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.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
