Connect with us
Porsche Taycan Turbo S vs. Turbo Porsche Taycan Turbo S vs. Turbo

News

Porsche Taycan Turbo vs Turbo S: Price, performance, and specs compared

Photography: Christoph Bauer Postproduction: Wagnerchic ? www.wagnerchic.com

Published

on

The Porsche Taycan Turbo and Turbo S are arguably the best non-Tesla electric cars on the market today. With their distinctly Mission E-esque design, their clean lines, and classic Porsche performance, the two vehicles have a very good chance of becoming one of the German carmaker’s most successful vehicles in its lineup today. 

The Taycan Turbo and Turbo S represent the top end of Porsche’s electric vehicle line. While both are quick on their feet, the Turbo and Turbo S have their differences. Here is a quick look at a number of them. 

Power and Torque

Both the Taycan Turbo and Turbo S are dual-motor AWD, and both are fitted with Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors (PMSM) at the rear. The Turbo S boasts 750 hp with Launch Control, while the Turbo features 670 hp. Total maximum torque for the Turbo S also stands at 774 lb-ft, while the Turbo has 626 lb-ft of torque. The power-to-weight ratio for the Taycan Turbo S is 6.8 lbs/hp, while the non-S variant features 7.6 lbs/hp.

 

Brakes and Wheels

 

The differences between the Taycan Turbo and Turbo S  are quite prominent in the vehicles’ wheels and brakes. The Taycan Turbo is equipped with Porsche Surface Coated Brakes (PSCB), while the Turbo S is fitted with Porsche Ceramic Composite Brakes (PCCB). Rotors for the Turbo is made of internally vented steel with tungsten carbide coating, while the Turbo S uses internally vented ceramic composite. 

Calipers for the Taycan Turbo are white, while the Turbo S features yellow calipers. The Taycan Turbo S features 21″ Mission-E Design Wheels paired with large 420/410 rotors as well. In comparison, the Taycan Turbo features 20″ Taycan Turbo Aero Wheels as standard with 415/365 rotors. Interestingly, the colors of the Taycan Turbo S’s Mission E wheels could be matched with the color of the car.

Advertisement
-

Dimensions and Weight

The two vehicles look identical, and for the most part, they are. That being said, the Taycan Turbo S is wider at 84.4 inches, compared to the Turbo’s 77.4 inches. The Turbo is also a hair taller at 54.4 inches compared to the Turbo S’ 54.3 inches. The 6,327-lb Taycan Turbo S is lighter than the Turbo, which has a gross vehicle weight of 6,349 lbs. 

Performance

 

Both the Taycan Turbo and Turbo S are incredibly quick vehicles, with the latter capable of sprinting from 0-60 mph in 2.6 seconds compared to the former’s 3.0 seconds with Launch Control. Quarter-mile times for the Turbo is estimated at 11.1 seconds and 10.8 seconds for the Taycan Turbo S with Launch Control. Top speed for both vehicles stand at 161 mph.

Range

So far, Porsche has only shared the range estimates of the Taycan from the WLTP. The Taycan Turbo S has a 388–412 km (241-256 miles) range under the WLTP standard, while the Taycan Turbo has an estimated range of 381-450 km (236.74-279.61 miles) per charge under the WLTP. EPA range estimates are yet to be released. 

Price 

The Porsche Taycan is a premium electric car, and it is priced as such. The Taycan Turbo has an MSRP of $150,900 ($153,310 at launch), while the Taycan Turbo S commands a $185,000 MSRP ($187,610 at launch). These prices are notably high, though considering Porsche’s usual demographic, the Taycan has a very good chance of finding good traction among the crowd that embraces vehicles like the Panamera and the 911.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla reveals Optimus Academy, where robots teach themselves

Tesla has begun building production quality Optimus robots in Fremont and revealed its training plan.

Published

on

By

Concept rendering of Tesla Optimus in mass production

Tesla has started building Optimus on the high volume line it set up inside its Fremont factory, and the company says the robots coming off it are the first that meet the bar for a real product. “The bots coming off this line are the first production-quality bots that we have manufactured,” Tesla wrote in its third quarter shareholder letter, adding that it has “proven that the current manufacturing process for Optimus is suitable for a commercial product.”

The line sits in space that built the Model S and Model X until this spring. Tesla cleared the old vehicle line in 46 days, as Teslarati reported in July, to make room for robot production sized for one million units a year. On Wednesday’s earnings call, Elon Musk said most of the equipment for that capacity is already in Fremont, with output set to climb toward roughly 20,000 robots a week as the line ramps.

Musk described the ramp as a classic S curve. “The growth of Optimus is an S curve, but the initial curve is a shallow slope,” he said. The team is now refining the robot’s AI, electromechanical design, reliability and service life, and Musk expects that work to be finished by the end of next year, when Tesla plans to start delivering Optimus to outside companies for dangerous, repetitive and around the clock jobs.

The most interesting part of the call was how Tesla plans to teach the robots. Its cars send real driving data back to the AI team from millions of vehicles, but Optimus has no fleet like that yet. “A big difference with Optimus versus the cars is we don’t have this vast fleet of cars from which we can gather training data,” Musk said. Tesla’s answer is an Optimus Academy, where 10,000 to 20,000 robots will practice a wide range of tasks and feed what they learn into the next version of the model. Every unit off the Fremont line becomes a source of that training data.

Smarter hardware is on the way too. Tesla plans to put its AI5 chip into Optimus next year, and Musk said a new Optimus video should arrive within one or two months showing the robot completing tasks driven by AI rather than preprogrammed motions. He took aim at rival humanoid demos that only run scripted routines, saying those would not hold up in the real world.

Advertisement
-

The supply chain is lining up behind the program. In September, Tesla certified Tuopu, Joyson and Sanhua as mass production partners for Optimus components. A far larger Optimus factory is also rising at Giga Texas, where drone footage from Joe Tegtmeyer showed the steel frame nearing completion, and Musk has pegged that plant’s long term target at 10 million robots a year.

Tesla executives also said Optimus production costs are trending toward the expected manufacturing cost of Cybercab, a sign the robot is being engineered for volume from the start. The hands remain the toughest piece of the design, a point Musk also made at the X Takeover event earlier this month, as Teslarati covered at the time, and that is where much of the current engineering effort is focused.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on

Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.

Published

on

By

Concept rendering of SpaceX Starship landing on the moon via Grok

Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.

On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”

Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”

The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.

Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.

Advertisement
-

How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.

Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.

Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas

Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk stands in profile against a clear blue sky, with a bright overhead sun shining above a vast landscape of Tesla solar panels stretching to the horizon, and a smaller Texas flag flying on a pole to his right.

Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.

The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.

The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.

Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing

Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.

Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.

The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.

Continue Reading