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.
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
