This Chevrolet Corvette is having an identity crisis. It wants to be a McLaren Senna GTR and a Lamborghini Aventador SVJ at the same time, and no, it isn’t an April Fool’s joke.

If you ignore the decals, it actually doesn’t look that bad. As a standalone bodykit, it suits the C8 Corvette. Even the Senna GTR wing doesn’t look out of place. Only if they hadn’t plastered it with decals, especially the ‘SVJ’ logos on the rear fenders.

According to @skjall_carspotting, the car was extremely loud, which suggests that the modifications done to this Corvette are more than skin deep. It definitely has a custom exhaust, featuring twin pipes positioned on either side of the number plate.

Some commenters claim that it has over 1000 hp. However, we can’t confirm that.

Source: @skjall_carspotting

General Motors has finally revealed the all-new Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport powered by its next-generation V8 engine that produces more torque than any other naturally aspirated V8 before it.

GM has also introduced the new Grand Sport X, which comes with an all-wheel drive system, featuring a front-axle electric motor.

The LS6 6.7-liter naturally aspirated V8 delivers 535 hp and 520 lb-ft of torque. It uses a 95 mm throttle body, a tunnel ram intake with high-velocity ports, a new lubrication system, forged pistons and rods, and revised exhaust manifolds.

In the Grand Sport, power is transmitted to the rear axle via an 8-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission. It also gets a quad center exhaust – a first for a pushrod V8.

While Magnetic Ride Control is standard, the Z52 Sport Performance Package adds a stiffer setup, Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires, and J560 brakes from the Corvette Z06.

The Z53 Track Performance Package comes with carbon ceramic brakes, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2R tires, a track-focused chassis and an aero package which includes a carbon fibre splitter, dive planes, rockers, underbody strakes and a wing.

The Grand Sport X packs 721 hp and comes equipped with carbon ceramic brakes, Magnetic Ride Control and Michelin tyres. Like the ZR1X, this version of the ‘Vette has ‘Endurance’ and ‘Qualifying’ modes as well as a ‘Push-to-Pass’ button that unleashes the full potential of the powertrain. In the electric-only Stealth mode, the Grand Sport X is restricted to 50 mph.

Source: Chevrolet

There just might be a new American king of the Nurburgring.

Multiple videos across the Internet show the Ford Mustang GTD blasting around the Nurburgring on Tuesday in what appears to clearly be a record attempt. A video on StatesideSupercars Youtube channel embedded below claims the updated Mustang GTD ran the ‘Ring in 6:41.74.

6:41.74 FORD MUSTANG GTD (EVO) NÜRBURGRING LAP Record Attempt, Outside footage & Timing!

If true, that would mean the Ford Mustang GTD just absolutely destroyed the Chevrolet Corvette ZR1‘s ‘Ring time of 6:50.763 and the Chevrolet Corvette ZR1X‘s ‘Ring time of 6:49.275. Further, that would make the Mustang GTD quicker around the ‘Ring than the Mercedes-Benz AMG GT Black Series, Porsche 911 GT2 RS MR, and even the Porsche 911 GT2 RS Manthey Performance.

Ford was out for blood, and it might’ve gotten it.

StatesideSupercars notes that the timing of 6:41.74 might be off by a second plus or minus due to the start and finish line being out of sight. Even if the time isn’t 100%, that still makes the Mustang GTD the American ‘Ring king. Further, it puts the Mustang GTD in absolute rarified air.

The Mercedes-Benz AMG One ran the ‘Ring in 6:29.090. The AMG One is basically a street-legal supercar with an F1 race car powertrain. That makes all this bananas.

A Ford spokesperson told The Drive,“Like we said, game on.” Indeed.

For history sake, the Ford Mustang GTD was the first American car to run a sub 7-minute lap around the ‘Ring. Then Ford beat its own record by 5.5 seconds months later. Then Team Chevy came and ruined Ford’s day by beating the Mustang GTD with both the Corvette ZR1 and ZR1X.

Ford CEO Jim Farley took it personally. Farley congratulated Team Chevy and immediately said, “Game on.” He was serious.

Team Ford showed back up to the ‘Ring with a modified Mustang GTD back in October. Clearly the Blue Oval was testing updates for what would later become a record run. That record run, and subsequent new record, seems to possibly have taken place yesterday.

We’ll await final word from Ford. There just might be a new champ in town, and it wasn’t a second or two that Ford shaved off. This time Ford might have shaved off 10.3 seconds, give or take a second. Impressive.

Got a tip about a new record? Send us a note at tips@thedrive.com

There’s a clever choice at the heart of every “Ultium”-powered General Motors EV. Whether it’s a big honkin’ GMC Hummer EV or an affordable, base-model Chevy Equinox EV, all of the General’s electric products rely on the same foundational pillar: The same basic cells, arranged into 24-cell modules. All of them, that is, except the new Bolt. And it’s also the one with the best 10-80% charge time.

Coincidence? Not quite. The explanation requires some basic knowledge of battery packs, a little bit of chemistry, and a dash of geopolitics.

Let’s get into it.

The Module Approach

There’s a key reason why many EVs are expensive. Economies of scale just haven’t kicked in as they have for gas cars. Over 100-plus years of building dino-burners, we’ve gotten pretty good at every individual part. There are plenty of firms that can build fuel pumps, turbochargers, alternators, and radiators at scale, leveraging hundreds of thousand-unit volumes to drive per-unit costs down. 

This is the backbone of every Ultium pack, a 103-amp-hour cell. These are arranged in 24-cell modules, which make up the basis of all GM-built packs.

Photo by: General Motors

With EVs, automakers are having to build that whole supply chain for scratch. It’s a lot harder to find a supplier to build an automotive-grade DC-to-DC converter than it is to find a fuel pump supplier, because only one of those technologies was in demand a decade ago. For most of these components, it’s not an issue, as the supply base has built up. But the biggest cost and the biggest challenge is the battery.

Automotive-grade batteries are highly specialized, and they’re not one-size fits all. But at the same time, the more of any one single product you build, the more you can drive down costs with economies of scale. So if you can’t use the same pack for every car, as different vehicles have different range demands, and you still want to offer a variety of models, you’re in a pinch. How do you build a variety of batteries without decimating your economies of scale?

For GM, the answer was to make everything common on the sub-pack level. Each pack is built from the same core components: A 103 amp-hour cell, arranged into 24-cell modules that run at 29 volts. Using that core building block, GM can build a variety of packs. The ones in the Chevy Equinox EV, Blazer EV LT, and Optiq are 10-module, 85 kilowatt-hour packs, while the Cadillac Lyriq and Blazer EV SS get 12-module, 102 kWh packs. Step up to the big-dog trims of the Hummer EV and Chevy Silverado EV and you get 24 modules, or 205 kWh of power. 

It’s tough to make a cell that works equally well in giant Hummers and everyday Chevy crossovers. GM did a good job of balancing these requirements, but there’s still a core compromise at work.

Photo by: GMC

The Voltage Problem

If you know how batteries work, though, you can already see the problem. The core cells that make up large automotive batteries don’t run at 400 volts or 800 volts. They run, in this case, at between 3.6 and 4.2 volts, as Motor1 explained in an excellent deep dive. Getting higher voltages requires wiring all of these batteries together to raise the pack’s overall peak voltage.

But do the back-of-the-napkin math yourself: With cars like the Equinox EV and Blazer EV getting 10 modules, each with a nominal voltage of 29 volts, that puts the overall pack voltage at around 290 volts. This explains why both vehicles have a pretty excruciating charge curve. While both peak at 150 kW, to get 150 kW out of such a low voltage requires over 500 amps—because charging power (kW) equals voltage times current (amps). Since existing 150-kW charger designs can’t actually output that much current, you need to find a 250- or 350-kW charger to get the peak number. 

The Blazer EV is a solid EV, but it doesn’t have a great charging curve.

Photo by: Suvrat Kothari

Even if you do, the 10-80% sprint takes a lethargic 40 minutes in a best-case scenario. And while larger GM packs can peak at higher rates—the Silverado EV can charge at up to 350 kW—their gargantuan size slows the process. That means the little Bolt, with its 65 kWh battery, is the charging champ. It charges from 10-80% in 26 minutes.

So why doesn’t the Bolt have this problem?

A New LFP Pack, Straight From China

Because despite using the broader Ultium architecture and software stack, the Bolt doesn’t use an Ultium battery. Instead it gets GM’s first lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) pack. LFP batteries are cheaper, more durable, and last longer than nickel-mangnanese-cobalt batteries, which power all other Ultium cars. And because this pack didn’t have to use GM’s modular approach, the Chinese supplier was able to give it a nominal voltage that’s a lot closer to 400.

That means it can peak at 150 kilowatts from a relatively low state of charge and hold high charge speeds for a long time. It’s got a big, meaty charge curve that allows it to fill up quicker than other cheap EVs, like the base-model Ford Mustang Mach-E and Volkswagen ID.4.

20

Source: Mack Hogan/InsideEVs

With that, GM turned the Bolt’s greatest weakness into a major strength. While the old one had painful, hourlong charging stops on road trips, the new one will get you back on the road faster than even a Tesla Model Y or Rivian R2—at least when it comes to going from 10-80%. 

It’s a huge improvement. But there’s one major catch to the new Bolt. To learn what it is, check out my full first drive here. 

Contact the author: Mack.Hogan@insideevs.com 

It’s hard not to be impressed by today’s diesel heavy-duty pickup trucks. Ram pushed its Cummins 6.7-liter turbo-six to 1,075 pound-feet of torque, and Ford and Chevrolet aren’t far behind. But you don’t need a massive engine with the ability to shift tectonic plates to get real work done.

YouTuber Robot Cantina swapped a 1.6-liter naturally-aspirated diesel four-cylinder engine from a 1985 Volkswagen Golf into a 1989 Chevy S-10, imbuing the compact pickup with a mighty 54 horsepower. The swap, including the installation of an adapter to allow the VW engine to mate with a five-speed manual transmission for the rear-wheel drive S-10, is covered in multiple videos on the channel. But here we get to see what it can do.

First, the bed was filled with approximately 300 pounds of a Chevy 350 engine block and other parts. Then the truck was hitched to a trailer carrying a lawn tractor. The rig weighed 4,140 pounds, which, subtracting the 2,520-pound weight of the truck itself, works out to 1,620 pounds of trailer and payload.

Acceleration was a bit slower at around-town speeds, but that’s not out of the ordinary when towing a heavy load for a given vehicle. The S-10 struggled a bit at speeds above 45 mph, as reflected by higher exhaust-gas temperature readings and molasses-like acceleration times. The zero to 60 mph time increased from 28.3 seconds to 34.8 seconds with just the payload, so the owner didn’t bother to try a run to 60 mph with the trailer. It took 48.1 seconds just to reach 55 mph (the speed limit on local roads) with the trailer, compared to 23.3 seconds unladen.

S6 E6. Can the 54 hp 1.6L VW diesel powered Chevy S-10 do real truck work? abuse can it take?

It’s (relatively) high speeds that show the limits of this naturally-aspirated diesel. It took about 21 seconds just to get from 45 mph to 55 mph with the trailer, as the aerodynamic drag from the trailer’s upright tailgate strained the little diesel. These acceleration tests took place on flat Kansas roads, isolating aero and the engine’s lack of grunt as the main issues.

A different trailer or rear-axle ratio (this S-10 has the stock 3.73 rear end, but a 4.10 was also available) might help, but these results have the owner contemplating a larger engine, a turbo, or both. That this small naturally-aspirated diesel could do real work under any conditions is still pretty darn impressive, though.

Got a tip? Send us a note at tips@thedrive.com.

The start of the 2026 Formula 1 season is around the corner, and I’ve been lucky enough to see several display cars that showcase the tangible changes brought by the new regulations. And while these Audi and Red Bull liveries I saw were plastered on models that won’t actually hit the track, one thing that has stood out is the size difference.

Three years ago, we wrote about a 2023 F1 car being as long as a Chevy Suburban. Now, if you’re someone who is constantly around race cars, this probably isn’t a huge revelation. To general fans, though? You betcha. A Suburban isn’t a small vehicle by any means, so to think that the world’s most advanced and best-performing race cars are as big as a family SUV that seats eight—that’s shocking.

That was then, of course, when the rules mandated wheelbases of 3,600 mm (141.7 inches). Now, the incoming regulations set the wheelbase at 3,400 mm (133.8 inches), a reduction of nearly 8 inches. It’s worth noting that wheelbase length isn’t the same as the car’s overall length, and the FIA doesn’t put any limits on that. For example, the 2023 F1 car we compared to a Suburban was the Alpine, which then measured approximately 221.3 inches, just a pinch shy of the SUV.

So what about the new cars? What do they compare to? Well, it’s still too early to do a precise comparison because teams are still playing around with aero packages, and overall length is largely dictated by how short or long the new front wings will be. But based on the 8-inch deficit as compared to the previous regs (and using the Alpine as the base), it puts a modern F1 car somewhere around 213 inches.

For continuity, I’ll stick with Bowtie SUVs. A 2025 Chevy Tahoe measures 211.3 inches, so a modern F1 car is still about two inches longer than that. Again, these are rough estimations.

Length isn’t the only measurement that’s been reduced for 2026—not even close. The new regulations have also made cars nearly 4 inches narrower. Weight has also been reduced, as well as floor width, and other major components that will drastically affect aero performance and handling. There are several good videos from Formula 1.com and The Race that offer solid visuals, making it easier to understand.

So there you go: Thanks to the new rules, F1 cars are no longer Chevy Suburbans. They’re Tahoes, now.

Got a tip? Email us at tips@thedrive.com

If you have your mind set on skipping past the full-size Silverado (or F-150 or Ram 1500, for that matter) and heading for the somewhat more manageable 2016 Chevrolet Colorado—or the closely related GMC Canyon—you’ll be facing a dilemma: do you get the V-6 gasoline engine, or the new-for-2016 Duramax 2.8-liter turbo-diesel four-cylinder?

There is, of course, one other engine choice in the lineup—the 2.5-liter four-cylinder gasoline engine. Many shoppers will skip right past this engine, which makes 200 horsepower and 191 pound-feet of torque. It has a distinct lack of the low-rev torque you need for heavy loads; yet it’s worth considering if you plan to use the Colorado mainly without cargo, as a commuter vehicle or everyday driver, saving some light-load cargo for the weekends.

ALSO SEE: 2016 Chevrolet Colorado Diesel: First Drive

Those interested in four-wheel drive should also note that the 2.5-liter is only offered in 4WD Extended Cab models; other Colorado models in Crew Cab form can’t be had with that combination.

The V-6 versions of the Colorado are at the heart of the lineup—available in pretty much every cab and cargo box, in each trim, and with rear-wheel drive or four-wheel drive. The Duramax diesel is almost as widely available, but it’s not available in Extended Cab models and is required to be paired with certain other options—which makes its price of entry a bit higher (about $31,090 in base Work Truck form, up to around $40k in the form we recently saw and tested).

Click on to the following pages to consider some key differences between the Colorado V-6 and the Duramax diesel version, and be sure to read our full review of the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado for plenty more detail in other areas like safety, cabin appointments, and technology features.

2016 Chevrolet Colorado Diesel – First Drive

Power, torque, and drivability

Now back to the real dilemma: Both the 3.6-liter V-6 and the 2.8-liter diesel put out some pretty impressive power and torque numbers. Yet they deliver that power and torque in very different ways.

The 3.6-liter V-6 makes 305 horsepower and 269 pound-feet of torque, while the 2.8-liter turbo-diesel four produces 181 horsepower and 369 lb-ft.

Unlike some truck-tuned V-6 engines of the past, the V-6 here retains power and torque curves that aren’t far off from what this engine produces in its passenger car and crossover installations—which definitely has its pros and cons. Peak power isn’t reached until a screaming 6,800 rpm, and peak torque is at 4,000 rpm.

Meanwhile the Duramax diesel makes its peak power at 3,400 rpm and peak torque at 2,000—and trust us, there’s plenty of available torque for easy pulling well under that.

CHECK OUT: Hyundai Makes Genesis A Luxury Brand

V-6 models are very carlike in the way they accelerate; the powertrain is surprisingly smooth, the engine’s allowed to rev reasonably high during acceleration, and downshifts a prompt for passing. Meanwhile the diesel lumbers along at low revs, the transmission has smooth, somewhat more slurred shifts, and there’s seldom a very urgent need for a downshift as the engine cranks out the torque without needing to be revved.

As we point out in our First Drive of the Colorado Diesel, its powertrain provides the more effortless, low-rpm performance of a V-8. If you’re not pulling a heavy load, acceleration feels quite close to effortless, while even up long grades it doesn’t require the dramatic downshifts you might see from a gasoline engine. And if you are pulling a heavy load, its torque helps erase the challenge of uphill grades, while the optional exhaust brake (jake brake) helps modulate downhill speeds with a full load.

2016 Chevrolet Colorado

Fuel efficiency

The downside for the gasoline engine, other than the need for revving to extract all that it has, is that it’s quite thirsty—and even thirstier when pressed.

Four-wheel-drive versions of the Colorado V-6 earn just 17 mpg city, 24 highway according to the EPA; and from our experience with at least one model (a Canyon) in such form, you’ll see numbers near the low end of that in everyday driving. Hook up a trailer or load these trucks up, and it’s likely your numbers will be down in the lower teens.

Fuel economy ratings aren’t out yet for the Colorado and Canyon Diesel models, but GM has hinted they’ll return more than 30 mpg on the highway. We’ve already seen 31 mpg in a country road loop, and anticipate that even loaded up with a trailer, you’ll see mileage numbers in the 20s.

2016 Chevrolet Colorado Diesel pulling Chevy Corvette

Towing, truck stops, and technicalities

In actual rated brawn, these two powertrains aren’t that different. By the numbers, max towing with the diesel rises only slightly, from a maximum of 7,000 pounds up to 7,700 pounds. Yet we suspect that it’s the pick of the two for those who really push the capabilities of the Colorado or Canyon, or plan to tow long distances.

It’s always worth keeping in mind that diesel isn’t sold everywhere; there are some parts of the country—away from the Interstates and truck stops—where it is a bit harder to find, without a little advance planning.

Also, the Colorado and Canyon Diesel models require diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), a urea solution that you can now get either from dealerships or at many truck stops and some gas stations. That’s injected into the exhaust stream ahead of a catalyst to clean up some of these engines’ smog-forming emissions, but its reservoir needs to be filled around every 10,000 miles—or quite a bit sooner if you’re doing some heavy towing.

And a system will literally shut you down—with a stepped limiting of top speed, going ever slower—when you run it critically low on that fluid.

Chevy Colorado Performance Concept, 2014 SEMA show

Think about how you’ll use it

Where is the gasoline model the better pick? If you tend to load up your truck on occasion, but you do mostly lighter-duty (yet fast-moving) commuting and urban/suburban tasks, we might recommend the V-6, which might be the better of the two for high-speed passing.

Diesels are also never a good choice for short trips, especially in cold weather. These engines and their stout construction (and iron block here) take longer to warm up; they’re louder when started cold, and they’re at a small fraction of their normal fuel efficiency until they reach normal operating temperature.

In that sort of short-distance driving and short trips, the V-6 will feel like the smoother, more refined pick.

While we haven’t truly put these trucks through the paces towing a trailer or carrying a heavy load, we can extrapolate the following: The new Duramax diesel is the better pick if you plan to truly push the capability of your Colorado or Canyon—or generally speaking, if you want a pickup with awesome fuel efficiency.

There’s no single best pick between these two engines. Although no other model in this class offers a diesel, carefully examine the way you’re going to use your truck, and make the smart pick for your own long haul.

___________________________________________

Follow The Car Connection on Facebook and Twitter.