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
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
