Search results

I can only admit that. The 911 just feels quicker cuz of the sound but that's the drama, it's the placebo-effect. I had a 992 C4S and when you do a LC, release the brake, nothing happens for a split second, only after that it takes off. The Taycan doesn't hesitate and rockets away. That is real...

Can we just stop using "TTS" for a 911? It's 911 TS. It's not an Audi. TTS is a Taycan Turbo S. Thanks. :-)

I think you just answered your own question. :-)

I've heard there are three methodes of the EPA. 1. Data provided by the manufacturer. 2. Extended cycle test (high speed/ambient temperatures etc.) 3. Short cycle test *0,7 (no actual high speed/temp, they only use the 0,7 factor). Something like that. Tesla is #1. Porsche is #3.

I think the number the EPA stated backfired at them cuz more and more it shows it's not that far away from Tesla. After all it's an American methode but it's becoming quite a joke. All in favourite of Porsche which does make excellent cars. Still and will.

Ah! Now I see what you mean. Indeed, my bad. It has nothing to do with the energy available but consumption. Sorry, lol! Still, it shows the Model S uses a lot more energy than EPA states. The difference with the Taycan is not that much.

I was talking about the initial EPA rating of the Model S. They have three different ways to get numbers. 1. From manufacturer. 2. Extended test cycle (incl. high speed and ambient temperature) 3. Short test cycle (*0,7 factor for high speed/temp). Tesla Model S was #1. Taycan #3. That's why...

I think Tesla just send the numbers. EPA didn't even test the Model S at the time. As you can see the difference is not that big, unlike the numbers on paper...

Maybe I'm mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong) but there are a few things to consider. Range. The difference is only 10 mls. But..... The Tesla uses 95 kWh where Taycan uses only 83kWh from it's battery, right? That makes the Taycan performs even better, right? But why and how? Cuz of the...

This is an interesting one as the Tesla seems way too slow. I'm pretty sure it can do much better, same for the Taycan. Here's why: 1. It's cold and wet, not a good condition to put all the power down but these conditions apply for both cars, so far so good. 2. Taycan has wider tires so in...

Nor a space program. ... Oh wait...

Sounds about right. Lol. :D

Besides, focus is on Model Y and Pick-up truck. I don't see the Roadster coming soon and what point is it to compare the Taycan with a car that doesn't even excist yet? Keep waiting, there will always be a car that'll be faster, better, more exciting. Point is, if you keep on waiting, you're not...

You're talking about a two-door sportscar. The Taycan is a four-door supersaloon. Stop it.

Well, that's what I'm saying. In the end, we'll just get better cars!

The new Audi RS Q8 (600hp/800Nm) did a 7:42 on the Ring. Now, being equally heavy (I think), would a Taycan Turbo be as fast (or slow) as a big SUV like the RS Q8? I don't think so. More and more I think the Turbo could do better, the Turbo S even more. I think Porsche just took it slow to call...

Ah, you beat me, I was just looking if someone already posted this vid. Anyway, it's clear the Taycan is also faster at the 0-60, like almost 0,1 seconds. That's impressive cuz the Taycan weighs over 130kg more than the Model S! What I'm also really interested in is the second and third time...

I don't think wider tires on a wet surface is better... But maybe in this case, cuz of the huge weight of the Taycan, who knows where that break-even point is (pressure per square inch vs tire width vs traction). It's good to see it's that fast though.

But then the cooling would become an issue, just like Tesla's.

I'm sure Porsche will do a lap with the Turbo S. It'll be slightly faster, like 5-10 seconds, maybe more. I don't know if there is a difference in topspeed between the Turbo and Turbo S but you can gain quite a few seconds by driving 280 instead of 270km/h...