Nissan has officially confirmed the icon will be making a comeback. Although Nissan is no longer building GT-R models, CEO Ivan Espinosa said Godzilla will “evolve and reemerge” in the future. Here’s what we know so far.

Nissan confirms the GT-R will evolve and reemerge

It seems like we’ve been talking about the next-gen Nissan GT-R for years now. After the last model rolled off the production line at the automaker’s Tochigi plant in Japan on Tuesday, Nissan’s CEO made it clear that the GT-R will be making a comeback.

After bidding farewell to the R35, Espinosa gave the many GT-R fans worldwide hope, saying, “I want to tell you this isn’t a goodbye to the GT-R forever.”

He added that it’s Nissan’s “goal for the GT-R nameplate to one day make a return.” Although this is the end of the line for the R35, the company remains committed to the GT-R nameplate and wants to “reimagine it for a new generation.”

Advertisement – scroll for more content

According to Espinosa, Nissan doesn’t have any finalized plans yet, but he promised that “the GT-R will evolve and reemerge in the future.”

Nissan says the next Godzilla will ensure the GT-R’s legacy lives on, but will pack even more performance. The big question is, what type of powertrain will it arrive with? Will it be electric? A hybrid? Or, will it still be gas-powered?

At the New York Auto Show in April, Ponz Pandikuthira, Senior Vice President and Chief Planning Officer for Nissan North America, told The Drive that the next GT-R will be a hybrid, rather than an all-electric.

However, Nissan previewed an electric GT-R a few years ago with the Hyper Force EV concept. The electric sports car concept was promoted as a “game-changing hyper EV” with over 1,300 horsepower (1,000 kW).

All that power is expected to come from solid-state batteries. Just last week, Nissan secured a partnership with LiCAP Technologies to produce all-solid-state EV batteries on a mass scale, one of the biggest hurdles to getting the new technology to market.

Since Nissan aims to launch its first EV powered by solid-state batteries in 2028, we could see the GT-R reemerge as a plug-in hybrid until the technology is ready.

Either way, it will likely be a few years before we see an electrified Godzilla. If it evolves into an EV or hybrid, it remains up in the air for now.

While Nissan says an all-electric GT-R won’t deliver the performance needed to live up to the nameplate, others are proving otherwise. BYD’s first electric supercar, the Yangwang U9, set a new EV speed record this week after hitting nearly 300 mph.

How do you feel about it? Should the GT-R go all-electric? Or will Nissan settle for a hybrid? Drop us a comment below and let us know which one you’d buy.

Is Toyota’s new 2026 C-HR the affordable electric SUV we’ve been waiting for? The revamped EV SUV was spotted with a stylish new look while filming a commercial.

Toyota’s new C-HR EV SUV is launching in 2026

Toyota’s compact crossover SUV is returning in all-electric form, and it’s already apparently a movie star. We got our first look at the 2026 C-HR+ in March after Toyota unveiled a trio of new electric SUVs set to launch in Europe.

The US model, revealed a few months later, looks nearly identical to the EU version, but drops the “+” at the end of the name.

You can see right off the bat that it’s an immediate upgrade from the gas-powered C-HR, which was discontinued in 2022 in favor of the more efficient Corolla Cross Hybrid.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The new 2026 C-HR looks sharp, featuring Toyota’s updated design, with elements like its “hammerhead front end” borrowed from the new Crown and Corolla models. In a way, it almost looks like the Prius, but as a higher-riding crossover SUV.

It looks like Toyota’s new EV SUV is already drawing attention. The 2026 C-HR was spotted on set in Austin, Texas, filming a commercial.

The image from Kindelauto is one of the closest looks at the new electric SUV so far, revealing the new front-end design.

At 177.9″ long, 73.6″ wide, and 63.8″ tall, the new C-HR is smaller than bZ, Toyota’s other electric SUV (formerly known as the bZ4X). It’s about the size of the Kia Niro EV (174″ long, 72″ wide, and 62″ tall).

The new crossover SUV will be available with all-electric (EV), Hybrid, Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV), and Fuel Cell powertrains.

Powered by a 74.7 kWh battery, Toyota anticipates the 2026 C-HR EV will offer a range of up to 290 miles. It will come with standard AWD with an electric motor at the front and rear eAxles.

It will also feature a built-in NACS port, enabling you to recharge at Tesla Superchargers. Toyota said the electric SUV can recharge from 10% to 80% in about 30 minutes.

Inside, the updated SUV includes a “high-tech cabin that is stylish and functional.” A 14″ infotainment system sits at the center with Toyota’s Audio Multimedia System and Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto support.

Toyota’s new EV SUV will begin arriving at dealerships in 2026. Although prices have yet to be revealed, given the outgoing model started at under $25,000, the electric version is expected to launch with a low starting price tag of around $30,000.

Last week, we learned the 2026 Toyota bZ will be one of the few EVs in the US with prices starting under $35,000. Since the C-HR is smaller, it could be even more affordable.

What do you think of the new C-HR? Do you like Toyota’s new style? Drop us a comment below and let us know your thoughts.

Source: Kindelauto

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Tesla rejected a $60 million settlement offer in the Autopilot wrongful death case which resulted in a $243 million verdict against the company, according to new legal documents.

It’s a rare example of Tesla sticking to its promise not to settle cases it thinks are unjust, and it may end up biting the company right in the pocketbook.

To catch up, the case in question is the $243 million Autopilot wrongful death case which concluded early this month. It was the first actual verdict against the company in an Autopilot wrongful death case – not counting previous settlements.

The case centered around a 2019 crash of a Model S in Florida, where the driver dropped his phone and while he was picking it up, the Model S drove through a stop sign at a T-intersection, crashing into a parked Chevy Tahoe which then struck two pedestrians, killing one and seriously injuring the other.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Tesla was also caught withholding data in the case, which is not a good look.

In the end, for the purposes of compensatory damages, the driver was found 67% responsible and Tesla was found 33% responsible. But Tesla was also slapped with $200 million in punitive damages. The plaintiffs reached a settlement with the driver separately.

Tesla plans to appeal the case, and we’re sure it will exhaust every possibility. It may or may not turn out in the company’s favor, which we’ll stay tuned for.

But today, new information came out that Tesla previously declined a $60 million settlement in the case – which, if the verdict holds, will have ended up costing the company an extra $183 million.

Tesla did not accept the settlement, and instead countered with one which included a lower amount, and also a non-disclosure agreement. The plaintiffs did not accept this counter-offer.

Today’s news came as part of a filing from plaintiffs’ attorneys requesting Tesla pay plaintiffs’ accrued legal fees since May 30, the day the settlement was proposed, which they say Florida law entitles them to.

This means denying the settlement could also cost the plaintiffs’ legal fees from continuing to fight the case, and the costs of any subsequent court appeals. Plus the setting of a legal precedent which could have been avoided through settlement.

It’s a somewhat rare example of Tesla sticking to a promise that it made years ago. Tesla CEO Elon Musk once said that the company will never settle an unjust case against it.

He said this while trying to recruit a “hardcore litigation department,” a phrase that Musk has used multiple times over Tesla’s history.

However, as mentioned above, this is a somewhat rare example of Tesla sticking to those words. Despite Musk being clear about this commitment, Tesla has settled a number of cases in the years since.

The company settled the wrongful death cases for Walter Huang and Clyde Leach, a case over excessive compensation for Tesla’s board, a UK case over false self-driving claims, and a case over solar roof pricing (which is a story that we at Electrek originally broke) – suggesting either that Tesla found those cases “just,” or that the commitment above was perhaps not as sweeping as Musk portrayed it to be.

Electrek’s Take

The commitment above is an admirable goal, suggesting a forthrightness that is rare in business and law. It’s just too bad that it’s not real, and that Musk was just running his mouth (or, fingers) when he said it.

Besides, a company seeking forthrightness in legal matters wouldn’t hide evidence, which Tesla did in this case.

More realistically… Tesla’s settlements aren’t an admission of the “justness” of the cases against it, but instead are just examples of standard legal maneuvering by a business.

Tesla has likely settled in previous cases to avoid a legal precedent that would allow future cases to be decided against it using the framework of a previous case. This is a common move for businesses, and is often the monetarily correct one, particularly if they see a reasonable chance of a verdict against them.

In this case, Tesla perhaps didn’t think there was a reasonable chance of a verdict against it, or perhaps it was relying on the hundreds of millions in bribes its CEO gave to an openly corrupt political candidate, hoping that would make its legal problems go away.

Incidentally, the date the settlement was proposed was May 30, less than a week before the famous falling out between Musk and the corrupt candidate in question. Although Tesla would have had 30 days to accept the settlement, which it did not do, even after the public breakup. So perhaps the theory of hoping for corruption is a little too conspiratorial here.

Declining the settlement in this case could suggest that Tesla finds this to be an “unjust” case, and that it wanted to continue to fight said case on moral grounds.

Or it could just be the standard calculation of the likely cost of the result of the case, multiplied by the probability that Tesla sees of the case succeeding. And have nothing to do with Musk’s high-minded tweet which the company has repeatedly shown itself not to be beholden to.

Either way, continuing with appeals is the expected move from here on out. Tesla has the cash to keep fighting this, and so it will do so, especially if it sees any chance of succeeding.

But if it continues to go poorly for the company, that could not only cost it $183 million more than the settlement would have, but also set a potentially costly legal precedent for any future wrongful death cases. And the lawyer involved in this case, Brett Schreiber, says he’s ready for round two.

The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.