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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
