Refreshed Taycan Ordering Timelines?

[amelen]

I am enjoying my Turbo but only a few months and only see that they can make it worse in the looks department, make some very minor incremental improvements, and increase the cost, which in fact they should decrease it given the market, by way of having more options standard for the base prices that went up substantially from 2023 to 2024.

I wonder what changes you are looking for in the refresh.

For example, I like seeing that the HUD will get augmented reality feature in the Macan EV (way to catch up to others that had it for years), but that alone will not swing me to get a refreshed model. Then new Macan EV will have a split battery that may be helpful with access to Tesla chargers. Otherwise, I am not seeing any major innovations from Porsche in the new models besides some very ugly HID headlights that cost $16k to replace per my dealer on the Cayenne that made it into the Panamera, then some improved PDCC tech in the Panamera. This is while we are still waiting on the full Matrix functionality in the US (not Porsche's fault but they should push for it with others).

I skipped a bunch of options on my first go-around - deciding to opt for the Turbo trim-level vs. upgrading some of the interior that I would have wanted to. I don't typically keep cars past warranty anyway - so was just trying to figure out the perfect time to get a new Taycan. Right now, with tons of deals (after 2-2.5 years of no deals), seemed like a reasonable time - but the trade-in values are very low as others have mentioned. I decided to just wait for now, I really like the Taycan I have, so no reason to jump the gun early.

Sponsored

 

[SergeyIndy]

If Porsche want to justify increased prices, I wonder if there's headroom to turn up the power a bit in all variants, now that Porsche have a lot more data points logged by drivers of current models. If they did that, they'd better also offer it as an over-the-air upgrade for current vehicles, whether or not they charge for it.

The did just that but only for the Turbo S trim which makes it promising to be a possibility for other variants but ideally in a more useful speed band: "Two software updates make the mightiest Taycan quicker than before, including hitting 100 mph a half-second sooner."

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a46078628/2023-porsche-taycan-turbo-s-quicker-acceleration-test/

 

[bluesky]

This article keeps coming up, but it says the software update was 2021. Hasn't anyone noticed the power increase by now? And just because Porsche did that then, and only for Turbo S, doesn't mean there's going to be any other enhancement.

 

[whitex]

EV demand in general is down accross the board. While EV availability, from almost every manufacturer, is up. I think it will be a little bit and will require a major catalyst (like gas prices tripling) to swing the other way.

Or they could make a more desirable car. When Tesla started making the Model S, they were $100K, there was no DC charging network to speak of, they were an unproven company selling an unproven technology, yet they sold every one they made and IIRC shipped more Model S'es than Porsche shipped Taycans in the USA.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Or they could make a more desirable car. When Tesla started making the Model S, they were $100K, there was no DC charging network to speak of, they were an unproven company selling an unproven technology, yet they sold every one they made and IIRC shipped more Model S'es than Porsche shipped Taycans in the USA.

I’m pretty sure so would have anyone else who would have dared to make and sell the first BEV. This is not a good comparison.

 

[whitex]

I’m pretty sure so would have anyone else who would have dared to make and sell the first BEV. This is not a good comparison.

I think you just proved my point if you think the Model S was the first BEV available to the public. It was the first successful one. Prior to Model S there were a few BEVs, going back to General Motors EV1 (first available in 1996) and even including one which had a Tesla battery in it at one point - Toyota RAV4 EV (first generation available in 1997). Nissan leaf was the most popular mass production BEV which pre-dates the Model S, yet it wasn’t flying off the lots like the Model S.

So no, anyone who dared to make and sell the first did not succeed as you suggest they would, neither did the second BEV, or the third…. It took the first desirable EV with mass appeal, which was the Model S.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

I think you just proved my point if you think the Model S was the first BEV available to the public. It was the first successful one. Prior to Model S there were a few BEVs, going back to General Motors EV1 (first available in 1996) and even including one which had a Tesla battery in it at one point - Toyota RAV4 EV (first generation available in 1997). Nissan leaf was the most popular mass production BEV which pre-dates the Model S, yet it wasn’t flying off the lots like the Model S.

So no, anyone who dared to make and sell the first did not succeed as you suggest they would, neither did the second BEV, or the third…. It took the first desirable EV with mass appeal, which was the Model S.

No, I just failed to point out the fallacy of the comparison in your original post, so let me try again.

You’re right that the Model S was not the first BEV, though aside from the Leaf none of the others in your enumeration were mass-produced. However, the comparison between now and then fails to take into account market saturation. Everyone who wanted an EV have gotten at least one; their brother and neighbor have, too. We’re at an impasse not because the present day EVs aren’t desirable enough, but because the rest of the market has higher standards: of the infrastructure, of the range and/or charging time (both issues of pure physics), of safety (even around here we have forum members who think it’s insane to park EVs indoors).

In the spirit of tortured comparisons, the MY23 Taycan is a vastly more desirable car than the MY15 Model S (the third full year), and probably sold in higher numbers over the first 3 years, too. (And just to be unequivocal about this comparison - it is meaningless, just like the one I am criticizing. The point in time matters.)

Edit: I bumped into this article (paywall): How Electric Vehicles Are Losing Momentum with U.S. Buyers, in Charts - WSJ whose graphs tell the same story of stalling:

and

We won't see much of an improvement until those states in the middle change their color.... I mean the saturation of their color - yea, that's it.

 

[whitex]

No, I just failed to point out the fallacy of the comparison in your original post, so let me try again.

Ok, but that's a much different argument that you made originally, which was

I’m pretty sure so would have anyone else who would have dared to make and sell the first BEV. This is not a good comparison.

Nissan leaf was there before Model S. Other EV's too, even if not mass produced (hard to decide to mass produce something which even in limited production is not selling).

We’re at an impasse not because the present day EVs aren’t desirable enough, but because the rest of the market has higher standards: of the infrastructure, of the range and/or charging time (both issues of pure physics), of safety (even around here we have forum members who think it’s insane to park EVs indoors).

I see your argument. I like the quoted data too, but it seems the argument is only the very last few months of the this year the demand has dropped (note that Tesla Model Y was the top selling car worldwide, ICE or EV, in Q1 2023). Interest rates are high, people expect(ed) a recession, all car have slowed down. Yes the EV's are sitting longer on the lots, but they have also been a but oversupplied given they were flying off the lots before. I still think that if Apple releases a 1000mile EV which sells for $40K which seats 5, does 0-60mph in 3 seconds or less, and is not fugly, they'd have a hard time keeping the Apple stores supplied. You argument of "everyone who wanted an EV got one" would IMO fail in this case, they'd be lines around the block on release date of the Apple EV, and there would be shortages for months. If Porsche came out with an equivalent of Tesla Roadster 202x at Taycan prices, they'd probably also sell a good number of them (call them 918 EV, but it really needs to beat the Roadster advertised spec, quad-motor, sub 1.9s 0-60mph, 620 mile range, 250mph max speed, no major power hidden behind Launch Control like in Taycans, etc). Yes, the bar for what constitutes a desirable EV has risen since 2012. Porsche with their 6+ year development cycles needs to think ahead in terms of specs, not just try to beat what was available when their concept was announced.

 

[WasserGKuehlt]

Ok, but that's a much different argument that you made originally, which was

"I’m pretty sure so would have anyone else who would have dared to make and sell the first BEV. This is not a good comparison."

I had attempted to make the same point . To explain I must unwind the discussion a bit: your initial assertion was that the low(ering) demand for the Taycan reflects its status as an insufficiently desirable car. You then gave the example of the original Model S, which sold in large numbers despite significant headwinds at the time.

This is where I bristled, and I attempted to make the point that the comparison is invalid; back then (~2012) anyone who would have made a fast, sleek EV sedan would have sold loads of it (I failed to include the critical adjectives "fast", "sleek" and the "sedan" qualifier). This was not to denigrate Tesla - in fact, I do not see who else that "anyone" might have been. Tesla took on a bet that most of the industry derided.

But the point was to say that the market then consisted of early adopters, who had been hungry for the "car of the future" for decades. It brought out, among others, that most elusive of the car buyer: the one who viewed cars as "A to B", and traded in their 20k Civic/Legacy for an unproven car costing 4-5 times as much - and did so without hesitation.

That market is now fully saturated, even as it became enlarged with the likes of reluctant me. From here on out, it's going to be harder - it would require expanding that market into the lighter-saturated states in the WSJ map.

I see your argument. I like the quoted data too, but it seems the argument is only the very last few months of the this year the demand has dropped (note that Tesla Model Y was the top selling car worldwide, ICE or EV, in Q1 2023). Interest rates are high, people expect(ed) a recession, all car have slowed down. Yes the EV's are sitting longer on the lots, but they have also been a but oversupplied given they were flying off the lots before. I still think that if Apple releases a 1000mile EV which sells for $40K which seats 5, does 0-60mph in 3 seconds or less, and is not fugly, they'd have a hard time keeping the Apple stores supplied. You argument of "everyone who wanted an EV got one" would IMO fail in this case, they'd be lines around the block on release date of the Apple EV, and there would be shortages for months. If Porsche came out with an equivalent of Tesla Roadster 202x at Taycan prices, they'd probably also sell a good number of them (call them 918 EV, but it really needs to beat the Roadster advertised spec, quad-motor, sub 1.9s 0-60mph, 620 mile range, 250mph max speed, no major power hidden behind Launch Control like in Taycans, etc). Yes, the bar for what constitutes a desirable EV has risen since 2012. Porsche with their 6+ year development cycles needs to think ahead in terms of specs, not just try to beat what was available when their concept was announced.

Tbf, I've seen all sorts of signs that EV sales are slowing down from the beginning of the year. It just takes a while for the trend to yield significant numbers. (And you will have noticed that the graph on "days on lot" for EVs was dropping sharply - no doubt due to end-of-year sales motions.) But I'm not sure how to respond to your last paragraph given it is mostly "what ifs", and it still doesn't address the point of the size of the market (as in, who all would be a new EV buyer); the examples you enumerated would indeed sell like hot cakes, but to repeat owners - ie you (I'm good for a while). I don't think Joe Blow will get out of his ICE because of the new Apple/Tesla/Porsche is more desirable than the current EVs. (I know because he told me so: can't drive an EV for 300500 mi straight, batteries pollute a lot more to make and then pollute when they're discarded after 35 years, electricity comes from coal, insufficient chargers - and a lot more bullshit that I probably forgot.)

I guess, in a way, I agree with you that there is a "desirability" aspect here; but to me it's not a fault of the present-day cars (or of the Taycan in particular); rather, we need to find a way to instill desire for EVs into a new segment of the population, one which tends to be circumspect about numbers. (Or selectively picks which numbers are important/attractive.)

 

[whitex]

This is where I bristled, and I attempted to make the point that the comparison is invalid; back then (~2012) anyone who would have made a fast, sleek EV sedan would have sold loads of it (I failed to include the critical adjectives "fast", "sleek" and the "sedan" qualifier). This was not to denigrate Tesla - in fact, I do not see who else that "anyone" might have been. Tesla took on a bet that most of the industry derided.

But the point was to say that the market then consisted of early adopters, who had been hungry for the "car of the future" for decades. It brought out, among others, that most elusive of the car buyer: the one who viewed cars as "A to B", and traded in their 20k Civic/Legacy for an unproven car costing 4-5 times as much - and did so without hesitation.

That market is now fully saturated, even as it became enlarged with the likes of reluctant me. From here on out, it's going to be harder - it would require expanding that market into the lighter-saturated states in the WSJ map.

Ah, back in 2012 'fast' 'sleek' 'sedan' defined very desirable. Today there are a bunch of them, and the definition has changed.

Tbf, I've seen all sorts of signs that EV sales are slowing down from the beginning of the year.

I was looking at stats recently, US is set for a record number BEV's sold in 2023. Lots of media are misstating the fact that EV sales growth has slowed as "EV sales are slowing", so your impression is common amongst internet readers, but incorrect. Worldwide there still growth too, dragged down by Chinese slowing growth.
https://www.strategyand.pwc.com/de/...ve/electric-vehicle-sales-review-2023-q3.html
From above link too (scroll down to select US data):

The US BEV market grew by 62% in the third quarter of 2023 in comparison with the same quarter in 2022. Given that the increase in total vehicle sales in the same period was only 17%, the figures are further confirmation of the growing strength of the country’s BEV market, which took considerably longer than Europe and China to get off the ground.

US BEV market share currently stands at 7%. However, it should be noted that this percentage represents a more than threefold increase since the third quarter of 2021, just two years ago, when market share stood at 2%. Government incentives, popular new models and the development of the country’s charging infrastructure continue to stimulate popular demand for BEVs.

But I'm not sure how to respond to your last paragraph given it is mostly "what ifs", and it still doesn't address the point of the size of the market (as in, who all would be a new EV buyer); the examples you enumerated would indeed sell like hot cakes, but to repeat owners - ie you (I'm good for a while). I don't think Joe Blow will get out of his ICE because of the new Apple/Tesla/Porsche is more desirable than the current EVs.

You are right it's purely hypothetical, but we can look at other markets. Blackberry (back then RIM) won the early adopter market. The word "Blackberry" became synonymous with "smartphone", just like "google" and "internet search". Windows Mobile started taking their market share away making more desirable phones, yet mostly competing for repeat customers as the market growth had slowed too. Nokia tried to make some inroads but were actually slowly losing market share. People made the made arguments as you - "Blackberry sold to early adopters, market is saturated now, Joe Blow is not going to dump his flip phone with buttons for one with a touch screen and/or a tiny keyboard". Then iPhone got released. Turns out there was a more desirable smartphone to be made, even if it was actually technically inferior to existing smartphones (less features and battery life than then 2 years old Samsung i730 on the market at the time for example, way less battery life than a Blackberry, not even copy/paste functionality was available on the first iPhone). EV industry needs its iPhone - a product desirable to the masses, even if for techies and early adopters it might seem like an inferior product. Tesla seems to be on possible path with that, so is NIO, but hey, Xiaomi (known for smartphones) recently unveiled their EV, plenty of rumors about Apple jumping into the market too. Nobody knows right now what the EV iPhone product will be, but there will be one. Perhaps Elon is right and it will be a cheap $25K utilitarian EV with 250 miles of range which will drive itself, including to charge or swap rented batteries somewhere overnight, or for any service needs. Or maybe it will be Apple car with sleek design, many screens, and great marketing - a status symbol 25% of the world can afford. Only time will tell. Once that product hits, there will be copycats, like non-Apple smartphones which will help cover the rest of the market.

 

[violuma]

I would not sleep on the fact that (largely for political reasons), the US is on an oil-production tear at the moment, which has reduced petrol prices pretty substantially over the last 12 months.

For better or worse, people are insanely focused on the price of gas in this country.

Sponsored