RE: 2024 Polestar 4 | PH Review

[covmutley]

I find my 2 very comfortable, right up until I come across a broken up road, which is obviously all the time! It's too rough over bumps and imperfections.

Great car though!

[Cupid-stunt]

SDK said:

A solid car from Polestar - this would be my choice over the P3.
It looks great, has good performance and a quality interior.

Glad I picked the P3 over this .....

[Terminator X]

SDK said:

Terminator X said:

Because EV is being sold as saving the planet vs ICE that isn't. If it actually isn't that green then fair play to call it out.

TX.

EV’s ‘saving the planet’ is a click-bait media term, trotted out to make a point they are not doing this.
Literally, no EV maker, or owner has ever said an EV is doing this.

No doubt you’ll keep posting made up numbers and headlines

Edited by SDK on Tuesday 2nd July 18:12

None of it is made up see the various posters above. As for EV not being hailed as saving the planet, your blinkers must be massive as it's all around us.

TX.

[Nomme de Plum]

Terminator X said:

SDK said:

Terminator X said:

Because EV is being sold as saving the planet vs ICE that isn't. If it actually isn't that green then fair play to call it out.

TX.

EV’s ‘saving the planet’ is a click-bait media term, trotted out to make a point they are not doing this.
Literally, no EV maker, or owner has ever said an EV is doing this.

No doubt you’ll keep posting made up numbers and headlines

Edited by SDK on Tuesday 2nd July 18:12

None of it is made up see the various posters above. As for EV not being hailed as saving the planet, your blinkers must be massive as it's all around us.

TX.

I see no such claims. Perhaps you could post a few examples.

[Terminator X]

Nomme de Plum said:

Terminator X said:

SDK said:

Terminator X said:

Because EV is being sold as saving the planet vs ICE that isn't. If it actually isn't that green then fair play to call it out.

TX.

EV’s ‘saving the planet’ is a click-bait media term, trotted out to make a point they are not doing this.
Literally, no EV maker, or owner has ever said an EV is doing this.

No doubt you’ll keep posting made up numbers and headlines

Edited by SDK on Tuesday 2nd July 18:12

None of it is made up see the various posters above. As for EV not being hailed as saving the planet, your blinkers must be massive as it's all around us.

TX.

I see no such claims. Perhaps you could post a few examples.

SDK must be taking about the 0.7 as a "made up number" which isn't this thread, check the other thread. Not made up.

As for saving the planet headlines here is just one:



TX.

[swisstoni]

What are they for then, and why are they being promoted?

[Mr Miata]

The most ugliest headlights I’ve ever seen.

[Nik Gnashers]

GT9 said:

Nik Gnashers said:

I'd happily trade lower power with a greater range, in a family car, and would appreciate better handling with less weight, over ultimate straight line performance and 500+ bhp in an average family car.

Why are you ignoring the fact that the single motor version only has only 5% more range than the dual motor version?
It's been pointed out multiple times on this thread, and I'm pretty sure I've described it to you previously.
You cannot, carte blanche, use ICE design rules to judge electric powertrains.
A 600 bhp ICE has a much higher fuel consumption under normal driving conditions than the same car with 300 bhp.
A 600 bhp EV has a very similar energy consumption to a 300 bhp EV under normal driving conditions.
Different powertrains, different rules.
Extra power in an EV doesn't harm the range permanently, only if you absolutely thrash it everywhere.
Where's the downside?

You seem to be answering my comment, with completely unrelated arguments.

I don't want a 600bhp family car either, and nowhere did I say that I did want one.

Neither you, nor anyone else can give me an answer to the question I actually asked.

--- I don't want a 120 mile range EV 2 seater sports car, or a 2.5 tonne mahoosive SUV with 500+ bhp, what can I buy that doesn't look gash, and doesn't have an ipad stuck to the dash ? ---

This is the problem with EVangelists, lots of arguments which don't relate to the issues raised.

I don't have a home charger, so I am looking for a car which is cheap enough to run as a family car, daily, and doesn't look like horrible like all of the current EV's do, just a traditional looking daily, without an ipad dash, and I would like 400+ mile range like many of my old cars could easily achieve.
There are none.
So why would I want to buy this Polestar (or any other heavy, overpowered, massive sized, low-range, SUV, which looks gash, rides gash, handles gash, when a 15 year old family ice or diesel saloon has proper dials on the dash, looks nicer, rides better, and handles better, plus does 500-600 miles before I need to refuel ?
I'm not arguing with anyone on here, I am just asking simple questions based on what I personally require.
I wish somebody would answer my question directly without going off tangent and arguing points which have nothing to do with my own.

[GT9]

More range = more battery = more weight.
Of course you can also get more range by reducing weight and/or drag, which is the perennial argument of, well just make it lighter then?
How, well obviously make them smaller.
Ok, great, now the larger battery is too big to fit in.
Well make the battery smaller then.
Ok, but now the range just dropped.
Well make the car bigger then.
Ad infinitum...
How about everyone goes on a diet and returns to the average BMI from 1950.
Oh no, you can't say that.
OK, design it better, make it more efficient, more dynamic, lighter, more slippery.
What, say like a Tesla 3.
No, no, no, that's boring and plasticky.
I want premium looks, premium leather, lots of sound deadening, I want massive wheels, I want individualism!
Ok, well it's going to get heavier and the range will drop unless we push the battery size up a bit.
No not a bigger battery, I want a smaller battery, less resources, cars are too heavy, don't you know.
Oh and whilst you are at it I want more range...

[Nomme de Plum]

Terminator X said:

SDK must be taking about the 0.7 as a "made up number" which isn't this thread, check the other thread. Not made up.

As for saving the planet headlines here is just one:



TX.

Is that it?

Where does it say saving the planet. In fact a lift implies better than the current position which is true.

[Nomme de Plum]

Nik Gnashers said:

You seem to be answering my comment, with completely unrelated arguments.

I don't want a 600bhp family car either, and nowhere did I say that I did want one.

Neither you, nor anyone else can give me an answer to the question I actually asked.

--- I don't want a 120 mile range EV 2 seater sports car, or a 2.5 tonne mahoosive SUV with 500+ bhp, what can I buy that doesn't look gash, and doesn't have an ipad stuck to the dash ? ---

This is the problem with EVangelists, lots of arguments which don't relate to the issues raised.

I don't have a home charger, so I am looking for a car which is cheap enough to run as a family car, daily, and doesn't look like horrible like all of the current EV's do, just a traditional looking daily, without an ipad dash, and I would like 400+ mile range like many of my old cars could easily achieve.
There are none.
So why would I want to buy this Polestar (or any other heavy, overpowered, massive sized, low-range, SUV, which looks gash, rides gash, handles gash, when a 15 year old family ice or diesel saloon has proper dials on the dash, looks nicer, rides better, and handles better, plus does 500-600 miles before I need to refuel ?
I'm not arguing with anyone on here, I am just asking simple questions based on what I personally require.
I wish somebody would answer my question directly without going off tangent and arguing points which have nothing to do with my own.

Don’t buy an EV.

Maybe in a decade you may have moved to a house will you can install a charger and in all likelyhood there will be many more cars available that suit your specific needs.

Why anyone needs much more than 3 hours driving range is beyond me as even in my younger days I liked to stretch my legs after that time. Even at the NSL that only 210 miles.

I’d add motor manufacturers design and produce cars for mass market appeal. They don’t always get it spot on but often come close so If you don’t fit that it’s just unfortunate for you.

Edited by Nomme de Plum on Tuesday 2nd July 23:25

[legless]

I find the commentary in the review on the single motor vs dual motor versions interesting.

In my own experience from the ones I've driven at length, the single motor RWD EVs tend to be a better product than the dual motor variants - better efficiency, nicer chassis balance, smaller turning circle, better ride etc.

OK - they don't have the headline-grabbing ridiculous straight-line speed, but the vast majority of these things are not sports cars. They're family workhorses. When even the single motor versions give you similar pace to a Golf GTI do you honestly need any more?

[MrTrilby]

Nomme de Plum said:

Why anyone needs much more than 3 hours driving range is beyond me as even in my younger days I liked to stretch my legs after that time. Even at the NSL that only 210 miles. .

Edited by Nomme de Plum on Tuesday 2nd July 23:25

As an aside, that ones easy to answer: 3 hours is about my limit too, and sometimes I’ll drive 3 hours to get somewhere. Park overnight where there isn’t (yet) the option to charge, then drive 3 hours home. Sometimes I drive 30 mins to work, 30 mins to home in the evening to pick family up, then 2+ hours to get somewhere for the evening. Again staying overnight without ability to charge before driving home.

So although it’s not that frequent (for us), it’s not that hard to hit 6 hours of driving without stopping to charge/refuel. For us, travelling by car is all about time and convenience.

But as you say, nobody is forced to buy sn EV yet and there are plenty of alternatives to choose from. By the time we are forced to buy EV I expect options for roadside super fast charging and slower overnight charging will have improved significantly and it will be a non issue.

[cidered77]

GT9 said:

More range = more battery = more weight.
Of course you can also get more range by reducing weight and/or drag, which is the perennial argument of, well just make it lighter then?
How, well obviously make them smaller.
Ok, great, now the larger battery is too big to fit in.
Well make the battery smaller then.
Ok, but now the range just dropped.
Well make the car bigger then.
Ad infinitum...
How about everyone goes on a diet and returns to the average BMI from 1950.
Oh no, you can't say that.
OK, design it better, make it more efficient, more dynamic, lighter, more slippery.
What, say like a Tesla 3.
No, no, no, that's boring and plasticky.
I want premium looks, premium leather, lots of sound deadening, I want massive wheels, I want individualism!
Ok, well it's going to get heavier and the range will drop unless we push the battery size up a bit.
No not a bigger battery, I want a smaller battery, less resources, cars are too heavy, don't you know.
Oh and whilst you are at it I want more range...

But there is a choice there, when cars are brought to market. Even if we're talking just 10-20% difference, there is still another way than just making the batteries bigger and bigger, leading to cars too enormous to use in the UK without planning ahead on parking, or risking smashing presumably 3 grand's worth of wing mirror down a country lane, or narrow urban street.

Majoring on efficiency, lower rolling resistance, reduce drag, narrower tyres - these things work. The recent Polestar and Porsche Taycan mid-life facelifts have made really significant leaps forward in range without much in the way of battery tech improvement - just with more efficient cars. Real range improvements too - reproduced by real owners.

I'm no Tesla fan- but, give me a better way of interacting with it, and i'd have got one (indicator buttons a step too far..); their efficient is incredible. And a few british people on one car forum may bemoan build quality, and other manifestations of what is a much lighter car vs. it's competition, but the Model Y does rather appear to be the world'd biggest selling car.

Cars like this and that horrible Lotus are going the "make it enormous; stick in a massive battery" route, i wonder if these cars are going to be a footnote on EV evolution, as we gradually wake up to the benefits of engineering these things to be smaller, to be more efficient, and yeah - have a 250-300 mile range, not more.

Public waking up to realities here than noooo - despite whatever memes you see, there are plenty of charges out there, and nooooo, you don't drive 300 miles without stopping no matter how much you tell social otherwise - and voting with their BIK wallets, hopefully turns us back from behemoths like this...

(note: i am *not* making any kind of lifetime Co2 argument here related to mass, i agree with you on all of that. I am making a "this car and its competition is too massive" argument!)

[SDK]

Terminator X said:

SDK must be taking about the 0.7 as a "made up number" which isn't this thread, check the other thread. Not made up.

As for saving the planet headlines here is just one:



TX.

Poor effort !

1 : That's not even a Ford advert - It's an image created by a content creator for a story about Hybrid's. Link here : https://lovetransit.substack.com/p/electric-cars-s...
2: The Car isn't a full BEV - it's a hybrid


As for your 0.7 number - that is complete BS too !
There are enough real world EV tests available to watch on YouTube which show 83-92% of achievable WLTP range for BEV's [Not 70% of the 80% SOC ]

Edited by SDK on Wednesday 3rd July 09:49

[Bladedancer]

Nomme de Plum said:

Why anyone needs much more than 3 hours driving range is beyond me as even in my younger days I liked to stretch my legs after that time. Even at the NSL that only 210 miles. .

Edited by Nomme de Plum on Tuesday 2nd July 23:25

Then you have suffered terminal imagination failure. I love the "I'm not doing it so I see no reason for anyone else to do it" thinking. Complete lack of imagination.

In my younger days, over 1000 miles in a day was not a problem - and usually twice a year occurrence.
Even today, in my 40s, trips from the South to the Lakes or Scotland are not only not unheard of, but regular. Not too long ago I drove from London to NEC B'ham. And I just parked. Didn't have to run around looking for a charger. Nope, just parked, took the kids to see what we came to see and then drove back. And what do you know, there was enough fuel in the tank to last me the following week.

So it's great that you drive only so far that you can still see your house, but many of us like to go and see things. Plus we like to, you know, get there in reasonable time to have opportunity to enjoy wherever were going.

[GT9]

cidered77 said:

But there is a choice there, when cars are brought to market. Even if we're talking just 10-20% difference, there is still another way than just making the batteries bigger and bigger, leading to cars too enormous to use in the UK without planning ahead on parking, or risking smashing presumably 3 grand's worth of wing mirror down a country lane, or narrow urban street.

Majoring on efficiency, lower rolling resistance, reduce drag, narrower tyres - these things work. The recent Polestar and Porsche Taycan mid-life facelifts have made really significant leaps forward in range without much in the way of battery tech improvement - just with more efficient cars. Real range improvements too - reproduced by real owners.

If you go back a year and look at my posting on a thread about EV SUVs and their colossal mass, I was extolling the benefits of pushing electric car design in the direction of the the EQXX or the Audi Activesphere concepts.
Essentially, the key to all of this is to start with the aero, exactly as Tesla have done.
Aero is the only engineering discipline where the fundamental equation has force as a function of the square of speed.
Yes, kinetic energy squares with speed, but regen can mitigate that.
Aero is therefore the single largest design constraint affecting electric cars.
Get the aero right, both in terms of frontal area, but also in terms of tear-dropping the body, and everything else has a much better chance of falling into place after that, including weight.
Granted, the process of falling into place isn't necessarily instant.
For that reason, I'm personally happy to cut some slack where it looks to me like that process is underway, but it must start with the aero.
No mention of the c word!

Edited by GT9 on Wednesday 3rd July 12:33

[Terminator X]

Nomme de Plum said:

Terminator X said:

SDK must be taking about the 0.7 as a "made up number" which isn't this thread, check the other thread. Not made up.

As for saving the planet headlines here is just one:



TX.

Is that it?

Where does it say saving the planet. In fact a lift implies better than the current position which is true.

Lol save the animals isn't saving the planet you say. Pedant!

Here's another, there are thousands of them:



If you are honestly trying to say that EV is NOT promoted as saving the planet you must have missed 5 years of adverts.

TX.

[iphonedyou]

Wickedbad said:

That is not a blowjob-friendly centre console.

Sort it out, manufacturers.

You worried about sore ribs?

[cidered77]

GT9 said:

cidered77 said:

But there is a choice there, when cars are brought to market. Even if we're talking just 10-20% difference, there is still another way than just making the batteries bigger and bigger, leading to cars too enormous to use in the UK without planning ahead on parking, or risking smashing presumably 3 grand's worth of wing mirror down a country lane, or narrow urban street.

Majoring on efficiency, lower rolling resistance, reduce drag, narrower tyres - these things work. The recent Polestar and Porsche Taycan mid-life facelifts have made really significant leaps forward in range without much in the way of battery tech improvement - just with more efficient cars. Real range improvements too - reproduced by real owners.

If you go back a year and look at my posting on a thread about EV SUVs and their colossal mass, I was extolling the benefits of pushing electric car design in the direction of the the EQXX or the Audi Activesphere concepts.
Essentially, the key to all of this is to start with the aero, exactly as Tesla have done.
Aero is the only engineering discipline where the fundamental equation has force as a function of the square of speed.
Yes, kinetic energy squares with speed, but regen can mitigate that.
Aero is therefore the single largest design constraint affecting electric cars.
Get the aero right, both in terms of frontal area, but also in terms of tear-dropping the body, and everything else has a much better chance of falling into place after that, including weight.
Granted, the process of falling into place isn't necessarily instant.
For that reason, I'm personally happy to cut some slack where it looks to me like that process is underway, but it must start with the aero.
No mention of the c word!

Edited by GT9 on Wednesday 3rd July 12:33

(i'm probably not going to go back a year to look at a stranger's internet posts in fairness, just putting that out there !)

no disagreement there, but to my point - isn't aero (well "drag" in this case) also about the sheer size, as well as the shape? Smaller frontal area, so not these bonkers 2 meter wide things, as well as the teardrop shape....

I really hope we get smarter on this, and part of me also hopes it spells the end for the era of the SUV, and maybe swoopy shooting brakes become fashionable

I had an Ionic 6 for 3 months. Looks like it should be engineered for amazing efficiency, but delivered barely different range to the '5, which did not. It was also another mid-range EV that decided it wanted to be 5 meters long with a 12 meter turning circle - often pain in the arse in the real world.

So anyway - on mass, yes - i get your views on it. I know heavier cars even out in the long run with materially less mass being chucked into them - get that. I also get the arguments on majority of road damage being caused by HGVs. But - even so, 2,5 tons being the new 1.7 tons - i am personally not ready for that, and doubt i ever will be. Yeah EVs will always weigh more, but a more aero efficient shape, a reduce rolling resistance (surely narrower tyres help?!), smaller batteries and a generational shift on attitudes to how and when you put energy back into you car... hopefully means 5 x 2meter cars that weight 2.5 tons was just a thing we did briefly in the 20s....