Me too. I've just checked the Porsche website- it says 3.0s regardless of battery capacity.
I agree with this. If Porsche made the RWD a GTS with more power and a bit lighter, they could have charged even more for the “driver’s car” and it would possibly be the pick of the litter.
a 4S with ever possible option you can afford that is.
Not really tbh. The 2 “useful” options for our 4S were the RWS and PB+. Everything else was borderline cosmetic based on the use it’s put to.
That was my strategy. I came in from a Tesla Model X Performance with Ludicrous mode. The truth is that I rarely had the opportunity to enjoy the full benefits of 0-60 in 2.7s in my Model X, so I passed on the Taycan Turbo S. I don’t believe in buying electric cars (I lease) because they are changing so quickly, so I found out from Porsche which model had the best money factor (i.e., lowest predicted depreciation), and that was the 4S. I like it and it seems like a great choice. I do notice that it is slower than my X, but that’s ok. I really loaded the car up on options, though, and I’m glad I did.
your link:
This is exactly what I would have wanted if Porsche were to build one. A Taycan S RWD or something along those lines. I was dead set on RWD for handling and increased over-steer, but my base Taycan power feels artificially limited off the line. Whether that is for tire wear or to create a bigger gap for faster models it certainly feels artificial.
I posted that 718 EV post yesterday. Clearly Porsche knows how to do a RWD high performance EV. They are saving it for other models.
I agree. While the options can really increase the cost, having them available makes the car special.
I put together that summary performance chart that was shared, using the german website couple months ago and i could assure you that up until april 2022 or so there was a separate line for RWD PB+ 80-120km figure which was showing 2.7 sec (vs 3.0 sec for PB). Then some time around May porsche eliminated that second line for PB+ and Left only one line that shows 3 sec without indicating which version it refers to. They still show cross tourismo 4 80-120 kmh at 2.6 seconds (same power with RWD PB+). There are also multiple official porsche docs that 2.7 sec appeared for PB+, i will dig and find. In reality PB+ beats PB by half a second 0-160km by official measures. Both 0-100 and 80-120km times can not be the same for both cars. (If true that would indicate a whopping 0.5 sec difference between two cars from 120km to 160km). Power difference can not be that non-linear. it is my speculation that porsche conveniently eliminated that stat given it created the impression that PB+ sits right in the middle between a RWD PB and 4S in day to day in-gear performance (which i think is the reality btw, having driven both PB and PB+). Why did they keep the separate 0-160 and 0-200 figures then? My theory is the same positioning problem is not that evident with 0-160 and 0-200 measures as both RWDs still has the substantial 0-30 lag penalty against 4s’s (whether due to traction issues or deliberate software limit as some argue here) so RWD PB+ appears much closer to RWD PB and distant from 4Ss in those metrics.
