More range is more range. If you have the same car, one equipped with the larger battery, yes, you will have a lower efficiency due to weight. But you'll still have more range.

I never said no one complained about PAYING for it. Or no one had MORE than they needed. But I don't think anyone ever said "I wish my car had less range".

You know your habits well, so I'm sure you'll buy what you need.

 

My point is that the extra 20-30 mile at the cost of both $$ and efficiency is probably not a good choice. More range is always better if it is "free". But as you point out, everyone's need is different and I am sure someone out there will need the extra 30 miles per charge.

 

It's not just range but a power increase as well. Some may not care, but I do - sport chrono and battery + on mine. I want launch control, I want to drive it like a Porsche.

 

Since I am the OP and that was the exact question I was seeking feedback on: if the Performance+ Battery option offer anything other than a 10% range boost? It seems like the answer is yes and no.

You do get a HP and torque boost but no improvement in 0-60 and top speed. Therefore you are just working harder to lug more weight around. :-)

As for the Sports Chrono, it seems like it only matters for the ICE Porsche models like a 911 which specifically listed different 0-60 times with/without Sports Chrono but for Taycan 4s, only a single 3.8s is listed which leads me to believe that the Sports Chrono is not needed for launch control in the Taycan. (Anyone out there can confirm?) In fact, it is interesting that on a base 911, the landing page quoted the 4.0s 0-60 time and the 3.8s with Sports Chrono is somewhat buried in the subsequent page. It just shows how conservative Porsche is with the specs.

So for my use case, it seems like the Performance+ is not an option which will do much and I can spend the money on the more frivolous options.

 

One consideration from a long term point of view is that with a given cell technology, a bigger pack will degrade slower than a smaller pack. Since you are only leasing for a couple years, I guess it doesn't matter much. But someone buying one new or used, and intending to keep it for a long time, should definitely look for a larger pack.

FWIW Tesla never made a 40 kWh pack. The few "40 kWh" cars that were delivered had software-nerfed 60 kWh packs. One could pay to unlock the extra capacity. (Similar to Supercharging being optional on the 40/60 kWh car via software lock.) When Tesla took them in trade, they would resell them as 60 kWh cars. Supercharging enabled too.

 

That is true for a long term purchase. I am someone who paid cash for my cars and keep it for at least 10 years. However, for all the EVs I have/had so far, only the Model 3 is a purchase and I do have the biggest battery pack in it. We have had 2 Model X and one Model S, and they are all leases as the EV technology is evolving so fast that it is like the early days on iPhones/PCs which may requires a new refresh every 3-4 years. With the talk of solid state battery and the current cell technology heading to <$60/kwh, I can see that in another 5-10 years no one will be debating if they should spend money to add 10% of range as we will have 400+ miles for every car (or very inexpensive 250 mile cars).

BTW, does anyone know what is the reserved capacity on a Taycan? I know Audi was very conservative with the E-tron until this year. I would assume that it is >10%, so after a few years of wear-n-tear, it may still be okay with a high reserve. From my experience, the wear-n-tear is not so bad on the Tesla as I slow charge at home 99%+ of the time and only charge to 90% SOC. A lot of DC fast charging would probably kill the pack sooner as demonstrated by a few youtubers.

 

I have never leased a car as I don't have a business I can use to write off the expenses. Doesn't make financial sense to lease otherwise - though a lot of people do anyway... So the cars in my motley fleet tend to stay in the stable for a long time. Heck - I still own the 944 I bought in 1987.

I have one of the early Model 3 Long Range RWD cars. It is a remarkably efficient combination. I've put a lot of highway miles on it and have no complaints with range or Supercharging speeds. Back in 2019 I did a cross country road trip with a group of car buffs and three of the cars were Teslas. A Model S 70D, a Model X 75D, and my Model 3 - which has the 75 kWh pack. It was pretty clear that the battery and charging tech in the Model 3 was superior to the S and X. Plus the TM3 was much more efficient. They probably spent 2x more time charging than I did. Since then, Tesla has offered the Raven version of the S/X which has helped some. It will be interesting to see how the latest refresh works out.

I wouldn't hold my breath for solid state batteries. While they work in the lab, it will take a long time for them to be proven in automotive use, and even longer to scale into production. Todays Li-ion chemistries work well enough, and prices are coming down fast enough, that even when they are viable any movement towards them will be gradual. Sandy Munro speculated in a recent Q&A that Tesla is already coming close to $60/kWh at the cell level. Especially when their 4680-based packs start hitting the streets.

As far as the Taycan and driving between NorCal and SoCal goes - my thoughts are that as long as only one charging stop is needed, it would be ok. In an ICE car, I've always made a stop in the middle for a bio break anyway. Usually at Kettleman or Harris Ranch. (The latter especially now that they have the take-out BBQ area.) So coupling that with some high-speed charging isn't a big deal. But running a sample trip, from my house near San Jose to, say, Van Nuys, through A Better Route Planner shows a Taycan will need two stops with either battery choice. And neither is at Kettleman or Harris. So I would have to make three stops.

 

Lease makes no financial sense unless it is tax deductible. 100% agree. But with the pending tax increase, business lease will make even more sense. :-)

Yes, solid state battery is going to be a long shot but in 10 years, who knows. But the $60/kwh cell price point should be upon us very soon and that will really change the picture for EVs.

The issue I have with a norCal to SoCal trip in a Taycan is that if there is any technical problem at the 800V charging station, it would be a major hassle since there seems to be one stop with a few DC chargers. This is like the SC congestion issue I mentioned. It was the early days for Tesla and I needed to charge at the I-5 Grapevine station but since it was the day after X'mas, there was a 2-3 hour wait since there were only 5-6 SC chargers and tons of cars return from/to LA. I actually had to skip the Grapevine charger at the advise of a Tesla employee there and made it to Harris Ranch with heat off and driving at 50mph. Luckily that the post-holiday I-5 was congested so I can only go under 50mph and arrived at Harris Ranch with 20-30 miles to spare. :-) That was the only close call for the past 8-9 years.

 

Tesla has massively increased both the number and size of the Supercharger sites along I-5 and 101 since then. Harris is about to add 80 V3 stalls to go to 98 stalls total! (Kettleman has 40 stalls - mix of V2 and V3, Firebaugh has 56 - all V3.) Bunch of new ones on 101 as well. Though I like the existing one in SLO at the Madonna Inn. The mens room is a highlight of the trip!

In the non-Tesla world, they have been surprisingly slow in adding capacity along I-5. According to plugshare, Harris Ranch has 6 50 kW EA stalls on one side of the road, and 3 50 kW Chargepoints on the other side. Firebaugh has 4 EA stalls - but according to plugshare they are currently down for some reason. Kettleman has 1 stall... This has just got to change...

I shake my head in dismay as some of the very first Superchargers that Tesla installed were to go 'from Lake Tahoe to Los Angeles' via I-5. Harris and Tejon were two of the original six sites. (The others being Gilroy, Folsom, Barstow (for the 'Vegas run'), and Hawthorne.) And before that, the Roadster guys had set up charging spots along I-5 from San Diego to Seattle.

I guess all this is a long-winded way of saying I would always go for the larger battery pack - for range margin, longevity, perhaps resale value, etc. In a car with a six figure price tag, it seems silly to do otherwise.

 

Went onto abetterrouteplanner and checked out the recommendation from SF to Disneyland.

In a Taycan 4S without Performance Battery+: One stop at Panoche Shell with a second stop at Countryside Market with a total trip time of 6:31 and 45 minutes of charge time
In a Taycan 4S with Performance Battery+: Same two stops with total trip time at 6:18 with 32 minutes for charge time

For fun, I put in the Model 3 as a reference: One stop at Buttonwillow with total trip time at 6:01 and 20 minutes of charge time so in this case, with the 100+ mile of range advantage, it shows that range helps but the Model 3 has almost 50% better range vs the 10% of the Performance+

With or without the extra battery, this trip will still need two stops but will save 13 minutes. The real concern is indeed the number of chargers available. At both locations, there are 2 CCS 350kW, 2 CCS 150kW and 1 50kW ChaDeMo and as of this moment, it seems like all the chargers at Countryside Market are offline/no status. From this test, I would be very nervous to take the Taycan on this route. I agree that EA needs to really catch up with Tesla with the infrastructure. With that said, we are still ahead of UK. I watched one of the Taycan review on Youtube from UK and the reviewer mentioned that there are only a couple of 270kW chargers in the entire UK?

 

Firebaugh = Panoche. And plugshare says it is down right now too... There are other CCS chargers along the route that could be used - so all would not be lost. But again the bigger pack gives some extra margin/flexibility.

 

there is now enough redundancy that you should be good - and so far I've had great luck with Paso Robles - which is just about right for a charging stop, San Luis Obispo and Pismo are alternates easily with in range of the Taycan and soon we'll have Santa Maria - it's really no problem.

 

You are right to say that you don't need sports Chrono to use launch control in this car. And unless you need the extra 20-30 miles range (which can probably be achieved with better driving conditions anyway), the larger battery may not be worth the extra $$$. The larger battery also weighs more so the 0-60 and top speed times are exactly the same. In fact my dealer is not even optioning most 4S's with the larger battery to keep costs down as most people in my neck of the woods are not caring for it and is a 2nd or 3rd car. Different strokes for different folks. I think it's a great option if you have money to burn but I don't is worth the $$$ in a lease as depreciation at 50% makes this a costly option with de minimis wow factor IMO.

Hope that helps.

 

That's my exact take for the extra 20 miles of range for $6000.

As for the lease, the residual is similar to Tesla and I may opt in to purchase it if 3 years from now the car is worth more. Since it will be a lease through business, the lease "makes" sense. And if it is a personal lease, the lease is absolutely a no-go. As I mentioned before, the Porsche lease is actually better than the Tesla lease so I am happy. :-) We have 4 Tesla's already and just want a change. And in our neck of the wood, almost every other household has a Tesla so my fear is that I may have problem locating my car at the supermarket parking lot. And with the Frozen Berry which my wife picked, I doubt we will have issue finding the car.

 

all I will say is that in the world of EVs the rule of thumb is to always buy the max range available.
my 4s with the big battery now shows 250 miles @ 100% SOC on the meter and driving just a bit over the posted speed limits in nice weather will deliver more than that.