Riesen Akkudifferenz! - Aber wirklich LANGSAMER auf Langstrecke? Polestar 4 LR RWD vs. Mazda 6e

Polestar 4 Long Range Single Motor vs. Mazda 6e (Small-Battery Version)

Main comparison

The video compares two similarly sized, rear-wheel-drive electric cars over a route of around 200 km: city driving, country roads with a mountain climb and descent, and more than 120 km of motorway driving. Temperatures were near or below 0°C.

The Polestar has roughly 32 kWh more battery capacity, but the test found that this did not translate into a major efficiency or charging advantage.

Mazda 6e

Key features

• Rear-wheel drive, 190 kW and 320 Nm
• 0–100 km/h in 7.6 seconds; top speed of 175 km/h
• Tested version has a 68.8 kWh LFP battery, 11 kW AC charging and up to 165 kW DC charging
• Quoted 10–80% charging time: 24 minutes
• Takumi Plus trim includes heated and ventilated front seats and a Sony sound system
• 456-litre boot, expanding to 1,074 litres, plus a comparatively large 70-litre frunk
• Retractable rear spoiler and 1,500 kg towing capacity
• Turning circle: 11.6 m

What worked well

• Lower energy use than the Polestar in the test: 19.0 kWh/100 km on the car’s display, compared with 21.42 kWh/100 km calculated from charging energy
• Fast charging in cold conditions: it reached 80% in under 25 minutes, close to the quoted 24 minutes. Average charging power was about 129 kW.
• Good visibility and manoeuvrability. The 360-degree camera activates automatically at low speeds and helps protect the wheels near curbs.
• Comfortable, quiet motorway ride
• The reviewer particularly praised the Sony audio system’s bass and clarity.
• The head-up display clearly shows following distance. Once engaged, lane centering was considered reasonably effective on the motorway.

Drawbacks

• The energy menu lacks a charge limit and manual battery preconditioning, and provides little useful information about battery heating. The reviewer considers a charge limit important even for an LFP battery.
• Route planning needs substantial improvement. Charging-network options were limited, major providers were missing, and chargers above 50 kW were labelled “super-fast.” The system could route through slow chargers despite the car’s higher charging capability.
• Driver assistance was criticized for poor lane centering on country roads and for responding to speed-limit signs only by slowing down. Sign recognition also picked up exit signs, and disabling speed warnings requires navigating through menus.
• Regeneration cannot bring the car to a complete stop, and its settings cycle through in a fixed order.
• The charging-energy figure was 11.29% higher than the onboard consumption figure.

Battery recommendation: The presenter strongly recommends the small-battery version over the Mazda’s larger-battery option. The larger version has a substantially slower quoted 10–80% charging time of 45 minutes, and the presenter expects stops to take even longer in winter.

Polestar 4 Long Range Single Motor

Key features

• Rear-wheel drive, 200 kW and 343 Nm
• 0–100 km/h in 7.4 seconds; top speed of 180 km/h
• About 94–95 kWh usable capacity
• 11 kW AC charging as standard, with optional 22 kW AC charging
• Peak DC charging power of 200 kW; quoted 10–80% charging time: 31 minutes
• 526-litre boot, expanding to 1,536 litres, plus a small 15-litre frunk
• 1,500 kg towing capacity and an 11.6 m turning circle
• The test car had 20-inch winter tyres and the Pilot and Plus packages.

What worked well

• The Google-based route planner was considered markedly better than Mazda’s. It automatically planned sensible fast-charging stops, showed arrival charge levels and allowed charging-network filters. However, the reviewer noted that filters cannot be changed while driving.
• One-pedal driving can bring the car to a complete stop. The long-term driver praised it for city and country-road use.
• Comfortable driving dynamics, a refined ride, strong Matrix LED headlights and a generally more upscale cabin
• The Digital Key was described as quick and reliable when it worked.
• Charging-energy calculations were relatively close to the onboard display: 21.1 kWh/100 km shown, compared with 22.52 kWh/100 km calculated from charging energy, a 6.7% difference.

Drawbacks

• Despite its larger battery, the Polestar used more energy in the test: about 22.52 kWh/100 km based on charging, roughly 0.9 kWh/100 km more than the Mazda.
• It took 36 minutes 27 seconds to charge from 10–80%, well over the quoted 31 minutes. Average charging power was about 111 kW, below the Mazda’s average in the test.
• The reviewer found the driver-assistance controls unintuitive. The touch-sensitive steering-wheel controls and Pilot Assist system were not to his liking.
• Sign recognition on Swiss motorways was unreliable, and automatic lane changes had to be re-enabled after starting the car.
• Software and electronics were occasionally unreliable during the test drive: voice control and audio stopped working, warning and indicator sounds disappeared, and saved seat settings were not always recalled correctly.
• The cabin is wider, and the driver said it can feel close to other cars in tight parking spaces.
• The Harman Kardon audio system was rated as solid but not outstanding.

Test results and price

After the roughly 200 km drive, charging-based consumption was:

• Mazda 6e: 21.42 kWh/100 km
• Polestar 4: 22.52 kWh/100 km

The Mazda’s onboard consumption figure was less accurate than the Polestar’s in this test.

The Mazda Takumi Plus was quoted at CHF 45,450. The Polestar started at CHF 64,000, but a configured example with discounts was quoted at about CHF 56,000. The presenter said lightly used demonstrators could be found for around CHF 40,000 or slightly more, and that promotional leasing could make the Polestar competitive with—or potentially cheaper than—the Mazda.

An Instagram poll narrowly favored the Polestar: 54% Polestar, 46% Mazda. No formal review score was given.

Verdict

The Mazda 6e was more efficient in this test and performed better at a single fast-charging stop. It also offers a spacious frunk, good comfort and excellent audio. However, its route planning, energy-menu features and some driver aids need software updates.

The Polestar 4 was more polished in areas such as route planning, cabin feel, lighting and one-pedal driving, but it consumed more energy and charged more slowly than expected. The presenter’s personal choice was the Polestar 4, while acknowledging the Mazda’s efficiency and charging strengths. He emphasized that the Polestar’s discounted and used-car pricing makes the comparison much closer than the new-car list prices suggest.

Different speaker perspectives

• Main presenter: Focused on measured efficiency, charging, menus and route planning. He strongly favored the Mazda’s small battery over its larger option, but said he would personally choose the Polestar.
• Selina, the Polestar’s longer-term driver: Praised the Polestar’s visibility despite having no rear window, along with its one-pedal driving, comfort and handling. She was less positive about its touch controls and Pilot Assist, preferring to drive manually.