News
What does a Tesla Model S owner think of the Chevy Bolt? (Full review)
Southern California Tesla Model S owner Alex Venz was recently given 24-hour access to a Chevy Bolt with the stipulation that he not drive it more than 100 miles. After his time with the car was up, Alex put together a lengthy video that explores the Bolt and highlights some of its pluses and minuses.
For starters, Alex found the Bolt was somewhat smaller than the Nissan LEAF he used to own. He calls it larger than a Ford Fiesta but smaller than a Ford Focus. His first impression is that the seats are somewhat narrow. In fact, they measure about 17 inches wide. A quick check on his Model S finds those seats are about 20 inches wide, as are the seats in a Honda Accord he had access to. So the Bolt is a little tight when it comes to hip room.
Head room is another story. The Bolt has more front and rear head room than the Model S. Venz, who says he is 5′ 9″ finds he has almost no headroom in the back seat of his Model S but about 3 inches of clearance in the Bolt. Front headroom in the Bolt is about double what he has in his Model S.
Luggage capacity is also significantly greater in the Tesla. The Bolt can handle three moderate size carry on bags, but with little to no room left over. The rear seats of the Bolt do fold flat, however. Lenz says there’s not enough room to actually lie down in back with the seats folded, but there is enough room for lots of cargo if the rear seats aren’t needed for passengers.
The Bolt takes about 2 seconds more to get to 60 mph than Lenz’s Model S 70 but the time required is still around 7 seconds, which is fairly quick in comparison to most in-category cars with internal combustion engines. The quality of interior materials is adequate, Lenz finds, and he notes that the Bolt has fewer squeaks and rattles than his Model S.
Checking out the car’s controls, Venz found the Bolt comes up short when it comes to ease of operation. The touchscreen is customizable, but requires far more effort to drill down through the available menus than the Tesla does. The Bolt also has no built in navigation function for route planning or finding charging locations. Instead, Bolt drivers will have to rely on apps or the mapping functions provided by Apple Car Play or Android Auto. Neither map program is as fully featured as what Tesla offers.
Venz notes that CCS quick charging is a $750 option. Without it, the Bolt can only be charged at either 8 or 12 amps from a household outlet, or roughly 3 miles of range per hour of charge. Just as with the Chevy Volt, 8 amps is the default setting. The driver must manually select the 12 amp setting every time, which is tedious. The car also is programmed to do a 100% charge every time. There is no way to select a lesser charging level.
Update: In the comments to this post, several people took issue with Venz’s information on charging. This comes from GreenMonkeyPants: “Untrue. without the CSS option, there’s a standard J1772 that will charge at 32A @240V.” Further information may be obtained from the website Chevy EV Life.
The ride and handling of the Bolt are described as good. The car is responsive and nimble in a way the Model S, being considerably larger, is not. Venz does praise the regenerative braking feature built into the Bolt, which he says permits one pedal driving. The regen is available even with a full battery and can be boosted with a paddle mounted low and on the left side of the steering wheel.
Venz’s conclusion is that the Bolt is an excellent car for someone who will use it primarily for commuting. It has more than adequate range for most people, it is comfortable, and fun to drive. The seating position is higher than in the Model S and is more like what a driver would expect in a crossover SUV than a sedan. That’s a big plus for a lot of drivers.
On balance, Venz feels the Bolt is one of the best products to come from Chevrolet in quite some time. Comparing prices and functions with the Model S, the Bolt is a good car for the money and may actually be better suited to the way ordinary people drive on a daily basis than the Model S.
That’s not the whole story, of course. The real test will be how the Chevy Bolt stacks up against the Model 3. Most people expect the Tesla midsize car to be more refined and offer a higher level of technology than the Bolt. The Chevrolet product has lane keeping assist, blind spot warnings, and automatic emergency braking available but nothing similar to the Autosteer or TACC features available in the Tesla. The Model 3 will be capable of full autonomous driving; the Bolt is not. It will be interesting to see how the two cars compare when both are available to consumers.
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
