GM Launches In-House Chevy Restorations—But Only in Brazil
⚡️ Read the full article on Motorious
In a move that's revving the engines of vintage car lovers—but only in one corner of the globe—General Motors has launched a new in-house restoration program for classic Chevrolets. The catch? It's only available in Brazil.
Dubbed Chevrolet Vintage, the program is part of GM Brazil's centennial celebration and aims to breathe new life into iconic models from the 1960s through the 1990s. Whether it's a full factory restoration or a modernized resto-mod, Brazilian Chevy owners can now have their vehicles professionally refurbished by GM itself.
The announcement has sparked curiosity and envy among American collectors, many of whom associate Chevrolet with the golden era of American muscle. Yet GM has confirmed that—for now—the initiative is exclusive to its South American operations.
'This is about honoring our history in Brazil and the passion Chevrolet owners have shown here for generations,' a GM Brazil spokesperson said in a statement.
Cars eligible for the program include classic Opalas, Chevettes, and C-10 trucks—models specific to GM's Brazilian lineup. However, GM has also teased the possibility of working on American-badged vehicles that made their way into the country during decades past.
The Chevrolet Vintage program promises meticulous frame-off restorations and even upgrades for safety, comfort, and drivability. In short, it's a blend of preservation and innovation—an officially sanctioned way to enjoy the past with present-day performance and reliability.
While the U.S. remains the spiritual home of the bowtie brand, GM has made no indication of launching a similar service stateside. But the buzz generated by the Brazilian operation could spark demand across other regions.
For now, enthusiasts looking for a factory-fresh finish may need to consider a passport along with their project car.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maryland must tackle interconnected land use, housing, transportation, economic challenges
Traffic on the Capital Beltway near the American Legion Bridge. Surveys show Marylanders want housing near jobs, but state policy doesn't always make that easy. (Photo by Dave Dildine/WTOP) Maryland is well-known for innovative state policies and reforms, including smart growth, but the state missed key opportunities this year to build on that legacy. While approving a half-billion-dollar package to close a major transportation funding gap, the legislature (primarily the Senate) failed to adopt bills that would ensure the funds shift the state in a new direction toward abundant and affordable housing and transportation choices. Maryland's land use, high housing costs, transportation challenges and economic doldrums are interconnected. They require new approaches, not just patching budget holes to fix. Homes are expensive in part because Maryland communities allow too little housing near transit, services and jobs. This contributes to sprawling, car-dependent development, further fueled by too much public spending on oversized roads and highways. The result is long commutes, more driving to reach stores and services, and higher transportation costs for families. The average new car in the U.S. costs almost $50,000, and last year 17% of American drivers said they had to take on a second job to help pay for their car. Instead of funding more of this status quo, Maryland needs to help families stay here, with affordable access to opportunity. Fostering walkable, vibrant activity centers with good transit and a range of housing types and prices near jobs will help current residents and also attract the next generation of skilled workers and industries. Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@ We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates. Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines. Views of writers are their own. The House of Delegates passed several valuable smart growth bills: Transit-oriented development (House Bill 80) to remove obstacles to building housing and mixed-use development near rail stations; Transportation and Climate Alignment Act (House Bill 84), ensuring the state's transportation investments support its climate change goals while giving residents more travel options; Metro Funding Modification Act (House Bill 467), fixing dedicated state capital funding for the D.C.-area Metro system to account for inflation; and Gov. Wes Moore's Housing for Jobs Act (House Bill 503), which would have required the state's job centers to address housing needs, although it was watered down into largely a study bill. Unfortunately, the Maryland Senate did not advance any of these bills to a vote. The Senate, to its credit, did pass: Split-rate property tax enabling legislation (Senate Bill 472) that would allow local governments to create tax structures that capture the value of land near assets like rail stations while incentivizing new development, though the House did not pass it; and Accessory dwelling unit bill (House Bill 1466) that will require local governments to allow construction of a smaller independent home on a lot with a single-family detached house. The House concurred with the final bill and the governor signed it. We know that legislators had a lot on their plates, with a sizable budget gap and chaotic federal backdrop. However, most of the smart-growth bills that didn't pass would have cost little or nothing to government coffers – and would actually save the state money over time through reduced infrastructure and service costs. Realizing this vision provides interconnected benefits. For example: Smart growth has been key to attracting and retaining Fortune 500 firms like Marriott and Choice Hotels in transit-oriented locations. Maryland families on average would save over $3,000 per year in transportation costs if the state provided more opportunities for transit, walking, biking and accessible living. State-owned transit-oriented development sites could support 5,000 new housing units in the Baltimore region and 2,600 new housing units along the MARC Penn Line. These Penn Line sites could generate $800 million in new state and local revenue. Marylanders want these opportunities; 76% support more homes in job-rich areas. Before the next General Assembly session, the Moore administration can make progress: The Maryland Department of Transportation can adopt changes to its Chapter 30 project prioritization process to better maintain existing infrastructure, recognize good land use planning as a transportation solution, and ensure affordable and sustainable travel choices for residents. The Department of Housing and Community Development can provide further analysis on the state's housing shortage and the benefits of new homes in accessible locations. It could also work with local governments to improve land use review to reduce time and complexity, allowing more new homes to be built faster in transit-accessible locations. During the 2026 session, the General Assembly will have the opportunity to pass legacy-making legislation ahead of the elections. Gov. Moore, with the support of state senators and delegates, can help Marylanders address the everyday needs of housing and transportation in lasting ways, which also help the state's finances, climate resilience, and economic opportunity.
Business Insider
3 hours ago
- Business Insider
Ford Stock (NYSE:F) Gains with Better Access to Rare Earths
One of the biggest supply chain problems for companies like legacy automaker Ford (F) is the access to rare earth minerals of the kind commonly used in electric vehicles. But a new report says that getting those rare earths out of one of their biggest sources, China, will actually be a little easier now. That news made investors breathe a little easier themselves, and shares were up nearly 2% in Friday afternoon's trading. Confident Investing Starts Here: China has brought out a set of temporary export licenses, reports note, which will offer up access to rare earths for each of the Big Three automakers, which include General Motors (GM) and Stellantis (STLA) as well. Reports note that at least some of the licenses are valid for the next six months, which should keep the lot of them in rare earths for some time to come. But it was hard not to notice that this change came just after a recent phone call between President Trump and President Xi Jinping, suggesting that that was part of some larger deal between the two. The move to restrict the supply of rare earth minerals has left many companies scrambling to fill in the supply gaps, and left many considering China a major bottleneck in the supply chain. With China producing about 90% of the world's supply, it is clear that they have the whip hand when it comes to these elements. We're All Getting Concerned About These Recalls You have likely noticed by now that the news around here, when it comes to Ford, seems to reference 'recall' a lot lately. Granted, some of these recalls have been minor to say the least; recalls that impact a handful of cars, or that are fixed with a software update. But not all of them have been so trivial, and some are starting to wonder if Ford's quality issues are starting to flare back up again. Daniel Ives, analyst with Wedbush Securities—who has a four-and-a-half star rating on TipRanks—recently noted that Ford was in a 'code-red situation…after a disaster quarter.' Rising warranty costs connected to all these recalls were hurting Ford, much as they did last year at this time. And with more recalls seeming to crop up, that could indeed prove a problem. However, bear in mind that the recalls are not all problems, especially when software is involved. So while Ford's recall count is on the rise, many of these recalls are much more simply addressed than they once were. Is Ford Stock a Good Buy Right Now? Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Hold consensus rating on F stock based on two Buys, 12 Holds and three Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. After a 16.87% loss in its share price over the past year, the average F price target of $9.71 per share implies 5.18% downside risk.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Column: Full-size electric pickups are failed product planning experiment and industry disaster
There is a statistic in my colleague Laurence Iliff's story on the failure of full-size electric pickups that, pardon the pun, shocked me. The combustion and hybrid Toyota Tundra had more new-vehicle registrations during the first quarter than the entire industry's collection of full-size electric pickups — by a lot. That statistic is in no way a brag on the Tundra, which remains a distant No. 5 in what is now a five-horse segment since the death of the even slower-selling Nissan Titan. According to S&P Global Mobility, the Tundra recorded a meager 36,895 new registrations in the U.S. in the first quarter, while the Ford F-150 Lightning, Tesla Cybertruck, Chevrolet Silverado EV, GMC Hummer, Rivian R1T and GMC Sierra EV collectively posted about 22,000 registrations. By comparison, combustion-powered pickups from Ford, Chevrolet, GMC and Ram reached 478,823 registrations in the first quarter, S&P said. Were it not for investments and expectations that rival the size of the immense front fascias on virtually all of the aforementioned full-size behemoths, this failed experiment would already be over. The score: Newtonian Physics ∞, Hype & Hope 0. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. I can't begin to fathom how many tens of billions of dollars were spent by automakers and their suppliers developing and building those full-size electric pickups over the last decade. You can, however, get some sense of how bad the miss was when you look at the sales/production volumes auto executives anticipated, including Elon Musk's quarter- to half-million annual sales estimate for the Cybertruck, or Ford's initial F-150 Lightning estimate of up to 150,000 sales annually. So why did full-size electric pickups fail so badly? I would argue that it wasn't just physics — though the need for a bigger, more expensive battery to push these bigger vehicles farther as long as they are not towing anything shouldn't be minimized. But I think a share of the responsibility for this collective flop also lies with the companies' product planning departments. While all vehicles are compromised in some form or fashion by the time they reach consumers, full-size electric pickups lack a fundamental quality that has made their combustion-powered counterparts the U.S. sales champs for decades: Uncompromised utility. The legacy pickups are renowned for accomplishing whatever task their owners set them to. That unstoppable capability is what gave rise to the 'lifestyle' pickup in the first place, as consumers desired at least a taste of that confidence, even if they rarely, if ever, actually needed that power. Product planners and their auto executive bosses failed to account in their sales projections for just how much compromise an electric-pickup owner would face in everyday life. Sure, the trucks have some excellent features, including loads and loads of torque, but so do their combustion counterparts. And while it may cost extra fuel to tow a trailer with those combustion-powered vehicles, a heavy trailer sucks up a battery pack's juice quickly — and recharging is not nearly as quick and convenient as a gas station fill-up. It's the same reason that battery-electric semis are probably doomed to failure: It's just the wrong technology for that use case. Sorry. In a world ruled by logic and not emotion, society would consign new technologies to the areas where they have the greatest advantage. Battery-electric powertrains make the greatest sense in vehicles with limited mass and with limited demands, while hydrogen (and diesel) is more efficient in larger, demand-dependent vehicles where towing capability is paramount. We don't live in that world, unfortunately, which is why full-size electric pickups are failing. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
