News
Porsche Taycan’s repeatable performance claims put to the test by veteran drag racer
When Porsche launched the Taycan last year, its message was clear. It’s an all-electric performance car built for the track. You can take it with a battery half charged and you’ll still get the same level of performance you’d expect at full charge. At least that’s what Porsche promises.
DragTimes YouTube channel host and Tesla owner Brooks Weisblat recently put the Taycan Turbo’s repeatable performance claim to a real-world test. He took a Taycan Turbo and the more powerful Turbo S out on the track to see how they would perform launching from 0 to 60 mph and covering the 1/4 mile.
Weisblat specifically asked the engineers at Champion Porsche in Pompano Beach, FL to have both cars ready at full charge. However, while the Turbo had a 91% charge when he arrived, while the Turbo S was only at 57%. This presented a unique opportunity to test just how well the vehicles performed with such discrepancy in their battery levels.
At just a little bit more than half charge, the $185,000 Turbo S went from 0 to 60 mph in 2.67 seconds and ran a quarter-mile at 124 mph. It’s impressive for an all-electric vehicle but not so much for one housing the world’s first two-speed gearbox in an electric car.
“I kind of expected it to be a little better especially given it having the transmission,” Weisblat says. “I was expecting track speeds near 130 mph. The launch I wasn’t so sure because Porsche’s claiming it does 0 to 60 in 2.8 seconds.”
Previous testing done by DragTimes shows the Tesla Model S with a 96 percent charge can go from 0 to 60 mph in 2.45 seconds. That’s a couple of tenths of a second faster than the Turbo S, which has acceleration and speed advantages due to its two-speed transmission.
The Turbo, which has 90 less horsepower than the Turbo S, went from 0 to 60 mph at 2.8 seconds. It’s not as fast as the Turbo S but it’s nothing to scoff at. But here’s the kicker. After the first 60 mph, the Turbo S didn’t have much of an advantage over the less powerful Turbo. If the state of charge doesn’t matter as Porsche says, the Turbo should have at least similar or less performance.
But Weisblat’s testing shows the Turbo at 91% charge went from 60 to 100 mph in 8.41 seconds and took the 1/4 mile at 127 mph. That’s a whole 3 mph faster than the Turbo S, which was at 56% charge when testing began. Had both cars been raced against each other, the Turbo would have won hands down over the Turbo S. Weisblat also says that both Turbo and Turbo S used up about 2% of the battery after each 1/4 mile.
“State of charge does matter with the Porsche. There’s no question about it. Because the Taycan Turbo S sitting at 56 percent is tracking at 124 mph. The Turbo at 91 percent is going 3 mph faster. For those of you who don’t know about road racing or drag racing, that is a significant difference,” he said.
The results would have been different had both cars been charged fully. Weisblat estimates the Turbo S could go the 1/4 mile at 130 mph and launch from 0 to 60 mph at around 2.5 seconds so that it’s right in line with the Tesla Model S. However, he believes that the Turbo S would further drop to 7 seconds once it goes from 60 to 130 mph, just up to par with a Lamborghini Huracan. If so, he says the Model S could be “in trouble,” at least when you take it down to the race track.
To maintain these numbers, Porsche has to keep the Taycan’s battery at optimal temperatures using a unique battery thermal management system. Unfortunately, because the car relies purely on electricity, the Taycan uses up extra energy from the battery just to maintain its energy-intensive temperature control system.
It’s a double-edged sword, especially for an electric vehicle. Porsche had to sacrifice a few things in exchange for performance. A lot of people weren’t happy to hear that the EPA gave the Taycan Turbo S a range rating of 192 miles. The Taycan Turbo didn’t do much better at 201 miles, which is 182 whole miles less than the 373 miles of the Model S Long Range.
But then again, the Taycan isn’t exactly made for most people. In fact, with a six-figure price tag and the Porsche logo on its hood, it’s not even made for mainstream EV buyers. And it’s a good thing for the electric car market as a whole.
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
