The electric SUV market is more competitive than ever. Just a few years ago, the Tesla Model Y stood alone in the compact EV segment, yet today it’s joined by eight other nameplates vying for attention, as nearly every mainstream automaker now has a contender in a segment that’s still rapidly growing despite the headwinds EVs face.
With more options than ever, picking the right electric SUV can be tricky, but that’s where we come in. We’re here to help you decide which one fits your needs. Here, we compare seven of the most popular EVs of 2025: the Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6, Toyota bZ, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Chevrolet Equinox EV, and Volkswagen ID4. Nissan declined to send an Ariya and we elected not to bring a Subaru Solterra (a mechanical twin of the Toyota) because the refreshed 2026 model wasn’t available. To find our winner, we evaluated their performance, range, charging, handling, and value to see which one delivers the most compelling combination.
We asked automakers to send dual-motor, big-battery versions, but Chevy opted for a front-drive base Equinox with 220 hp and 243 lb-ft of torque. The AWD version, with 300 hp and 355 lb-ft, would’ve been a better match for this group. Power figures for the others ranged from 320 hp for the Korean entries to 397 hp for the Tesla, with torque spanning from 389 lb-ft (Tesla) to 500 lb-ft (Mach-E). The VW ID4 and Toyota bZ offer 335 hp and 338 hp, respectively; neither of these brands provide torque figures.
EV SUV Big Test! New Tesla Model Y vs. 6 Challengers (Only One Aced the Test)
The best compact electric SUVs duke it out as we find the one that satisfies the most.Miguel CortinaWriterDarren MartinPhotographer
Aug 22, 2025
7 EV SUVs Tested! Tesla Model Y vs. Ioniq 5 vs. EV6 vs. Equinox EV vs. Mustang Mach-E vs. VW ID4 vs. Toyota bZ
2026 Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD Tested: Does Juniper Deliver?
2023 Hyundai Ioniq 5 vs. 2023 Tesla Model Y: Has Tesla Finally Met It’s Match?
2020 Tesla Model Y: Inside The Cabin Of Tesla’s Latest SUV
2020 Tesla Model Y: The Breakdown
The electric SUV market is more competitive than ever. Just a few years ago, the Tesla Model Y stood alone in the compact EV segment, yet today it’s joined by eight other nameplates vying for attention, as nearly every mainstream automaker now has a contender in a segment that’s still rapidly growing despite the headwinds EVs face.
With more options than ever, picking the right electric SUV can be tricky, but that’s where we come in. We’re here to help you decide which one fits your needs. Here, we compare seven of the most popular EVs of 2025: the Model Y, Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6, Toyota bZ, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Chevrolet Equinox EV, and Volkswagen ID4. Nissan declined to send an Ariya and we elected not to bring a Subaru Solterra (a mechanical twin of the Toyota) because the refreshed 2026 model wasn’t available. To find our winner, we evaluated their performance, range, charging, handling, and value to see which one delivers the most compelling combination.
We asked automakers to send dual-motor, big-battery versions, but Chevy opted for a front-drive base Equinox with 220 hp and 243 lb-ft of torque. The AWD version, with 300 hp and 355 lb-ft, would’ve been a better match for this group. Power figures for the others ranged from 320 hp for the Korean entries to 397 hp for the Tesla, with torque spanning from 389 lb-ft (Tesla) to 500 lb-ft (Mach-E). The VW ID4 and Toyota bZ offer 335 hp and 338 hp, respectively; neither of these brands provide torque figures.
Range and Charging Times
Beyond slowing sales and shifting government policy, EVs still face a major hurdle: reliable charging infrastructure. As John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, told us during the filming of “MotorTrend Investigates: America’s EV Problem,” range anxiety and charging access remain top concerns for potential buyers.
We experienced this firsthand during testing in Tehachapi, California, about two hours north of Los Angeles. The fast-charging stations near our hotel—ones we’ve used before—were offline, forcing us to go farther afield. And with the industry transitioning from CCS to Tesla’s NACS port, we had to carry adapters to access both Superchargers and legacy CCS plugs.
To see how far these SUVs go on a single charge, our team range-tested each one via MotorTrend’s Road-Trip Range test, which involves driving at 70 mph constantly on an out-and-back loop that minimizes the effects of elevation change and wind. The Kia EV6 came out on top, covering 266 miles on a single charge and getting quite close to its EPA-rated 295-mile mark. Just behind that sat the Chevrolet Equinox EV, with 262 miles covered. Third place had a tie between the Mustang Mach-E and Tesla Model Y, each delivering 252 miles without stopping to charge. The Hyundai Ioniq 5’s big 20-inch wheels hurt its range, as it covered 234 miles. Sixth and seventh place belong to the Toyota bZ and Volkswagen ID4, respectively. The Toyota covered 222 miles, while the VW only managed 208.
Our fast-charging tests also proved the Kia EV6 was the fastest to replenish its battery pack, adding 160 miles in 15 minutes at a 350-kWh charger. Its counterpart, the Ioniq 5, added 138 miles in the same time. The Model Y was just behind at 133 miles, while the Toyota added 115. The ID4 beat the Chevy and Ford with 103 miles added, while the Mach-E and Equinox EV basically tied at 95 and 94 miles.
On the Road
How fast you can charge and how long you can drive is one thing, but how the vehicle feels while driving should be a key consideration when making a buying decision. Is it comfortable? Do you feel confident in its handling? Are the controls easy to find and use? To determine which EV aced these factors, we drove every model on the 27-mile loop that we use for our Car and SUV Of The Year events, which includes a mix of city streets, canyon roads, highways, and railroad crossings.
Despite most of the group having similar power numbers, each had different personalities behind the wheel. The Mach-E is by far the most fun to drive, with a character that actually feels connected, however faintly, to the traditional Mustang. In a time when EVs are often criticized for lacking personality, the Mach-E stands out with its smooth torque delivery, good lateral grip, and confident body control.
You might think the Korean duo would drive identically given they share a platform and powertrain, but the EV6 has a sportier vibe. Its steering is a bit tighter, and its suspension is firmer but not uncomfortable. The Ioniq was the most comfortable of the entire group, with a placid ride and few vibrations reaching the cabin.
Tesla gets the award for most improved. The refreshed Model Y’s retuned suspension delivers a settled and comfortable experience, a far cry from the brittle, overly stiff ride of previous versions. Its steering is notably quick and heavy in this septet, but not so much that you get fatigued.
The Toyota bZ rides well, and its powertrain has plenty of oomph, but its loud tires and lack of one-pedal driving had the judges scratching their heads. Similarly, judges were disappointed in the ID4 having only one brake regeneration setting and no one-pedal mode. The VW’s sporty driving dynamics were praised, however.
The Equinox EV rides relatively well and does a good job damping vibrations, but being front-wheel-drive, it struggled with torque steer. (Despite having the least power in our group, it sends more torque to the front axle than any other.) The lack of driven wheels out back also limited its handling prowess against the field.
Inside
With their large battery packs all stowed beneath the floor, all these EVs offer roomy cabins. Tesla’s rear seats impressed most of our judges, thanks to a dedicated screen for streaming Netflix, YouTube, and Twitch; powered folding seats; a separate rear A/C zone; and the most rear legroom in the group.
But the Model Y also showed clear signs of cost-cutting. It was the only SUV without a sunroof cover—an issue in any region that gets a lot of sun—and had just one USB port up front, though it does include dual wireless chargers like the Toyota. And watching that rear screen, which is mounted down low, can be tough on your neck after a while.
The Ioniq 5’s cabin stood out for its well-executed layout with clearly labeled buttons that balanced physical and digital controls. The Kia EV6, meanwhile, frustrated judges with its switchable climate/audio control. Using the same knob for both functions required toggling between modes, a quirk we hoped would disappear with its recent refresh.
The Mach-E’s large vertical screen earned praise for its simplicity, but judges disliked having to glance far down to adjust the temperature. A redesigned center console this year moves the shifter to the steering column, freeing up plenty of space and making the interior even more practical. We also like the small screen near the steering wheel for key information, as vehicles with only one display, like the Tesla, require you to move your eyes farther away from straight ahead.
The Toyota bZ’s driving position was unpopular. Its small steering wheel and screen placed above—rather than behind—the rim made some judges feel cramped, while the wheel blocked part of the display for others.
The Equinox EV got points for its Camaro-inspired air vents, which add flair to an otherwise plain interior. Its wide dual screens look impressive, but the lack of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto frustrated nearly everyone. Although GM offers built-in Google Maps and downloadable apps like Spotify, the experience still falls short of what most buyers expect in terms of user-friendliness.
As for the ID4, our judges missed having a volume knob but appreciated its large driver display. VW’s infotainment has improved, yet it still lagged in responsiveness, and there’s no place to rest a hand while operating it. We’re also not huge fans of operating all four windows via just two switches or using capacitive slider controls for things like volume and temperature.
Value
Value matters. It’s not just about price but also what you get for it—features, materials, tech, overall quality, and satisfaction. Although sticker price does sway many decisions, it’s only part of the equation.
At $34,995, the Equinox EV was by far the least expensive in the group, but it was also the most sparsely equipped. It lacked all-wheel drive, dual-zone A/C, and power, leather, or heat for any of its seats. Still, every Equinox comes with an 85-kWh battery and a cabin fit for four. That makes the LT trim especially compelling compared to other sub-$40,000 EVs like the Hyundai Kona, Kia Niro, and Nissan Leaf.
The mechanically similar Kia EV6 and Hyundai Ioniq 5 diverged in pricing. The EV6 Wind rang in at $56,435, while the Ioniq 5 Limited cost $61,025—second highest in the group. The Ioniq had more equipment, but the Kia offered stronger value with comparable features, provided you can live with smaller wheels and no sunroof. For Hyundai, long known for undercutting rivals, the value story felt a little off this time.
At $58,670, the Ford Mustang Mach-E Premium brought a lot to the table: a B&O sound system, 360-degree camera, heated and ventilated seats, and Ford’s BlueCruise hands-free driving tech. The Mach-E and Model Y were also the only two with usable frunks.
The ID4’s $59,870 price tag felt steep for what it delivered. It’s well equipped, but its cabin materials lagged the rest of group’s, and we’re still baffled by its lack of individual window switches. It was also the only vehicle here that couldn’t use Tesla Superchargers—a fix VW has said is coming, without providing a timeline.
The Model Y topped the group at $63,630, though $8,000 of that was for the Full Self-Driving (Supervised) option. Without it, the value improves. Judges called out Tesla’s cabin cost-cutting—like the missing sunroof shade—but much of its tech is still at or near the front of the pack.
Like the Equinox, the 2026 Toyota bZ offers fantastic value. Starting at $36,350, the bZ XLE with a smaller battery and a single motor delivers an EPA-rated 236 miles. But upgrading to the Limited AWD with the optional JBL audio system, like the one we tested, sets you back $47,330—not bad when you compare it to other models in this group. If you can live with the Toyota’s middling real-world range, it’s a good way to save $10,000 over some of the competitors.
Safety
Automakers are investing heavily in vehicle safety—not just through airbags and structural strength but also by adding advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). Some, such as Tesla and Ford, even offer hands-free driving on certain roads, where the car temporarily takes over while the driver must remain attentive.
Ford’s BlueCruise worked exceptionally well in our testing. Judges praised its clear alerts and messaging when the system was ready and when it was time to retake control. The Mach-E stayed centered in its lane and handled automatic lane changes (which also had clear messages) smoothly. Most important, it made us feel safe.
Tesla’s Full Self Driving (Supervised) impressed with its ability to operate on both highways and city streets. However, some judges raised ethical concerns. The system is still in beta, which sparks questions about using untrained customers to develop the product and subjecting other road users to the experiment whether they want to be part of it or not. And Tesla’s system still glitches out with unnecessary panic braking or aggressive steering maneuvers more often than it should. We never quite feel at ease when it’s in control.
The Ioniq 5 and EV6’s Highway Driving Assist II combines smart cruise control with lane following assist. Although it won’t allow hands-free driving for extended periods, it permits brief moments (15 to 30 seconds) without steering input and helps maintain speed, distance, and lane position reliably.
As for Toyota, Volkswagen, and Chevrolet, we’d rank their ADAS systems in that order. Toyota’s Safety Sense 3.0 includes full-speed adaptive cruise, lane departure alert, and steering assist to help keep the vehicle centered. Volkswagen’s IQ.Drive worked well in traffic with adaptive cruise and hands-on lane-keeping assistance, though the ID4 tended to drift within the lane.
Chevy’s system came up short—partly because our Equinox EV test car lacked Super Cruise, which matches Ford’s excellent system in capability and surpasses it in performance and available roads. (Super Cruise is available on the LT2 and RS trims, however.) Instead, the Equinox had basic adaptive cruise and lane keeping, which didn’t feel as refined or confidence-inspiring as the more advanced setups.
The Bottom Line
When it came time to rank the field, it was clear choosing a victor was going to be tough. Once the 800-pound gorilla in the segment, Tesla now faces serious challengers from every corner. And in the end, this Big Test showed Tesla is no longer the undisputed leader. While traditional automakers haven’t caught up to the Model Y’s sales numbers yet, their electric SUVs offer strong alternatives in terms of design, engineering, performance, safety, and value. For buyers today, there have never been more—and better—options in the electric SUV space, and when we measured each SUV against one another, one rose above the rest as the best holistic choice.
1st Place: Ford Mustang Mach-E
Pros
- The best personality
- Quick steering
- Sporty feel
Cons
- One-pedal driving needs some tuning
- Price climbs quickly
- Push-button door handles
Verdict: Small updates over the years have made the Mach-E a better vehicle overall, and it performs strongly in multiple categories, delivering good range, a spacious cabin, and exciting driving dynamics. Other EVs may better the Mach-E in individual aspects, but taken as a whole, this Ford delivers in spades.
2nd Place: Kia EV6
Pros
- Impressive range
- Good value
- Great range and charging
Cons
- Dual-function A/C and radio controls
- Small trunk space
- High knees in back seat
Verdict: The EV6 came close to taking the gold medal, but its dual-function HVAC/radio controls are infuriating, and the windswept styling compromises cargo space.
3rd Place: Hyundai Ioniq 5
Pros
- Outstanding styling
- High tech
- Quick charging
Cons
- High price
- Stiff competition
- Second worst range numbers here
Verdict: Our 2023 SUV of the Year boasts great driving dynamics and a spacious cabin—and it’s still a strong choice—but the segment has vastly improved overall.
4th Place: Tesla Model Y
Pros
- Best tech in the segment
- Full Self Driving can do impressive things
- Tons of room
Cons
- Underdeveloped Full Self Driving still makes too many mistakes
- High price
- Obvious cost-cutting
Verdict: With Tesla opening its Supercharger network to other automakers, the Model Y has lost one of its most important advantages, and other electric SUVs offer better charging performance and driving dynamics.
5th Place: Chevrolet Equinox EV
Pros
- Great value
- Long range
- Cool design
Cons
- Lacks Apple CarPlay and Android Auto
- Significant torque steer
- Slow charging
Verdict: We were wowed by this amiable EV’s low price tag and long range but a lack of features like Apple CarPlay and our test model’s front-drive handling held it back.
6th Place: Toyota bZ
Pros
- Bigger battery
- More power
- Standard NACS port
Cons
- Awkward seating position
- No real one-pedal driving
- No standout features
Verdict: The refreshed ’26 Toyota bZ’s bigger battery, longer range, and standard NACS port are major upgrades, but they don’t surpass the segment’s best, so it still fails to stand out.
7th Place: Volkswagen ID4
Pros
- Drives like a VW should
- Spacious cabin
- Futuristic styling details
Cons
- High price
- Lacks one-pedal driving
- No access to Superchargers
Verdict: While the ID4 offers tons of room, has decent range, and proved to be a good value during our yearlong test, it still trails the competition.
| 2025 Chevrolet Equinox EV LT Specifications | 2025 Ford Mustang Mach-E Premium eAWD Specifications | 2025 Hyundai Ioniq 5 Limited AWD Specifications | 2025 Kia EV6 Wind AWD Specifications | 2026 Tesla Model Y Long Range AWD Specifications | 2026 Toyota bZ Limited AWD Specifications | 2025 Volkswagen ID4 Pro S Plus AWD Specifications | |
| BASE PRICE | $34,995 | $46,990 | $59,800 | $55,775 | $50,630 | $46,750 | $58,720 |
| PRICE AS TESTED | $34,995 | $58,670 | $61,025 | $56,435 | $63,630 | $47,330 | $59,870 |
| VEHICLE LAYOUT | Front-motor, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door electric SUV | Front- and rear-motor, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door electric SUV | Front- and rear-motor, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door electric SUV | Front- and rear-motor, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door electric SUV | Front- and rear-motor, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door electric SUV | Front- and rear-motor, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door electric SUV | Front- and rear-motor, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door electric SUV |
| Powertrain | |||||||
| TOTAL POWER | 220 hp | 370 hp | 320 hp | 320 hp | 397 hp | 338 hp | 335 hp |
| TOTAL TORQUE | 243 lb-ft | 500 lb-ft | 446 lb-ft | 446 lb-ft | 389 lb-ft | 323 lb-ft (MT est) | 501 lb-ft (MT est) |
| MOTORS | Permanent-magnet motor | F: permanent-magnet motor, NA hp, 111 lb-ft R: permanent-magnet motor, NA hp, 387 lb-ft | F: permanent-magnet motor, 99 hp, 188 lb-ft R: permanent-magnet motor, 221 hp, 258 lb-ft | F: permanent-magnet motor, 99 hp, 188 lb-ft (MT est) R: permanent-magnet motor, 221 hp, 258 lb-ft (MT est) | F: induction motor, 117 hp, 124 lb-ft R: permanent-magnet motor, 280 hp, 265 lb-ft | F: permanent-magnet motor, 224 hp, 198 lb-ft R: permanent-magnet motor, 118 hp, 125 lb-ft | F: induction motor, 107 hp (est), 99 lb-ft R: permanent-magnet motor, 282 hp, 402 lb-ft |
| BATTERY | 85.0-kWh NCMA lithium-ion | 88.0-kWh NCM lithium-ion | 84.0-kWh NCM lithium-ion | 84.0-kWh NCM lithium-ion | 79.5-kWh NCA lithium-ion | 74.7-kWh NCM lithium-ion | 77.0-kWh NCM lithium-ion |
| TRANSMISSIONS | 1-speed fixed ratio | 2 x 1-speed fixed ratio | 2 x 1-speed fixed ratio | 2 x 1-speed fixed ratio | 2 x 1-speed fixed ratio | 2 x 1-speed fixed ratio | 2 x 1-speed fixed ratio |
| GEAR RATIO, F/R | 11.59:1/— | 10.01:1/9.72:1 | 10.65:1/10.65:1 | 10.65:1/10.65:1 | 9.04:1/9.04:1 | 13.82:1/13.75:1 | 10.36:1/7.92:1 |
| Chassis | |||||||
| SUSPENSION | F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | F: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar | F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar |
| STEERING RATIO | 16.4:1 | 14.6:1 | 14.3:1 | 14.3:1 | 13.8:1 | 14.2:1 | 15.9:1 |
| TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK | 2.9 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 3.0 |
| BRAKES | F: 12.6 x 1.2-in vented disc, 2-piston sliding caliper R: 12.4 x 0.9-in vented disc, 1-piston sliding caliper | F: 14.3 x 1.1-in vented disc, 4-piston fixed caliper R: 12.4 x 0.4-in disc, 1-piston sliding caliper | F: 12.8 x 1.2-in vented disc, 1-piston sliding caliper R: 12.8 x 0.5-in disc, 1-piston sliding caliper | F: 12.8 x 1.2-in vented disc, 1-piston sliding caliper R: 12.8 x 0.5-in disc, 1-piston sliding caliper | F: 14.0 x 1.0-in vented disc, 4-piston fixed caliper R: 13.2 x 0.8-in vented disc, 1-piston sliding caliper | F: 12.9 x 1.3-in vented disc, 2-piston sliding caliper R: 12.5 x 0.7-in vented disc, 1-piston sliding caliper | F: 14.1 x 1.2-in vented disc, 1-piston sliding caliper R: 11.0 x 2.0-in drum |
| WHEELS | 8.5 x 19 in, cast aluminum | 7.5 x 19 in, cast aluminum | 8.5 x 20 in, cast aluminum | 7.5 x 19 in, cast aluminum | 9.5 x 20 in, cast aluminum | 7.5 x 20 in, cast aluminum | F: 8.0 x 20 in, R: 9.0 x 20 in, cast aluminum |
| TIRES | Michelin Primacy All Season TPC 3200 245/55R19 103H M+S | Bridgestone Alenza A/S 02 225/55R19 103H XL M+S | Michelin Primacy Tour A/S GOE 255/45R20 105V XL M+S | Nexen N’Fera Supreme S 235/55R19 101H M+S | Hankook Ion Evo AS SUV T0 255/40R20 101V XL M+S | Yokohama Geolandar X-CV G057 235/50R20 100V M+S | Kumho Crugen HP71 F: 235/50R20 104T XL M+S R: 255/45R20 105T XL M+S |
| Dimensions | |||||||
| WHEELBASE | 116.3 in | 117.5 in | 118.1 in | 114.2 in | 113.8 in | 112.2 in | 108.9 in |
| TRACK, F/R | 63.5/63.7 in | 63.5/63.4 in | 64.2/64.6 in | 64.2/64.6 in | 64.4/64.4 in | 63.0/63.4 in | 62.3/61.7 in |
| LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT | 190.6 x 76.9 x 64.8 in | 185.6 x 74.1 x 64.1 in | 183.3 x 74.4 x 63.0 in | 184.8 x 74.0 x 60.8 in | 188.6 x 75.6 x 63.9 in | 184.6 x 73.2 x 65.0 in | 180.5 x 72.9 x 65.2 in |
| GROUND CLEARANCE | 6.4 in | 6.2 in | 6.1 in | 6.1 in | 6.6 in | 8.2 in | 6.9 in |
| APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE | 17.8/23.3 deg | 15.4/26.0 deg | 17.5/25.4 deg | 15.2/21.0 deg | 16.0/18.0 deg (est) | 17.2/25.5 deg | 19.0/20.3 deg |
| TURNING CIRCLE | 38.1 ft | 38.1 ft | 39.4 ft | 38.2 ft | 39.8 ft | 40.0 ft | 36.4 ft |
| CURB WEIGHT (DIST F/R) | 4,776 lb (54/46%) | 4,760 lb (49/51%) | 4,767 lb (50/50%) | 4,621 lb (49/51%) | 4,424 lb (50/50%) | 4,472 lb (54/46%) | 4,907 lb (48/52%) |
| WEIGHT TO POWER | 21.7 lb/hp | 13.0 lb/hp | 14.9 lb/hp | 14.4 lb/hp | 11.1 lb/hp | 13.2 lb/hp | 14.6 lb/hp |
| HEADROOM, F/R | 39.2/38.5 in | 38.9/39.3 in | 39.1/37.5 in | 39.0/38.0 in | 41.0/39.4 in | 38.6/37.1 in | 41.1/38.4 in |
| LEGROOM, F/R | 41.7/38.0 in | 43.3/38.1 in | 41.7/39.4 in | 42.4/39.0 in | 41.9/40.5 in | 42.1/35.3 in | 41.1/37.6 in |
| SHOULDER ROOM, F/R | 58.6/55.4 in | 57.6/55.9 in | 57.7/57.7 in | 57.8/55.6 in | 56.4/53.2 in | 57.8/55.8 in | 57.5/55.9 in |
| CARGO VOLUME BEHIND F/R | 57.2/26.4 cu ft | 59.1/29.7 cu ft (2.6 cu ft frunk) | 58.5/26.3 cu ft (0.9 cu ft frunk) | 46.7/24.4 cu ft (0.7 cu ft frunk) | 71.4/29.0 cu ft (4.1 cu ft frunk) | 55.6/25.8 cu ft | 64.2/30.3 cu ft |
| PAYLOAD CAPACITY | 1,172 lb | 980 lb | 860 lb | 826 lb | 1,102 lb | 1,045 lb | 935 lb |
| TOWING CAPACITY | 1,500 lb | Not recommended | Not recommended | 2,700 lb | 3,500 lb | Not recommended | 2,700 lb |
| MotorTrend Test Data | |||||||
| 0-30 MPH | 3.0 sec | 1.6 sec | 1.7 sec | 1.6 sec | 1.7 sec | 1.7 sec | 1.7 sec |
| 0-40 MPH | 4.1 sec | 2.2 sec | 2.4 sec | 2.4 sec | 2.4 sec | 2.4 sec | 2.4 sec |
| 0-50 MPH | 5.5 sec | 3.1 sec | 3.4 sec | 3.3 sec | 3.1 sec | 3.3 sec | 3.2 sec |
| 0-60 MPH | 7.4 sec | 4.1 sec | 4.6 sec | 4.4 sec | 3.8 sec | 4.4 sec | 4.3 sec |
| 0-70 MPH | 9.8 sec | 5.5 sec | 6.1 sec | 5.8 sec | 4.7 sec | 5.7 sec | 5.6 sec |
| 0-80 MPH | 12.8 sec | 7.2 sec | 7.9 sec | 7.5 sec | 5.8 sec | 7.3 sec | 7.2 sec |
| 0-90 MPH | 16.7 sec | 9.2 sec | 10.1 sec | 9.6 sec | 7.1 sec | 9.3 sec | 9.1 sec |
| 0-100 MPH | 21.8 sec | 11.7 sec | 12.8 sec | 12.1 sec | 8.7 sec | 11.8 sec | — |
| PASSING, 45-65 MPH | 3.8 sec | 2.1 sec | 2.4 sec | 2.3 sec | 1.5 sec | 2.2 sec | 2.2 sec |
| QUARTER MILE | 15.9 sec @ 88.2 mph | 13.0 sec @ 104.4 mph | 13.3 sec @ 101.6 mph | 13.1 sec @ 103.4 mph | 12.2 sec @ 116.3 mph | 13.1 sec @ 101.7 mph | 13.1 sec @ 98.5 mph |
| BRAKING, 60-0 MPH | 111 ft | 120 ft | 124 ft | 124 ft | 120 ft | 126 ft | 125 ft |
| LATERAL ACCELERATION | 0.87 g | 0.81 g | 0.76 g | 0.79 g | 0.83 g | 0.78 g | 0.80 g |
| FIGURE-EIGHT LAP | 27.2 sec @ 0.66 g (avg) | 26.3 sec @ 0.70 g (avg) | 26.7 sec @ 0.68 g (avg) | 26.1 sec @ 0.72 g (avg) | 25.3 sec @ 0.78 g (avg) | 26.7 sec @ 0.69 g (avg) | 26.2 sec @ 0.72 g (avg) |
| Consumer Info | |||||||
| AIRBAGS | 8: dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee | 10: dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee | 8: dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain | 9: dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, driver knee | 9: dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee, front center | 8: dual front, front side, f/r curtain, front knee | 6: dual front, front side, f/r curtain |
| BASIC WARRANTY | 3 yr/36,000 mi | 3 yr/36,000 mi | 5 yr/60,000 mi | 5 yr/60,000 mi | 4 yr/50,000 mi | 3 yr/36,000 mi | 4 yr/50,000 mi |
| POWERTRAIN WARRANTY | 3 yr/36,000 mi (8 yr/100,000 mi battery) | 5 yr/60,000 mi (8 yr/100,000 mi battery) | 10 yr/100,000 mi | 10 yr/100,000 mi | 8 yr/120,000 mi | 5 yr/60,000 mi (8 yr/100,000 mi battery) | 4 yr/50,000 mi (8 yr/100,000 mi battery) |
| ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE | 5 yr/60,000 mi | 5 yr/60,000 mi | 5 yr/unlimited mi | 5 yr/60,000 mi | 4 yr/50,000 mi | 3 yr/unlimited mi | 3 yr/36,000 mi |
| EPA FUEL ECONOMY, CITY/HWY/COMBINED | 117/100/109 mpg-e | 110/98/104 mpg-e | 108/88/98 mpg-e | 117/95/106 mpg-e | 123/111/117 mpg-e | 114/99/107 mpg-e (MT est) | 108/96/102 mpg-e |
| EPA RANGE | 319 mi | 300 mi | 269 mi | 295 mi | 311 mi | 278 mi | 263 mi |
| 70-MPH ROAD-TRIP RANGE | 262 mi | 252 mi | 234 mi | 266 mi | 252 mi | 222 mi | 208 mi |
| MT FAST-CHARGING TEST | 94 mi @ 15 min, 157 mi @ 30 min | 95 mi @ 15 min, 158 mi @ 30 min | 138 mi @ 15 min, 202 mi @ 30 min | 160 mi @ 15 min, 232 mi @ 30 min | 133 mi @ 15 min, 194 mi @ 30 min | 115 mi @ 15 min, 187 mi @ 30 min | 103 mi @ 15 min, 160 mi @ 30 min |
| MAX CHARGING POWER, AC/DC | 11.5/150 kW | 11.0/150 kW | 10.9/257 kW | 10.9/240 kW | 11.5/250 kW | 11.0/150 kW | 11.0/175 kW |
| ON SALE | Now | Now | Now | Now | Now | September 2025 | Now |
