The Polestar 4 Deleted a Rear Windscreen, and Nobody Can Stop Talking About It
All three reviews open with the same headline feature: this is the first mainstream UK car to ship without a conventional rear windscreen, replaced entirely by a digital camera and screen — and reviewers remain genuinely split on whether that's clever engineering or a solution to a problem nobody had.
Illustration for editorial purposes
A Genuinely Bold Bet on One Very Visible Decision
Removing something as fundamental as a rear windscreen is a serious design gamble. Reviewers keep circling back to the same question: does the extra headroom and lower roofline it enables actually justify losing something drivers have relied on for over a century?
Specs at a Glance
| Body style | Electric SUV-coupé |
|---|---|
| Battery | 100kWh (CATL, NMC chemistry) |
| Versions | Long Range Single Motor (268bhp), Long Range Dual Motor (536bhp) |
| 0–62mph | 7.1 sec (Single Motor) to 3.8 sec (Dual Motor) |
| Charging | Up to 200kW DC |
Full Review Summary
Autocar
Autocar detailed the engineering rationale: dropping the rear windscreen let designers move the rear header rail backwards, lowering the roofline while extending the glass roof over rear passengers' heads for a more open, Tesla-style cabin feel. They rated the dual-motor version's traction and cornering composure highly, though found the touchscreen-only control of the air vents frustrating enough that every tester on the road test agreed it was a mistake.
What Car?
What Car? found the single-motor, rear-wheel-drive version genuinely more enjoyable and involving to drive than the more powerful dual-motor version, rating the BMW iX3, Porsche Macan Electric and even Polestar's own larger 3 as more engaging overall. They praised excellent body control on undulating roads thanks to a low centre of gravity, though noted it's a shame adaptive suspension isn't offered on the cheaper single-motor version.
Top Gear
Top Gear rated the interior as genuinely lovely and roomy, crediting the missing rear window with real headroom gains, though were unconvinced the trade-off was worth it after extended testing, noting the digital rear-view mirror requires constant refocusing that a traditional mirror never demands. They praised the sense of the "usual Polestar vibes" carrying through despite the entirely different SEA platform underneath, with plenty of recycled materials and calm, uncluttered design.
Trims & Engines at a Glance
Only two versions are offered, both sharing the same battery — the gulf is entirely in motor count and drive layout, with adaptive suspension reserved for the dual-motor car.
| Derivative | Engine | Power | Transmission | Body | 0–62mph |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long Range Single Motor | Single electric motor, RWD | 268bhp | Single-speed automatic | Coupe SUV | 7.1s |
| Long Range Dual Motor | Dual electric motors, AWD | 536bhp | Single-speed automatic | Coupe SUV | 3.8s |
Both versions share a 100kWh battery (94kWh usable), giving up to 385 miles of range on the Single Motor or 367 miles on the Dual Motor. The Single Motor uses passive suspension; the Dual Motor gets adaptive dampers. Check Polestar's UK configurator for current pricing.
Strengths
- Genuinely spacious, light-filled cabin
- Strong official range and competitive charging speed
- Single-motor version offers surprisingly engaging handling
- Distinctive, attention-grabbing styling
Weak points
- No rear windscreen remains a genuinely divisive, adjustment-heavy feature
- Touchscreen-only control for basic functions like air vents
- Dual-motor version feels quick but less genuinely involving than the single-motor
- Very wide dimensions can be a squeeze on narrower UK roads
Who It Actually Suits
Buyers who want genuinely distinctive styling and can live with, or even embrace, the rear-window-free design. The single-motor version is the one every review recommends for actual driving enjoyment — try both before assuming more power is better.
More Polestar Reviews
Watch the Reviews
Polestar 4 review ↗ (same video, watch above ↗)