News
Porsche Taycan Turbo specs: 96 kWh battery, 600+ hp, air suspension, and repeatable peak performance
The Porsche Taycan is arguably one of the most highly-anticipated electric cars this year, and for good reason. The Taycan is Porsche’s first modern all-electric car, bred with racing DNA and technology honed in the track from hybrids like the 918 Spyder and the 919 Hybrid Evo. It is then incredibly pertinent for Porsche to ensure that the Taycan, particularly its top-tier “Turbo” variant, will not disappoint in any way.
A recent review of a Taycan Turbo pre-production prototype suggests that the top-tier variant of Porsche’s electric car could live up to its name, and then some. During a ride-along, Car Magazine European editor Georg Kacher was able to get up close with the upcoming vehicle as it tore through the streets with Porsche’s chief engineer Stefan Weckbach.
Equipped with a 96 kWh lithium-ion battery that weighs 650 kg (1,433 lbs), a 215 bhp/221 lb-ft powerplant on the front axle, and a 402 bhp/406 lb-ft motor at the rear, the Taycan boasts 649 lb-ft of peak torque. That’s enough to propel the car from a dead stop to 60 mph in just over 3 seconds and into 124 mph in less than 10 seconds. It’s not just acceleration, too, as the vehicle is capable of cruising at 162 mph for miles without its battery overheating. Couple that with standard air suspension and a regenerative braking system that is controlled through the steering wheel, and the Taycan becomes an EV that is made from the ground up like every other Porsche: a car that is simply fun to drive.
Porsche notes that the Taycan can perform ten full-throttle 0-62 mph and four 0-124 mph launches without seeing a decrease in performance. The vehicle does enter a “limp mode,” but only when the distance to empty reads zero. With a 96 kWh battery and a claimed 320 miles of range per charge, Taycan drivers would likely enjoy a lot of spirited driving before they need to recharge their vehicles. Porsche admits that the Taycan is not as quick off the line as a Tesla Model S Performance with Ludicrous Mode, but the company noted that the repeatability of peak performance would be the difference-maker.
It is then interesting to note that the Taycan, which is designed from the ground up to be a high-performance electric car, will likely be competing mostly with the Model 3 Performance, Tesla’s track-capable electric sedan. In a way, this would be fitting as the Taycan’s 2910 mm wheelbase is closer to the Model 3’s 2,875 mm than the Model S’ 2,959 mm wheelbase. This is the same for the interior of the vehicles as well, as shown in a review of a Taycan prototype which revealed that the Porsche’s back seats are notably less spacious than a Model S.
From its wide tires to its low profile and its sports car seating, the Porsche Taycan seems intent to capture the crown of the auto industry’s best track-capable EV. This would put it in direct competition with the Tesla Model 3 Performance, a vehicle that has been developing a reputation for competing and winning against the world’s best track-capable sedans like the BMW M3. As shown in Top Gear‘s test, the Model 3 Performance could do quick work of the BMW M3; but with the Taycan as a rival, Tesla’s track competitor would likely be facing a completely different animal.
What is rather interesting is that the Model 3 Performance and the Taycan share some similarities. When the Taycan gets released later this year, for example, the vehicle will be capable of charging up to 250 kW at an 800-volt charging point. The car is compatible with 350 kW charging, but that would come by 2021 at the latest. The Model 3 Performance also charges at rates of up to 250 kW using Tesla’s Supercharger V3 network.
If there is one thing that the Taycan and the Model 3 Performance share no middle ground in, it would be their price. The Taycan is a Porsche, and it is priced like one. The base Taycan will be RWD only, and it will come with an 80 kWh battery pack and a choice of 322 bhp or 376 bhp motors, as well as a low ~$90,000 starting price. The mid-range Taycan Carerra 4S, estimated to be priced in the high ~$90,000 range, will be fitted with a 96 kWh battery pack and offer 429 bhp or 483 bhp.
The Taycan Turbo, which is also equipped with a 96 kWh battery, is expected to cost around £120,000 ($149,000. That’s almost 50% more expensive than a Tesla Model S Performance with Ludicrous Mode, which currently costs just below $100,000. An even more potent Taycan Turbo S with 724 bhp and an RWD Taycan GTS are also in the works. In comparison, the Model 3 Performance is currently priced at less than $55,000 with basic Autopilot as standard.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
