GM says next-gen Bolt will be EUV-only as the SUV virus infects the industry
The Bolt EV is not coming back in Ultium format, according to recent statements made by GM. Instead, GM will resurrect the larger Bolt EUV and place it right alongside the Equinox EV in the latest example of the long line of inexplicable moves by GM in the EV space.
The Chevy Bolt EV is GM’s most popular and best-selling EV, which is currently enjoying its best year of sales ever. The EUV is a newer, larger variant of the Bolt EV, which has been selling better in recent years, but the Bolt EV is still the overall better seller across the history of the nameplate.
The Bolt EV as a hatchback is a unique vehicle in a market full of CUVs and SUVs.
But the Bolt is based on GM’s old battery platform, and GM’s Ultium platform is the new hotness.
So, the Bolt EV is going out of production at the end of this year, to be replaced by an Ultium-based Bolt which we now know is coming in 2025.
But it turns out that we won’t actually be getting a Boltium EV – we’ll only get the larger, more expensive EUV version.
GM CEO Mary Barra gave the first hint last month that the Ultium Bolt would take “the best attributes of the Bolt EUV”
“Our prior portfolio plans included several newly designed vehicles in the entry level segments and a capital commitment of $5 billion over the next several years. However, by leveraging the best attributes of today’s Bolt EUV, as well as Ultium platform, our software, and NACS, we will deliver an even better driving, charging, and ownership experience with a vehicle we know customers love. In the process, we are saving billions in capital and engineering expenses, delivering a significantly cost improved battery pack using purchased LFP cells. We are getting to market at least two years faster. And unit cost will be substantially lower.”
GM CEO Mary Barra
There was some hope that this statement was ambiguous enough and that Barra meant to cover both the EV and EUV with it, but alas, it seems not to be the case.
We think this is a big mistake, especially given all the recent excitement around the Volvo EX30, a vehicle quite close to the Bolt EV’s footprint and layout. Given the interest we’re seeing in that small, well-priced hatchback/SUV, which despite being called an SUV is still among the smaller EVs currently being introduced, one would think that GM might see that a “Hot Hatch meets MicroSUV” format is popular. Surely that’s why they were bringing back the Bolt in the first place?
Besides, Chevy already has the Equinox EV coming out soon, which fits into the “small(ish)” SUV segment and while longer and slightly wider than the EUV, has the same amount of cargo space. A Bolt EV-sized hot hatch could compare favorably against the Volvo EX30, and offer more differentiation against the larger Equinox, but now, Chevy will just have three electric SUVs and nothing for customers who want something smaller, or who want a sedan, or who want… anything but an SUV.
So it seems like the SUV virus has infected everyone – including the best deal in all of EVs.
Something for everyone? How about… any car?
This week, we drove the Blazer EV, which you’ll hear our impressions of on Wednesday. During that event, Chevy told us that it has “something for everyone,” accompanied by this slide:
Well, I like driving small cars. What, in that graphic, is for me? Am I not part of “everyone?” Feel free to tell us in the comments below if you, too, are not part of everyone.
But this is a reflection of SUVs being the largest segment in the US vehicle market right now. Vehicles in the US have been getting bigger and bigger, leading to higher pedestrian deaths and much worse emissions.
SUVs are everywhere – is it consumer demand, or something else?
There are a number of reasons for this, though most observers go no further than to pretend that it is solely due to consumer demand. But that’s not the whole story – Americans are being pushed towards SUVs in many ways.
Right out of the gate, just look at the graphic above. America’s largest manufacturer simply doesn’t offer anything but SUVs. If that’s the case, it’s tough for anyone who doesn’t want an SUV to find a car to buy, doesn’t it?
The only vehicle on that list which might not qualify as an SUV is the Bolt EV hatchback. It’s still tall, but at least it’s pretty compact at 163″ in length (by comparison, the upcoming Equinox EV is 190″ long – and yet has an identical 57 cubic feet of cargo space as the Bolt, both with seats down).
So, maybe GM does have a vehicle for those of us who don’t want SUVs? Well, maybe… unless you ask GM, whose advertisements fail to mention that the car even exists.
This recent Bolt EUV ad refers to the Bolt EUV as the “most affordable EV in America,” which is factually untrue. In fact, the Bolt EV is the most affordable EV in America, not the EUV, as the EV is $1,300 cheaper than the EUV.
And of course GM, and its dealers, would rather sell you a more expensive car than a more reasonable and responsible one. SUVs tend to be more expensive, and automakers have attached value to the term, and thus will happily push customers into far more car than they need or want in order to get a few more dollars out of them.
Beyond that, regulations also push manufacturers into producing more SUVs. Fuel economy regulations have long included a “footprint rule” that allows larger vehicles to get away with lower fuel efficiency, ironically encouraging manufacturers to build larger, less efficient vehicles to help meet fleet economy regulations.
Even new, EV-specific regulations have this problem. The Inflation Reduction Act includes tax credits for EVs – but these are capped at $55,000 MSRP for cars and $80,000 for SUVs and trucks, which means manufacturers can make more revenue by channeling people into EV SUVs.
But in a possible saving grace for regulations, the most recent EPA regulations do include an extremely exciting line: “EPA is proposing … to narrow the numerical stringency difference between the car and truck curves.” This suggests that the EPA understands it messed up and is trying to correct the error that has led to the pedestrian-killing SUV takeover of the market, but it will take years until we see the effects of this positive move.
SUVs may be the more dominant segment due to the various reasons listed above, but even despite all of these entities pushing consumers towards land yachts, cars still carry on. GM shared a slide showing that 30% of EVs are still cars, not SUVs:
And yet, with this move, GM is ignoring 30% of its customers by eliminating the one car-like EV it sells. “Something for everyone,” right?
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Hyundai’s electric fastback is due for some major upgrades that could finally make it the Tesla Model 3 challenger it was designed to be. The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 is better than ever, featuring a stylish new look both inside and out, an NACS port for charging at Tesla Superchargers, and even more driving range than expected.
The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 is a long-range, stylish EV
It’s been just about three years since Hyundai unveiled the IONIQ 6 for the first time at the 2022 Busan International Motor Show.
Hyundai’s “electrified streamliner” arrived as what was expected to be a genuine rival to the Tesla Model 3, boasting over 350 miles of driving range, fast charging in under 20 minutes, and an affordable price tag.
Despite this, the electric sedan has failed to live up to its hype. In the US, IONIQ 6 sales fell 6% last year, with only 12,264 units sold. According to Cox Automotive, Tesla sold 189,903 Model 3s in the US last year, a decrease from 2023, partly due to the launch of the refreshed model.
With the upgraded IONIQ due out later this year, Hyundai’s EV might finally match the Model 3 as another long-range, fast-charging, affordable electric sedan.
The new Hyundai IONIQ 6 has just become Korea’s longest-range electric sedan. It was officially certified by the Ministry of Environment with a range of up to 568 km (353 miles), surpassing the Kia EV4 at 549 km (341 miles).
On the WLTP scale, that could translate to nearly 700 km (430 miles) range. The current IONIQ 6 is rated with a WLTP range of up to 614 km (382 miles).
For those in the US, the 2025 Hyundai IONIQ 6 already provides an EPA-estimated range of up to 342 miles. The new model is expected to achieve a range of over 350 miles.
The new IONIQ 6 features an upgraded 84 kWh battery, similar to the 2025 IONIQ 5, providing increased driving range. Hyundai’s new IONIQ 5 is now rated with an EPA-estimated driving range of 318 miles, up from 303 miles in the 2024 model.
Like the IONIQ 5 refresh, the new IONIQ 6 is expected to arrive with a built-in NACS port, allowing access to Tesla Superchargers.
Hyundai unveiled the new IONIQ 6 design at the Seoul Mobility Show in April, saying it “enhanced every line and detail to make the IONIQ 6 simpler and more progressive.” And last week, Hyundai teased a sporty “N” line mode coming soon. We got a sneak peek of it in public a few days later after it was spotted driving in Korea. You can tell, it’s already shaping up to be a significant upgrade.
As for prices and final specs, we’ll have to wait until closer to launch later this year. Check back soon for more info. We’ll keep you updated with the latest.
Will Hyundai’s electric sedan finally compete with the Model 3? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Source: Yucca Post Korea
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Markets are shrugging off the Israel-Iran conflict. Some strategists warn of complacency
Fire and smoke rise into the sky after an Israeli attack on the Shahran oil depot on June 15, 2025 in Tehran, Iran.
Getty Images | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Global investors may be underpricing the impact of a conflict between Israel and Iran, market watchers warned on Monday, as stocks rallied despite escalating warfare in the Middle East.
The two regional powers continued trading fire on Monday, marking the fourth consecutive day of fighting since Israel launched airstrikes against Iran last week.
Despite the continued fighting — with hundreds reported dead — global stock markets sustained a positive momentum on Monday, seemingly shrugging off broader concerns about the conflict.
Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, warned on Monday that there was a risk markets were underpricing “the risk of a major conflagration in the Middle East,” particularly when it comes to the energy market.
European shares opened broadly higher on Monday, with Asia-Pacific stocks and U.S. stock futures also trading in the green. Even Middle Eastern indexes saw gains on Monday, with the Tel Aviv 35 index last seen trading 1% higher after falling 1.5% last week.
“This is partly because there are so many moving parts and geopolitical considerations, and partly because the potential outcomes are so unthinkable,” Mould said. “In a worst case, oil and share prices would be the least of our worries.”
In a Monday morning note, David Roche, a strategist at Quantum Strategy, warned that the conflict between Israel and Iran “will last longer than the Israeli lightning-strikes that the market is used to.”
Torbjorn Soltvedtp, principal Middle East analyst at Verisk Maplecroft, agreed, saying an escalation remained of “huge concern.”
“What we have now is very different, and what we’re seeing is effectively a war and an open-ended one,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe.”
“And of course, that is something that has huge implications, not just for the region, but also for energy markets and how they interpret what is happening. You know, minute by minute and day by day.”
Energy markets have moved the most on news of the attacks, as the Israel-Iran conflict stoked supply concerns.
Loading chart…
While Friday marked the biggest single-day gain for crude since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, however, global benchmark Brent crude futures — last seen at $73.75 a barrel — were still far below the prices seen in the aftermath of Moscow’s incursion into Ukrainian territory.
“A lull is the most likely outcome before later escalation when Iran rejects US Trump’s overtures,” Roche said. “The market is likely to mistake the lull for lasting peace. I would use the lull to buy into energy assets as a safe haven.”
‘Very modest’ market reaction
Some market watchers are taking a somewhat less pessimistic view, however.
In a note on Monday, Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid noted that while both Iran and Israel had traded retaliatory blows, they had so far avoided “the most extreme escalatory steps.”
“As geopolitical shocks are becoming more frequent it seems it’s now at least a yearly occurrence that we refer to our equity strategists’ work on the impact of such shocks and how long it takes for the market to recover from them,” he said.
Loading chart…
“The typical pattern is for the S&P 500 to pull back about -6% in 3 weeks after the shock but then rally all the way back in another 3,” Reid said. “[Our strategists] believe this incident will likely be milder than this unless we get notable escalation as they highlight that equity positioning is already underweight … and a -6% selloff would need it to fall all the way to the bottom of its usual range.”
Philippe Gijsels, chief strategy officer at BNP Paribas Fortis, told CNBC on Monday that he feels the market is correct in not pricing a huge escalation, such as the U.S. being drawn into the fray, or a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz, nestled between Iran and Oman, is a vital oil transit route through which millions of barrels of oil are transported every day.
“Still, the market reaction has been very modest, so there is room for disappointment if things were to escalate,” Gijsels conceded on Monday.
Tesla’s upcoming Robotaxi launch in Austin, Texas, is increasingly looking like a game of smoke and mirrors, and a dangerous one at that.
CEO Elon Musk claims Tesla is being “paranoid with safety”, but it is taking risks for the purpose of optics.
It’s all about optics
Musk has been wrong about self-driving for years. His track record is marked by missed deadlines and broken promises.
He said:
“Our goal is, and I feel pretty good about this goal, that we’ll be able to do a demonstration drive of full autonomy all the way from LA to New York, from home in LA to let’s say dropping you off in Times Square in New York, and then having the car go park itself, by the end of next year. Without the need for a single touch, including the charger.”
That was in 2016, and therefore, he claimed it would happen by the end of 2017. Today, in 2025, Tesla is still not capable of doing that.
Musk has claimed that Tesla would achieve unsupervised self-driving every year for the last decade. It has become a running gag, with many YouTube videos featuring his predictions and a Wikipedia page tracking his missed deadlines.
Famously, the predictions are about Tesla achieving self-driving “by the end of the year” or “next year.”
This time, Musk has set a clear deadline of “June” for Tesla to launch its robotaxi service.
With Waymo pulling ahead in the autonomous driving race, now operating in four cities, providing over 200,000 paid rides per week, and soon expanding with 2,000 more vehicles, Musk needs a win to maintain the illusion he has been pushing for a while: that Tesla is the leader in autonomous driving.
He recently claimed about Tesla’s self-driving technology:
No one is even close. There’s really not a close second. We felt like it was a bit of an iPhone moment — you either get it or you don’t, and there’s a massive gap.
This is becoming increasingly difficult to claim amid Waymo’s expansion. Still, Musk believes that the robotaxi launch in Austin will help maintain the illusion, even though Waymo has already been operating like Tesla’s plans in Austin for years in other cities and for months in Austin itself.
Moving of the Goal Post
We have often described what Tesla is doing in Austin with its planned “robotaxi” launch as a moving of the goalpost.
For years, Tesla has promised unsupervised self-driving in all its vehicles built since 2016. Musk explicitly said that customers who bought Tesla’s Full Self-Driving package would be able to “go to sleep” at the wheel of their vehicles and wake up in another city.
Now, Musk is claiming that Tesla has “solved” self-driving with its “robotaxi” launch, but it is vastly different from prior promises.
Tesla plans to operate its own small internal fleet of vehicles with dedicated software optimized for a geo-fenced area of Austin and supported by “plenty of teleoperation.” This is a night-and-day difference compared to deploying unsupervised self-driving in customer vehicles, as promised since 2016.
Musk himself is on record saying, “If you need a geofence area, you don’t have real self-driving.”
Now, Musk is on record saying that Tesla will only launch the service in a limited area in Austin and even avoid certain intersections that Tesla is not sure it can handle:
We will geo‑fence it. It’s not going to take intersections unless we are highly confident it’s going to do well with that intersection. Or it will just take a route around that intersection.
In addition to geofencing, Tesla is also utilizing teleoperation to control vehicles with human operators remotely.
We reported last year when Tesla started building a “teleoperation team.”
Despite Tesla originally planning to launch the robotaxi service on June 12, and now “tentatively” on June 22, the automaker posted a new job listing days ago for engineers to help build a low-latency teleoperation system to operate its “self-driving” cars and robots.
The use of geofencing and teleoperation results in Tesla having the same limitations as Waymo, which Musk claimed means it’s “not real self-driving and not scalable to the customer fleet as promised by Tesla for years.
‘Paranoid’ about Safety
Musk claims that Tesla is being “super paranoid” about safety, but you have to take his word for it.
We have pointed it out before, but it’s worth repeating: Waymo tested its self-driving vehicles in Austin for six months with safety drivers and then for another six months without safety drivers before launching its autonomous ride-hailing service in the city.
As for Tesla, it tested its vehicles with safety drivers throughout Austin for a few months. Then, Musk announced in late May, only weeks before the planned launch, that it had started testing without safety drivers.
Despite many people being on the lookout for these driverless Tesla Robotaxis, they were only spotted for the first time last week.
Since then, only two confirmed Tesla vehicles without drivers have been spotted testing.
Furthermore, several of those vehicles were spotted with Tesla employees in the front passenger seat. While Musk claims that there are “no safety driver”, these “passengers” pay attention at all times and have access to a kill switch to stop the vehicle.
They virtually operate like “safety drivers”, but they are on the passenger seat rather than the driver’s seat.
Tesla is currently still in the “testing” phase based on the listing with the state regulators, which also mentions “no” safety drivers:
To go back to the “optics” for a second, Tesla’s head of self-driving, Ashok Elluswamy, has shared this conveniently cropped image of Tesla’s “robotaxis” being tested in Austin:
The image crops out the passenger seat of the car in front, which would show a Tesla employee, and the driver’s seat of the trailing car, which would show a driver, as spotted in Austin over the last week.
There’s also no way to know precisely at what rates these safety passengers and remote operators are intervening on the self-driving vehicles.
Tesla has never released any intervention or disengagement data about its self-driving and ADAS programs despite using “miles between disengagements” as a metric to track improvements and Musk claiming for years that self-driving is a “solved problem” for Tesla.
As we have previously reported, the best available data comes from a crowdsourced effort. Musk has previously shared and misrepresented the dataset in a positive light.
Currently, the data for the combined two most recent updates (v13.2.8-9) on Tesla’s latest hardware (HW4), which is reportedly the same hardware used in Tesla’s “robotaxis” in Austin, currently sits at 444 miles between critical disengagements:
That would imply a high risk of an accident every 444 miles without a driver paying attention and ready to take control at all times.
Tesla is also currently actively fighting in court against organizations trying to access its self-driving crash data.
There are currently efforts to raise concerns about Tesla’s “robotaxi” deployment in Austin.
The Dawn Project attempted to convey the potential danger of Tesla’s upcoming robotaxi fleet by demonstrating how Tesla vehicles fail to stop for school buses with their stop signs activated and can potentially run over children on the latest public Supervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) v13.2.9:
Musk has repeatedly highlighted that the vehicles used for the robotaxi service in Austin are the same that it currently delivers to customers, like this one used in this test.
However, they use a new, custom software optimized for Austin, with supposedly more parameters, allowing for greater performance. Still, there is no way to verify this, as Tesla has not released any data.
Electrek’s Take
I can’t lie. I’m getting extremely concerned about this. I don’t think that we can trust Musk or Tesla in their current state to launch this safely.
As I previously stated, I think Tesla’s FSD would be an incredible product if it were sold as a regular ADAS system, rather than something called “Full Self-Driving,” with the promise that it would eventually become unsupervised.
Tesla wouldn’t face a significant liability for not being able to fulfill its promises to customers, as it has already confirmed for HW3 owners. Additionally, safety would be improved, as drivers wouldn’t become so complacent with the technology.
Speaking of those failed promises, they are also what’s driving Tesla to push for this launch in Austin.
As Waymo’s former long-time CEO John Krafcik said about Tesla’s effort: “There are many ways to fake a robotaxi service.”
Musk badly needs a win with self-driving, and he saw an opportunity to get one by getting his gullible fanbase of Tesla shareholders excited about a glimpse at its long-promised future full of “Tesla robotaxis.”
As he previously stated, he knows full well that the way Tesla is doing this is not more scalable than Waymo even if the hardware cost per vehicle is lower. The hardware cost is negligible compared to teleoperation, development, insurance, and other expenses.
Even with all the smoke and mirrors involved with this project, it’s becoming clear that Tesla is not even ready for it.
Now, the question is whether Musk lets the June deadline slip and takes another ‘L’ on self-driving, or if he pushes for Tesla to launch the potentially dangerous service with lots of limitations.
With the federal government in complete shambles and the Texas government being too close to Musk and Tesla, I wouldn’t count on the regulators to act here. Although they probably should.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut