Why cite that stupid engineering explained shilling site? Seriously. First the guy seems to think math can mean something with assumptions like the Tesla semi is heavier when Musk said it wasn't. Then with Taycan he tries to say he clearly unnecessary transmission is a feature instead of a flaw. What we know is Porsche overstated its stats on Taycan- can see that in its range where it overstated by about 1/3. With its published speeds stats it was likely more accurate because it didn't have a weaker standard as in the case of charging to stand behind momentarily to hide behind and would get hit with false advertising if it tried to push things there. Then there is the implication that the superior P100D stats are somehow in question when they are not and have been tested to pieces on on the track and with obvious wins against fast cars with published stats. So no level of BS like what Top Gear tried to pull nor this new line about maybe Porsche has better miles after all will work. What happened is Porsche introduced its best Porsche yet the Taycan but it was still inferior to an older car from a competitor, it was slower, had half the range, much less interior space and cost 2x as much be Porche in rubber meets the road objective terms is that far behind. Model 3P with update should beat many Taycans at speed and track straight and curved. And the engineering explained guy is 2x a shill now- why even bother with a guy who pretends to claim he can argue with equations on stuff that so obviously stupid- like all the missing variables in an otherwise very solid sound marketing argument with Cyber(of course it will do that only a fool would thing it wouldn't) and then this where he tries to say transmissions because of equations override the numbers published by the manufacturers when we know Tesla ditched the trans not because it couldn't make it it did but was inferior whereas Porsche used it because they couldn't do good enough electric motors.
