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.
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
