I’ve never hidden my admiration for the Polestar 2 (here’s our latest test), a truly interesting electric car that continues to improve over the years. For this reason, I was very curious about the Polestar 4, a highly strategic model for the brand as it aims to reposition itself and compete in the electric D-segment.
Polestar 4: Our tops&flops
The Polestar 4 is currently the flagship of the lineup, showcasing the brand’s capabilities in terms of performance and technology. It’s a car that aims for a big “wow” factor, starting with design choices like the controversial removal of the traditional rear window, replaced by two cameras that project the image onto the central rearview mirror, which is actually a display. It also makes a visual impact and can be operated entirely via software—through the app, the central display, or voice commands. I’d recommend it if this is what you’re looking for in a car, if you want to stand out from the usual competitors (mostly German), and if you care about sustainable materials, which here are largely environmentally friendly and often recycled. And performance-wise, it’s another wow factor: 544 HP with 686 Nm of torque delivers 0-100 km/h in 3.8 seconds and a top speed of 200 km/h, making it the most powerful electric Polestar currently available. However, keep in mind that its reliance on software sacrifices some practicality and can complicate basic tasks, like adjusting the mirrors or opening the glovebox.
What we like:
- 3.8 secs acceleration is really fun;
- The perfect car for for tuning nerds;
- Good attention to sustainability;
What we don’t like:
- No logic in the set-up;
- The software is full of problems;
- No choice for the virtual rear;
Prices in Scandinavia
- Denmark: from 465.000 DKK (606.000 DKK for the tested version)
- Sweden: from 700.000 SEK (846.000 SEK for the tested version)
- Norway: from 584.000 NOK (734.000 NOK for the tested version)
The Independent Car
In my opinion, the aesthetics are well done. Personally, I still prefer the Polestar 2, which has the right blend of elegance and sportiness, but here the effect is still achieved. It draws on the legacy of the Polestar Precept concept car, which we’ve always appreciated and seen in person, with generally smooth lines that somewhat mask the generous dimensions, measuring 4.83 meters in length, 2 meters in width, and 1.5 meters in height. The increased length improves rear passenger space, a real upgrade over the Polestar 2.
This car marks a big step forward for Polestar’s independence from Volvo, a separation not only symbolized by Volvo’s reduced stake in the brand. While the Polestar 1 and 2 are production versions of two Volvo concept cars (the 2013 Volvo Concept Coupé and the Volvo Concept 40.2, initially designated as the new Volvo S40), built on Volvo’s SPA platform (for the Volvo S90) and the CMA platform (for the Volvo XC40/EX40), and while the Polestar 3 uses Volvo’s SPA2 platform (as with the EX90), the Polestar 4 is the first to be based on Zeekr and Geely’s SEA, the Sustainable Experience Architecture.
There’s still a Volvo connection because the EX30 also uses this platform, albeit in a more compact version. But the Polestar 4 is closer to the Zeekr 001 (here’s our review), sharing motor and battery configurations as well as technical components and production at the Ningbo plant in China.
This is NOT Swedish design
Aesthetically, however, it’s purely Polestar. It tries to channel a bit of Scandinavian design minimalism, though there’s not much Swedish about it. The look is modern and refined, with a front end that stands out due to its Digital Blade headlights, an evolution of Volvo’s Mjöllnir headlights seen on the Polestar 1 and 2 but more futuristic, larger, and visually striking. The rest is clean, with only various cameras and radar for safety and visibility, retractable door handles, and a rear defined by a single line spanning the car’s width, incorporating all lights.
Again, it’s not particularly Swedish because the minimalism is only visual. Scandinavian design is known for its simplicity and accessibility. Here, it seems some things were made to be more complicated. For example, the “key” is large but has no buttons. You can’t remotely open the trunk or car; you must approach or use the app. Additionally, everything is electronically controlled—there’s no physical key or hidden lock in case of failure.
Removing the rear window makes the rear “minimal,” but only visually. Polestar says, “You’ll get used to it,” and Maximilian Missoni, former Head of Design at Polestar (now at BMW as of September 2024), offered somewhat debatable reasoning: “The roof is glass, but with the rear pillars so wide, you can’t see anything from the rear window anyway. So, we replaced it with a rear camera, increasing safety and making smart use of new technology. And we still make traditional side mirrors, which is currently the best solution.” Still, you can see the shape of what could have been a rear window—not overly large but it would’ve been there. Personally, I don’t see it as a downside: I appreciate when brands take risks and aim to be different.
I would have preferred, however, the option to let users choose, as many cars with digital rearview mirrors do, between a traditional rear window or cameras during configuration. I couldn’t quite get used to it myself and relied more on the side mirrors; while the cameras offer an uninterrupted panoramic view without pillar obstructions, they lack depth perception, making it hard to gauge how close someone is behind.
When I asked what happens if the cameras break, expecting a response on repair speed and costs, Polestar, or at least the Danish branch, told me, “There are two cameras, so there’s no risk of losing visibility.”
A Software full of problems
Inside, we see the usual Polestar quality. The layout is entirely new compared to the Polestar 2—much more minimalist and clinical, with a finally horizontal touchscreen display and a better-organized storage area. For example, on the center console, the cupholders are now side-by-side rather than one above the other as in the Polestar 2. In the lower area, there’s ample space for wallets and other items, like the passenger’s phone, while only one smartphone fits just below the central touchscreen, with wireless charging. The USB-C ports are tucked under the central armrest.
The interior space is excellent; the long wheelbase offers legroom even for taller passengers, though the sloping roof means their heads may touch if seated in the rear. The panoramic glass roof adds light, which would otherwise be limited by the shape of the rear windows and the missing rear window. The rear is entirely dark, though it can fold down to accommodate longer items.
The cabin is a mix of elegance and sportiness: the front seats have integrated headrests, while the rear seats are more traditional. The steering wheel has a flattened bottom and a metal ring in the center, like sports cars, to show when it’s perfectly straight. And sustainability is a priority, with the upholstery made from 100% recycled PET in a pleasant blue-white that matches the exterior color. If desired, Nappa leather is also available in black or white.
Compared to the Polestar 2, everything here is software-based, controlled and adjusted via the large 15.4″ central display, now, fortunately, in horizontal orientation. There’s a second display behind the steering wheel, similar to recent models in the Geely group, starting with the Zeekr 001. The value-added feature is Android Automotive, with native Google apps and a simple amber-on-black interface.
This display is the brain and control center for the entire vehicle. Not only can you set the car to be sportier by adjusting the suspension stiffness, steering weight, and ESC settings, but you can also manage the lights and even adjust the mirrors and steering wheel position. The complexity arises because you use the central display to activate soft-touch buttons on the steering wheel to adjust the mirror angle and confirm light activation.
It’s a “wow” feature, but in my opinion, an ineffective use of technology that adds more steps instead of simplifying. Furthermore, there are no mechanical alternatives, so if the steering wheel control fails (as has happened, and early Polestar 4 models have already been recalled, as confirmed to me), there’s no other way to adjust the mirrors, not even through other menus.
There are inconsistencies: the steering wheel and mirrors can only be adjusted this way, but for instance, physical buttons control the windows and door locks. Volume can be adjusted from the right spoke of the steering wheel, the central touchscreen, or the rotary dial on the center console. The seats are adjusted electronically with physical buttons beside them, as usual, and also via a dedicated menu on the central display. Even the climate control is adjusted from the central display. It’s unclear why some functions offer multiple control options, while others don’t.
Overall, the software feels immature, reflecting a car designed to impress in the early moments of driving, sacrificing practicality. Not to mention all these extra steps are distracting—a letdown for a brand inheriting Volvo’s safety-conscious legacy.
Driving Enjoyment
These issues become even more annoying when you consider just how enjoyable the car is to drive. Here, we’re talking about the most powerful version, with two electric motors delivering 544 HP, a 0-100 km/h acceleration in 3.8 seconds, and a top speed of 200 km/h—not bad for an electric car.
It’s clear this car is also designed with driving enjoyment and customization “nerds” in mind. In the dedicated menu (accessible via a car icon), you can fine-tune various parameters, making the Polestar 4 more performance-oriented by tightening the suspension and steering for added precision, or more city-friendly and comfortable by maximizing regenerative braking, enabling one-pedal driving, and softening the shocks.
Of course, the size and weight are noticeable: compared to the Polestar 2, which is already on the heavy side, this one, nearing 2.5 tons, feels its weight in both acceleration and braking. However, I don’t think this detracts from the overall driving experience. On the contrary, it’s very stable, and even with the ESC off, it only slides a bit without ever feeling untrustworthy. It’s certainly not a supercar, and I’m not sure if Polestar will ever make a BST version of it (which would be interesting, especially with some features from the Zeekr 001 FR), but it’s engaging and enjoyable.
The Harman Kardon sound system also enhances the experience, syncing well with Spotify via CarPlay or, even better, directly from the system itself.
Range and charge
I mentioned that the Polestar 4 inherits a lot from the Zeekr 001. However, despite being built on the SEA platform and sharing specs with its Chinese cousin, it remains on a 400-volt system rather than 800. This means it doesn’t match some of the fastest charging times on the market. Still, Polestar has suggested that an update toward faster charging could be possible during the vehicle’s lifecycle—though I think this is a risky promise to make.
Anyway, it has a maximum DC charging power of 200 kW, allowing for a 10-80% charge in 30 minutes. A respectable figure, though still behind competitors of similar power and caliber like the Kia EV6 GT, Hyundai Ioniq 5 N, and Porsche Macan.
In terms of range, it performs better than both, and overall, the consumption is quite impressive for a car of this class: I often stayed under 19 kWh/100 km, even at highway speeds. In this configuration, I managed to drive between 300 and 350 km on the highway, while in city conditions, it typically exceeds 500 km, even in temperatures below 10°C.
