Junkyard Is A Graveyard Of Rotting Chevys
Resurrection Auto has just purchased a junkyard's worth of classic cars. This collection is home to over 150 classic Chevy cars from 1950-1966 and trucks 1950-1988 as well as one random 1969 Corvette driver seat that sits on top of the hood of a Chevy Bel Air. The dense mass of cars is best described by the owners as 'Junk, but good junk,' indeed they have found some 'good junk'.
Watch the latest Motorious Podcast here.
Of the 150 total, they do not have 100-percent of the cars in their possession, and are unable to showcase anything that has not yet been transferred to their property due to the safety concerns of the original owner. However, the two state that they will be continuing to transfer the cars from the original owner's property to their own and say that we can expect new videos concerning the cars to be uploaded every few weeks.
Most of these cars are currently being sold as either full cars or being parted out. While some of the cars don't have all of their original parts they have plenty of parts cars that may serve as fine donors to make the car of your dreams a reality. It's not news to anyone that American muscle cars are some of the coolest and most valuable cars out there, and unless you're a Mopar kind of guy/gal.
So, it is astonishing that these guys were able to find an entire junkyard worth of them. It's not even like they're all junkers either, with some hard looking and just a bit of love you can make yourself a true vintage classic car.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 hours ago
- The Hill
FTC invalidates deal with truck makers
The FTC made this determination as the agency closed an investigation into whether several truck and engine manufacturers violated antitrust laws by engaging in a voluntary ' Clean Truck Partnership ' with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Truck manufacturers, in the July 2023 partnership, agreed to abide by California's emissions standards in exchange for certain concessions. Among those standards is the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which requires 7.5 percent of heavy-duty vehicles to be emissions-free by 2035. The Omnibus Regulation, meanwhile, has sought to slash nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent and update engine testing protocols. The FTC said Monday that it was closing the antitrust investigation after receiving commitments from four truck manufacturers — Daimler Truck, International Motors, PACCAR and Volvo Group — that they would abandon the Clean Truck Partnership. Specifically, the commitments agreed that 'the Clean Truck Partnership is unenforceable and that none of the manufacturers has ever or will ever attempt to enforce the Clean Truck Partnership's terms against another manufacturer,' according to the FTC. 'CARB's regulatory overreach posed a major threat to American trucking and, in our view, presented serious antitrust concerns,' Taylor Hoogendoorn, deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. The FTC's announcement came a day after the same four truck makers filed a lawsuit against California regulators, arguing that the Golden State lacks the authorit y to enforce its heavy-duty vehicle emissions rules.
Politico
14 hours ago
- Politico
Driverless cars hit a regulator gap
For Silicon Valley, the promise of the second Trump administration is that it would cull all those pesky bureaucrats impeding innovation. But sometimes, a new industry needs bureaucrats to cut red tape. The autonomous vehicle industry could soon face this catch-22. As driverless cars continue to roll out in American cities, AV companies need the help of federal regulators to deal with the landscape of safety rules. Yet my colleague Pavan Acharya reported last week that the Transportation Department's Office of Automation Safety, which helps regulate AVs, is on the verge of becoming a ghost town. The Republican-led Senate Appropriations Committee noted in a report that the office had 'lost almost all of its staff,' and encouraged the department to prioritize hiring. Silicon Valley has generally pooh-poohed regulators as getting in the way of both moving fast and breaking things. However, it's regulators who are trying to work around policies designed for analog cars, so that AVs can start operating legally within the federal highway rulebook. '[The Transportation Department] is taking away existing regulations that would stand in the way of autonomous vehicles,' said Ryan Calo, a University of Washington law professor who specializes in tech policy. 'They're trying to figure out how to revise their own code so that this is possible. Reducing personnel is just stupid.' The Trump administration has been going all out on kneecapping the bureaucratic state, cutting tens of thousands of people from the federal workforce. Tesla CEO Elon Musk's DOGE is central to these efforts, and the tech industry has cheered it on. In fact, Musk is apparently responsible for the exodus of AV regulators. The Financial Times reported in April that DOGE had dismissed about 30 people from DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, many of whom were employed at its Office of Automation Safety. NHTSA has been a cloud over Musk's dream of deploying fully self-driving Teslas, recalling 2 million of its vehicles in 2023 for issues with its autopilot feature. The FT reports that Musk felt regulators were being unfair, though there were also concerns within Tesla that gutting the automation safety office could backfire. (Tesla did not respond to DFD's inquiry.) Those concerns may be merited. The Biden administration launched the safety office in 2023 specifically to help the AV industry overcome regulatory hurdles. It fields petitions from manufacturers for exemptions to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which sets performance and design requirements for cars operating in the U.S. The industry has long complained that the Transportation Department has been slow to process the petitions. 'It takes a lot of people to work through [exemption petitions] point-by-point,' said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon professor who has been the architect of industry safety standards for AVs. 'It's just labor intensive.' He cautioned, however, that the department could simply relax the exemption standards to the extent that you'd need just enough staff to press a rubber stamp. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has already broadened exemptions to cover a wider range of AVs. The department just issued its first exemption under the expanded standards last week for Zoox, Amazon's robotaxi subsidiary – but the company is only allowed to test the vehicles. Getting an exemption to sell AVs or charge consumers for their services is a more rigorous process, though Duffy is working to streamline that too. When DFD asked about the Senate appropriations report, NHTSA said in a statement that it has 'aligned resources accordingly, including staff, to add engineers to the Office of Automation Safety.' Another reason why the industry might want the automation safety office to be staffed is that it could help clarify rules around AVs. With the advent self-driving cars, companies face a conundrum when it comes to state versus federal laws. The current paradigm generally has the federal government setting nationwide standards for vehicles themselves. States then determine whether someone is qualified to operate those vehicles by issuing driver's licenses and operating permits. (My colleague Christine Mui recently reported on Tesla's troubles with California permitting.) That regulatory divide gets fuzzier with AVs, especially for interstate travel, since the vehicle's AI becomes the driver. 'The design and construction of an autonomous vehicle, and driver competency is intertwined,' said Michael Brooks, executive director at the Center for Auto Safety. 'You can't really separate it into the traditional areas.' So when companies deploy a federally approved AV for a cross-country road trip, they don't necessarily know whether they're violating a patchwork of state laws. Congress could resolve the ambiguity by passing legislation that empowers the Transportation Department to override state laws, according to Brooks, but there doesn't seem to be much progress on that front. In the meantime, having more federal automation safety staff could help the department proliferate nationwide regulations in a bid to assert its authority over the states. That would give AV companies a bit more legal certainty. To be sure, staffing up the automation safety office wouldn't necessarily be a clear-cut benefit for the self-driving car industry. More regulators in general could mean more requests for data that companies would consider to be trade secrets, and more meticulous investigations of product defects. But looking past the immediate policy barriers, having enough regulators to make sure that AVs are actually safe benefits all parties involved. 'If a driverless car is involved in an accident, people are going to get nervous about them,' said Calo. 'They need a trusted expert body that's impartial, like the Department of Transportation, to be able to look at those situations in a sober ride way and determine [...] what to do about it.' STATE DEPARTMENT GETS INTO THE ONLINE SPEECH ARGUMENT The GOP campaign against social-media moderation has trickled into formal American diplomacy: The Trump administration is now saying human rights in the United Kingdom 'worsened' in 2024 due to speech restrictions, particularly those online, POLITICO's Mizy Clifton reports. The State Department on Wednesday released its annual assessment of countries' human rights practices in which it criticized the U.K. for chilling speech on social media surrounding incidents like the 2024 stabbing of three children in Southport last year. The report also targeted the country's Online Safety Act that rolled out last month, which requires platforms to verify users' ages in an attempt to prevent children from seeing violent or sexual content. The department suggested that the act could lead to 'government regulation to reduce or eliminate effective encryption (and therefore user privacy) on platforms.' The safety act has already drawn criticism for age-gating certain content, such as posts on X about violence in Gaza or Reddit content on cigars. (Wikipedia also lost a case on Monday challenging the act's identity verification rules.) A congressional free speech delegation traveled to meet with U.K. officials about the act late last month. Sen. Ted Cruz pushes for AI sandboxes Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz wants to spur the development of artificial intelligence by exempting the tech from existing regulations, according to details of a draft bill shared with POLITICO's Benjamin Guggenheim and Anthony Adragna. The bill would allow federal agencies to grant temporary waivers on their rules for companies to pilot AI systems. States have previously granted such exemptions for therapy chatbots and diagnostic tools that use the technology — an idea that tech companies love, but which critics say has some real flaws in practice. Cruz prefers a light-touch approach to AI regulation. He was one of the main advocates for including a 10-year state AI law moratorium in the Big Beautiful Bill this summer, though the provision was dropped amid Republican infighting. Cruz's new legislation dovetails with President Donald Trump's call for regulatory sandboxes in his AI Action Plan to 'rapidly deploy and test AI tools.' post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
The Hill
15 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump administration invalidates California's emissions reduction agreement with truck manufacturers
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has declared that an emissions agreement between California and four major truck makers is 'unenforceable' — paving the way for noncompliance with the Golden State's pollution rules, which are stricter than federal standards. The FTC made this determination as the agency closed an investigation into whether several truck and engine manufacturers violated antitrust laws by engaging in a voluntary ' Clean Truck Partnership ' with the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Truck manufacturers, in the July 2023 partnership, agreed to abide by California's emissions standards in exchange for certain concessions. Among those standards is the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which requires 7.5 percent of heavy-duty vehicles to be emissions-free by 2035. The Omnibus Regulation, meanwhile, has sought to slash nitrogen oxide emissions by 90 percent and update engine testing protocols. The FTC said on Monday that it was closing the antitrust investigation after receiving commitments from four truck manufacturers — Daimler Truck, International Motors, PACCAR and Volvo Group — that they would abandon the Clean Truck Partnership. Specifically, the commitments agreed that 'the Clean Truck Partnership is unenforceable and that none of the manufacturers has ever or will ever attempt to enforce the Clean Truck Partnership's terms against another manufacturer,' according to the FTC. 'CARB's regulatory overreach posed a major threat to American trucking and, in our view, presented serious antitrust concerns,' Taylor Hoogendoorn, deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. 'The Bureau is pleased that the leading heavy-duty truck manufacturers agreed to a course correction,' Hoogendoorn continued, adding that the reversal would put the partnership 'squarely in the rearview mirror and prevent repeats of CARB's troubling regulatory gambit.' The FTC's announcement came a day after the same four truck makers filed a lawsuit against California regulators, arguing that the Golden State lacks the authority to enforce its heavy-duty vehicle emissions rules. The complaint alleges that the federal government had rendered the standards 'unlawful' in June. At the time, President Trump signed off on three congressional resolutions that upended the rules, which previously received the approval of the Biden administration. In closing the antitrust investigation, an FTC statement referred to past concerns causing the agency to launch the case. Criticizing the structure of the Clean Truck Partnership, the FTC expressed concern that the agreement 'forced manufacturers to produce 'zero emissions' engines' even if CARB rules were later overturned. The agency also expressed concern that 'the agreement did not foreclose one truck manufacturer from enforcing its restrictions against a competing truck manufacturer.'
