Lexus UX300E vs Volvo XC40 Recharge Pure Electric

A family SUV that blends zero emissions with luxury is bound to cause a stir. But which should you be rushing to buy: a Lexus or a Volvo? Photography: John Bradshaw

Lexus’s first fully electric vehicle takes the form of an upmarket family SUV. Let’s see whether it’s got what it takes to beat Volvo’s potent equivalent

THE PREMIUM family SUV class is fertile ground for the proliferation of pure electric vehicles (EVS). Not only are such cars big enough to accommodate sizeable battery packs, but buyers are also happy to pay handsomely for the refinement and performance that are trademark EV traits. Which is why both of these new contenders will fit right in. While the Lexus UX and Volvo XC40 are familiar faces, they’re both now available with the option of pure electric power. Their approaches are somewhat disparate, though. The Volvo XC40 Recharge Pure Electric gets dual electric motors (producing a whopping 402bhp), four-wheel drive and an official range of up to 259 miles. The Lexus UX 300e takes a more modest tack, with 201bhp from a single motor driving the front wheels only, albeit at a lower price. But with a smaller battery, it also has a shorter official range of 196 miles.

Both offer zero-emissions motoring in luxurious packages, but which one blends EV zen and family SUV versatility the best?

DRIVING

Performance, ride, handling, refinement

The more potent XC40 is in a different league when it comes to performance. Its power arrives in a forceful rush, with all four tyres clawing at the road to fire it off the line and up to 60mph in just 4.6sec. Despite the SUV shape, the way the XC40 time warps down the road makes it every bit a rival for more obviously performance-orientated models such as the Polestar 2 (which shares its underpinnings with the XC40) and Tesla Model 3 Performance.

The UX’S 0-60mph time of 7.2sec may seem underwhelming in comparison with the XC40’S, but the car feels urgent enough away from a standstill and, like the XC40, is punchy and responsive in most situations, including when

accelerating up to motorway speed on a short slip road or overtaking a slower car on a country road.

Part of the reason for the UX’S so-so 0-60mph time is that it suffers from a shortage of traction. Even in dry conditions, it spins its front wheels if you ask for a quick getaway, while in the damp it can struggle for traction when all you’re doing is exiting a corner.

There are no gears to change in these cars, of course, but you can select heavier brake regeneration modes in both. The ‘one pedal’ mode in the XC40 is just about heavy enough to bring the car to a complete standstill without using the brake pedal at all. The UX offers stepped levels of regen that are adjusted via steering wheel paddles, although none is strong enough for true one-pedal driving.

What about range, though? Well, in our test – carried out in dry but cool conditions and covering a simulated mix of urban, rural and motorway speeds – the UX consumed energy more efficiently, achieving 3.1 miles per kwh to

the XC40’S 2.7. However, the latter’s bigger battery (75kwh versus an estimated 50kwh in usable terms) means it can go farther between charges in real-world use: 203 miles to the UX’S 155 miles, our calculations suggest.

They’ve got enough range to be useful motorway cars, then, and they’ve got the manners for it, too. Both are quiet at a cruise; the XC40 has more wind flutter over the windscreen, but even by the high standards of this class, this is a very hushed pair of tourers.

A cushy ride further aids the UX’S cause. Urban bumps and potholes are soaked up with ease and the car feels smooth and relaxed even over gnarly surfaces, although mid-corner bumps can have the suspension thumping noisily. The XC40 has stiffer suspension that can be a bit jarring over expansion joints and the like, but it’s damped well enough to take the sting out of most bumps and it settles nicely to be comfortable and stable at higher speeds.

The XC40 isn’t as agile as a Jaguar I-pace or Model 3, feeling rather heavy in bends (it’s no illusion) and allowing its body to lean over quite a bit, but it’s much tidier than the UX in the handling department. Grip is plentiful, even in fast cornering, and there’s a pleasant precision to its steering that makes it feel more assured than the UX, even at an urban putter. However, the steering is a little too light in Normal mode (you’ll want to switch to Dynamic on faster roads), and a tighter turning circle would be useful.

The UX’S relatively light steering makes easy work of clogged urban roads and car parks, but it feels rather vague until you start winding on lock and never gives much sense of what’s going on at the wheels. The front tyres run out of grip relatively early on in corners, wanting to run wide of your intended line, and the traction control interferes too often. All told, the UX isn’t a car that offers any reward for driving briskly, feeling adequate at best.

BEHIND THE WHEEL

Driving position, visibility, build quality

From behind the wheel, the UX doesn’t feel like an SUV so much as a regular hatchback, because you sit quite low. On the plus side, standard eight-way electric seat adjustment (including for lumbar support) provides plenty of movement to allow even leggy drivers to get comfortable.

The XC40, on the other hand,

feels much more like a proper SUV. The upright, high-set driving position gives the commanding view down the road that many buyers look for; only the Range Rover Evoque matches the XC40 for that satisfying, big 4x4 driving position in this class, and you can’t get a fully electric version of one of those.

The seats in the XC40 are some of the comfiest you’ll find in this price bracket, although this entry-level model has manual adjustment (albeit with four-way adjustable lumbar support). You have to step up to mid-spec Plus trim to get an electric driver’s seat with memory function.

Visibility isn’t great in the UX; the windscreen pillars can hinder your view at junctions and you can’t see much if you peer over your shoulder. Rearward visibility could be better in the XC40 too, but otherwise it’s easier to see out of than the UX. At least the UX comes with a rear-view camera and all-round parking sensors to help with manoeuvring; the XC40 comes with rear sensors only.

There’s a greater sense of quality to the materials in the XC40. Although the UX’S interior feels faultlessly put together, it has some scratchy plastics around the doors and lower down.

What the UX does have in its favour is good old-fashioned physical climate control switches that are a doddle to adjust – simple but effective. The XC40’S temperature controls are located on the central touchscreen, and they can be a faff to operate on the move, but at least they’re permanently on display.

SPACE AND PRACTICALITY

Front space, rear space, seating flexibility, boot

Tall passengers and drivers will be comfortable up front in both cars, but it’s not such a success story in the back of the UX. Its rear seats are set slightly higher than in the hybrid UX model (to accommodate the battery beaneath the floor) – and the latter was already cramped by family SUV standards. Sure, a couple of average-sized adults will be okay back there, but it’s not spacious by any stretch and taller passengers will be tight for head and leg room.

The XC40 is unchanged inside compared with its petrol siblings and offers more spacious rear seats than the UX, as well as better access, thanks to wider door apertures and higher-set seats.

The UX doesn’t really fare any better when it comes to boot space. It does have a usefully bigger boot than the UX hybrid,

but that’s not saying much. There’s shallow storage under the floor for cables, but it has only just enough room for a chunky buggy in the boot itself and the load lip is high. The XC40’S bigger, deeper boot is far more practical. And unlike in the UX, there’s a space under the XC40’S bonnet that’s ideal for storing cables.

BUYING AND OWNING

Costs, equipment, reliability, safety and security

Neither car qualifies for the Government’s £2500 EV grant, because both are well north of the £35,000 cut-off, and you’re not likely to get any discounts at this stage. The UX 300e starts at £41,745, but we’d recommend going for the Premium Plus Pack model that we’ve tested. The XC40 is even more expensive if you’re buying outright, and we’re testing the cheapest version available.

Both cars will be relatively cheap to run, though. A full charge at home will cost around £8 for the UX and £11.50 for the XC40 on a standard single-rate tariff of 14 pence per kwh. Add up all the costs a private cash buyer is likely to face over three years and the UX comes out cheaper, despite being pricier to service, although there isn’t a great deal in it.

There’s no PCP finance option on the XC40. Instead, you can opt for the ‘Care by Volvo’ subscription. The monthly payments cover servicing, routine maintenance, tyres and roadside assistance, although insurance is extra. There’s no deposit to pay, but it’ll cost you £649 per month with a 10,000-mile annual allowance.

That seems teeth-suckingly expensive, especially given that those payments don’t contribute to you actually owning the car; you can’t buy it at the end of the three-year term. On the other hand, the UX costs £572 per month on a 36-month PCP deal with a 10,000-mile annual limit, but that’s after a £5000 deposit, and it doesn’t include servicing and tyres. You can buy the UX at the end of the term, if you wish to.

Company car tax is hilariously cheap on both cars until at least April 2024; most buyers will spend more on frothy coffee each year.

When it comes to equipment, the XC40 is kitted out with niceties such as cruise control, climate control, keyless entry, wireless phone charging, ambient lighting and LED headlights. The £650 partleather interior is worth adding, but you have to go for Plus trim to get a reversing camera and heated seats while – disappointingly – only the seriously expensive Pro model gets adaptive cruise control. The UX is more generously equipped, adding heated seats, leather upholstery, adaptive cruise control and the reversing camera we mentioned earlier.

A full battery top-up from a typical home charger takes a bit over eight hours in the UX and 12 hours in the XC40). Rapid charging is quicker in the XC40, which can handle a rate of up to 150kw, compared with the UX’S 50kw. That means a 10-80% charge can be dispatched in just over half an hour in the XC40 and 50 minutes for the UX, despite the XC40’S bigger battery.

As for safety, neither car has been specifically tested by the experts at Euro NCAP, but the cars on which they’re based are among the best in class. Both come with automatic emergency braking, traffic sign recognition and lane-keeping assistance.