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
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
