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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
