News
Tesla rival Porsche is starting to realize it’s not easy to produce the Taycan
Porsche recently opened reservations for the company’s first all-electric car, the Tesla Model S-rivaling Taycan (formerly known as the Mission E sedan). In an announcement earlier this month, Porsche Managing Director Alexander Pollich stated that the reception to the upcoming vehicle, whose final production version has not yet been unveiled, has so far been encouraging. Porsche expects to start producing the Taycan sometime in 2019, in order to meet what appears to be a healthy demand for the electric car.
As it turns out, ramping production of the Taycan is turning out to be a challenging task for the veteran automaker. Porsche plans to build its Taycan line at a facility located at Zuffenhausen, a suburb in Stuttgart, Germany. The site is a historic location for the pedigreed brand, considering that it is the location where the Porsche 911, one of the company’s most iconic vehicles, is being produced. Other important cars in Porsche’s lineup, such as the 718 Boxster, as well as the 718 Cayman, are also manufactured in the same facility.
Porsche is aiming to produce 20,000 Taycans per year in the Zuffenhausen site. Starting and ramping the production of the all-electric sedan requires a complex reorganization of Porsche’s facility, especially considering that the Taycan’s line has to be built while the production of the 911, 718 Boxster, and 718 Cayman is running at full capacity. In a statement to Dutch auto publication Vroom, Porsche head of production Albrecht Reimold described the difficulties facing the company.
“Finding the right location is a difficult decision. Transforming the existing factory costs a lot of money, moving to a new location as well. Transforming a factory while the production lines are running at full capacity is not an easy task,” he said.
Project manager David Thor Trygvason elaborated on the complex challenge involved in building the Taycan’s production line. According to Trygvason, the location where the Taycan’s line would be set up has to be overhauled. Apart from this, Porsche’s estimated timeline for the project is 48 months, making the project quite costly and demanding.
“The existing location has to be demolished and rebuilt in a short time, but at the same time the production of the 911 and 718 Boxster and Cayman must continue to run. That makes it not only difficult in terms of time and money, but also in terms of logistics and mobility. After all, we are in a location where there is already a factory, where other companies are nearby and where people live nearby,” he said.
Despite these difficulties, Reimold noted that Porsche employees have expressed a sincere commitment to begin the production of the Taycan as early as possible. According to the Porsche executive, the company’s workers have agreed to help finance the factory overhaul by opting to keep their pay flat until 2026, at which point the employees will start getting their investments back. This means that the employees will not have regular salary raises for the next few years.
“We have agreed with them to invest a part of their wage increase until 2025 in the construction of the new factory. From 2026, they will simply receive their investment back,” Reimold said.
Considering that Porche has dubbed the Taycan as one of the company’s most important vehicles after the iconic 911, sacrifices made to start the electric car’s production appear to be necessary, at least for now. If any, Porsche’s struggles to build the Taycan at scale mirror those that have been faced by Tesla with its Model 3 ramp. Just like Porsche’s factory, Tesla also set up its Model 3 lines in the same facility building the Model S and Model X. The aggressive ramp, which CEO Elon Musk aptly dubs as “production hell,” has been haunting the electric car maker for the past year. Ultimately, Porsche’s current difficulties with the Taycan are an indication that Tesla’s struggles with Model 3 production are not problems exclusive to the California-based electric car maker.
Building cars is not a simple task. Building cars that people want to buy is even more challenging. With car buyers and the auto market steadily shifting its interest to electric vehicles, carmakers with upcoming battery-powered cars are now feeling the pressure to roll out their offerings as quickly as they can. Being one of the legacy carmakers who has committed to releasing an electric car, this is something that Porsche appears to be experiencing now. Nevertheless, with a line of reservations that are growing longer, and with a workforce determined to make sacrifices for the company, there is a good chance that the Porsche Taycan can still make it in time for its anticipated debut next year. According to Trygvason, the work being done in Porsche’s factory might be daunting, but “the good news is that the work is still fully on schedule.”
The Porsche Taycan is expected to feature the legacy carmaker’s trademark performance, with the vehicle listed with a 0-60 mph time of 3.5 seconds, a range of 310 miles per charge, and a top speed of 155 mph.
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
