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
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
