AutoGuide News Blog
The AutoGuide News Blog is your source for breaking stories from the auto industry. Delivering news immediately, the AutoGuide Blog is constantly updated with the latest information, photos and video from manufacturers, auto shows, the aftermarket and professional racing.
Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson is paid to piss you off, it’s what he does best. Maybe someone should have forwarded the memo to Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk.
ď»żMusk probably should have taken Top Gear’s pot shots with a laugh and kept doing business, but it’s easy to understand why he might be feeling defensive. His company keeps hitting nasty potholes in the road to success, like the “bricking” problem that apparently compromises the battery system in Tesla vehicles, a costly repair.
This Top Gear drama started back to December 2008 when the show gave a mixed review to the Tesla Roadster. Their program said the car failed to meet its advertised 200-mile range, instead only achieving 55 miles. That figure came from running it on a track where any vehicle would have less than optimal range, electric or otherwise. They also bashed the Roadster for having deficient brakes.
Brakes and range aside, it’s essential to remember that Top Gear is first and foremost an entertainment program. The episode depicted crew members pushing a “dead” roadster into a hangar, though the facts emerged during Tesla’s lawsuit. Surprise, surprise, the car wasn’t dead and the shot was used for effect.
This isn’t terribly dissimilar to the infamous Bugatti Veyron versus McLaren F1 drag race episode, where the show managed to eek out a Veyron victory, only after several F1 first-place finishes. Again, Top Gear is for show first, reporting second.
British Justice Tugendhat threw Tesla’s claims out in October, 2011, saying the company’s lawyers needed to amend their malicious falsehood claims.
The final chapter, (one would assume), in this one-way pissing match closed today. Justice Tugendhat dismissed Tesla’s revised claim which said there were “reasonable grounds to suspect that each of the Claimants [Top Gear] had intentionally and significantly misrepresented the range of the Roadster by claiming that it had a range of about 200 miles in that its true range on the Top Gear track was only 55 miles”.
Hopefully Tesla can move past this cat fight and focus more on the bricking issue at hand. Small car startups have enough problems without taking British TV bullies to court.
Check out Tesla CEO Elon Musk discussing the Top Gear episode in the video after the jump.
[Source: The Truth About Cars]
Having just 158-miles on the odometer, this 1970 Pontiac GTO Judge hasn’t a single flaw and with an asking price of just $49,900, we can’t even complain about its price.
The numbers-matching GTO Judge was restored to better than showroom condition and was expertly detailed with a Judge stripe package – which can be removed if the buyer wants a pure OEM look. The 1970 GTO has an original WS 400 powerplant that has been rebuilt to Ram Air III specifications. That means it now packs 365-hp and 455 lb-ft of torque out of its fully-tuned V8. It has even turned the quarter mile in a respectable 14.60-seconds at 99.55-mph – though we feel like it has a bit more in it than that.
The restoration process was as thorough as it could get, with the car’s body having been stripped down to bare metal and made as smooth as possible. It was then blasted with a coat of Pontiac Orbit Orange, clear coated, buffed and shined to near flawless condition. Judge graphics are located throughout the classic, while the interior has also been completely redone with black vinyl.
Check out a video of the GTO Judge after the break.
GALLERY: 1970 Pontiac GTO Judge
[Source: RK Motors]
The California Court of Appeal has ruled that drivers do not need to use their turn signals if no other car is nearby. A three-judge panel found that La Habra Police Officer Nick Wilson was in the wrong when he pulled over Paul David Carmona, Jr. after the accused made a right-hand turn without signaling in his Chevy.
The officer charged the driver with violating vehicle code 22107, which states a signal must be used when “any other vehicle may be affected by the movement”. The prosecutor argued that the driver actually violated a separate law, section 22108, which states, “Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning”. However Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary found the officer was approaching from the opposite direction when the driver’s vehicle made a right-hand turn away from the officers vehicle, and as no other vehicles were present, there was no possible violation of section 22107.
It will be interesting to see how many preventable accidents beginÂ occurringÂ because of this ruling.
[Source: The Newspaper]