News
Tesla Model S vs Porsche Taycan comparison finally hits the nail on the head
For the longest time, the Tesla Model S and the Porsche Taycan have been compared in a manner that one would not necessarily be considered completely fair. Some would focus on the badge and build quality and automatically give the win to Porsche, while some would focus on tech and driver-assist features and give the win automatically to Tesla. But giving the crown of the best luxury EV on the market today is no joke, and comparing these two vehicles requires a deep dive.
This is something that Roadshow was actually able to accomplish recently. In a video shared on its YouTube channel, the motoring publication compared the Model S and the Taycan on five fronts: Range and Charging, Acceleration, Handling, Design, and Price and Value. Using this metric, the publication was able to reach a result that is actually very fair to both vehicles.
First up is range and charging, and in this sense, there is really no contest. Tesla’s years of work on battery research has paid off in spades, and this is shown by the Model S’ nearly 400-mile range. The Supercharger Network is icing on the cake, providing the Model S with a convenient way to charge its batteries during road trips. The Taycan has a tendency to exceed its EPA range figures, and it’s supported by a vast charging network too. But compared to Tesla’s raw range and Supercharger Network, the gap is simply too big. One win for Tesla.
Acceleration is something that both vehicles excel at. In this sense, Roadshow noted that the top-tier versions of the two premium EVs, the Model S Performance and the Taycan Turbo S, are both insanely quick. The Taycan Turbo S is rated by Porsche with a 0-60 time of 2.6 seconds, but tests from publications have recorded the vehicle hitting 2.4 seconds instead. This was originally faster than the Model S Performance’s 2.5 seconds, but after Tesla’s Cheetah Stance Launch Mode update, the flagship sedan could now hit 60 mph in 2.3 seconds instead. That’s another win for Tesla, but only just.
Things change when handling is discussed. While both are large vehicles, Roadshow noted that the Taycan simply feels much better to throw around corners. This is where Porsche’s pedigree comes to light as a veteran sports car maker, since the Taycan simply feels a lot lighter than its over 5,000-pound weight. The Model S Performance handles great too, but when thrown into the same corners at the same speed as the Taycan, the Tesla’s large size simply becomes more evident. The Taycan wins this round.
Design is also something that was given to the Porsche. After all, the Model S has pretty much retained its design since its first iteration that was rolled out eight years ago. Save for a facelift, the Model S is still the same car that broke barriers back in 2012. Thus, the Taycan simply feels much newer and more fresh in this sense. The fact that the Taycan’s interior is filled to the brim with premium materials worthy of its price also adds to its edge against the Tesla Model S.
But when it comes to the price and value of the two vehicles, it is difficult not to be impressed by the Tesla Model S. Roadshow opted to compare the Taycan 4S and the Model S Long Range, which are the more conservatively priced and specced versions of the two cars. But even then, a fully loaded Model S Long Range is still cheaper than a Taycan 4S that is so basic, it doesn’t even have adaptive cruise control. This, ultimately, proves that eight years on, Tesla’s flagship sedan still has a lot of fight left in it, and it’s not about to give up its crown easily either.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
