The Porsche Taycan is an uncompromising electric sports sedan. Built on a platform designed specifically for EVs and tapping into electric motor tech that powered past flagship vehicles like the 918 Spyder, the Taycan represents the best of what Porsche can offer today, in an unapologetically electric package.
It is then unsurprising to see that with the Taycan’s arrival, the long-debunked narrative of the “Tesla Killer” was reborn. American online auto information resource Edmunds, for one, proudly declared in a tweet that after experiencing the Taycan that its team “got out with a singular thought: This is a Tesla Killer.” The company then proceeded to state that the Taycan has a “driving ability that no Tesla can match,” especially considering that its track-capable and its optimal 0-60 mph launches could be repeated “endlessly.”
While statements such as these foster both healthy and unhealthy debates among the EV and auto community, it is pertinent to highlight the simple fact that the Taycan is NOT a “Tesla Killer.” Instead, it could very well be the first genuine attempt from an experienced premium automaker to design and release an electric vehicle that is, in more ways than one, a potential “killer” of the internal combustion engine. This makes the Taycan the strongest vehicle yet that could accompany Tesla in Elon Musk’s overall plan to transition the transportation sector away from fossil fuels.
The Taycan, particularly the Turbo S variant, is an honest-to-goodness driver’s car. The German automaker made it clear that when it was designing the vehicle, it made sure that the “soul” that is so valued among the traditional car community is present in the electric four-door sedan. This is evident in the way the company tuned the driving dynamics of the car, which was tuned in the Nurburgring. The Taycan is just like any other Porsche: it’s the type of car that you take up to the mountains on a weekend drive. It just happens to be electric.
During its Annual Press Conference earlier this year, Porsche emphasized how the Taycan is the start of its own transition to a full embrace of electric mobility. The company’s executives acknowledged that more electric vehicles are coming, and it is transitioning its fleet as much as possible to do so. Porsche is serious enough in this initiative that it quite literally changed the face of its historic Zuffenhausen factory to make way for the Taycan and its other upcoming electric cars.
Perhaps what really makes the Taycan a compelling vehicle is the fact that unlike other EVs from veteran carmakers that have come before it, the four-door is not an exercise in compromise. It represents a real effort by an experienced automaker to release an EV that is superior to some of its own ICE-powered creations. A look at the vehicle’s specs shows that apart from its range, which is still far from Tesla’s level, the Taycan is a solid electric car. It could even be stated that with the Taycan’s arrival, it would be pretty silly to choose an equally-priced high-performance car with an internal combustion engine.
Elon Musk has always stated that Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the transition of the auto industry towards sustainability. The company has so far been able to accomplish this by introducing vehicles like the Model S and Model 3, both of which are simply better than the available competition. Yet Musk has also been honest about his belief that Tesla could not push the auto industry towards sustainability alone. It needs other automakers to join the fray by offering excellent electric vehicles that beat out gas cars in key metrics. The Taycan could very well be the first in this list.
Tesla has long been a polarizing company, and it will likely continue to be polarizing for years to come. Regardless of how successful the company gets, or how well vehicles like the Model 3 and Model S perform on the market, there will always be car buyers that will refuse to purchase one of its vehicles based on one reason or another. Accelerating the world’s transition to sustainability is a mass effort, and the auto industry would need a lot more vehicles like the Porsche Taycan to accomplish this.
Overall, could the Taycan potentially steal some customers from Tesla’s higher-priced vehicles like the 345-mile, ~$100,000 Model S Performance? Perhaps, if buyers are in the market for a ~$150,000 car that drives like a classic Porsche, and if they are more open to a high-performance EV with 279 miles of range (under the WLTP standard) and less interior space. But will the Taycan affect the Model 3 in any way? Absolutely not.
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
