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. 

Advertisement

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.

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. 

Advertisement

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

ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling

ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.

Published

on

By

ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.

The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.

Additionally,  ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.

SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise

The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.

The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise

Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.

Published

on

elon-musk-jim-farley-tesla-ford

Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.

The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.

Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):

“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”

Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.

Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:

“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”

Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.

Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges

Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.

Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.

Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch

NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.

Published

on

By

NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.

Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.

Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.

SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket

Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.

The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.

The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.

Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.

The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.

Continue Reading