Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Porsche Taycan Vs Model S

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Awesome. Be sure to post some pictures with all the relevant details showing these results. I'm still a bit curious about the real-world range of the Porsche. I assume you mean you made it 200 miles without stopping to charge, not 400 miles. How many hours was the drive? Average speed & full speed profile vs. time? Average efficiency? How much range did you start with and how much did you end with? How many kWh did you consume? Very curious about all these details, for sure.

It does seem really great, there are a lot of reports of more than rated range from the Porsche, which I find interesting.



Reports like this. I am very curious about more detailed information of such achievements. It's not surprising to me at all that the Porsche makes the rated range while the Tesla doesn't, but the results far in excess of the rated range are intriguing, and I'm curious about where the differences come from, and what is the actual Wh/mi achieved on such journeys (so we can directly compare efficiencies).

I think it's great that the Porsche is producing good real-world results.

Why am I surprised by the exceeding of the EPA results? Because I'd generally expect any EV to do a bit worse than the EPA results, and it's not obvious to me where Porsche is sand-bagging...did they go pessimistic on their dyno coefficients during the tests? Or what... It certainly is possible to pick some really high drag coefficients and end up with a much lower range result on EPA testing. Maybe this is what they did? Or maybe it is it the two-speed transmission giving better high-speed efficiency?

I think the best place to start, though, is to look at real-world realized Wh/mi (including all the details on the specific trip segment) on the Porsche. Very curious how it compares for a specific drive at a specific speed (that way it can be plugged into ABRP to get a decent estimate of how a Tesla would do on the same journey...I suppose this could be done in ABRP directly without any real-world data, comparing a Porsche and a Tesla, of course...but I guess I am looking for ground-truthed Porsche data here as point one of the comparison).

For road trips, in the end it's the Wh/mi that matters, and the rate and availability of charging.

Alan:

Understand your skepticism. Not sure if you've read up, but there are two ways to do the EPA test. Jason Fenske explains it well.


Basically, Porsche does the two mode test and then de-rates that range by 30%.

Here is a post by a friend of mine detailing a road trip in his Taycan Turbo. He states he doesn't recall his exact Wh/mile (which is honestly surprising for him, lol) however he said he was sure it was below 333 and above 300. He did 221 miles on 84% SOC. and 239 miles using 89% SOC on the return trip. Lots of otherwise good data for you here:


Here's another trip with data, somewhat "hypermiling" it in range mode. Yield of 202 miles using 79% SOC, car estimating range of 78 remaining miles. It's worth reading the full post to get the data on the second "spirited" leg of the trip as well as his charging curve - maintaining 150 kW up to 70%!!!


For background, Dave has owned 5 Teslas, plus he currently owns a Bolt and also owned a Focus EV, I believe. You can tell he likes data too. ;) In short, here is a "real" person who has no hatred of Tesla posting real world results that corroborate dozens of videos on YouTube / Edmunds results, etc.

I have a theory of why Tesla struggles on a long road trip, and why the Taycan (and some others) don't. It could be nothing, but here it is.

This whole situation of the Porsche massively out-performing the EPA range has bugged the crap out of me since it because well known / accepted. So I sought to understand the real detail. I got a hold of the EPA's testing protocol and read it. I actually at one point had a copy of the SAE J1634 acceleration curves but can't seem to find the document (you can download from SAE but it's $85). So here's my theory. My theory is that Tesla has very, very, VERY little mechanical drag. I mean, I've put the car in Neutral and watched it coast on relatively flat roads in Texas and quite frankly, it's astonishing how far the thing goes. We all know (and appreciate) the lengths Tesla has gone in order to reduce mechanical drag / drivetrain loss to an absolute minimum.

The EPA test, like all other EPA tests, is done on a dyno. It's done with a fixed set of speeds and the top speed is not all that high, even on the highway portion of the test. Here is a link to the EPA's test and the standards they use.


Given the fact that the test is run on a dyno, the EPA test cannot accurately predict aero load. Instead the speed / time curve as defined in the SAE J1634 Standard gives an acceleration / deceleration run that attempts to approximate how the vehicle will act in the real world. And therein lies the problem. This SAE J1634 standard is the same standard used for ICE cars. It is not meant to deal with a car with hyper-low mechanical losses as compared to aero losses. As is known, aero drag increases at the square of speed. So on the highway, a car like the Tesla that has very, very low mechanical losses is going to see a significant portion of it's energy used to overcome wind resistance. Whereas something like a Taycan will be a bit more balanced. The low speed consumption will be higher than Tesla, but as a percentage of energy used, the high speed drag consumption is lower.

Quite simply, the SAE J1634 standard used is not a suitable test for a Tesla. When someone does a "range test" on an EV, they drive it at highways speeds for long, continual distances. No one does a "range test" by simulating in-town driving. It would take too long and would be annoying. But that's where the Tesla shines, and it can meet it's EPA "rated range".

One other thing to consider, is that the Taycan has a range mode. That range mode is not the default mode for the vehicle. Therefore the Taycan is ineligible to be tested using range mode.

Combine those two things, and to me, it's pretty clear to see why the Taycan can smoke it's range on the highway in range mode, whereas the Tesla falls down.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the links. I am not skeptical at any of the Taycan reports at this point, I just wanted to know what the exact datapoints were for efficiency. The EE video is helpful and covers most of what I know, but doesn’t *directly* answer the key question. (It does allude to it though, so it is very )
Porsche does the two mode test and then de-rates that range by 30%.

For Model 3, until 2021, so did Tesla (although now they de-rate the Model 3 by only 25% rather than about 30%). They did 5-cycle but got 0.7032, or about 0.7.

Anyway, they do the 5-cycle in order to apply a scalar to the 2-cycle. It’s relatively straightforward stuff.

And since for Model 3 before 2021 it was 0.7, this factor isn’t relevant for that specific comparison (it is different for Model S of course).

, the EPA test cannot accurately predict aero load

That I do not think is quite the right conclusion.

The dyno uses a static, linear, and quadratic term to model the vehicle characteristics. As the video shows. These can be made accurate enough by the manufacturer to reasonably predict aero loads, in my opinion. It’s not an issue at all for accuracy AFAIK.

There is a real danger of massive fines if these are made too optimistic, but I don’t think there is anything stopping them from being sand-bagged.

But the EE video covered these equations. You can see them and he doesn’t explicitly cover it but it kind of shows the “why”.” You can see the constant and linear coefficients for the Porsche are quite high, so it means less of a percentage penalty at high speeds for the Porsche. But it is worse for the Porsche still for these factors to be worse. The side effect, though, is that the Tesla does better at EPA speeds relative to highway speeds than the Porsche. (But to be clear the Tesla still does better than the Porsche at highway speeds even though the Porsche is doing better relative to EPA at those speeds.)

Specifically, compare values at 25mph vs 75mph for each vehicle:

The Porsche goes from 70lbf to 160lbf. (128% increase)
The Tesla goes from 50lbf to 130lbf (a 160% increase).
B5B1867C-C03D-4254-A446-096D3C6B09B5.jpeg


So, the EPA test is capturing these results fine. It’s just that at freeway speeds the relative deviation in efficiency from EPA speeds can be quite different. Note that the Tesla still has superior aero characteristics (quadratic term is smaller), but because the baseline rolling resistance is lower the decrease in range from EPA results is larger. Just look at the % values above (this is an extreme case, should probably pick a comparison speed above 25, probably closer to 35 would be better, but you get the idea and the % difference would still apply to some extent). Note the Tesla has better efficiency in both cases.

Perhaps this is what you meant, but just wanted to clarify that the EPA is capturing the aero model just fine.

As far as I am concerned that phenomenon described above is likely the reason for the observed behavior. And maybe the range mode you mention too - that could be a big factor but users could comment on how big a difference that is, or not use range mode, to take that out of the picture.

Still, there is a small lingering question in my mind about whether Porsche actually used their stated rolldown coefficients for their dyno testing. It still seems to me they might have made that dyno a little harder to turn than stated (see the video above for example...I am just not sure whether that 360 mile result can really be explained just by the % argument...would have to run the numbers and watch the video details). There is no penalty for this and I am not sure we will ever know (I am not sure the EE video is right about the EPA testing the Porsches and that being the sole reason for the voluntary reduction).

But mostly I consider this explained.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that. And you're correct, I was referring to relative differences not absolute. Thanks for further discussion about the aero. I probably need to re-watch the EE video to get a better feel for it.

In any event, curious.

My biggest trigger on this was that literally the same day (or maybe the day after) the EPA range for the Taycan Turbo was announced, Porsche revealed that it had commissioned AMCI to do "independent testing" in order to determine "real world" ranges for the Taycan Turbo:


Subsequently, it looks like this has been applied to all Taycan's (I haven't looked at AMCI's website since the end of 2019)


Porsche knew the EPA range would suck, and that it would hurt them. So they had already cooked up a counterpoint. One that has been corroborated multiple times over. Interesting, thought me.

Actually I lied. The first data point that made me sit up and go "huh?" was a Porsche press drive from Niagra Fallas to NYC, in which the Taycan did a 250 mile leg in "rain" and "real world traffic" between charges. Reportedly the guess-o-meter was still giving a remaining range of 39 miles left at that point.


After that, the EPA range SQUARELY fell into "whatchoo talkin bout Willis" territory. So I really wanted to understand better.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
For road trips, in the end it's the Wh/mi that matters, and the rate and availability of charging.
bingo, as long as you know that there will be a working charger down the road wh/miles and range are irrelevant.
back in the early days of tesla ownership when there were probably less than a quarter of the supercharger locations than there are now range and wh/miles were a big part of planning road trips, these days on most of the major cross country routes the fast chargers are well spaced, only when you start to get into the "backcountry" do you need to focus on range and wh/miles.

as for the debate on the testing methods who cares? the more tech orientated guys can have their arguments.
my real world experiences are that when driving a porsche taycan at normal interstate speeds, 75 mph, your range will not deviate very much while in my model 3 or model S the range would be at least 20% less than if you drove at slower speeds.
you can argue how the numbers are derived all day long but the fact is that the taycan will deliver longer ranges in the real world, assuming normal conditions of decent weather and excluding massive elevation changes.
 
Last edited:
but the fact is that the taycan will deliver longer ranges in the real world, assuming normal conditions of decent weather and excluding massive elevation changes.
Yes, probably true depending on the comparison (certainly true relative to Model 3 I suspect), but the real, more relevant question though, which is what I was alluding to, is: is it faster for trips?

What is your typical wh/mi in the Taycan for 80mph? Have you had good success getting 350kW charging for your road trips? When does the taper start?

How many hours would it take to drive 1100 miles in a day (say San Diego to Portland - a relevant day trip for me)?
 
Last edited:
Yes, probably true depending on the comparison (certainly true relative to Model 3 I suspect), but the real, more relevant question though, which is what I was alluding to, is: is it faster for trips?

yes the trips should be faster because the charging is faster, if you know how to drive the bottom of the battery the stops are sub 20 minutes.
the tapering is dependent the heat of the battery, warmer is better, and on SOC, about 80+ it will slow,

I've seen 245% kw going in on a 350 unit. there are many 350 units out there, visit the EA site and look at their map, it resembles the tesla map of a few years ago.

the taycan can charge faster and runs more efficiently at higher speeds than the tesla does, you do not take a hit for going 75-80 mph like you do in the tesla.

I have only taken two trips in my taycan and I did experience trouble at one EA charger but I place the blame on the porsche charging app that hung and was misconfigured, it was my first trip and I learned from the experience.
the tesla with the plug and charge is easier to get the charge going, the taycan is supposed to have plug and charge but in order to take advantage of the free charging it has to be initiated via the porsche app.

the EA network is improving their reliability and while you will run into a place where 1 unit is off line or delivering slow speeds the other units are operating.

I've also run into slow tesla superchargers and tesla does throttle speeds for people they decide supercharge too much, I would never seem to get more than 90 kw supercharging.

I just plotted a 1k mile trip and it came out to almost 22 hours. that same trip in an ICE is about 20+hours.

I rarely will go more than 600 miles per day anyway.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
yes the trips should be faster because the charging is faster, if you know how to drive the bottom of the battery the stops are sub 20 minutes.
the tapering is dependent the heat of the battery, warmer is better, and on SOC, about 80+ it will slow,

I've seen 245% kw going in on a 350 unit. the taycan can charge faster and runs more efficiently at higher speeds than the tesla does, you do not take a hit for going 75-80 mph like you do in the tesla.

I have only taken two trips in my taycan and I did experience trouble at one EA charger but I place the blame on the porsche charging app that hung and was misconfigured, it was my first trip and I learned from the experience.
the tesla with the plug and charge is easier to get the charge going, the taycan is supposed to have plug and charge but in order to take advantage of the free charging it has to be initiated via the porsche app.

the EA network is improving their reliability and while you will run into a place where 1 unit is off line or delivering slow speeds the other units are operating.

I've also run into slow tesla superchargers and tesla does throttle speeds for people they decide supercharge too much, I would never seem to get more than 90 kw supercharging.

I just plotted a 1k mile trip and it came out to almost 22 hours. that same trip in an ICE is about 20+hours.

I rarely will go more than 600 miles per day anyway.
Regarding the efficiency at high speeds, I guess that's the question I was looking to answer - still no solid data or even a datapoint there. The aero data model shows the resisting force for Model S is lower at high speeds, but that doesn't say anything about the drivetrain efficiency at those speeds.

The EA experience sounds about as I would expect, for now. Let me know if you ever make note of your efficiency at a steady speed of 80mph or so (I see about 290-300Wh/mi at that speed in a Model 3 Performance with non-OEM tires, very roughly). Just would be an interesting datapoint. One of the links above for the Taycan shows 300Wh/mi at an average speed of 54mph, so I'm curious how it would be at 80mph. Obviously that's key for trip time (in combination with charge rate & taper).

I've done that 1100-mile trip in 18.75 hours in the Model 3 (57mph average speed including stops, 30 minutes for a nap at the final stop, otherwise it could have been about 18.25 hours). I consistently got 250kW charging where it was available (about 1/3 of the stops). ABRP says the Tesla Model 3 is slightly faster (about 30-45 minutes faster at 17hours 40 min) than the Porsche for that journey, but it's just a model, and that's assuming 350kW is achieved at the chargers, and as you can see it's not quite correct for the Tesla either (it's a bit optimistic in fact). If you don't hit 350kW that's going to hurt the Taycan a lot - but ABRPs model for the Taycan consumption could also be completely wrong - hence, real-world data needed.

So again was just curious about the real-world data.
 
Regarding the efficiency at high speeds, I guess that's the question I was looking to answer - still no solid data or even a datapoint there. The aero data model shows the resisting force for Model S is lower at high speeds, but that doesn't say anything about the drivetrain efficiency at those speeds.

The EA experience sounds about as I would expect, for now. Let me know if you ever make note of your efficiency at a steady speed of 80mph or so (I see about 290-300Wh/mi at that speed in a Performance with non-OEM tires, very roughly). Just would be an interesting datapoint. One of the links above for the Taycan shows 300Wh/mi at an average speed of 54mph, so I'm curious how it would be at 80mph. Obviously that's key for trip time (in combination with charge rate & taper).

I've done that 1100-mile trip in 18.75 hours in the Model 3 (57mph average speed including stops, 30 minutes for a nap at the final stop, otherwise it could have been about 18.25 hours).
my driving for the trip I plotted is fla to long island via I 95 which is far more traffic congested than your
I 5 trip. so that accounts for the slower speeds, also speed limits are lower on a big portion of the trip.
as for wh/miles I really never watch them. the point I am making is that when driving the model 3 at higher speeds you will get maybe 240-50 miles range, when you drive the taycan you will get similar range but the tesla claims to get 310 miles of range, the tesla cannot deliver the long ranges at highway speeds that they promote. the taycan doesn't take as big of a range hit when driving at highway speeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BooMan
The EA experience sounds about as I would expect, for now.
I don't know if it's a car issue (e-tron) or charger issue, but my sessions have been EXTREMELY hit or miss with EA. I've experienced so many different types of errors, and even had the car fault-out during a charge on several occasions. DCFC is very much a beta experience for the time being.
Tesla really did amazing work with the Superchargers and initiation protocols. I never had to move my car around 3-4 times on the regular just to get a decent rate or initiate. It goes to show how important software is to the quality of the experience.

That said --- I would still go for a Taycan. My bet is the EA network reliability will improve.
 
when driving the model 3 at higher speeds you will get maybe 240-50 miles range, when you drive the taycan you will get similar range but the tesla claims to get 310 miles of range, the tesla cannot deliver the long ranges at highway speeds that they promote. the taycan doesn't take as big of a range hit when driving at highway speeds.
Yeah, I understand that and I agree with it (hence the long speculative discussion above). That information is just not directly applicable to travel time, that's all I'm saying. Obviously it depends on the planned trip length, though! If you're planning trips of just 250 miles, the Porsche seems like it could be far superior, since it could make it without stopping (pending information on freeway-speed Wh/mi), maybe (the exact distance where that is the deciding factor is unclear)!

my driving for the trip I plotted is fla to long island via I 95 which is far more traffic congested than your
I 5 trip. so that accounts for the slower speeds, also speed limits are lower on a big portion of the trip.
Yeah, like I said, ABRP claims the Model 3 is a bit faster than the Taycan for the trip I quoted, but the accuracy of the estimate is dependent on 350kW charging, and the models for the vehicles being appropriate & correct.
 
my driving for the trip I plotted is fla to long island via I 95 which is far more traffic congested than your
I 5 trip. so that accounts for the slower speeds, also speed limits are lower on a big portion of the trip.
as for wh/miles I really never watch them. the point I am making is that when driving the model 3 at higher speeds you will get maybe 240-50 miles range, when you drive the taycan you will get similar range but the tesla claims to get 310 miles of range, the tesla cannot deliver the long ranges at highway speeds that they promote. the taycan doesn't take as big of a range hit when driving at highway speeds.

Driving at full highway speed, I would get barely 220 miles in my Model 3 performance. This is based on about 30% 65 limit driven at 72, and 70% 75 limit driven at 79/80. That average is 305 - 315 Wh/mile. I do this trip regularly.

Seems like from all involved, the Taycan would have no problem exceeding this even at those high speeds. And may even allow me to pump the speed in the 75 zone to 84. If I did that in the Tesla I'd get hammered on range. Although I do admit driving in the 75 zone with the speed set at 80 renders my radar detector redundant since no DPS officer is going to pull me over going 5 over on the highway.
 
This is based on about 30% 65 limit driven at 72, and 70% 75 limit driven at 79/80. That average is 305 - 315 Wh/mile. I do this trip regularly.
Yeah that's about what I would expect with the PS4S. The Crossclimates I have used seem to do ever so slightly better; like I said, about 300Wh/mi for that type of speed. Obviously depends on other factors like temperature (hot, about 90-100 degrees is usually good for thinning out the air!), etc., but ballpark that's what you're looking at, at those speeds. And 315Wh/mi would give you 235 miles (uncomfortably) or 225 miles (comfortably) - assuming no capacity loss, which is not a good assumption.

Just to close the loop, from a quick jump around the video above, Bjorn got 330Wh/mi at an average speed of 71mph (I know he was going 75mph but I'm looking at averages here for consistency), so I suspect at 80mph it's probably closer to 350Wh/mi at a steady speed of 80mph.

So, seems like apples-to-apples it is something like 86kWh (it says 83.7 usable but apparently it's higher than that) divided by 350Wh/mi so about 246mi.

And with 350kW charging with 350Wh/mi consumption (1000 miles/hr), compared to 250kW charging with 300Wh/mi consumption (833 miles/hr), the Taycan theoretically should be able to road trip faster. But obviously highly dependent on those chargers hitting 350kW every single time, and the characteristics of the taper (Bjorn was getting 262kW at 37% - that's pretty decent...the Tesla would be around 200-210kW there - but not sure if he was at 350kW for the critical 5% to 30% region).
 
Last edited:
And with 350kW charging with 350Wh/mi consumption (1000 miles/hr), compared to 250kW charging with 300Wh/mi consumption (833 miles/hr), the Taycan theoretically should be able to road trip faster. But obviously highly dependent on those chargers hitting 350kW every single time, and the characteristics of the taper (Bjorn was getting 262kW at 37% - that's pretty decent...the Tesla would be around 200-210kW there - but not sure if he was at 350kW for the critical 5% to 30% region).
Timed out on this, but anyway, it's obviously pretty complicated as the 800V means that the Taycan doesn't charge at 350kW for a while, probably, etc. etc. In the end what matters is the average charge rate from 5% to 60% or so.

This specific situation shows they took about the same amount of time to get to 60%. So that means the Taycan 93kWh was adding energy about 16% faster (86kWh/74kWh, the ratio of the usable capacities, since we're looking at equal %). So with 16% higher energy use, it's about a tie.

 
Last edited:
And with 350kW charging with 350Wh/mi consumption (1000 miles/hr), compared to 250kW charging with 300Wh/mi consumption (833 miles/hr), the Taycan theoretically should be able to road trip faster. But obviously highly dependent on those chargers hitting 350kW every single time
Porsche advocates will argue till they're blue in the face that Porsche never technically promised 350 kW for the Taycan--it was only the Mission-e concept car that was promised to have 350 kW charging. 🙄 You probably remember the 350 kW number because Porsche made a big deal about it in press releases, and Taycan is clearly a derivative of Mission-e.

I hear so much about Porsche under-promising and over-delivering. I consider this is an example of the opposite, but some people are very selective about what they consider "promises". Teslas having too much range left at "0 miles remaining" is apparently not an example of over-delivering, for example.

Anyway, enough ranting, back to the point: The current Taycan never achieves 350 kW in the real word because it is limited, per spec, to a peak 270 kW for the 2020 and 2021 model years. The 2021 model year introduces a "feature" allowing owners to further reduce the charge rate to 200 kW to protect the battery. I suspect Porsche's internal accelerated life testing revealed some unpleasant statistics for their warranty reserve.

I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of lying about the 270 kW and 200 kW charging rates. So here it is, straight from the horse's mouth: Continuous updates for Porsche’s first electric sports car
 
Porsche advocates will argue till they're blue in the face that Porsche never technically promised 350 kW for the Taycan--it was only the Mission-e concept car that was promised to have 350 kW charging. 🙄 You probably remember the 350 kW number because Porsche made a big deal about it in press releases, and Taycan is clearly a derivative of Mission-e.

I hear so much about Porsche under-promising and over-delivering. I consider this is an example of the opposite, but some people are very selective about what they consider "promises". Teslas having too much range left at "0 miles remaining" is apparently not an example of over-delivering, for example.

Anyway, enough ranting, back to the point: The current Taycan never achieves 350 kW in the real word because it is limited, per spec, to a peak 270 kW for the 2020 and 2021 model years. The 2021 model year introduces a "feature" allowing owners to further reduce the charge rate to 200 kW to protect the battery. I suspect Porsche's internal accelerated life testing revealed some unpleasant statistics for their warranty reserve.

I'm sure someone is going to accuse me of lying about the 270 kW and 200 kW charging rates. So here it is, straight from the horse's mouth: Continuous updates for Porsche’s first electric sports car
Thanks. So that means that the two vehicles (Model 3 and Taycan 4S) are probably about on par for a road trip. In the end, as I mentioned above, the peak rate is important but not extremely important. Need to know the time it takes to charge from ~5% to ~60-70%.

In the end those values seem similar and coincidentally the ratio of battery capacities seems similar to the ratio of efficiencies at freeway speeds, so that puts them on par.

I’m actually pretty impressed by the Porsche. It has energy costs 16% higher than the Model 3 but it really is pretty efficient for its size and weight.

Of course, if the Electrify America network is failing you all the time, that could make for a pretty long and annoying road trip. That seems like currently the main obstacle, and I do hope this network gets bigger and more reliable over time. And I hope that Tesla eventually provides an adapter - will be useful some of the time in certain special scenarios, I think.
 
Thanks. So that means that the two vehicles (Model 3 and Taycan 4S) are probably about on par for a road trip. In the end, as I mentioned above, the peak rate is important but not extremely important. Need to know the time it takes to charge from ~5% to ~60-70%.
as previously noted the taycan will go from 5% to 80% in less than 25 minutes on a 350kw unit.
the model 3 is a fast sedan, the taycan is a true sports car. if the driving dynamics offered by the taycan isn't of interest a lot of money could be saved by buying a model 3. traditionally porsches over the years are bought by people who are willing to pay a premium price for what the porsche offers
 
as previously noted the taycan will go from 5% to 80% in less than 25 minutes on a 350kw unit.
the model 3 is a fast sedan, the taycan is a true sports car. if the driving dynamics offered by the taycan isn't of interest a lot of money could be saved by buying a model 3. traditionally porsches over the years are bought by people who are willing to pay a premium price for what the porsche offers

Sure, agreed as posted it looks like about the same as Model 3 to 60/70%. (Though probably Porsche does better to 80% - check the linked video above.) To 80% is not very important, since no one charges to that level if you want to go anywhere fast. And the charging is getting very slow at that point anyway (25 minutes is a long charging stop in a Model 3 with 250kW charging - you would not normally do that unless stopping for biological reasons).

And currently it is likely much easier to do long distance travel in any Tesla. As long as you don’t travel on a busy holiday. Probably the key area where Tesla has a clear edge at the moment.

Hopefully for Porsche owners that issue will be resolved soon. (Because that network is key for supporting all the other EVs as well!!!)

The Porsche seems pretty awesome. Just need a good reliable charging network with adequate capacity.
 
Last edited:
traditionally porsches over the years are bought by people who are willing to pay a premium price for what the porsche offers
To be honest - quite a few people pay Porsche money for the plain ol' "status" of owning a Porsche. I know quite a few of those type of owners. I'm not trying to be argumentative - just my observation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill Price
I hear so much about Porsche under-promising and over-delivering. I consider this is an example of the opposite, but some people are very selective about what they consider "promises". Teslas having too much range left at "0 miles remaining" is apparently not an example of over-delivering, for example.
There's a lot of stuff Porsche and Audi way under-deliver on with the EVs. Namely, the software. It's a mess for that price point.

Teslas also WAY under-deliver on range. You shouldn't have to drive 25 miles past 0% to hit the promised range. If it were extra buffer that they didn't promise, then that would be over-delivering. Other cars hit EPA range with ease.