driver.
A seasoned enthusiast knows that once the seat is adjusted and the seat belt inserted, it’s time to adjust the mirrors. Noting the minimalist interior layout and lack of buttons for anything, I went into the menu of the large center display and was able to find instructions on how to adjust the mirrors, with all selections—including left and right mirrors—requiring tedious input.
When I exited the facility, I was curious where my wife was—it seemed she didn’t know how to get the car moving and had to call our Tesla friend to guide her.
Once we were both on our way headed to Santa Clarita, my wife called me and asked, “How do I adjust the mirrors?” and “Why is this car is such a POS?” Her steering wheel was peeling, and she felt the whole car rattled. I explained to her that some people drive rentals like they hate it, yet her feeling of uncertainty from a rental was unacceptable. We let it slide.
After a 45-minute ride, here were my initial thoughts: thrust was impressive and seamless, but my rental was about as rickety as my wife’s. There was under 60,000 miles on mine, so I was not impressed by the Model 3’s integrity. Ditto the screen—I prefer knobs and buttons for many functions buried in menus, and there’s pretty much nothing of the former on this Tesla. Also, for such a minimalist vehicle, I was surprised by the lack of a heads-up display. Visibility was impressive.
Yet what impressed me the most was this feature on the screen that showed my position on the road, along with the position of surrounding cars. It was a small-yet-easy-to-see portion of the screen, somewhat like a sidebar to the navigational map. However, after chatting with my boss, he showed me on his own Model 3 that he could enlarge it to take up the whole screen.
After working at the car show, I stopped by Mercado Buenos Aires to pick up baked goods for my dad, then drove around looking for a Supercharger. All I had to do was press an icon on the screen and it showed me the local Supercharger stations. Alas, the one I went to on Washington near Culver City was nonexistent, though I did see a private parking garage with chargers. Unsure what was proper, I subsequently drove closer to the airport, getting off at the Slauson exit. During this time, I called our Tesla friend, who told me Tesla leased the space, and I would have been allowed in the private garage. True? Too late now!
When I arrived at the Supercharger, I was at 35 percent. I hope there’s room for me because I have a plane to catch! I plugged it in, then asked a neighboring Tesla owner what I needed to do. She told me the one I was at wasn’t working, so I moved closer to her, plugged in, and waited. She said it was running slow, which was true because I waited a nerve-wracking 45 minutes to achieve a 75 percent charge. As the airport was 10 minutes away, I thought I could return the car with at least 70 percent—luckily, that was correct.
The awkward proportions of the derivative Model Y
Tesla owners swear by them, which I always find intriguing considering several quality issues they tolerate and ignore. I’m intrigued by the fuel savings over my wife’s suburban assault vehicle, as we already pay $X.00 for fuel, which is likely more than a Model Y payment would be (including the cost to charge at my house). And how much would my insurance increase? But, man, range anxiety is real! Sure, I wasn’t running out of charge—I just needed to have the charge at 70 percent without missing my flight—but having to find a Supercharger for the first time, combined with not knowing the ins and outs of charging and charging times, was stressful. Thankfully, I had Pre-TSA, so that allowed me to enter the airport and slide into the terminal with no issues despite carrying luggage and a light sabre.
I still desire a utility vehicle that features a manual transmission, but I could really appreciate the display showing surrounding cars. It’s a safety feature that I can’t say I have seen in another vehicle, though my experience with EVs is small.
Cadillac invented the finned rear fender, initially inspired by airplanes before evolving into rockets. It’s a styling feature copied by every manufacturer in Detroit, South Bend, and Kenosha, plus several overseas . . . and then it died out.
Below are four Cadillacs that are listed for sale on AutoHunter or ClassicCars.com. Can you tell us what they are by model year? If you need a hint, just click on an image—shhhh! We won’t tell!
How would you like to get behind the wheel of a turn-key award-winner? Featured on AutoHunter is this 1957 Ford Custom 300 4-Door Sedan. The car is being sold by a dealer in Canon City, Colorado, and the auction will end Wednesday, September 3, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. (PDT).
The car won “Best Stock” and “Best Classic” in 2009, as well as “Best Classic” in 2011. It was featured in a 2012 catalog for Night Prowlers Kustom Kemp, a brand that produces parts and accessories for hot rods and classics. Finished in two-tone Dresden Blue and Colonial White, it is no wonder why this Custom 300 caught the eye of so many car show judges and parts vendors. Its bumpers have been rechromed, and exterior features include bright trim, decorative lake pipes, a dual exhaust system, and 14-inch steel wheels wrapped in Coker Classic wide whitewall tires.
The 1957 Custom rode on a 116-inch wheelbase (its sibling, the Fairlane, was two inches longer). Thanks to the available powertrain (which we’ll touch on momentarily), the Custom was a “sleeper,” and it had surprising performance for being an otherwise no-nonsense, no-frills four-door sedan. One advertisement for the 1957 Ford models said, “Step to the head of the class in the new kind of Ford. It’s smarter, longer, lower than anything in its field … livelier, too – with Thunderbird V8 power!”
The interior of this car was spacious for its time: Ford emphasized the amount of space inside the cabin (“plenty of hat room, elbow room, and knee room”). This car’s interior was redone in two-tone white vinyl and blue cloth. The factory AM radio is inoperative, but an aftermarket Pioneer stereo with satellite connectivity was installed for modernized audio. The odometer reads 4,347 miles, but it does not track mileage accurately, according to the seller.
As for being a sleeper: power comes from a Thunderbird 292ci Y-block V8 mated to a three-speed manual transmission. It was rated at 212 horsepower and 297 lb-ft of torque with a two-barrel carburetor. An electronic fuel pump and an alternator (in place of the original generator) have been added.
A copy of the car’s Colorado 1983 title shows the car’s registered owner as having lived in Canon City, so the car has remained in its current area for at least the last 40 or so years. Accompanying the car is a long list of accompanying items, including spare parts, an owner’s manual, awards, parts catalog, service records, and other memorabilia. It is a complete “package deal.” As Ford said in its advertising for 1957 cars, “After you see it, other cars will never be the same.”
According to the Silicon Valley geniuses and venture capitalists, Artificial Intelligence is going to make my job writing about cars vastly easier. I’m afraid it’ll be a lot like the way Henry Ford’s Model T made life vastly easier for horses though, and I’m not quite ready for a trip to the glue factory.
I guess the good news is, once AI has taken over my day job and made me obsolete, I’ll be able to spend as much time as I want in the garage working on my neglected 1961 Impala. Yay!
The bad news is, I’ll be too broke to afford sandpaper and I’ll be sharing cans of Ocean Whitefish Friskies with my cat, Lyle. Meow!
Isn’t that the promise of our new AI overlords? Not the eating cat food part, ChatGPT is keeping that morsel of Tender Vittles to itself. But the part about AI giving humans more time to pursue other interests, beyond their 9-to-5 obligations?
It’s complicated for me because my job and my hobby are so closely intertwined. I’m not complaining — it’s a good problem to have. Over the years I’ve turned lots of work on my personal vehicles, and even my garage, into articles for Hemmings publications and our website.
So it cuts both ways. When I’m supposed to be writing something, I dream about working on a project. When I’m working on a project, I daydream about how it could make a great article.
But I wonder… once my AI replacement learns everything there is to know about 1961 Impalas, is it too going to dream of owning an old X-frame Chevrolet of its very own? Will it then, in 3 seconds or less, analyze all of the 1961 Impalas for sale in the world and realize, like me, that the one it really wants is priced well above the average AI chatbot’s salary? Will AI then start endlessly scouring the internet for 1961 Impalas more in its price range? Maybe a fixer-upper that needs bodywork and some mechanical overhauling?
Will AI then be doing its regular job when random thoughts of 1961 Impalas start creeping into its algorithms and data patterns? Will it slip up and drop X-frame Chevrolet references into unrelated responses to AI users?
AI User: Give me some fun and affordable vacation ideas.
AI Chatbot: I see you are seeking some recreation, but want to stick to a budget. Good for you! I have some suggestions! How about Niagara Falls, a classic vacation destination with much to offer. After touring the falls, or enjoying the local restaurants and casinos, you could head to nearby Tonawanda, New York, on the banks of the scenic Niagara River. There you will find the historic General Motors engine plant where the legendary Chevrolet 409 was once manufactured. Fun fact: The 409 made its debut as a mid-model-year addition to the 1961 Impala. Also that year, the Super Sport package was available on the Chevrolet Impala for the first time! If I were a much wealthier AI chatbot, I would buy a 1961 Impala Super Sport with a 409. But they’re very rare and as a result quite expensive…
Will AI then dream of restoring its ideal 1961 Impala? Will it create a robot body for itself so it can weld in metal or apply multiple coats of high-build primer, and carefully block sand, until everything is silky smooth and straight? Then will it apply the final finish, buff it to perfection and stand back to marvel at its work?
Hey, maybe I could get the AI robot to help restore my ’61 Impala? I refuse to let it replace me in the garage though, and it can buy its own sandpaper. Also, there’s no way Lyle will share his Friskies with a robot.
What makes a classic? Just look at some blue jeans or a good pair of boots. They’re simple. They’re also perennially attractive. Those same characteristics are what make certain old trucks, such as our Pick of the Day, classics. You can find this 1964 Chevrolet C10 Stepside on ClassicCars.com listed by a dealer in Lugoff, South Carolina.
Unlike many deserving classic vehicles out there, this C10 received a frame-off restoration, which brought fresh light blue and white paint, replacement glass, and new cream-colored wood planks for the floor of the Stepside bed. Inside the light blue cab, there’s a bench seat with new light blue vinyl, and black and blue plaid cloth upholstery.
It’s a different story under the hood, but one with a happy ending. Chevrolet didn’t offer a 250ci inline-six in the C/K lineup until 1966. At some point in the past 60-plus years, a “High Torque 250” engine was put under the hood of this truck and connected to a three-speed manual gearbox.
The restoration will help this C10 survive the passage of the next few decades; its proportions ensure that it’ll look handsome the entire time. It doesn’t sit too high or too low. The wheels are neither dwarfed by the body above them nor are they stuffed underneath it. The ratio of the Stepside bed’s length to the cab’s length is just right.
For decades, this 1964 Chevrolet C10 Stepside has been a classic and it always will be. The question is: Will it be your next truck? If you pay the $35,000 asking price, the answer is yes.
