News
Top Gear doubles down on Tesla vs Porsche race, claims Model S’ actual results are worse
Top Gear‘s saga involving a drag race between the Tesla Model S Performance and the Porsche Taycan Turbo S continues to unravel, as CEO Elon Musk expressed his comments on Twitter and the motoring publication posted an update defending its results.
Following the release of a thorough analysis of the Model S vs Porsche Taycan drag race which suggested that Top Gear did not engage the Tesla’s Launch Mode and full Ludicrous Plus capabilities in the race, CEO Elon Musk took to Twitter to offer his take on the two vehicles’ bout. According to Musk, Top Gear did miss the Model S’ real performance figures, especially since the numbers published by the motoring publication were inconsistent with what regular Tesla owners have recorded on their vehicles.
Amidst criticism from the electric car community, Top Gear has issued a response explaining its Model S Performance vs Taycan Turbo S drag race results. Quite surprisingly, the motoring publication admitted that they did use Model S figures from a previous race in the Tesla vs Porsche drag battle. Even more surprisingly, Top Gear claimed that this was done in favor of the Tesla Model S Performance.
Explaining its results, Top Gear stated that the best figures recorded for the Tesla Model S Performance during its battle with the Taycan were a 0-60 mph time of 2.83 seconds, a 0-100 mph time of 6.64 seconds, and a quarter-mile time of 11.23 seconds at 123.2 mph. These figures were worse than the 0-60 mph time of 2.68 seconds, 0-100 mph time of 6.46 seconds, and quarter-mile time of 11.08 seconds at 124.0 mph listed by the publication in its comparative video.
“These were numbers we recorded in a Model S on a previous occasion. We ran them because these are the best figures we’ve achieved in a Model S to date so we know that’s what the car is capable of. And just to be clear, the Tesla was in Ludicrous+ mode, the battery was pre-conditioned and both cars had around 85 per cent charge before the first run,” Top Gear wrote.
Looking at Top Gear‘s statement and clarification, it appears that the motoring publication is suggesting that the Raven Model S Performance actually has worse capbilities than a vehicle that it used from back in 2017. This does not align with the experiences of Tesla owners at all, many of whom have reported that the Raven Model S Performance can actually outrun a Tesla Model S P100D in the quarter-mile.
Interestingly, Top Gear‘s clarification did not address the main concern expressed by the Tesla community about the Model S vs Taycan race — that the Tesla was not in Launch Mode during its drag battle with the German-made all-electric sports car. This, apart from the fact that a video of the Model S’ interior while it was racing with the Taycan showed that the vehicle’s Range Mode was activated, further clouds Top Gear‘s defense of its race.
-
Overall, it is quite disappointing to see Top Gear standing by its Tesla Model S Performance vs Porsche Taycan Turbo S drag race results. With the race practically debunked, it would not be in the Porsche Taycan’s best interests to run away with a win from the Model S at this point. The Taycan deserves a clean win, and it is something that it can actually achieve, considering its dual-speed gearbox. Simply put, it would be better for Top Gear at this point to race the two vehicles again, this time with both cars on Launch Control, and this time with an actual Raven Model S, to provide an accurate depiction of a drag race between these two excellent vehicles.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
