Articles by Stephen Ottley

Enough is enough – serious questions have to be raised about Australia’s independent crash testing authority.The Australasian New Car Assessment Program, better known as ANCAP, has been a beacon of safety for the past three decades.And while it has no doubt been a driving force in ensuring Australians and New Zealanders drive safer cars, in recent years I have noticed some troubling, confusing decisions that have raised concerns in my journalistic head.And the latest example is perhaps the most troubling of all – ANCAP’s decision to not independently crash test Australia’s most popular passenger car, despite the car maker acknowledging it is missing key safety technology required to get ANCAP’s maximum five-star safety rating.I’m talking about the new Toyota RAV4, which the Japanese giant admits is missing key safety elements required for a five-star rating under the new-for-2026 testing protocols.This is because the RAV4 was meant to launch in late 2025 and Toyota designed it only to meet the previous testing protocols.While you can certainly question Toyota’s ‘just in time’ approach, and the fact that if Toyota had met those requirements it would have received a five-star rating that it could use for the the majority of the new RAV4’s showroom life, even as other new SUVs launched from now onwards would require a higher standard of safety (but that is an ongoing problem for ANCAP and not unique to this situation).Importantly, Toyota has said updates are coming to ensure the RAV4 meets the new five-star standard, but hasn’t made it clear precisely when that will happen or what those changes are.What is most troubling is that ANCAP has not publicly stated when, or even if, the RAV4 will be crash-tested by ANCAP or its sister organisation, Euro NCAP.A statement provided by ANCAP and attributed to Chief Executive Officer Carla Hoorweg on said: “As with any new model entering the Australian or New Zealand market, the Toyota RAV4 is a potential candidate for ANCAP assessment.“Details of models scheduled for testing and rating are not publicly released until assessments are complete.“We are aware of Toyota’s planned update to the RAV4 later this year. Until independent safety testing has been conducted, the updated model will remain unrated.“Given the RAV4’s popularity, ANCAP encourages fleets and consumers to consider the availability of an independent safety rating when making purchasing decisions.”That’s sound advice, people should definitely consider the safety of an unrated car.But it doesn’t answer the question of why ANCAP won’t simply crash test the RAV4 now.It was the biggest selling passenger vehicle in Australia in 2025, so it is an obvious choice for families.ANCAP is funded by governments, motoring clubs and other industry bodies, but it does not have infinite resources to crash test every new model that comes into the market – especially as each test requires between six and seven cars to be written-off as part of the process.Therefore, the majority of the testing is carried out on cars supplied by the car brands.It’s a mutually beneficial relationship – the car brand (hopefully) gets a five-star rating to advertise, while ANCAP gets another crash test to promote and consumers get an independent assessment of the safety of what cars they are buying. It’s a win-win-win situation.Except in this case, because Toyota is, understandably, not about to submit a car it knows won’t pass all the tests with flying colours. And ANCAP is seemingly happy to wait until that time.As time in crash labs is in-demand and usually booked months or even years in advance, CarsGuide understands Toyota has already arranged for the updated RAV4 to be crashed by Euro NCAP later in 2026.But why wait? Why is ANCAP happy to give Toyota this time to sell an unrated version of the RAV4? This is fundamentally a bad thing for you – the Australian consumer (and taxpayer).Without knowing specifically when the updated RAV4 will arrive in Australia, let's use an example of six months. In 2025 Toyota sold 24,034 examples of its mid-size SUV in that span.That means, if it takes six months for Toyota to update the car and get it into showrooms, potentially more than 20,000 Australians will be buying an unrated car.I completely understand ANCAP’s budgetary limitations, it simply cannot afford to go out and buy six or seven examples of every unrated vehicle.But surely, if it is going to spend its own money on crash testing specific models, surely you start at the top of the sales charts and work your way down?Some of the cars that ANCAP has self-funded crash tests for in the past include the Hyundai Palisade, Hyundai i30 Sedan and Suzuki Swift.Combined, those three models sold 12,303 examples in 2025, compared to 51,947 RAV4.Far be it for me to tell ANCAP how to run its business, but it would seem like, from a return-on-investment perspective, it should be looking to help the greatest number of people for its direct funding, and crash testing the best-selling models would seem like the best way to do that.To be clear, I’m not accusing ANCAP and Toyota of collusion or favouritism, but this is simply a very strange situation and a very hard ‘square to circle’, so to speak.As the organisation states on its own website: “ANCAP plays a vital role not only informing consumers of the differences in safety performance of new vehicles entering the Australian and New Zealand vehicle fleets.”Also stating: “ANCAP is Australia and New Zealand's independent voice on vehicle safety.“We crash test cars and conduct on-track and on-road performance assessments on safety features and technologies then publish a simple star rating or grading to indicate relative safety performance.“Over the last three decades we have published independent safety ratings for thousands of new vehicle makes, models and variants. These independent safety ratings and gradings are used to compare the relative safety between vehicles of similar size and have become a critical factor in vehicle selection for private consumers and fleet buyers.”Except in this case, where one of the best-selling vehicles in the country has been given extra time to prepare and leaves thousands of customers set to miss out on safety features that ANCAP itself has deemed important (hence the updated 2026 protocols).What is most troubling to me is, what message does this send to the industry and to consumers?Can a car maker launch a less-well-equipped model with an attention-grabbing initial price, sell it for a few months (or longer) and then add safety and submit it for ANCAP testing? That would be a dangerous precedent to set, in my opinion, but in the future car brands will be able to point to this situation and claim that it is simply following past form.Again, to be crystal clear, I’m not accusing Toyota of deliberately deploying this as a tactic, it seems like a genuine production-related issue.But ANCAP, as the independent safety body that it is, should step in and crash test the RAV4 that is on sale today to give consumers a clearer choice.

Kia's evolution from affordable outsider to mainstream brand is complete, but can it now become a genuine premium offering? The new EV9 GT pushes the brand in terms of performance, luxury and price. We drive this new, opulent, six-seat SUV to find out how it stacks up as both an electric vehicle and a luxury brand alternative.

“If we keep waiting for perfection, we will never start.”I read that quote somewhere years ago – apologies to whoever said it – and the moment I heard it I thought about electric cars.There’s been a lot of talk about electric cars for a long time, but for obvious reasons interest has been higher in recent months.The ongoing global oil crisis has driven petrol and diesel prices higher, and as a knock-on effect electric vehicle (EV) sales surged to nearly 15 per cent of the total Australia new-car market in March. That was an almost five per cent improvement on where the local EV sales share had seemingly settled for well over a year. And yet the majority of the market remains powered by some form of internal-combustion engine and there remains a number of vocal critics of EVs.The oil crisis has highlighted previous government decisions to gradually reduce our energy independence with fossil fuels and focus instead on renewable energy.This is another area where critics love to bash EVs and question their long-term suitability.But it makes me wonder if there were people so vehemently anti-automobile over 100 years ago?There were almost certainly people questioning the commonsense of switching to a horseless carriage that is powered, effectively, by a series of small explosions, and fuelled by a highly flammable liquid that would need to be dug out of the ground, refined and then transported and sold across national networks.Why not just stick with a horse that can eat grass?Or why replace the telegram with a telephone.How on earth would you create an interconnected network of telephone lines across nations, with each house having their own handset?Surely that would have been considered a greedy play by the newly formed telephone industry back in the day.Obviously I’m being a bit facetious, although I’m sure there was pushback on cars and telephones, like there is with so many things in life.Part of what pushes us forward as a species in challenging ourselves and others to always do better.Take the, very reasonable, claim from the anti-EV crowd that many of the rare earth materials used in batteries are damaging for the environment in both who it is produced and used.Cobalt is a prime example and is a troubling material, with serious question marks over how it is mined. Which is why more and more battery manufacturers are switching to lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, as they contain no cobalt. It’s just one of a number of evolutionary changes manufacturers are making to improve EVs.And make no mistake, EVs will only get better and better. Less harmful production methods, smaller, more efficient batteries, more range and even better public charging infrastructure.The recent NASA Artemis II mission to go back to the room is another reminder of humankind’s ability to evolve technology at a rapid rate.Looking back at the computers used in the Apollo missions had a tiny fraction of the computing power that your mobile phone has.I’m old enough to have used five-inch floppy disks with computers that could only store 360kB of data, and now my children have access to tiny USB flash drives capable of holding 2TB of data.Electric cars have only become a mainstream alternative in the last 15 years. Think about how fast smartphone technology has moved in that time.Electric vehicles are not perfect now, and anyone who claims they are a faultless solution is kidding themselves, but there is no reason why they will simply not get better and better over time.To be clear, I am not saying everyone needs to drive an EV as soon as possible. Or even that EVs are the one-size-fits-all solution.To borrow a line from Toyota, I genuinely believe the future is a ‘mutli-pathway solution’ that mixes technologies including EVs, carbon neutral fuels and hybrids.But we must use this current crisis as a moment to make a definitive and long-lasting change.If you’ve been sitting on the fence about an EV, now is the time to reassess your decision. Because if you’re waiting for the perfect time, we will never get there.

The demise of the Ford F-150 Lightning, the electric version of America’s favourite pick-up truck, is a painful lesson not just for the Blue Oval, but the entire automotive industry.When it was first announced the Lightning made a lot of sense. Ford knew it wasn’t going to convince F-150 buyers to swap into a compact electric SUV, so the company would just make their truck electric.Except, as Ford would find out the hard way, the American market wasn’t ready to shift to electric vehicles (EVs) in the majority, and certainly not the pick-up truck buyers.So the news that the Ford F-150 Lightning would be disappearing from both US and Australian roads was not really a surprise. But it’s the latest demonstration that multiple carmakers may have fallen into the same trap and could pay a similar price to Ford.What is that trap? That would be to build large electric vehicles.“The American consumer is speaking clearly and they want the benefits of electrification like instant torque and mobile power," explained Andrew Frick, President of Ford model e, the brand’s  electric division, about the decision to drop the Lightning.“But they also demand affordability… rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher-returning areas.”It seemed like the right idea only a few short years ago as EVs became more accepted as a concept, but sales were still relatively small due to a lack of choice.Go back five years and most of the EVs on sale were either small cars or SUVs, like the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y, with the rest of the market segments largely ignored. It was a logical move, as a smaller car is more efficient (on average) than a larger one.The problem is that left so much of the new-car market without an EV choice. What would someone looking for an electric ute or electric family-sized SUV do? So, being driven by the need to fit consumer tastes, carmakers tried to cater to them.And thus we had the likes of the F-150 Lightning, Mercedes-Benz EQE SUV, Audi e-tron, Kia EV9 and, more recently, the Hyundai Ioniq 9 all arrive to cater to the audience that wants a ‘big EV’.The problem is, and where this became a trap, is that building a larger EV means a larger asking price, and there simply aren't enough people willing to pay big bucks for an EV. At least not now, especially as the current fuel price drives more demand in EVs.The people have voted with their wallets and it's easy to see where the core EV buyers are spending their money. BYD has already sold 1481 Atto 2s in the first three months of 2026, with another 1082 Atto 1s. The mid-sized BYD Sealion 7 has managed 4468 sales, the Zeekr 7X a healthy 1725 and the Geely EX5 1437.Kia is perhaps the best demonstrator of this trend, the small EV3 has managed 861 sales so far this year, while the mid-sized EV5 has found 1148 buyers. But the bigger EV6 has notched just 77 sales and the huge EV9 has managed to move just 18 units in 2026.And that’s not because Australians don’t want big SUVs, the new plug-in hybrid Denza B8 has already out-sold the EV9 with 75 sales since arriving, while the aging Nissan Patrol is still going strong (1383 sales) and the Toyota LandCruiser shows no signs of slowing down (2857 sales).And this isn’t driven simply by the ongoing fuel crisis. Looking back at the 2025 data it shows the same pattern, Australian motorists looking for an EV are looking for smaller, more affordable models rather than the big ones. In 2025 Kia sold 4787 EV5s and 2597 EV3s but just 348 EV6s and only 269 EV9s.The solution, or so it seems at this point, is the plug-in hybrid (PHEV). Buyers looking for a bigger vehicle but still looking to cut their fuel bill are tending towards PHEVs and other hybrids, such as the BYD Shark 6, BYD Sealion 8 and Chery Tiggo 9.Obviously there will still be more large EVs coming our way, the most high-profile being the new electric Toyota HiLux, but all current signs indicate that this is a small percentage of the market and unlikely to change in the near future.

Sometimes car companies just get it wrong.Despite all the market research, focus groups, design studies and marketing programs, some cars just don’t sell. Sometimes it’s a case of being the right car at the wrong time, arriving ahead of the curve or after the boom. We looked at that recently with the Holden Volt, a plug-in hybrid that arrived too soon (and for too much money) to be successful, even if the concept was right.But then there are some cars that are just a complete miss, arriving as an undesirable product. They are, to be blunt, the wrong car at the wrong time.Here are some examples of what happens when carmakers get it wrong.The decision to end local manufacturing for Holden cannot have been an easy one for General Motors management, but it was probably an inevitable one. The decision they did not have to make was to destroy the brand equity, not to mention the national pride and love, in the Commodore badge.While most of the cars on this list are obviously bad choices with the benefit of hindsight, the ZB Commodore was an obviously bad choice at the time. It was meant to soften the blow of the departure of the brilliant and beloved VF Commodore, but it only served to rub salt into the wounds.To the nice folks at Opel, GM’s German division, who developed the car (which was known as the Insignia in Europe) this was like having your glass of beer taken away and replaced with water from a muddy puddle with ‘beer’ written on the glass.It wasn’t a ‘Commodore’ in any way, shape or form, despite what Holden PR tried to spin at the time. Holden and GM should have followed the example Ford set with the Falcon and retired the name with dignity rather than slapping it on a sub-par import.Sometimes in life you’re faced with a 50-50 decision to make and the difference it makes in the long run can be enormous, or even catastrophic. That’s the case with Ford Australia and the Territory Turbo.The Territory was an inspired decision, a great example of delivering the right car at the right time. Ford managed to get in on the SUV craze just as it started to rise in the early 2000s, offering buyers who were starting to look for something taller than a Falcon an in-house alternative.The problem was, in 2006 they decided to expand the line-up and made the wrong call on that 50-50 decision. Legend has it that Ford Australia only had the funds to develop a Territory Turbo OR a Territory diesel, but not both at the same time.In the words of the Knight at the end of that Indiana Jones movie: “They chose poorly.”Thankfully they didn’t shrivel up and die in an instant, like the Indiana Jones’ nemesis, but it was a decision that didn’t help the future of Ford’s local models.By the time the Territory diesel did arrive in 2011, along with a facelift, Ford had lost too much ground to imported rivals and by the end of 2016, the Territory was done. While Ford’s decision to add the turbocharged ‘Barra’ engine to the Territory seemed logical, given the high demand for that engine in the Falcon XR6 Turbo, it highlighted the difference between the Falcon and Territory buyer.In the same way a diesel Falcon would have been a terrible idea in 2006, so too did the Territory Turbo prove a costly mistake.The Evoque was a brilliant addition to Range Rovers’ line-up, another demonstration of reading the market to perfection and adding a smaller model when that’s what luxury SUV customers were looking for.Unfortunately, the Evoque Convertible was as bad an idea as the Evoque was a good one. And this was one of those ideas that you really could tell wasn’t brilliant at the time.Sure, the SUV market was rapidly changing at that point and there were some unlikely sales hits, namely Audi’s turbo-diesel SQ5. If a diesel SUV can be a popular performance car, surely a convertible would be appealing, right?Wrong. Very, very wrong.Introduced in mid-2016, the final Evoque drop-top rolled off the production line in 2018. A footnote in the history of Range Rover, and one they’d probably like to forget.As Mazda prepares to launch its second and third EVs, the sharply-priced 6e and CX-6e, it can be easy to forget its first attempt. And they might prefer you did.The MX-30 was a bolder-than-average design, with ‘suicide doors’ that were actually more like ‘choke the front seat occupants if you opened the rear doors’, but it fit nicely into the popular Mazda line-up.The problem was what was powering the MX-30. For starters, Mazda hedged its bets, offering its much-hyped EV with a mild-hybrid powertrain option, just to confuse the issue. Which was needed because the EV only had a small battery and a theoretical driving range of only 200km, but a big price tag of over $66k.While EV sales were starting to increase at this point, so seemingly the time was right, Mazda was behind the times in terms of both capability and cost. It was destined to fail and that’s what it did, quietly pulled from sale after only three years.The American brand’s attempt to crack the lucrative ute (or ‘truck’ if you’re American) market was over before it began. On the one hand you have to give credit to Tesla for not trying to take on Ford, Chevrolet and Ram head on. But, on the other hand, what the heck were they thinking?The Cybertruck was always going to be a niche offering, with Tesla frontman Elon Musk's 250,000 annual sales claim being wildly optimistic (to put it very delicately). As the flop of the F-150 Lightning demonstrated, there is simply not a market for electric utes, whether they look like a traditional ute or something created by the work experience kid after a lot of caffeine.Where Musk and the rest of Tesla management thought they’d find 250,000 people who wanted to look like they just drove out of a 1990s computer game remains a mystery to equal the lost city of Atlantis.Electric utes may seem like a good idea, but their time has simply not come year, but certainly the Cybertruck is not what people want.

Have high fuel prices saved Tesla?The American electric brand has been in a sales decline in recent times, with a nearly 25 per cent drop in 2025 despite electric vehicle sales remaining steady overall. But the latest sales data, which includes March when petrol prices spiked, shows a major improvement for Tesla.The Model Y, which recorded only a 4.6 per cent sales increase in ‘25 despite the arrival of a major update, was the third best-selling vehicle in March. It finished behind only the ever-popular Ford Ranger and Toyota HiLux, making it not only the best-selling EV (almost doubling the next best BYD Sealion 7's sales) but the best-selling passenger vehicle.A total of 2818 Model Y buyers were found in March, a massive 63.4 per cent increase on March ‘25 and nearly double what the brand had averaged in the first two months of ‘26.The rise in fuel costs has seen a massive spike in EV interest over the past month. Searches on CarsGuide for EVs rose 230 per cent since petrol prices spiked, while Autotrader is reporting a 631 per cent jump in people searching for a new EV to buy.Tesla was clearly one of the best-placed brands to cash in on this sudden surge in interest. Despite a rocky time in recent years, the brand is still synonymous with EVs and would likely be on the consideration list for anyone looking to move away from an internal combustion engine vehicle for the first time.The challenge for Tesla remains the same — maintaining interest in what is a relatively static line-up. The brand introduced a six-seat variant of the Model Y, and that may have also contributed to the renewed interest in the SUV, but it is otherwise unchanged since its 2025 facelift.The Model 3 mid-size sedan didn’t enjoy a sales boost like its stablemate, with only 667 sales in March, a 33 per cent decline on the same period last year. So clearly the interest remains, unsurprisingly with the SUV variant.It should also be noted Tesla sales have historically varied month-to-month due to delivery schedules, with orders carrying over from previous months as new owners await the arrival of their new car from the Chinese factories.Tesla will clearly be hoping this renewed interest in EVs remains high when the conflict in the Middle East has stopped and oil prices potentially drop. Economists have warned that even a sudden stop to the conflict won’t instantly solve the bottlenecks in the global supply chain and it could take months for oil prices (and therefore fuel prices) to start to decline to the levels seen earlier this year.Until then, Tesla will remain in the box seat to take advantage of motorists looking to ditch petrol and diesel power in favour of going electric. Seeing how the Model Y fares in the April sales charts will be very telling for how the brand’s 2026 sales fortunes will pan out…

It was a day long expected, but it still hit with a bang.A Chinese car maker has out-sold almost every other car brand in Australia.BYD sold the third most vehicles in March, behind only the mighty Toyota and a surging Kia. That means a Chinese brand out-sold big names including Ford, Mazda, Hyundai and Mitsubishi.But BYD wasn’t the only Chinese brand in the top 10 either. In the first three months of 2026, BYD, GWM, Chery and MG are all firmly locked into the best-selling brands. Whatever your feelings on the influx of Chinese brands in recent years, it is clear Australian customers are buying them and they have cemented a place not only in the market, but at its upper echelons.The real question though, is can BYD sustain this success? Was March just a flash in the pan or was it the start of a genuine shake-up of the established order at the top of the sales charts?The initial sentiment around the Chinese industry was that it was flooding the market with cheap, small cars, and there was certainly a lot of truth to that. The MG3 and MG ZS were both big-sellers with small price tags, so it wasn’t surprising to see MG make an impact so early. But if you look at how BYD has found sales volume in Australia, especially since taking direct control of the local operation from original importers EV Direct, it is a very different story.BYD’s two biggest sellers in March were the Sealion 7 (1970 sales) and the Shark 6 (1314), neither could be accurately described as ‘cheap and cheerful’ small cars. Are they price competitive? Definitely, but neither is dramatically cheaper than their direct rivals, certainly not in the case of the Sealion 7.The Sealion 7 is hardly a budget-busting small car, it’s a mid-size, all-electric SUV that is priced from $54,990 (plus on-road costs). That’s competitive against its competitors, but not significantly enough to justify its sales volume alone. In other words, the Sealion 7 is one of the most popular mid-size SUVs in the country (electric or otherwise) because buyers are attracted to it for more than simply the price.The same goes for the Shark 6, which has managed to succeed seemingly in spite of its seemingly unorthodox take on a modern dual-cab. BYD made a brave choice to enter Australia’s ute market with a petrol-powered plug-in hybrid offering, but it may have been precisely the right ute at the right time.Buyers are seemingly happy to try something different and between the tax breaks and the rising cost of diesel, it’s not unsurprising that the Shark 6 has been a sales hit. So much so that it is firmly ensconced as the fourth most-popular 4x4 ute on a regular basis, behind only the Ford Ranger, Toyota HiLux and Isuzu D-Max.But does this mean BYD’s March success is sustainable? Well, certainly there are no indications that the Sealion 7 or Shark 6 will suffer a sales collapse (but stranger things have happened). While there is likely to be some ebb and flow in the sales charts this year and BYD may slip up and down the order, there are a number of indicators that the brand could sustain a top five, or even a top three, sales position long-term.And it could be thanks to the initial expectations of the Chinese market - cheap, small cars. BYD has only launched the new Atto 1 and Atto 2 hatchbacks in the final months of 2025, so they are still finding a market in Australia.But with the high cost of petrol leading to a spike in electric vehicle interest, the thought of a city-friendly small car that never requires a visit to the service station could become a popular choice for Australian drivers.Add to that the addition of the Sealion 5 and Sealion 8, which naturally sandwich the Sealions 6 and 7, as well as the talk of an expanding Shark 6 line-up and there is every chance BYD will have management at the likes of Ford, Mazda, Kia and even Toyota starting to feel concerned about the long-term outlook.

Volvo has a history of making boxy, unexciting sedans - the ES90 does not follow that path. This all-new electric sedan (or liftback, technically) is the SUV alternative for those willing to think outside the box. We drive the new-for-2026 ES90 to tell you about its performance, range, value, design and practicality.

Plug-in hybrids are here to stay. That’s the opinion of Skoda Australia director Lucie Kuhn, who believes that while plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) may be a so-called ‘bridging technology’ towards fully-electric cars, the ‘bridge’ could last at least a decade.PHEV sales have risen sharply in recent years, making a comeback after many brands that previously offered the technology abandoned it in favour of a focus on fully-electric vehicles (EVs). But PHEVs, which use an internal combustion engine to support an electric powertrain, have been given a second chance thanks to longer electric-only driving range and a push from Chinese brands, such as BYD and Chery, that have made them more affordable.Under Kuhn’s leadership, Skoda Australia has introduced the Kodiaq PHEV with plans for the Superb PHEV wagon to follow soon. She believes this is the right time to introduce PHEV options, primarily because of the slow uptake of EVs in Australia.“Yes, I think so, and we actually had this observation also from Europe, where time has shown that the transformation hasn’t proceeded as fast as we all expected. And it's actually the same situation we observe here also in Australia,” Kuhn said.“Especially in a country with some relatively high geographical distances, I think we still will have a relatively big portion of customers still not being fully ready to go on their fully electric journey and rather go for some interim solution, a kind of solution that provides them a confidence that they can drive the car on a daily basis, on an electric mode, and when they go a little bit more further for some holidays or longer trips, then they can simply switch on the combustion engine and keep going.”Skoda has managed to, unintentionally, coincide the launch of the Kodiaq PHEV perfectly with a sudden spike in fuel prices, further enhancing the appeal of the large SUV that can drive up to 110km on battery and return a claimed fuel economy of just 1.9L/100km.But Kuhn still believes there is a barrier for buyers to overcome with EVs, and the introduction of more PHEVs will help bridge the gap between pure internal combustion engine options and the electric future. Exactly how long the bridge will be is unclear, but Kuhn is confident it won’t be a short-term solution. Instead she said it could last a decade or longer, assuming the Federal Government remains supportive of the technology.“ I think it's first a mental barrier, to overcome this and change this way of thinking and go fully electric. But it might also be driven legally. So the legislation is also something what will decide finally if the PHEV will be a long term technology,” Kuhn said.“Right now we consider it as a bridging technology, but we are speaking a long bridge, like 10 years at least. This is how long it will be minimally. But of course if at some point the government says I don't know, like Europe said, from 2035, no more combustion engines at all, or actually nothing that produces some pollution, then of course it's logically the end of the PHEV technology as well. But currently we don't have this, let's say, kind of global statement, it's currently only in Europe, but also Europe might reconsider, this kind of decision and maybe even bring it a little bit more forward there. The time will show, but the bridge in Australia is really long, at least 10 years.”Currently PHEV models generate credits for car makers under the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard and will continue to do so for another five years. Whether the government chooses to extend that stance will ultimately determine the viability of PHEVs in the Australian market.

MG already had an MG4 electric hatchback, but at a moment in time when fuel prices are soaring and demand for electric vehicles is at an all-time high, the Chinese brand is introducing a second. The MG4 Urban is an all-new small car that shares little in common with its namesake. We test drive this new small electric car to see how it performs in terms of value, space and performance.