Does Mileage Matter? Hottest Porsche Taycan's Range Revealed, Debate Ensues

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

As one would expect with an electric model, the first iterations of the Porsche Taycan revealed to the public were the high-performing Turbo and Turbo S variants. Hotter models land with a bigger splash (and earn their maker more money), so it was no surprise to see Porsche keep lowlier versions on the back burner. One surprise was the Turbo’s range: 201 miles, drawn from a 93.4 kWh battery pack. Hardly an industry-beating figure, especially for a six-figure car.

Now, the EPA has bestowed a rating on the Turbo’s more muscular sibling, the Turbo S. With an identical battery and extra oomph on tap — 750 horsepower — the Turbo S manages a 192-mile figure. Deal breaker, or irrelevant?

Sporting a duo of potent electric motors powering all four wheels and a 0-62 mph time of 2.8 seconds, the Turbo S is not your sister-in-law’s Leaf. While neither emit any CO2 from their non-existent tailpipes, the Porsche is, at its core, a refined driving machine that just happens to not pollute.

Performance, not efficiency, is Porsche’s topmost concern here, and that may be just fine with those willing to plunk down the necessary $187,000-plus for a Turbo S.

Yet range remains a selling point and a point of consternation for those who don’t have it. At roughly 5,200 pounds, the Taycan Turbo S is a hefty beast, outweighing most SUVs. Were that sizeable battery pack put to work maximizing range instead of feeding the hungriest of motors, Porsche might have a vehicle capable of challenging Tesla in the range wars, but it wouldn’t be much of a Porsche.

As it stands, the EPA rates the Turbo S at the equivalent of 68 mpg (MPGe). In contrast, the Tesla Model S Performance with its 100 kWh pack earns a 97 MPGe rating and goes the distance at 326 miles.

Environmentalists like to point out that smaller, lighter electric cars with just enough battery to handle day-to-day driving needs are the most efficient automotive solution to the climate issue, and they’re right. 192 miles is more then enough for even a lengthy commute. A robust recharging network and faster charge times would offset concerns of range, but that remains a work in progress. In the meantime, automakers continue chasing ever-higher range figures from ever-larger battery packs. And those packs are not the greenest thing out there.

As with traditional muscle cars, EV performance still demands the consumption of finite resources, just of a different kind.

[Images: Porsche AG]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
5 of 26 comments
  • Dukeisduke Dukeisduke on Jan 16, 2020

    So whose 2.0l does it use now? The article doesn't say. I'm glad it's not GM, but whose is it?

  • Jkross22 Jkross22 on Jan 16, 2020

    So long as there's no BEV tax incentive for this, who cares. But I bet there's a BEV tax incentive. Grrr.

    • See 2 previous
    • Jkross22 Jkross22 on Jan 17, 2020

      @SCE to AUX The optics are terrible for tax incentives like this. People spending $120-$180k on electric cars don't need your money or my money to buy this.

  • MaintenanceCosts It's not a Benz or a Jag / it's a 5-0 with a rag /And I don't wanna brag / but I could never be stag
  • 3-On-The-Tree Son has a 2016 Mustang GT 5.0 and I have a 2009 C6 Corvette LS3 6spd. And on paper they are pretty close.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Same as the Land Cruiser, emissions. I have a 1985 FJ60 Land Cruiser and it’s a beast off-roading.
  • CanadaCraig I would like for this anniversary special to be a bare-bones Plain-Jane model offered in Dynasty Green and Vintage Burgundy.
  • ToolGuy Ford is good at drifting all right... 😉
Next