News
Porsche Taycan vs Tesla Model S: Powertrain, battery, performance, and features
The Tesla Model S has been sitting on top of the full-sized electric sedan market for a while now — and for good reason. The vehicle, after all, has played a huge part in changing the public’s perception of what electric cars are capable of. Fast, sleek, and equipped with real range, the Model S is a true no-compromises vehicle.
Among all the competitors for the Model S, there is one that is being developed to compete directly with the electric car. That is the Porsche Taycan, formerly known as the Mission E sedan. The Taycan made its debut during the 2015 Frankfurt Motor Show, and it has captured the imagination of EV enthusiasts ever since. Porsche is yet to unveil the production version of the Taycan, though it has several camouflaged units doing real-world tests today.
Porsche appears to be a legacy automaker that is really serious about making the Taycan a successful vehicle — so much so that the company actually released the car’s specs earlier this year. That said, how does the Taycan compare to the golden standard of four-door electric sedans? Here’s a brief comparison.
Powertrain
The Tesla Model S was initially released with an RWD option, though all variants of the vehicle today are now Dual Motor AWD. The Model S uses three-phase, four pole AC induction motors with copper rotors as its powertrain. The car is also equipped with a drive inverter with variable frequency drive and regenerative braking system.
In contrast, Porsche is using permanently excited synchronous motors (PSM) for the Taycan. In true Porsche tradition, the PSM motors are race-bred, having been used in the Porsche 919 Hybrid racecar. Naser Abu Daqqa, Porsche’s director of electric drive systems, notes that the coils used in the Taycan’s PSM motors are “made of wires that aren’t round, but rather rectangular, making it possible to pack the wires more tightly and get more copper into the coil machines—increasing power and torque with the same volume.”
Batteries and Charging
Tesla’s battery packs hold the standard as some of the finest in the industry. With the Model S, Tesla is using 75 kWh or 100 kWh microprocessor controlled, lithium-ion batteries. The Model S also uses 18650 cells as the components of its packs, which allow the vehicle to reach up to 315 miles per charge. The Tesla Model S is fully compatible with the ~120 kW Supercharger Network, which currently has more than 10,900 stalls worldwide.
The Porsche Taycan is set to use lithium-ion batteries as well. In a press release about the vehicle, the German legacy automaker noted that it would use 4-volt cells in the Taycan’s 800-volt battery pack. Porsche is designing the Taycan for rapid charging at speeds of up to ~350 kW through the upcoming IONITY Network, whose initial construction is underway.
The Porsche Taycan track testing at the Nurburgring.
Performance
The Tesla Model S has a reputation for being a family sedan that can humiliate supercars on the drag strip. The Model S P100D, the vehicle’s top trim, is capable of going from 0-60 mph in just 2.4 seconds with its Ludicrous Mode upgrade. The vehicle’s top speed is software-limited to 155 mph.
Porsche notes that the Taycan would have a 0-60 mph time of 3.5 seconds and a top speed of 155 mph. While this is not as quick as the top-tier Model S P100D, Porsche maintains that the Taycan would be able to handle extended track driving — an area that the Model S does not excel in. Porsche appears to be putting its foot where its mouth is with the Taycan’s track capabilities, as the vehicle has been spotted testing in the Nurburgring multiple times over the past few months.
Software
Tesla is noted for its Autopilot driver-assist system and firmware updates that add features to its vehicles. This was particularly exhibited last year when the company opted to “uncork” the 75D and 100D variants of the Model S and Model X, which lowered the vehicles’ 0-60 mph times. Tesla CEO Elon Musk also noted during the company’s Q2 2018 earnings call that Software V9 would be coming soon, which should introduce the first features of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite.
Porsche plans to feature the same system for the Taycan. In an interview with Autocar at the Geneva Motor Show, Porsche chairman Oliver Blume stated that the automaker is also looking to give the Taycan (then called the Mission E sedan) firmware upgrades that improve the car’s performance. Blume also alluded to some degree of self-driving for the vehicle, stating that “there are situations in traffic jams where you will be able to read a newspaper, but our customers take pleasure from driving and this will remain.”
Cargo Space
The Tesla Model S features a lot of space for cargo. The vehicle has a total cargo volume of 31.6 cu ft, comprised of 5.3 cu ft in the frunk, and 26.3 cu ft at the rear. With the back seats folded, the Model S features a very spacious 58.1 cu ft, which is enough to fit an inflatable twin mattress, for those times when drivers would prefer to sleep in their vehicles.
Porsche has not revealed the storage capacity of the Taycan yet, but Stefan Weckbach, the head of electric vehicles at the company, did mention that the car would have 100 liters of storage in the frunk. That’s about 3.53 cu ft, which is smaller than the Model S.
Price
The Model S 75D (the current base model) starts at $74,500, though higher trims like the supercar-slaying P100D could cost as much as $135,000. On the other hand, Porsche expects the Taycan to start at around the ~$75,000 – $85,000 range, putting it close to the price of an entry-level Panamera.
Availability
The Tesla Model S is currently available for purchase, though there are rumors that a refresh featuring an updated interior would be rolled out within the next few quarters. The Porsche Taycan, on the other hand, is expected to start production sometime in 2019, with deliveries likely hitting their stride around 2020.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
