News
Will the 200 mi, $30k Chevy Bolt challenge Tesla’s Model 3?
The Chevy Bolt and Tesla Model 3 will be priced nearly the same and will have about the same range. Is there room enough in the market for both or will one dominate the other in sales?
Chevrolet unveiled its production all electric Bolt at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this week. Promising a range of 200 miles on a single charge, and at a price point in the $30,000 range, the Chevy Bolt has many wondering how this will stack up against Tesla’s upcoming mass market Model 3, to be unveiled in March.
Price and Range
Both cars will be similarly priced. Tesla says the Model 3 will start at $35,000. Mary Barra, GM’s CEO said at CES on Wednesday the Bolt will start at $37,500 before incentives and rebates. Though she didn’t give any details about trim levels and options, we know that a fully equipped Chevy Volt costs about $8,000 more than the base model. Add the same amount to the Bolt and you have a retail price just north of $45,000.
In all likelihood, Tesla will offer a number of options on the Model 3 including a choice of battery sizes, single or dual motors, and possibly falcon wing doors as hinted by Elon Musk. It wouldn’t take much to get the price of a Model 3 above $45,000. We wouldn’t be surprised if a fully loaded Model 3 nudges the $60,000 mark.
Styling
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which couldn’t hold more true when it comes to the looks of the Chevy Bolt. Some have said it resembles a BMW i3 in the front and a Honda Fit in the rear. Despite the compact look of the Bolt, it’s quite roomy inside. The front seats are a monopost design similar to what Tesla uses for the second row seats in the Model X. The center console floats between the seat, leaving lots of foot room for rear seat passengers. The Bolt’s flat floor means it’s easy to slide in and out. It also has slightly more cargo room than the Honda Fit.
-
- Roomy Chevy Bolt storage capacity
No one knows yet what the Model 3 will look like, but Tesla has done an excellent job designing its cars so far. The Model S still looks modern even though it has been on the road for 4 years. We hear reports that Elon is pushing his engineers to get the coefficient of drag on the Model 3 below .20, which may require some extreme exterior designs. From what we know, the Model 3 will be larger than the Bolt, but is expected to be a sedan, at least initially. The Bolt is more of a crossover utility vehicle.
Connectivity and Autonomous Driving
Tesla has an enormous lead over other manufacturer thanks to its Autopilot software that shares what it knows with other Teslas via the cloud. It also has one of the user interfaces in the business. The touchscreen in the Bolt is adequate but not groundbreaking. The area where the Bolt and the Model 3 may be direct competitors is in the market for on-demand car sharing.
Ms. Barra announced the Bolt will have app based software that will make it suitable for car sharing. The corollary is that General Motors just invested a half billion dollars in Lyft. It clearly is positioning itself for the new transportation paradigm in which people don’t own cars anymore. They simple request the kind of car they need when they need it and pay the appropriate fee. Particularly for people in crowded urban areas, that model makes perfect economic sense.
But Tesla has its eye on that market as well. Who can forget Elon’s awkward moment during a recent conference call when analyst Adam Jonas asked him if Tesla was interested in pursing on-demand car sharing? Musk’s demeanor made it clear that Jonas’ question had hit a nerve. That’s where the collision between the Chevy Bolt and the Tesla Model 3 may occur, as both attempt to exploit new market opportunities.
Timing
Mary Barra confirmed Wednesday that Chevy Bolt production will begin late in 2016. That should give it about a one year head start in the market on the Tesla Model 3 — assuming Tesla keeps to its stated timeline. If it does, it will be the first time in company history. If it is delayed, it may spot the Bolt such a massive lead that it will never be able to catch up.
Elon Musk has challenged other automakers to make more and better electric cars. The Chevy Bolt is GM’s first attempt to rise to the challenge. Whether it is a Tesla killer or just a pretender won’t be known until at least a year from now.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
