News
Porsche Taycan isn’t supposed to be a Tesla. Stop it.
Our tryst was short but, truth be told, I, a very happy Tesla owner, haven’t stopped thinking about the Porsche Taycan ever since the day we shared something special together.
It was a day of passion, driven by irrational thinking. Under the guise of a regular four-door sedan whose interior was garbed in strategically placed dark strips of cloth – clearly aimed at hiding the wolf within – it was soon obvious that I was no match for this beast.
“Do you want another go?”
It was an emphatic “no” from me to Porsche’s Platform Director for the Taycan, Bernd Propfe, as I climbed out of a production-ready Turbo S mule, and made every attempt to fight back obvious signs of nausea mixed with an overdose of adrenaline-induced shakes. Having just experienced a series of 720-degree donuts, high-speed drifts, 0-60 mph blasts in 2.6 seconds, followed by what can only be described as multiple time attack sessions on Porsche’s 1.6-mile circuit in Atlanta, the last thing I needed was to hear anyone belabor the point of repeatable performance. I get it. My stomach gets it.
It’s now two weeks later, and the taste of my Salisbury steak that I forcibly held in from lunch that day is as familiar as Taycan’s curvy, sleek and slightly bulbous contours that Porsche birthed to the world.
The Porsche Taycan. (Photo: Sean Mitchell/Teslarati)
The Taycan checks all of the boxes for what an all-electric, high-performance sedan is expected to be. Acceleration on par with Tesla? Check. Over-the-air software updates (like Tesla)? Check. Brand prestige (like Tesla)? Check. And anything not like Tesla, we know solicits ten pages of dialogue from the online vigilante.
And that’s where the line should be drawn.
First, let’s clear the air by saying that I love everything Tesla has done for the automotive industry and beyond. As a three-time Tesla owner with Ludicrous as my daily driving mode, a Tesla solar customer, and the guy greasing the wheels here at Teslarati, I’d say I can be as much of a supporter of Elon Musk and Tesla as the most vocal fanboi. But let’s also take the blinders off, boys and girls, and take a look at the bigger picture.
Porsche Taycan unveiling in North America on September 4, 2019. (Photo: Sean Mitchell/Teslarati)
Porsche has just released arguably the most important car in its history. A legacy automaker, whose iconic 911 has seen over 50 years in production and over 1 million units produced. An automaker that’s willing to go out on a limb and invest billions into the development of its first all-electric high-performance sedan to compete in a market that Tesla unequivocably dominates in. Unwavering to shareholder pressures to minimize disruption to the company’s biggest conventionally powered moneymakers, Porsche has remained focus on building products to support an electric future – a risk that many other automakers aren’t willing to take yet.
This should be celebrated. Porsche Taycan should be celebrated. The extension of Tesla’s electric roadway by another automaker should be celebrated.
After all, isn’t Tesla’s mission to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy? I bet Tesla CEO Elon Musk himself would much rather see the Taycan in the market than not. It was he who once noted, “It’s a good thing,” referring to BMW’s entry into the market with the i3, “They need to bring it to market and keep iterating and improving and make better and better electric cars, and that’s what’s going to result in humanity achieving a sustainable transport future. I wish it was growing faster than it is.”
My early days with the BMW i3 and Tesla Model S (Photo cred: Gene/Teslarati)
Still, the community is quick to point out the Taycan’s slower 0-60 mph time of 2.6 seconds versus Tesla Model S Performance’s 2.4 second time. Combined with the Taycan’s much higher price point that rivals that of some home mortgages, its lesser 280-mile WLTP-rated range versus Tesla’s 345-mile EPA-rated range, and it becomes instant social media fodder for a highlight-reel knockout that derails the entire mission.
But here’s the thing, Porsche never set out to build an affordable EV, as fellow Tesla owner and long-time EVangelist Dennis Pascual reminds us. That’s not their audience. And their audience may not realize the immense value of having up to 370-miles of range like the Model S and access to a vast Supercharger network. For many, it will be their second or third Porsche but first foray into the world of EVs. Having a familiar gauge cluster, albeit in digital form, and driving experience that they’ve been accustomed to is where these owners will find solace with the Taycan.
Porsche’s target buyer also isn’t one that balks at the idea of engaging regenerative braking through a traditional two-pedal driving style. In fact, it’s embraced. With massive 10-piston calipers up front and track-ready ceramic brakes ready to bite, there’s no mistaking the Taycan to be anything less than a driver’s car with Nürburgring roots.
Porsche Taycan Car Configurator Options. (Credit: Porsche)
Configuring a Taycan online, as I found out, was a strength-training exercise for decision paralysis. Everything can be customized.
Must have personalized door sill guards? Porsche has that for you. What material? Black or aluminum? Great. Now, would you like that illuminated? No problem! By the way, did you mean standard aluminum or brushed aluminum?
Tesla’s configuration philosophy: do you want Black interior or Black and White interior? Done.
Porsche’s seemingly endless assortment of options is every bit appreciated and expected by luxury car buyers, as it is daunting for the average Tesla consumer who’s accustomed to simplicity.
My particular Taycan Turbo S build started from a base $180k and quickly skyrocketed to over $240k after tacking on $60k in options. At nearly a quarter-million dollars, we’re in exotic car territory.
Porsche isn’t appealing to the same audience as Tesla. Different strokes for different folks.
The bottom line? The Porsche Taycan isn’t supposed to be a Tesla. And that’s a great thing.
If someone wants to spend their money on this #EV instead of an ICE… I'm cool with it… Still supports the mission of Tesla and of all #rEVolutionaries to get folks into an #EV let's not get into a circular firing squad against EVs, not everyone wants a Tesla
— Dennis Pascual (@dennis_p) September 5, 2019
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
