Photo: Polestar
Maybe you haven't noticed, but most of the media is buzzing about Polestar's first all-electric model and second overall vehicle to bear the brand's new identity, the Polestar 2.
Tons of reviews have concluded that the Polestar is a very good alternative to the Model 3, some even suggesting it would be the better choice. The arguments usually revolve around the 2's comfort, build quality, superior cabin finish, driving feel, and even performance. You'll notice there's no mention of the Swedish EV's maximum range.
That's because, in the absence of official EPA ratings, Polestar has set a 250 miles (402 km) maximum range for its Polestar 2 model. That is 60 miles short of what the EPA says the Tesla Model 3 Performance can cover on one charge, and 72 miles off the mark for the Model 3 Long Range version. Clearly, that's a lost battle from the start despite the extra 3 kWh in battery size for the Swede.
Well, leave it to Polestar to put a twist on it and turn that into an advantage as well. The company contacted an independent automotive research group from Michigan called FT Techno to carry out a study on five vehicles: the Polestar 2, the Polestar 2 with Performance Package, the Audi e-tron, the Jaguar I-Pace, and, of course, the Tesla Model 3 Performance.
The aim of the test, as reported by Roadshow, was to determine which of the five offered the most efficiency during real-world highway driving. Two questions immediately arise: what constitutes "real world" and how do you calculate efficiency? You'd think the team took the five-EV-strong convoy out on a public highway because that's what the real world we know looks like. But no, what they did was to have them circle around an oval track with the speed set at 70 mph (112 kph) and the AC turned on.
The answer to the second question is even more arbitrary. Efficiency is usually calculated by dividing the number of miles driven on a single charge by the battery's capacity. That way, you get the value for miles per kWh of charge. The higher the number, the better the car's efficiency. It's similar to the whole mpg-e rating, only less ridiculously-sounding.
What FT-Tech did, however, was something completely different. They drove the cars to depletion, then compared the number of miles driven to the official EPA rating (or self-awarded rating, in Polestar's case), put that into percentage, and there you have it: efficiency. Whichever had the closest value to 100 was declared the "most efficient."
According to the test results, the Audi e-tron won it by driving 187 miles of the 204-mile (328 km) EPA rating, which equates to 92 percent. Second came the Polestar 2, stopping after 205 miles (330 km) on route to its 250-mile rating. 82 percent was enough to make the new Swedish EV the runner-up. It was followed by the Jaguar I-Pace with 188 miles of its EPA-rated 234 miles (377 km), earning the British electric crossover a decent score of 80 percent. The Performance Package on the Polestar 2 cut the vehicle's performance by just eight miles, but it was enough to send the sportier EV into fourth with a 79 percent score.
That leaves the Tesla Model 3 and the fifth spot, which means the American EV was deemed to be the least efficient, despite the fact it traveled the longest with 234 miles using the smallest battery pack (75 kWh). However, because of its 310 miles EPA rating and the way the scoring of this test went, it came last with only 75 percent of its expected range translating into the "real world."
Is this supposed to make you want to buy a Polestar 2 more than before? Well, it shouldn't. First of all, they are comparing EPA ratings with in-house ratings, which makes the whole test irrelevant from the start. Then, they focus on the discrepancy between official figures and real-world results, ignoring other important aspects such as battery capacity (78 kWh for the Polestar, only 75 kWh for the Model 3), performance (the Polestar 2 is great, but it's still behind the Model 3), and price (Polestar 2 will be roughly $3,000 more expensive than the Performance version of the Model 3).
Since pretty much everything about the test is completely arbitrary, its conclusions don't really mean much. If anything, we'd say it does Polestar more harm than good showing some questionable tactics on the part of the Swedish company that don't do it any favors. Polestar would be better off concentrating on all the other positive aspects of its model while striving to fix its flaws with the next iteration.
That's because, in the absence of official EPA ratings, Polestar has set a 250 miles (402 km) maximum range for its Polestar 2 model. That is 60 miles short of what the EPA says the Tesla Model 3 Performance can cover on one charge, and 72 miles off the mark for the Model 3 Long Range version. Clearly, that's a lost battle from the start despite the extra 3 kWh in battery size for the Swede.
Well, leave it to Polestar to put a twist on it and turn that into an advantage as well. The company contacted an independent automotive research group from Michigan called FT Techno to carry out a study on five vehicles: the Polestar 2, the Polestar 2 with Performance Package, the Audi e-tron, the Jaguar I-Pace, and, of course, the Tesla Model 3 Performance.
The aim of the test, as reported by Roadshow, was to determine which of the five offered the most efficiency during real-world highway driving. Two questions immediately arise: what constitutes "real world" and how do you calculate efficiency? You'd think the team took the five-EV-strong convoy out on a public highway because that's what the real world we know looks like. But no, what they did was to have them circle around an oval track with the speed set at 70 mph (112 kph) and the AC turned on.
The answer to the second question is even more arbitrary. Efficiency is usually calculated by dividing the number of miles driven on a single charge by the battery's capacity. That way, you get the value for miles per kWh of charge. The higher the number, the better the car's efficiency. It's similar to the whole mpg-e rating, only less ridiculously-sounding.
What FT-Tech did, however, was something completely different. They drove the cars to depletion, then compared the number of miles driven to the official EPA rating (or self-awarded rating, in Polestar's case), put that into percentage, and there you have it: efficiency. Whichever had the closest value to 100 was declared the "most efficient."
According to the test results, the Audi e-tron won it by driving 187 miles of the 204-mile (328 km) EPA rating, which equates to 92 percent. Second came the Polestar 2, stopping after 205 miles (330 km) on route to its 250-mile rating. 82 percent was enough to make the new Swedish EV the runner-up. It was followed by the Jaguar I-Pace with 188 miles of its EPA-rated 234 miles (377 km), earning the British electric crossover a decent score of 80 percent. The Performance Package on the Polestar 2 cut the vehicle's performance by just eight miles, but it was enough to send the sportier EV into fourth with a 79 percent score.
That leaves the Tesla Model 3 and the fifth spot, which means the American EV was deemed to be the least efficient, despite the fact it traveled the longest with 234 miles using the smallest battery pack (75 kWh). However, because of its 310 miles EPA rating and the way the scoring of this test went, it came last with only 75 percent of its expected range translating into the "real world."
Is this supposed to make you want to buy a Polestar 2 more than before? Well, it shouldn't. First of all, they are comparing EPA ratings with in-house ratings, which makes the whole test irrelevant from the start. Then, they focus on the discrepancy between official figures and real-world results, ignoring other important aspects such as battery capacity (78 kWh for the Polestar, only 75 kWh for the Model 3), performance (the Polestar 2 is great, but it's still behind the Model 3), and price (Polestar 2 will be roughly $3,000 more expensive than the Performance version of the Model 3).
Since pretty much everything about the test is completely arbitrary, its conclusions don't really mean much. If anything, we'd say it does Polestar more harm than good showing some questionable tactics on the part of the Swedish company that don't do it any favors. Polestar would be better off concentrating on all the other positive aspects of its model while striving to fix its flaws with the next iteration.
Google News