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.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space
SpaceX’s secret disk-shaped Starfall capsule is targeting a market no reentry vehicle has cracked.
SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, June 23 for the first flight of Starfall, a reentry capsule the company has developed almost entirely in private. The Falcon 9 launch window opens at 6:43 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available the same time on June 24. SpaceX has made no public announcement about the vehicle, only providing launch details. Everything known about it has come through FAA and FCC regulatory filings.
What makes Starfall different starts with its shape. Rather than the traditional cone used by Dragon and every other cargo return capsule in operation, Starfall is a flat disk that measures roughly 10.2 feet (3.1 meters) wide and just 2.5 feet (0.75 meters) tall, and weighing 4,630 pounds (2,100 kg) and capable of returning up to 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of payload from orbit. The disk geometry maximizes structural efficiency and payload volume relative to mass, and the heat shield mechanically jettisons just before splashdown, allowing recovery teams to retrieve both the capsule and the shield separately from the Pacific Ocean.
The difference with Starfall from existing competitors, such as Varda Space Industries, which has largely built the orbital manufacturing market and returns heavy payloads per flight is that Starfall’s specification is roughly 30 times more per mission, and is designed to be mass-produced and launched on either Falcon 9 or Starship. That combination of volume and launch access is something no standalone startup can replicate, and it puts SpaceX in direct competition with the companies that currently pay it to reach orbit.
SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract
The intended market is orbital manufacturing: pharmaceuticals, protein crystals, semiconductors, and advanced optical fiber that physically cannot be produced in the presence of gravity. FAA documents describe Starfall’s long-term purpose as building a “self-sustaining commercial in-space manufacturing market” and as a potential successor to the industrial capabilities of the International Space Station, which is set to retire in the late 2020s. Military rapid global cargo delivery is a parallel application under active discussion with the Pentagon.
The reason some industries seek manufacturing in space comes down to gravity. On Earth, gravity causes materials to settle, separate, and deform during production. In microgravity, those constraints disappear.
SpaceX’s already controls launch access, which means it currently functions as the landlord for every competitor in the orbital manufacturing return space. Starfall converts that landlord position into vertical ownership, and it would no longer just carry other companies’ capsules to orbit, but rather operate the capsule, own the return logistics, and capture the service revenue directly. Viewed alongside Starlink, Colossus, and the xAI merger, Starfall fits a consistent pattern: SpaceX identifying infrastructure layers that others depend on and moving to own them outright. Orbital manufacturing return is the next layer on that list.
If Tuesday’s reentry, parachute sequence, and recovery demonstration goes as planned, the second FAA-approved test flight follows. A successful pair of demos would position SpaceX to begin offering Starfall as a commercial service, likely first to pharmaceutical and materials science customers before scaling toward the military and broader manufacturing segments.
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD: here’s what it is
