Really? The article cites the Bolt’s range, 259 miles on a charge. Its quick pickup from a stop and while passing. We all know Tesla does those things better. They mention the design, with cargo room in the back. But the Bolt doesn’t have a frunk. It has all kinds of stuff under the hood even though three’s no gasoline engine. I can’t figure out why they need to put all that stuff under the hood of the Bolt. My Tesla doesn’t need all that equipment filling up the frunk. My wife’s car is a Chevy Volt. It doesn’t have a frunk, but, of course, the Volt has a gasoline engine under the hood.
Before I bought my Tesla, I test drove all the electric cars, including the Bolt. No adaptive cruise. Truly annoying lane keeping. It’s fine for reminding you when you’re about to go out of the lane after you’re nearly over the line. Then it swerves to the other side of the lane. GM doesn’t give over-the-air software updates. So the lane keeping won’t improve while you own the car.
Then there's comfort. Tesla makes a very comfortable car with great seat cushioning and great seat adjustment. The Bolt, on the other hand, is OK for short trips, but the seats are pretty basic. You really don't want to take long trips in the Bolt.
GM tries to make you think the Bolt is less expensive, but once you order the features you’re going to want, it’s pretty close to the price of the Model 3 SR+. If you’re price sensitive, you’re going to have to go for one of the foreign EVs that still have the federal $7,500 tax credit. Neither the Tesla nor the Chevy Bolt has that tax incentive.
One of my really bad character flaws is that I sometimes think I’m smarter than people who are actually smarter than me. I recognize this, and I try to restrain myself from saying that other people are just plain wrong, but in this case, I just can’t resist.
US News is just plain wrong. The Chevy Bolt is OK, but the Tesla Model 3 is excellent.
