Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Porsche Taycan [video] (fullycharged.show)
132 points by evo_9 72 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 164 comments

Glad to see competition finally coming around.

That said I still wonder if they're holding back here to not cannibalize other lines. The 0-60 in the 3.5s range is over a full second off Tesla's best and for a performance brand seems like you want to be more in line with Tesla.

They’re also stressing repeatability of 0-60 acceleration where Tesla reports 0-60 on nearly full batteries.

The Model3 performance consistency is better than the model s because they improved the cooling system but performance drops off quickly after a couple of runs.

I expect the Porsche to deliver consistent performance because that’s what they’ve been talking about for the last 3 years. Specifically, the referred to “ludicrous mode” as a party trick.

Also Porsche are fairly well known for being very conservative with their published 0-60/62 numbers.

The reason for this is Porsche's 0-60/0-62 times are intended to be reproduced in less than ideal conditions, and with great repeat-ability

For example, 105F/40C air temps on a concrete surface (low-friction) with some amount of sand. Or 15F/-10C on a concrete surface.

And you can do that back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back... for an hour (with say 50 standing starts), non-stop. You'll see little variation in the result, and the car won't throw up its hands and say the party's over until it takes a rest.

That's a a big difference from the Model S which doesn't allow launch control unless the batteries are in a specific temperature window (which is about 20C wide), in which it must prep (warm up or cool down) before it's ready go, or to go again. A prep that is usually measured in minutes, unless you happened to already be in that window.

The Model 3s thermal management and cooling system is a huge step up from the Model S and Y, but Porsche (especially as you step further up a model line into the high end stuff) is probably THE brand known to go out on a track and stay out there longer than nearly any other brand before it needs to come in and cool down a bit. They're rather notorious for still under engineering and overbuilding their powertrains and braking systems, and a lot of tech trickling down from their motorsport efforts.

>Porsche (especially as you step further up a model line into the high end stuff) is probably THE brand known to go out on a track and stay out there longer

not without the mods https://www.sharkwerks.com/tech-articles/the-gt1-coolant-pip... note those are all performance models intended for racing/track day use, shipped with factory deficiency. Race tracks actually have a special rule for Porsche and will turn you back/fine you heavily if you bring unmodified car and break down.

There was even NHTSA investigation, but Porsche weaseled out claiming this defect doesnt manifest during "normal" aka road use and even if it did coolant lines are behind rear wheels so catastrophic failure wont influence stopping ability .... https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2007/PORSCHE/911/2%252520DR/RW... "31 Affected Products"

Funnily enough Panameras and Cayennes have same glued lines, directly above front wheels, and Porsche will happily fix this for you at $2000 a pop, again optionally because car not intended for track use.

> And you can do that back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back... for an hour (with say 50 standing starts), non-stop. You'll see little variation in the result, and the car won't throw up its hands and say the party's over until it takes a rest.

Funny you say that, Road & Track did exactly that in 2014 with a Porsche 911 Turbo[1] and they were able to do 61 back-to-back launches.


How far do the Teslas fall in terms of seconds when you accelerate over and over again?

Otherwise very cool that Porsche has achieved this!

This article [0] talks about the acceleration performance of the latest Model S P100D variant at different states of battery charge. Bottom line is that unless the battery is under 10% it is faster than the Taycan.

All the stories about the S "overheating" seem to be talking about the older model or this article [1] about how a heavily modified S over heated at a race track. Porsche has to emphasize reputability because it's all they got. I mean they designed an electric sports car that is getting beat by Tesla's family sedan.

There is also the issue of how long the car can maintain it's top speed w/o overheating but I'm not sure Porsche is making any claims about that here and that's an issue with any car gas or electric.

[0] https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/videos/...

[1] https://en.cartests.net/2018/07/05/racing-tesla-p100dl-is-gr...

I don't think it's cool.

Look at it this way. A full battery with the highest possible voltage can deliver its highest possible amperage. Once the state of charge has dropped just a bit, and therefore pack voltage drops just a bit, the theoretical amperage that pack can deliver drops.

A P100D does it's crazy 2.4s run on a 100% SoC battery. Let the battery cool and try it again, and you'll get your 2.5s run. Let the battery cool and try it again, and you'll get your 2.6s run. Etc. etc.

IN OTHER WORDS... the Tesla motors and traction control are able to take advantage of everything the battery pack can possibly deliver. So as the pack voltage degrades, so does performance.

Since the Taycan can deliver max performance runs on a 90% SoC battery the same it can on a 100% SoC battery... that means that the motors and traction control can not take full advantage of everything the battery pack can deliver.

OR, it means Porsche literally is limiting the acceleration performance of the car in software.

Either way, Tesla wins.

Yeah, but I usually don't want to accelerate 10 times, but only once in a while (e. g. after a red light). It is totally useless, but great fun in Tesla.

A Porsche like this is going to be built with motorsport in mind. So you expect to buy your Porsche and be able to srive around on the streets but also take it to a local track day. In that context, it needs to perform consistently lap after lap else you can't compare and improve your driving and the whole experience is just a bit deflated.

Yes, true, but it does cheapen the experience when you learn don't really have a high performance car after the first couple of laps.

I think his point is that the vast majority of these cars never see a track. They're commuter vehicles that will use Ludacris Mode or Launch Control as a party trick once in a while. To these people claiming repeatability is an excuse like saying you need to stretch or weren't ready.

If you try to drive a Tesla Model S like a performance car it just overheats:



Here's a Model S losing to a Nissan Leaf over 14 laps:


Porsche doesn't want to be in line with that.

Oops, you've accidentally presented hard facts criticizing Tesla in a tech forum and have been summarily downvoted!

Tesla's ludicrous launch is a party trick. It produces a number to prop up a marketing blurb. "Fastest production car ever!" Tesla has been doing the same sort of thing with "Safest car ever!" to the point that NHTSA recently sent Tesla a cease-and-desist letter over misleading statements about the Model 3′s safety rating.

The devil really is in the details though. A properly engineered drivetrain will be able to sustain its launches over several back-to-back activations. This is precisely what the Porsche team has accomplished. The machines they ship will hit a number, and then they will hit that number again, and again, and again, and again. And that won't fade. It won't destroy the battery. It won't get nerfed with an over-the-air update a couple of months after hitting the market.

This is what automotive engineering excellence looks like, and it's great to finally see it in an electric vehicle.

"Tesla's ludicrous launch is a party trick."

I live in a rural exurb area. Every spring-fall weekend features parades of supercars of the various supercar clubs. Million dollar plus vehicles. All driving at 60km, driving no differently than the Corolla that accidentally turned into their procession. Because it's all party tricks. These people aren't racing these cars, but are just sitting on potential.

As an aside, I don't remember Tesla ever claiming that their vehicles were the "fastest production car", which is normally a measure of top speed. The Tesla has a positively mediocre top speed compared to supercars, and on any longer run will be demolished. It isn't built for repeat launches, or a quick lap at Nürburgring.

But if you want a very confident merge on the highway, pass on the single lane highway, etc, it can confidently provide what you need.

As an aside, all lithium ion batteries are degraded by high drain (similarly they are degraded by fast charging). Porsche is seeming buying the exact same technology in LG packs. They have identical issues that Tesla does. If you launch a P100d without ludicrous mode you'll do 0-60 in 2.9 seconds.

High drain isn't the problem, most lithium ion can be drained at 15-50C (drain rate not temperature) until empty without being harmed.

P100D is 100kw/h battery, which should be able to put out at least 1500 hp continuously.

The problem is 100% Tesla's cooling system not being powerful enough.

Not all lithium ion can be drained at high rates like that. There is a trade off of safety, lifetime, energy density and power density (discharge rate). For instance the RC helicopter batteries are rated for 100C+, but are notorious for fires and short life time. As it happens, the RC photo drones are easier on the batteries and want longer run times so there are batteries that have higher energy density but can only handle 20C. A lot of e-bike packs are built from 1650 batteries and these are best off when limited to 3C. I'd imagine the priorities of a car battery are similar.

> I don't remember Tesla ever claiming that their vehicles were the "fastest production car"

Here is Tesla making that claim about the Model S. They say, "New Tesla Model S Now the Quickest Production Car in the World": https://www.tesla.com/blog/new-tesla-model-s-now-quickest-pr...

Here is Tesla making an even bigger claim about the future Tesla Roadster with no "production" qualifier. It's claimed to be "the quickest car in the world", which is plainly false: https://www.tesla.com/roadster

Quick != Fast.

Quick in the automotive industry generally refers to acceleration. Fast refers to top speed. Tesla made a big deal about acceleration, but as I said they cede that there are much faster cars out there.

The Tesla is very quick at accelerating. This is indisputable. Tesla made a benefit of electric motors, properly implemented, to push a high end sedan. Eh. That this whole discussion is full of people moaning that Porsche, years and years later, might make a two seater that in some situations is more performant is quite incredible really, and is quite the accolades for Tesla.

Regarding the roadster...how is that plainly false? 2.1 seconds might very much qualify it as the quickest car in the world, production or not. At least for things that qualify as "cars".

How many people understand your definition of quick vs fast? I bet not many. Tesla's marketing is misleading. They also did that with "auto-pilot" which makes people think the car is automatic.

I don't disagree that it's misleading. Personally, I'd do a small amount of research before dropping that much cash on a car. I certainly wouldn't base my decision on a single sentence from a press release.

Consumers who would, deserve what they get.

> Quick != Fast

Don't make excuses for Tesla's overblown marketing. Playing semantics is the lowest form of argument.

> Regarding the roadster...how is that plainly false?

Because non-production cars outperform it.

Semantics? They are very specific about what measure it is good at. You seem dead-set on pissing on Tesla for some reason.

Which non-production car outperforms the Roadster's claimed 2.1 second 0-60? Beyond those that don't really qualify as cars (e.g. with jet engines, etc), I'm not aware of any.

> You seem dead-set on pissing on Tesla for some reason.

No, I'm just objective and realistic.

> Which non-production car outperforms the Roadster's claimed 2.1 second 0-60?

The AMS Performance Alpha Omega Nissan R35 GT-R does 0 to 60 in 1.72 seconds: https://www.motor1.com/news/44845/ams-performance-alpha-omeg...

The Red Victor 2 does 0 to 60 in 0.9 seconds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Victor_2

Red Victor 3: http://cars.barcroft.tv/britains-fastest-street-legal-car-an...

The Grimsel from AMZ: https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/22/12004422/fastest-accelera...

Global Rallycross cars: https://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/videos/a31137/how-g...

V8 era Formula 1 cars: https://jalopnik.com/this-chart-explains-why-formula-one-car...

> Beyond those that don't really qualify as cars (e.g. with jet engines, etc)

The Tesla Roadster is supposed to come with rocket thrusters:


So does the Roadster qualify as a car?

Exact same what? Teslas batteries are Panasonic, not LG.

Sorry, exact same technology. If LG were using some new process, chemistry, technology, etc, it would be interesting, but otherwise it is effectively fungible.

I don't disagree with a lot of your points, but seriously, the Model S is ancient tech in the EV world.

As someone who actually GOES to racetracks, last time I was at Laguna, we had 4 Model 3s and 2 S. Absolutely the S has overheating issues. They're also very old.

100% agree with you, I feel like I get treated like a luddite when I tell people I’m not really a huge fan of Tesla.

I’ve been looking forward to the Germans entering the electric car market for real. Should force everyone to step up their game.

> I’ve been looking forward to the Germans entering the electric car market for real. Should force everyone to step up their game.

So was I. The Audi e-tron was supposed to be that, but I've been massively disillusioned by it's horrible efficiency, high price and inability to produce in volume.

The E-Tron specs aren't up to par, so the Taycan looks like it will be the first real contender. At least in some aspects. It will be interesting to see what Audi's semi-autonomous stuff is like in the real world. If it's on par with Tesla's, then they may be able to fix the e-tron specs in v2.

I was convinced my next car was going to be an Audi, but maybe a BMW. I had a string of VWs and loved German cars. Then my 2.0T blew up with the faulty timing chain (prior to the recall, but we it was obvious there was a systemic problem). VW didn't fix it.

I now drive a Tesla Model 3. Currently there is nothing else close on the market. The Germans definitely lost at least one sale to me.

Not sure why people don't bring up the Mercedes EQC400.

Reviews have been generally excellent so far.

Probably because no one has one. At least in Norway the best you can do is reserve one by handing over your name and address, no indication of delivery date, no configurator.

Over $70k for a vehicle with 220 miles of range?

This isn't a computer. There is more to buying a car than a single spec.

Mercedes is a fantastic brand. The interior is premium and luxurious. You don't have to worry about service, support or the company going bankrupt. And it overall is a really well designed car.

There are a small number of people who will pay the Mercedes premium. There are a small number of people who will pay a premium to get electric. The intersection of the two is not a large market, IMO.

I am highly excited for the VW "ID Buzz" eBus.


> A properly engineered drivetrain will be able to sustain its launches over several back-to-back activations

All cars designed primarily for the highway rather than the track have issues with brake heating, transmission fluid heating, et cetera, and slow down over time. The Model S is extreme in that manner, but the Model 3 slowdowns are are far less extreme than the S's limp mode.

> NHTSA recently sent Tesla a cease-and-desist letter over misleading statements about the Model 3′s safety rating.

Having the NHTSA say "A lack of evidence proving you're not the safest isn't the same as saying you are the safest" isn't really bad news or bad publicity.

> The machines they ship will hit a number, and then they will hit that number again, and again, and again, and again. And that won't fade. It won't destroy the battery. It won't get nerfed with an over-the-air update a couple of months after hitting the market.

The big manufacturers have been promising "Tesla killers" for a decade now. They've continually disappointed. This is Porsche's first production BEV. There will be compromises, they will make mistakes. It still might be a Tesla killer, substantially better than the new Tesla Roadster coming next year but up until they're shipping in volume and have had some time to shake out both cars are brochure-ware.

> than the new Tesla Roadster coming next year

I admire your optimism. I'll buy a 2020 roadster if it's anywhere close to what they describe and released any time soon; but I'm skeptical. (They also need to put a real steering wheel on it.) But I'm thinking it's not anywhere close to their top priority right now and that 2020 may end up being optimistic.

But if they get it out there, it's targeted right on top of the 911 Turbo. Same price, same 2+2 configuration, higher performance, similar utility. Will be interesting to see what happens here. Too bad Tesla is trying to go downmarket. If they were staying more up-market I'd feel more confidence in this car coming out on time.

> All cars designed primarily for the highway rather than the track have issues with brake heating, transmission fluid heating, et cetera, and slow down over time.

This doesn't include trucks which are a large part of the market. Being designed to haul, everything is oversized.

Yes, you are correct. "All cars" doesn't usually include trucks.

This is entirely conjecture. Why not wait until the car is actually available.

>Tesla has been doing the same sort of thing with "Safest car ever!" to the point that NHTSA recently sent Tesla a cease-and-desist letter over misleading statements about the Model 3′s safety rating.

Ten months ago, though it has been in the news again the last few days as the letter and response were just released. The blog post in question is still up, which means the NHTSA either backed off after Tesla's response or hasn't yet been able to get a court to take their side.

Because those documents were from 2018 and nothing came out of it after Tesla responded with data and "facts" provided by NHTSA themselves.

Let's see, you're comparing a full sized EV sedan that was was developed in 2012 and was designed to be as practical as possible with still awesome performance range and storage.

Just an anecdote..I bought an 8 foot door from Lowe's and it comfortably fits in my Model S by just folding the rear seats. Even the store attendants were amazed and took several pics while we were loading it (also fits in a Mode 3 btw).

A performance Model 3 is more suited for track purposes since it's a newer design.

Here it is being driven at the track by the legendary Randy Pobst:



Even then, the Model 3 is based on a 2016 design, while the Taycan is still actively being developed.

So not really sure what argument you're trying to point out here.

For a fair comparison, perhaps it would be better to look at more recent reporting.

Those first two articles are from 2016 and 2014 and the third one (written a few weeks ago) describes a contest between a 2014 Model S and a "New, modified" 2019 Leaf.

The first Google result I see for "Model 3 Performance Overheat" is this one - and it describes how the car did NOT overheat: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-performance-autobahn...

> If you try to drive a Tesla Model S like a performance car it just overheats

That's the 2014/2015 models. Has anyone tested more recent ones?

The performance version of the Model 3 does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds and by all reports it’s an excellent track car.

The Taycan has done sub-8 minutes at the Nürburgring Nordscheleife according to Mark Webber (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohHEdaRhF1k).

What's the Model 3's best time?

The Model 3 doesn't have an official time at the Nürburgring (for as far as that being an actual thing). It was the fastest EV around Laguna Seca last december: https://www.carscoops.com/2018/12/tesla-model-3-performance-...

Here's a video of a Model 3 doing around 9 minutes per lap without track mode and during Turistenfahrt at the Nürburgring : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3IHb8RFV_g

0-60 times is a more useful metric as 99% of real people drive cars on public roads. Nürburgring "times" is more of an impractical wet dream for most people who mention it.

Sub 8 minutes? I wonder where they started and ended their stopwatch also what kind of tires used.


> Sub 8 seconds?


I am sorry. I meant sub 8 minutes. I edited my post

Can you point to some of these reports? I can't seem to find any official times for major tracks. But it looks like the model 3 is right in line with some competition, like the BMW M3.

I've just seen commenters on the internet who have tracked their cars. You can search "model 3 track performance" for plenty of articles.

That is the old model S being discussed there. The “Raven” P100D has an updated battery pack and motor.

I really wish everyone was competing on range rather than acceleration. Range is the number one reason I went with a LR model 3. I don't give a rats ass about how fast it gets to speed.

However it is nice to see an EV with range at least in Tesla territory, granted it still is 2012 territory. I posted before, no premium brand EV should sell anything under 300 miles EPA; I use EPA as it is the one returning the lowest in use numbers which makes it a bit better bet when you try to figure out winter driving numbers too.

the real issue with EV adoption besides choice is if the average buyer has any real interest without incentives.

I do hope the Porsche entry forces Tesla to revamp the S and X interior, the real fix they need is to remove road noise, specifically tires, which is the only issue I have with my 3. (Test drove a S75 so maybe they are better now, no idea)

I really wish everyone was competing on efficiency. Most journeys require nowhere near the range capabilities of current EVs, instead carrying around excess weight when not required. Similarly on the acceleration side, other than showing off, why do we need cars that can do 0-60 in 2-3 seconds? Those kinds of g-forces are certainly not pleasant for passengers.

I agree that nobody needs fast 0-60s but they’re just fun. Now, for the range thing, that’s no different from why you want a fast CPU even though 99% of the time you’re using 1% of its power, or why bridges are built to withstand many times their rated maximum load etc. You want to be prepared to deal with demanding situations. In this case that’s something like your family vacation that you maybe don’t want to buy an extra car for.

Acceleration is super fun and range is essential for a general purpose car. It sucks to have to plan your trip around super charger proximity.

>>>why do we need cars that can do 0-60 in 2-3 seconds

So you can pass cars that are driving too slow in the fastlane at highway speeds. 0-60 times are a general indication of the car's torque curve and power delivery. Depending on gearing, there's a pretty good chance a car with crazy-good acceleration will have no problems "bobbing and weaving" around some slowpoke in front of you without requiring hundreds of meters of space in the other lane to facilitate the overtake.

>>>Those kinds of g-forces are certainly not pleasant for passengers.

That entirely depends on the character/personality of your passengers. After a friend's wedding a few months ago I drove some of his relatives to the after-party. These guys were visiting from Hong Kong and don't own cars. Along the way I had an impromptu drag race with a random motorist and my passengers were ECSTATIC. "OMG this car is sooo awesome!!". Most of my friends are similar but they are predominantly car guys anyway. But I have another friend who is more of a "boulevard cruiser" type of guy who gets uncomfortable with aggressive driving. shrug

> impromptu drag race with a random motorist

Reckless driving like this consistently kills innocent people and most drivers who do this eventually end up losing their license or ending up in jail.

Not sure it's the sort of target demographic car companies should be looking at.

> and most drivers who do this eventually end up losing their license or ending up in jail

How could you possibly know this? You have no idea how many people do it and never get caught.

> Reckless driving like this consistently kills innocent people

You know what else consistently kills people? Tesla's Autopilot. I bet Tesla isn't discouraging use of that expensive feature though. In fact they defend it ruthlessly in the media and in court, despite more and more evidence pointing towards it being more dangerous than manual driving. To be fair though, I'm unaware of it ever killing anyone outside of the vehicle, so I guess it's just people killing themselves which is very different from killing innocent bystanders.

>>>Reckless driving like this consistently kills innocent people and most drivers who do this eventually end up losing their license or ending up in jail.

Citation needed. I can't even recall the last time street racing in this part of Japan killed anyone, let alone anyone outside the vehicle itself. The combination of more stringent licensing requirements, bi-annual vehicle inspections, and overall cost all combine to keep most sports cars out of the hands of all but the most dedicated drivers. Fatal mistakes are rare here. Accidents are usually drifting-related on secluded mountain roads.

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

It would be great if they standardised battery packs and made them configurable. So you don't need all that weight being carried around when it isn't needed, or you could rent more batteries for long journies if you rarely travel very far, maybe exchange cells instead of charging along the journey. Two-car(+) households can pool their batteries for going on holidays etc.

I don't think it will happen though. It would be tricky to get the right size/ weight that most people can carry without making it tedious (wouldn't be fun swapping 18650s around). Any larger and people would need hoists or jacks, then the is the issue of how to quickly & easily secure these large battery packs...

Do you intentionally drive with less fuel to save weight?

In a way, yes. I don't fill up the whole tank when I buy fuel (as do most people who don't travel large distances day to day). It's easy to add more fuel before I make a long journey. It makes more of a difference for EV as batteries have a considerably lower energy density than petrol, a couple orders of magnitude it appears: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

The beefy motors allow a larger fraction of the required braking to go through recuperation, so it should help range as well (assuming somewhat constant efficiency at partial load).

I do wish for a more reasonable EV marketing than the "guilt-free bigger better faster" that we currently see, but technological properties are not in favor of minimalistic EV. The efficiency penalty for overpowered ICE cars was much bigger than that of overpowered EV, but even they never stopped getting more overpowered each iteration.

PS: at least focusing on acceleration goes counter to "just strap on another ton of batteries" tactics. IMHO two tons of technology for transporting one or two persons on land is too much, even if the powersource was rainbows and butterflies.

I suspect that the motors are not the principal limitation on regen. The maximum regen on my Tesla S 70D is 50 kW whereas the total motor power is about 250 kW. I suspect it has more to do with the control system and the current capacity of components in the inverter.

Have you investigated dynamat for noise attenuation?

My impression is that German car brands usually do not focus as much on 0-60 accelaration as much as Tesla does. Especially for a Porsche, it's more about handling than drag race performance.

The 0-60 and full torque marketing is what Tesla needed to make electric cars cool. I'm glad we can talk about more boring things like consistency now.

Does it really matter when 80% of these will be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic on 280 near Sand Hill Road?

Lower amount of exhaust gasses to "enjoy" in a proper traffic jam...

> Does it really matter when 80% of these will be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic

The acceleration needed to get press coverage? Absolutely not.

The other qualities of a good EV? Absolutely yes.

Having driven a Tesla Model S for several years now, I have to say that it has the best low-speed handling of any car I've ever driven. You can control it's motion very precisely in the 0-5mph range (far better than any ICE I've ever driven), and "autopilot" can do most of the "bumper-to-bumper start-and-stop" grunt work for you. Of course none of this makes for a loud press release, so it rarely gets mentioned.

"This car has reached the pinnacle of 0-5mph handling".

You're right, not quite so sexy for the ads, lol.

I agree, those things do make a difference. I drive a manual (stick) car with pretty rough low-speed handling. It is a bit unpleasant to drive in bad traffic.

0-60 is pretty useless and easy to achieve. Good handling is much harder to achieve and requires more development. I would expect a Porsche to handle much better than tesla.

> 0-60 is pretty useless

I completely disagree. Quarter mile times with terminal speed over 100 is useless. 10/10 at the limit adhesion differences are useless. 0-60 is useful almost every time you get in the car.

Nicest part about an EV? You pretty much get to choose your lane if you are first at the stop light. No making loud engine noises. Just floor the accelerator and choose what lane you want. That's the most practice performance metric out there in daily driving.

I'd say I care much more about 60-0 and 40-70 than 0-60. Those are both much more indicative of how good the car is in real world scenarios on the road where a performance car might be worth having (overtaking slow moving car, emergency braking).

Acceleration is the one performance metric that drivers push daily, whether it's merging on the highway, passing, or just a thrill from the light. It is a bit disingenuous to say that it's "easy to achieve" given how it has long been the metric of supercars.

Sure, but not 0-60 acceleration. The joy of driving a Porsche is that you can kick donw th pedal at 130 km/h and still feel the force of acceleration pushing your body into the seat.

0-60 is exactly what makes interstate on ramps a blast. With a wide open ramp, it can be more like 0-80+.

Do you stop to 0 when you get on an interstate? 30-60 seems more realistic.

Yeah, there are often lights before the on ramp

And the knowledge that the brakes will work well if you have to slow down.

To get good acceleration you just need a big engine, traction and not much else. 0-60 is not even that meaningful for real world use of acceleration. 30-70 would be much more useful there.

This sort of reductionism can be used for anything. To get good handling, you just need good traction and a low center of gravity. To get good top speeds you just need good top speed. To go to Mars you just need a big rocket.

Traditionally obtaining good acceleration has been incredibly difficult. Larger engines yield a heavier vehicle in a vicious cycle. Makers like Lamborghini would reduce their cars to just shells, use esoteric materials if it could shed tiny amounts of weight, and then would spend enormous engineering trying to obtain more power from smaller engines (not bigger engines, more powerful, lighter engines). To casually dismiss this is just entirely untrue.

Tesla made a big deal about acceleration because it comes essentially for free with electric engines that have incredible low end torque curves. They made a big, 5000lb, full featured, 5-seat sedan and they still could give it acceleration that blew away what million dollar supercars had been fighting to do for decades. And now we're all tut-tutting that Porsche might possibly make something that's kind of similarly capable in a car that will likely cost much more and seat two. Great.

Handling is much more complex than traction and low center of gravity. The car needs to be predictable at different speeds, under braking and a mix of a lot of other conditions. That's a much more difficult thing to get right than going straight.

It also helps to not weigh 4000 pounds.

Should try driving a Tesla, they handle amazingly.

Not better than Porsche. I own both and Tesla suspension is pure garbage compared to the Porsche. Tesla 3 has insane body roll for a vehicle with the majority of weight below the center the wheels.

I have driven one. It’s nice for cruising along but in corners it’s too soft and you just feel the weight. Definitely not a sports car. That’s ok since it’s not designed to be one.

I could not disagree more. I test drove a Model S years ago and was genuinely shocked how horribly it handled. Weight is the enemy of handling, and those cars drive like boats if you ever turn the steering wheel.

However I have heard the Model 3 handles great, but still not quite as good as cars in the same price bracket. I'd take an M2 Competition over a Model 3 Performance based on what I've heard, but obviously until I drive both that's just conjecture.

What I can say for a fact - I genuinely preferred how my 94 Camry handled compared to the Model S. And I fucking hated that Camry.

Drive an Audi, or a Porsche. You'll realize how... muddy... Tesla handling is.

Because 0-60 times are just one facet of performance. Why aren't Tesla dominating Formula E? Or hill climbing?


Formula E, Goodwood, etc. are open to non-street legal cars - the designs are purpose-built for racing and Tesla doesn't have a factory race team.

Most people buying these things know the only performance thing they'll ever do with the car is a straight launch from a stop at an intersection. They won't ever be needing high-G turning ability on a city street, nor any other maneuver that would be too dangerous on a city street with pedestrians and bicyclists around.

Tesla seems to have played their cards very well.

Neither do they need three-point-anything accelerations in the environment you describe. The only thing that makes it not a bad thing is that they don't have to trade much (if any) efficiency at more modest loads to achieve this, very much unlike their ICE brethren who want similar numbers.

Most people buying these things know the only performance thing they'll ever do with the car is a straight launch from a stop at an intersection

Is that true? I would have thought that the most Tesla owners care about is how far they can project their image of wealth and sofistication

I would have thought that the most Tesla owners care about is how far they can project their image of wealth and sofistication

Unless you're getting the high end variants of the S and 3, it's not really projecting wealth and sophistication, but rather the opposite. I bought a Model 3 because it just makes more sense financially than say getting a BMW 3 series.

I agree. I see the Model 3 as a Honda Civic that just happens to drive better than a $250,000 car from ten years ago.

The Model 3 is an extraordinary car, but the most extraordinary thing about it is that it's available to anyone for <$50k.

>Unless you're getting the high end variants of the S and 3, it's not really projecting wealth and sophistication, but rather the opposite. I bought a Model 3 because it just makes more sense financially than say getting a BMW 3 series.

Maybe you can use all that money you saved to buy some perspective.

and how "environmentally conscious" they are.

In the US maybe.

Did you pay attention? They said it's about repeatability and not reducing battery of power train life like Tesla does.

It has a two-speed transmission, which should help with high-speed performance. https://insideevs.com/news/343827/porsche-taycan-2-speed-rea...

But one of the advantages of an electric car for me is the possibility of no (variable) transmission. I don't want clutches that are constantly wearing down as I drive. For me this is not about money or maintenance headaches, but about elegance.

Given that a standard ICE vehicle clutch will usually make over 150k miles before needing replacement, I can't see any reason to think that this will be 'inelegant' - it would appear to boost performance nearly everywhere, and they will not be 'constantly wearing down as [you] drive' - they'll be electronically controlled as part of the transmission and optimally maintained as a result.

While I agree the simplicity of a single speed no-clutch electric drivetrain is appealing, I don't think that should preclude using different systems if this means optimum performance overall.

Wear should never be an issue considering how (relatively) rarely the car would need to shift. It will be used at higher speeds so it won't shift that often. Chances you swing between high and low speed (over/under 100+Km/h probably) that often are small.

There are efficiency and performance advantages to having a multi speed gearbox for an EV. So far about 5-20% improved efficiency for 2 to 4 speed gearboxes. ZF insists EVs might end up using 4-speed gearboxes eventually but I can't help think they're biased in proposing this.

you only need clutches when you're stopped - to engage an moving/idling motor to stationary drive wheels.

Electric cars don't need clutches because their motors stop too

Probably the car will switch between gears while in motion. It seems to me that it would be difficult to do that smoothly without a clutch.

It is only important to carefully match the revs when switchen gears. Electric cars with electronic control can be easily programmed to do so.

Put an encoder on both shafts, have a control loop match the speeds, adjusting as frequently as desired, easy.

Running electrical engines at lower speed should in theory reduce wear, especially at autobahn type speeds.

If you’ve ever driven an electric performance car one of the most disappointing things is comparing 30–90 vs 0-60. Arguably the latter is more important because the typical on-ramp is generally 30 mph and highway traffic around me is traveling at 75+

That's why dual motors are nifty, you gear them separately (front for cruise, rear for accel) and you get better efficiency, handling and traction.

Disappointing, and 30-90? Nah. Even my RWD non-performance Model 3 with only 250hp or thereabouts 'feels' faster than my 300HP Golf R did from, say, 70-100mph. I admit, it absolutely feels relatively "out of breath", so to speak, above 95mph, but that's nothing HP can't solve.

I'm not saying there's no need, ever for a multi-speed transmission in an EV, but for 99% of the vehicles, it's likely pointless.

Do you like the Model 3 more than the Golf R?

That depends on what you mean. My knee jerk reaction is, no, I don't. But they're different cars for different purposes for me (as an enthusiast). I sold the R around the time we bought the Tesla because the only thing we needed less than 1 $40k car is 2 $40k cars. (We've got 4 cars at the moment, though I'm currently at CarMax trying to get rid of one of them).

The Model 3 is the first appliance car I've owned. But I went into this eyes wide open; it was the right decision at the time and it's still the right decision. The R I basically stopped driving when I got a new job where I biked to work for a year. The Model 3 was a replacement for my wife's 175k mile Subaru, and we bought it immediately after my company was acquired and we started carpooling together. The 3 is a better commuter/appliance more suited to 2 drivers who trade off, cheaper to run, gives us HOV lane access on the rare occasion where one of us drives solo, and my wife hadn't driven stick since she lived in Australia many years ago so she didn't really show interest in driving the R.

The R was my (other) fun car, with all the euro goodies on it. It was fantastic everyday runabout, fun car, roadtrip machine that could eat miles like nobody's business. The 3 is, again, an appliance. I don't really like sedans, but I wanted an EV, and I like Teslas, but could never justify spending the coin for an S.

Given infinite money and space, I'd still have the R, too. Though I'd probably never drive it, because it's so easy and convenient to just hop in the Tesla and go, any time, anywhere. It never has to warm up, it never needs me to stop at the gas station before I run my errands, hell, I don't even need a key.

A good set of performance tires really wakes up a 3. Try a set of Michelin Pilot Sport A/S 3+, (or 4S if you never see snow). I rented a 3 LR RWD for a few days and decided not to buy, but then drove the Performance and had to have it. Yeah, the brutal acceleration was part of it, but the biggest difference is how much sharper the handling is. And this is mostly down to the squashy super efficient tires on the base models masking the capability of the car.

While this is good advice in general, this literally applies to every performance car (and even every car period). The Model 3 isn't unique in benefitting from better tires any more than a Golf R.

Also, the A/S 3+ is an obvious compromise for people that don't want to rotate their tires seasonally. If you're going to recommend tires for performance, the PS4S is a good choice and then get a separate set of tires for winter. In other words if you think the tires make a difference like you wrote, you're selling yourself short driving on all season tires. Do yourself a favor and buy a set of summer tires if you're serious about how your car performs.

No gearing is bad for performance and inelegant. Tesla's cars should have a top speed over 220 given their power and acceleration. They're all limited to ~140 because no gearing.

The motors start to get inefficient even around 80mph. Telsa's have amazing 0-60 performance but get beaten by many cars on a highway roll because of no gearing.

Mid 160’s actually

Maybe, but that's above their rated specs. P100d starts out with 500 hp but also weighs nearly 5000 lbs. By 80mph back EMF has probably taken power down to about 300hp.

Essentially, at highway speeds, telsas are slower than the average pickup truck. Not as impressive as the 0-60 times

I think this is the first car that is nearing the 2013 tesla model s.

I'm also curious about the rapid charge, it was supposed to be 350 afaik but is launching with 150ish only (not 250 as in the web page) and will be increased with software updates in the next few years.

I think if they put a proper infotainment system with a big screen like tesla, give free map/system updates and it doesn't suck in efficiency it might actually sell a bit more than etron and i-pace.

However looking at it... it reminds me of a frog, so maybe not..

I know I’m the weirdo, but the big screen is something I dislike about the Model S. I’m glad to be getting options that don’t have it.

Not sure about the S, but the 3’d big screen looks really goofy to me and was a definite factor in my decision to wait for more electric car competition.

The big screen on the S and X gets rid of all the clutter in the centre console. Just look at the centre console on the I-Pace, e-Tron, and EQC 400, just a mess of screens and buttons making the interior look and actually be more cramped.

I like the assembly quality on the Magna Steyr built Jaguar but the design is too fussy for me. I prefer my S.

Let's wait for the price, real world performances and see how the fit and finish is. As good as the 2013 model S was it was far from perfect and suffered from many issues.

Yeah there was enough issues with it for me to go for a toyota instead at the time, especially with rattling in the windows.

I'm also really curious as to it's consumption at 100-120 km/h (60-75 mph). That and the internal space was what struck down the etron and i-pace for me.

> I think this is the first car that is nearing the 2013 tesla model s.

They're aimed at different things. The Taycan is a performance car, the Model S isn't. The Model S is uncompetitive with the Taycan around a race track, for example.

I never really understood this comparison. 99% of owners will never see the track. So why do we care so much about track performance?

Not in Germany, which is most valuable market for Porsche.

Also why the big screen probably isn’t a priority while hooning around a track!

> it might actually sell a bit more than etron and i-pace.

That's not really hard... Both these models aren't really selling well.

They're selling better than the model x in Norway so far in 2019. For me personally they have too short range and too little space but there is a certain segment that want a "real" electric car made by an encumbered manufacturer. I used to be one of them until I saw the specs of the i-pace and etron.

Can you show your data? I think both those models are out selling S/X.

The i-Pace sales are limited by the Austrian factory capacity to make them AFAIK

Huge fan of this -- will definitely replace my Tesla for this car!

Ever since I knew what a car was I have loved Porsche. Back in high school I bought a used 914 that was in boxes and reassembled it over the next 2 years. The highlight of my early days was getting to drive a 911 at the track.

Several years ago I visited a Porsche dealer and looked around. I left extremenly sad and disappointed. The cars were cramped and full of pedestrian doo-dads and I hated every single one of them. On top of that, the Porsche salespeople didn't even look my way.

I left that dealership and went down the street to the Tesla showroom and my life changed. They were friendly and happy to see me. They took me around the car and showed me everything. I got to rode test a P100D and was able to drive the car while the Tesla guy showed me how to do a high-speed launch and how to change the steering response while driving. It was, and still is, the best car "dealer" experience I'd had ever had!

While the Porsche Taycan is cool and it's really the only Porsche that even remotely piques my interest, it can't really compete with the Tesla. I guess I'm getting old.

By the time they are available, your Tesla will likely be due to replaced anyway. But here's to the future, fellow EV'er.

Deliveries of the Taycan start this year

ok. Deliveries of the model 3 started in 2017. But it took a while to reach critical mass. And some countries still haven't gotten them.

EDIT: "Prices for this ‘Turbo’ launch model will be around £130,000 with cheaper/slower versions kicking off around £65,000 within 18 months of the car’s launch in late 2019. "

So... maybe we'll see some in 2019, but really it's 2021 before more than a few thousand hit the market.

I would assume Porsche to be able to launch a car with an equivalent of production hell, so.

The big question would be where will they source all of those batteries?

"VW secures US$25B in battery supplies in electric-car surge" https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/vw-secures-25-billion-battery-su...

"Volkswagen will invest almost 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) in battery cell production at a facility in western Germany" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-electric/volks...

Cool, I read those a while back. Where will be the the factory located at and when is the ETA for completion? Have they broke ground yet?

I got as far as $130,000.

Edit: £

Given the extremely limited numbers they'll be putting out, I'd be surprised if that price point was too high. Seems that Tesla has the 45-100k range well covered, but they don't have a sports car variant and that's why I think a limited volume 130k is decent idea for Porsche to get its feet wet.

Pretty close to the 911 turbo, which makes sense.

Porsche is notorious for expensive options too though.

Well, there are new models coming that start at £65k, which while still really expensive is at least in line with every other premium electric car out there(Mercedes EQC, Audi E-Tron, Jaguar i-Pace all start at around £65k)

A bit late to this thread, but here's a response by the owner of a Model 3 Performance edition to the Taycan video: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-performance-31-hard-...

just by the looks of it, this already beats the ugly Tesla

Not everyone likes the look of a Porsche either. But thanks for the opinion.

Here's to taking more ICE cars off the road. A world of quiet, zero emissions cars on the road sounds good to me. The sooner everyone can get their hands on one, the better.

I was keen for the quiet car future as well, but now they're adding buzzers to them when traveling less than 30kph. Bleah.

So I want this with a drop top and 2 seats, so basically a Boxster. Let us see who gets there first with a proper roadster. Tesla or Porsche. I will be the first in line. Yes it is a stupid use of money, but the inter teenage boy does not care.

Is the original Tesla founder who was ousted by Elon somehow involved in this? I remember he went to VW afterwards...

You're thinking of Martin Eberhard, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Eberhard:

"In 2010, Martin Eberhard confirmed to Autoblog Green that he was doing work with Volkswagen, but no further details have been provided [...] Later, he worked at Lucid Motors, a startup funded by LeEco and others which was created to compete with Tesla, until 2015 [...] In 2017, Eberhard founded inEVit in a bid to supply major OEMs with electric drivetrains and power storage solutions. [...] In October, 2017, Eberhard joined Sokon Industry Group when that company acquired Inevit. This branch was renamed SF Motors."

i’m curious how he could feel torque vectoring in a straight line....

It all looks very nice, but is it just a copy of the Model 3 with a few upgraded bits (air suspension) and twice the price?

Also, the interior seemed very dark - maybe just the pre-production version hiding some details or I'm just used to the glass Model 3 roof.

Nice to see more manufacturers getting serious about this obvious electric-car future.

I mean it's a copy of the Model 3 in the same sense that a Porsche 911 is a copy of a BMW 3 series.

Disputing your statement...

The 911 was first produced in 1963 with an air-cooled flat 6 engine mounted aft of the rear axle.

The 3 series, first produced in 1975, is a front-engine car with a water-cooled straight-4 and -6 (most commonly) water-cooled engine mounted in front.

So the first 911 was made twelve years before the first 3 series, is structured completely differently and has completely different engine technology.

The Model 3 was released 2-3 years before the Taycan is expected out, and has essentially the same layout: floor battery with front and rear electric motors mounted in about the same spots. They both have four doors with the same deep swoop down of the roof over the rear seats, flattened hoods that dip below the line of the fenders, etc.

The Taycan looks more like a Model 3 than any other electric car around, and since the Model 3 came first, it's reasonable to describe the Taycan in Model 3 terms.

It's a good design, functionally and aesthetically, and I'm certainly not faulting Porsche for these design choices. I've owned a 911 before and I've always appreciated Porsches - they have made many great cars, and the Taycan might well be another one. I hope that it is. But it does look a lot like a Model 3.

I just don't really see any similarity between the model 3 and the Taycan other than them both being electric, they are completely different classes of cars. They have the same layout because that is the most obvious layout for a 4 door AWD electric car (i-pace has same layout too). The Taycan is a luxury sports car with good handling and the ability to run at full performance for a long time. The model 3 is a practical car with a fairly poor interior, poor handling, and great acceleration and range.

Model 3 handling has been almost universally praised as superb. I haven't read any negative reviews of it.

I have almost 40,000 miles on a Model 3 and from my personal experience with it and with other cars I've owned, including hundreds of thousands of miles on Porsche and Mercedes, the Model 3 handles the best. Air suspension will, I expect, give the Taycan a slight edge, but other than that, there's no magic dust that Porsche can sprinkle to make their car any different. Just putting the massive weight of the battery on the floor is enough to give both cars a big advantage over any ICE car.

You mention that the cars are in different classes - the only class that they don't share is price. The Porsche is predicted to cost between 2x and 3x the price of the Model 3. They're of comparable weight, size, power output, layout, etc.

You mention that the Model 3 has a poor interior - again, unless you work for Porsche or otherwise have access to as-yet unreleased photos, there are no released images of the Taycan interior. How can you know the interior is better? The Model 3 interior is simple, clean, and spartan, but I like it better than the E-class I drove before the Tesla. When I go back to the E-class, it feels fussy and baroque in comparison.

We know how advanced the Model 3 self-driving is, and it's constantly improving with frequent updates. It's really quite good. Will the Taycan be better? Perhaps, but at this point Tesla has had hundreds of millions of driving data to refine their approach and Porsche has not. Even if Porsche outsources from someone with much more experience, such as MobileEye. They're unlikely to be much better than Tesla. All of Porsche's money and many years of racing successes can't make software development suddenly leap ahead.

Finally, Porsche, in this video, is pushing the ability to run at "full performance" for a long time. That video, while very nice, didn't give any facts and figures about what that means. Tesla's had ten years and several generations of drivetrains to work out the kinks, including the overheating problems during track time of older Model S cars. When the Taycan is finally out and people can independently compare the two cars, I'll be interested to see of the Taycan is significantly better, but before that happens there's no reason to think that it will be.

Let it be resolved, then, that the Model 3 and the Taycan are in exactly the same class in every area except for price. I hope the Taycan is a great car and I'm sure it will be.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact