RE: 2024 Polestar 4 | PH Review

[John87]

Polestar's chief designer was on record a few months back categorically stating that they would not follow an aero first methodology. For them they prefer to sacrifice some aero and range for the sake of the car looking better.

That's obviously subjective but I much prefer the looks of Polestars to the equivalent Tesla and in the premium segment, looks are important

[jenkosrugby]

J4CKO said:

Largely ambivalent about this car, but I still cant get my head round how petrolheads suddenly start rattling on about CO2, resources and matters of an ecological natures after decades of not really giving a st.

"EV's are terrible for the environment", same person then extolls the benefits of their 12 mpg V8 car or how they can blast cyclists with diesel fumes from their DPF deleted oil burner.

Then moans about mines, for the rare earth minerals having never, ever mentioned the oil sands production, or the fact that Cobalt is used in fuel production as well as EV batteries.

ICE vehicle bursts in to flames, complete silence, EV goes up (which is pretty rare to be fair) and its terrible and evidence of how cars should never be powered by dangerous batteries, missing all the folk immolated every year in ICE car fires, I personally haven't seen an EV fire but seen a fair few ICE ones.

I am not an EVangelist, haven't got one, no desire for one but jesus the hypocrisy is stifling and pathetic.

Nobody has said EVs are perfect and run on fresh air with no environmental impact, but unless you eschew driving and walk/cycle everywhere than making a point about the environment is rather redundant, most really do not give a st about the environment, but like going on about it, strangely silent wirth regards to oil related disasters.Do you fly on an airliner to go on your yearly hols ? But EVs are still terrible for the environment, go and stand next to an idling airliner and a Tesla and which makes you feel queasy from the fumes after a few mins ?

There are genuine downsides to EVs but a lot of the anti comments seem largely, reading between the lines "Dont like new things, scary and expensive, doesnt go brum, do not want, I like safe and familiar, never been in one but I expect I wont like it"

Same folk "Cant go for EVs, no infrastructure you see", then in the next breath go "Hydrogen is the future", and they honestly believe you can just convert your 2012 Focus to run on Hydrogen in an afternoon, dead easy apparently. You never know what may happen with Hydrogen but I seen zero Hydrogen powered cars and am tripping over Teslas, Taycans, Leafs etc, Occams razor ? But you wont be converting your existing car to run on it with a kit from Halfords.

Need to look at our motivation for coming out with stuff, and try and be honest, its fine to not want an EV but no need to try and make stuff up, or discredit it with some pretend concern for the environment.

100% agree.......well said.

[Nik Gnashers]

Nomme de Plum said:

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

It's not the need for a range of more than 3 hours driving, although I do sometimes enjoy going long distances, it's the fact I cannot charge at home, thus forcing me to sit at charging stations, paying 20 times the cost of home charging, and spending money on costa's while I am forced to wait for my car to recharge.
Thank you for the reply though, I get where you're coming from.
I don't think I am in a tiny minority however, there must be a lot more motorists like myself, who can't charge at home, and who would like a none gash looking/handling, not massively heavy, EV without some 12 inch ipad stuck to the dash.
I'm quite sure my requirements are not unique.

[Nomme de Plum]

Nik Gnashers said:

It's not the need for a range of more than 3 hours driving, although I do sometimes enjoy going long distances, it's the fact I cannot charge at home, thus forcing me to sit at charging stations, paying 20 times the cost of home charging, and spending money on costa's while I am forced to wait for my car to recharge.
Thank you for the reply though, I get where you're coming from.
I don't think I am in a tiny minority however, there must be a lot more motorists like myself, who can't charge at home, and who would like a none gash looking/handling, not massively heavy, EV without some 12 inch ipad stuck to the dash.
I'm quite sure my requirements are not unique.

I fully accept that the Government has not thought through providing charging for those that cannot charge at home. It seems completely unreasonable to expect you and others in a similar situation 80/90p per kWhr.

It does not seem unreasonable that you could be enabled to buy electric at charge points at the same rate as you buy at home using a card linked to your domestic tariff. It probably won’t be 7.5 like home owners can get but 30p isn’t too shabby.

Maybe a change of government make take it on board.

As to the EVs internals I’m pretty bloody old but have accepted I just need to get to grips with modern technology. I think voice activation is the way forward combine with comprehensive heads up displays for all cars. I used the latter and they are great.

[GT9]

cidered77 said:

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 !

You don't feel like a complete stranger to me.
I enjoyed reading your posts around the sale of the R8 and the car itself left me with a yearning that I may have to act upon at some point in the near future.
I wan't expecting you to go back, even I would struggle to find that thread, I think it was something to do with the boss of Citroen saying that SUVs need to become a thing of the past if we really want to get the best out of electrification.

[raspy]

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.

Look at every car coming to market in the last few years, regardless of it being powered by electricity, petrol or diesel.

Giant touchscreens galore, and it's not an EV thing. It's just modern car design.

[SDK]

raspy said:

Look at every car coming to market in the last few years, regardless of it being powered by electricity, petrol or diesel.

Giant touchscreens galore, and it's not an EV thing. It's just modern car design.

Exactly - it’s market trends.
One car maker starts it (Tesla) and is successful, the others follow.

Same with most things - Apple killed the headphone port on their phones. Samsung ran an advert boasting how their phones still had one. A year later Samsung removed it too
Now it’s harder to find a phone with a headphone port, than without.

All car controls are moving to screens now (except for the regulated required buttons - Hazards etc..)
Even a cheap petrol Toyota Aygo has a large screen with few real buttons.

[jenkosrugby]

Terminator X said:

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.

WRONG!......said it before, EV's will not save the planet (and nobody said they would), but they are better for the planet that their fossil fuel cousins. After two years an EV starts to use less CO2, after 10 yrs its half, and after 15 yrs almost 2 thirds.

[Bladedancer]

J4CKO said:

Largely ambivalent about this car, but I still cant get my head round how petrolheads suddenly start rattling on about CO2, resources and matters of an ecological natures after decades of not really giving a st.

You missed the point. The issue is claiming EVs are saving the planet, where they aren't and fixating on CO2 as if that was the only environmental issue.

J4CKO said:

"EV's are terrible for the environment", same person then extolls the benefits of their 12 mpg V8 car or how they can blast cyclists with diesel fumes from their DPF deleted oil burner.

This is one for "Citation needed".
But realistically speaking, we're not saying EVs are terrible for the environment and we're not claiming V8s aren't. We're saying they're not as good as people claim.

J4CKO said:

Then moans about mines, for the rare earth minerals having never, ever mentioned the oil sands production, or the fact that Cobalt is used in fuel production as well as EV batteries.

Again, we're simply pointing out the fact that contrary to what many rose tinted glasses wearers say, they are not as eco as they are claimed to be.
I mean this is the 3rd time I have to point this out. Is it really that difficult to get?

J4CKO said:

ICE vehicle bursts in to flames, complete silence, EV goes up (which is pretty rare to be fair) and its terrible and evidence of how cars should never be powered by dangerous batteries, missing all the folk immolated every year in ICE car fires, I personally haven't seen an EV fire but seen a fair few ICE ones.

There are statistics for that. EVs are less likely to catch fire. EVs are also a lot younger (as in lower average vehicle age) than ICE cars. I'm curious how the stats will look like when average EV age matches average ICE age.
And this argument skips the fact that when an ICE car catches fire you can put it out. When an EV does, you can't. You wait for it to burn out and the best thing you can do is to isolate it.

J4CKO said:

Nobody has said EVs are perfect and run on fresh air with no environmental impact, but unless you eschew driving and walk/cycle everywhere than making a point about the environment is rather redundant, most really do not give a st about the environment, but like going on about it, strangely silent wirth regards to oil related disasters.Do you fly on an airliner to go on your yearly hols ? But EVs are still terrible for the environment, go and stand next to an idling airliner and a Tesla and which makes you feel queasy from the fumes after a few mins ?

Whether we do or don't give a st about env is immaterial. What is important is that we are forced to do something in the name of saving the planet where it is clear the this isn't the case.
Hell, ze Germans pretty much confirmed it was just a money heist. When VAG discovered they won't be the preferred choice for EVs in Europe and China/Korea will be, somehow EV transformation isn't that much of a big deal any more.

J4CKO said:

There are genuine downsides to EVs but a lot of the anti comments seem largely, reading between the lines "Dont like new things, scary and expensive, doesnt go brum, do not want, I like safe and familiar, never been in one but I expect I wont like it"

And? You saw some comments like that (citation needed) and so what? All other concerns are void because of that?
Or are we just stupid ignorant people for not going along with the program?

J4CKO said:

Same folk "Cant go for EVs, no infrastructure you see", then in the next breath go "Hydrogen is the future", and they honestly believe you can just convert your 2012 Focus to run on Hydrogen in an afternoon, dead easy apparently. You never know what may happen with Hydrogen but I seen zero Hydrogen powered cars and am tripping over Teslas, Taycans, Leafs etc, Occams razor ? But you wont be converting your existing car to run on it with a kit from Halfords.

Infrastructure argument. Yes. You see, hydrogen filling stations are like normal filling stations. It takes a bit longer to fill the car, but emphasis on "a bit", like additional minute or two. Not hours. Minutes.
So let's look at UK's charging capability. I walk the kids to school and personally I can't wait for when everyone will have an EV so I can walk the street having to skip over charging cables coming from the charger to the car across the pavement. It will be so much fun. Some streets will sadly miss it, as people have driveways (though seem like maybe 2/3rds use them) but on others boy-oh-boy it'll be fun. It'll be even better in the flats, especially the tower blocks.

And in case you wondered - yes, I already have to mind the cables. There are people with EVs who have to drag the cable across the pavement to get the charged up at home.
I can see people saying "nah, it'll be fine" but I see very little concrete plans to deal with a situation where, say, 50% of cars are EVs and will need charging after people come home from work.

Also, where did you get the idea you can convert existing car to hydrogen I have no idea.

J4CKO said:

Need to look at our motivation for coming out with stuff, and try and be honest, its fine to not want an EV but no need to try and make stuff up, or discredit it with some pretend concern for the environment.

I don't care about whether do you or don't have an EV. Buy one if you want one. Just don't force me to have one, I'm not interested at this point. I might be if I can cover 600 miles on one charging all year round and charge it up to full in 10 minutes but till then, no thanks.
I don't commute to London any more, which would be the only reason why I'd consider one today.

Tell you what, if you don't give me BS about how we need to go EV to save the planet, I won't give you the litany how EVs are not saving the planet. Deal?

[GT9]

Bladedancer said:

Hell, ze Germans pretty much confirmed it was just a money heist. When VAG discovered they won't be the preferred choice for EVs in Europe and China/Korea will be, somehow EV transformation isn't that much of a big deal any more.

You see, hydrogen filling stations are like normal filling stations. It takes a bit longer to fill the car, but emphasis on "a bit", like additional minute or two. Not hours. Minutes.

That's not really what he said though is it?
He said the transition to EV is inevitable, but that it will take longer than originally hoped.
The inevitability is locked up in the maths and science.
He also said that e-fuel was an unnecessary distraction for mainstream cars.

As for hydrogen, the 'normality' of the filling station is irrelevant.
In any case, fast EV charging is already dropping into the 'minutes not hours' category.
There are no plans for renewably-sourced hydrogen in the UK that will deliver any kind of decarbonisation solution for the UK's 33 million cars by 2050.
What would be the point of converting our cars to run on hydrogen made from natural gas?
Secondly, the composite materials used in the construction of the fuel tanks that are a key enabler to actually building a viable hydrogen car, either fuel cell of ICE, are not renewable nor are they available in quantities that would even scratch the surface of the 85 million new cars produced globally every year.
Less than 1% of those cars can be built as hydrogen cars.
The same composites that are a key enabler for the myriad of additional wind turbines required to produce enough green hydrogen in the first place, which is probably why we have no plans for that then...
So we will have neither the renewable hydrogen nor the cars to fuel them with, other than possibly some niche users.
That's quite a handicap wouldn't you say?
Petrol and batteries are all we will get going forward.
Which is perfectly fine by me.

Edited to add the UK's latest hydrogen strategy document.
100 pages of which about 10 are dedicated to Transport.
Yet no mention of cars at all...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64c...

Edited by GT9 on Thursday 4th July 12:02

[Otispunkmeyer]

Iamnotkloot said:

A lot of comments so far are praising the car. This seems wrong as it’s clearly got major dynamic issues, highlighted in the report. People don’t really make bad cars anymore, but this may be the exception.

That's quite concerning given where Polestar are currently at - barely selling anything. They've got a big operation here where I work and wonder how long its actually going to last if they can't make something compelling that will sell. I think the no-rear screen thing is going to be marmite to a lot of people and not the "USP" they think it is. If on top of that it doesn't ride or handle particularly well or at least not representative of the price tag then it doesn't bode all that well. Ironically, I think Volvo are more onto a winner in the EV space with the EX-30 but Volvo have washed their hands of Polestar now and its fully under Geely control.

[jenkosrugby]

Otispunkmeyer said:

That's quite concerning given where Polestar are currently at - barely selling anything. They've got a big operation here where I work and wonder how long its actually going to last if they can't make something compelling that will sell. I think the no-rear screen thing is going to be marmite to a lot of people and not the "USP" they think it is. If on top of that it doesn't ride or handle particularly well or at least not representative of the price tag then it doesn't bode all that well. Ironically, I think Volvo are more onto a winner in the EV space with the EX-30 but Volvo have washed their hands of Polestar now and its fully under Geely control.

Q1 after the handover from Volvo was always going to be a struggle......But, Q2 looking much better

7,200 cars delivered in Q1 2024; cash and cash equivalents of USD 784 million as of March 31, 2024
20,200 cars delivered year to date, with Q2 2024 up 80% compared to Q1 2024

[J4CKO]

Bladedancer said:

Tell you what, if you don't give me BS about how we need to go EV to save the planet, I won't give you the litany how EVs are not saving the planet. Deal?

Phew, thats some quoting, I dont think most EV owners go on about saving the planet, thats advertisers and they would, if allowed tell you it has magic powers and can cure various diseases.I think on the whole, they are better, certainly at street level, just had a van come down the road and have the window open and got reminded of what diesel fumes smell like. Most cars and vans dont smell too much but EVs dont leave any fumes.

They just emit less crap locally and can run on renewable electricity, ice cant.

Dont think anyone can claim eco superiority in a 2.5 ton plastic and metal thing full of batteries really.

I am sticking with ICE, but I am a bit of dinosaur and recognise that, and nobody is forcing anybody into an EV, well not yet anyway.

[Miserablegit]

Is it just me or are Polestar cars the most poorly driven EVs?
Was behind one the other day as I watched him perform a three car overtake on a blind bend. I completed the move a few seconds later on the straight. Are they that bad to drive that the drivers prefer death to completing a journey?

[John87]

Yes that one occasion definitely makes the majority of Polestar owners awful drivers.

Drivers in general are awful nowadays and very few can actually overtake safely in my experience.

[Terminator X]

Miserablegit said:

Is it just me or are Polestar cars the most poorly driven EVs?
Was behind one the other day as I watched him perform a three car overtake on a blind bend. I completed the move a few seconds later on the straight. Are they that bad to drive that the drivers prefer death to completing a journey?

New Kings of the road, taken over from BMW / Audi

TX.

[Muddle238]

Miserablegit said:

Is it just me or are Polestar cars the most poorly driven EVs?
Was behind one the other day as I watched him perform a three car overtake on a blind bend. I completed the move a few seconds later on the straight. Are they that bad to drive that the drivers prefer death to completing a journey?

IME Tesla drivers still hold that title. Happy to dawdle along an NSL conserving electricity, but the moment an ICE tries to overtake because they, you know, may wish to drive at the NSL, the Tesla driver will ensure that their USP of instant acceleration is utilised perfectly to block any overtake from an "inferior" ICE car.

Either that or they're sat doing 50 on the motorway, with a string of HGVs overtaking them.

[jenkosrugby]

Miserablegit said:

Is it just me or are Polestar cars the most poorly driven EVs?
Was behind one the other day as I watched him perform a three car overtake on a blind bend. I completed the move a few seconds later on the straight. Are they that bad to drive that the drivers prefer death to completing a journey?

Well, you must be correct then.......You witnessed one being poorly driven, so therefore they must all be like that!......perfect logic!