News
Exclusive: Porsche’s electric heart beats in the Taycan’s Zuffenhausen factory
Beside the red-bricked walls of Porsche’s headquarters at Zuffenhausen, an electric transformation is taking place. It is a transformation that echoes back to its earliest days, despite the company’s pedigree with the internal combustion engine. Tall, modern-looking buildings sit side-by-side with older factories and shops that have literally witnessed history. The faint sounds of heavy machinery are audible in the distance, a reminder that work in the historic site is ongoing.
“We’re building a factory within a factory within a city with residences close by, hardly any space, and this in high speed,” says Porsche representative of the project David Tryggvason, lightly pointing out that the timeframe of the project is very Porsche-like: Sporty.
Porsche is actively engaged in a massive construction project in its Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen site, roughly 120 miles from Frankfurt, with the company running full throttle as it prepares for the production of the Taycan. The result of these efforts could only be described as a rebirth of sorts, since the company that started with an electric car is now pushing itself to re-embrace all-electric vehicles, perhaps just as intended by its founder, Ferdinand Porsche, more than a hundred years ago.
An electric transition
A lot is riding on the Porsche Taycan. During the company’s annual press conference, Porsche CEO Oliver Blume and Deputy Chairman of the Executive Board Lutz Meschke emphasized how all-electric vehicles like the Taycan and its lineup of hybrid cars are pertinent for the company’s future. In a statement, Meschke noted that by 2030, vehicles powered by an internal combustion engine would likely be the exception to the rule.
“One thing is clear: from 2030 onwards; there probably won’t be any vehicle model from Porsche without an electric variant. I actually presume that by 2025, we will have electrified significantly more than half of our entire model range. But the combustion engine will still be around in 2030. Our 911 will hopefully still be driving with them for a long time to come. Conventionally powered vehicles will at that point be the niche in our electric fleet,” he said.
Before it can produce a successful electric vehicle, Porsche needs to ensure that it has the facilities necessary to build a completely different type of car. The veteran automaker opted to construct several new facilities to accommodate the Taycan’s production, and it had to overcome numerous challenges to make the buildout possible. The Zuffenhausen site is a stone’s throw away from a residential neighborhood, and the site itself is split by a four-lane road. With space being scarce, Tryggvason notes that the company did the only thing it can do: it built up. Overall, building the Taycan is complex. Setting up the facility even more so. For the project manager, the challenges were worth it. “We believe in the product,” David said.
A high-stakes, collective effort
The company’s bet on the Taycan is evident in its investment for the vehicle and the actions of its own employees. Porsche is spending about 6 billion euros (around $6.81 billion) for the development of its electric mobility initiatives. Porsche Production 4.0, a campaign aimed at ushering in a new era of vehicle production, is also underway. Accelerating these developments is a deal that the carmaker struck with its employees, who agreed to forego a small part of their collective salary increase in exchange for their participation in the Taycan’s production and release.
David Tryggvason and Porsche Press Spokesman Jorg Walz later directed me to the roof of one of the new buildings, and I was able to get a pretty good view of the factory itself. They pointed out how the Taycan starts its life by having its electric motors, batteries, and axles assembled. The electric car’s body then gets put together, painted, and transported across a long conveyor system where it can go through final assembly and married to its electric drive unit.
A key to the successful production run of the Porsche Taycan is the company’s target of manufacturing the vehicle in a “smart, lean and green” manner. Examples of these include a flexi-line that uses automated guided vehicles for simpler assembly despite the expansive customization requests from Taycan buyers, optimizations in the use of resources and space, and an initiative to ensure that the entire production process of the all-electric car at Porsche’s Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen site is CO2-neutral. This is made possible through several programs such as the electrification of logistics vehicles, the use of waste heat in the paint shop, and a pilot trial that involves the adoption of nitrogen-absorbing facade surfaces, to name a few.
Race-bred batteries for a race-bred electric car
Not one to waste a rare opportunity to ask for details about the Taycan, I decided to ask a little about the electric car’s battery performance. Over the past year, several great electric vehicles were released by veteran carmakers such as Jaguar and Mercedes-Benz, but inasmuch as the machines themselves were impressive, their batteries left much to be desired. The I-PACE, for all its stunning interior and excellent design, is pretty much the electric equivalent of a gas guzzler. The Mercedes-Benz EQC seems to be the same.
Porsche uses pouch cells from LG Chem in the Taycan’s battery pack, which is expected to give the vehicle over 300 miles of range per charge under the NEDC standard. The company is aiming for ultra-fast 350 kW charging as well, thanks to its 800-volt technology, which was used first in Porsche’s LMP1 racecar 919 Hybrid. I asked how the Taycan’s battery holds up when charged continually with such a high rate of charge. Walz smiled and candidly stated “We’re very optimistic.”
After the annual press conference, I was able to sit in for an informal discussion of Porsche’s electrification with executive board member Detlev von Platen. The Porsche exec highlighted that the Taycan’s battery cells were closely developed by the company, thanks to its experience from its high-performance hybrid vehicles. Examples include the legendary Porsche 918 Spyder hypercar and the three-time Le Mans-winning Porsche 919 Hybrid racecar, both of which required some work in their batteries.
“So we’re absolutely involved, deeply involved, in the development of the (Taycan’s battery) cells and the technology behind it. We haven’t started last year with the Taycan. We have worked since a long time already on battery technology from motorsport. Our prototypes like the 919 Hybrid was electrified. So I would say, in general terms, that we have started to work on battery technology at least ten years now,” Von Platen candidly said.
I was reminded of David Tryggvason’s overview of the Taycan’s components a couple of days before, when he remarked that some of the Porsche personnel who worked for the 918 Spyder hypercar also worked in the development of the Taycan. Upon hearing Von Platen’s description of Porsche’s work with batteries, I couldn’t help but agree with his point. Porsche has produced several iconic vehicles in the past, and the majority of them are powered by the internal combustion engine. Despite this, it is difficult to argue that the best cars the company has ever produced, such as the 919 Hybrid, are imbued with electric propulsion at their core. Beneath the roaring engines of the vehicles were electric motors and batteries that ultimately unlocked the cars’ real potential.
From the past to the future
An engineer at heart, Ferdinand Porsche started with an electric car at the end of the 19th century. He later dipped his feet in hybrid propulsion, before going ahead and gaining mastery of the internal combustion engine. From this perspective, the development of the Taycan feels like a homage to the company’s roots, and this is a big reason why Porsche is dead serious about the vehicle. In what appears to be a gesture to prove this, the Taycan is being built on the company’s most historic site, and it will be produced alongside the 911, a vehicle that can only be dubbed as the quintessential Porsche.
As I grabbed my travel gear and scurried to the remaining shuttle that was awaiting my presence, I looked back at Porsche’s headquarters one last time. There in the dark sky stood a marvel of orderliness in this ever-changing world. It was a moment that can only to be described as surreal, when the past breathes new life into the future. Seconds later, as I buckled myself down on the shuttle seat and gazed into a disappearing Zuffenhausen site, the sounds of whirring machinery and vehicles rolling off the factory floor can be heard in the distance. Beneath this orchestra of sounds were the rhythmic thumps of heavy equipment that continued to work tirelessly to build Taycan’s upcoming production facilities.
I couldn’t help but imagine that the sounds were representative of the electric heartbeat of a carmaker, coming to life once more.
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
