2023 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV Range Test | Can this plug-in hybrid SUV cover 1000km?

👉 Full story: www.carsales.com.au/editorial...
The 2023 Mitsubishi Outlander Plug-in Hybrid EV is backed by some bold claims, including that most suburban owners will never need to put fuel in it through the week, and that the popular mid-size SUV has a driving range of more than 800km before it needs more fuel or electricity.
Indeed its official consumption figures indicate the Outlander PHEV can cover more than 1000km on a full tank and battery, so we decided to put it to the ultimate Aussie range test - a near-1100km journey from the Nullarbor Roadhouse near the WA border to Adelaide, to see if PHEVs really are fit for Australia and its outback.
Fast Forward
00:00 Intro
00:42 Day one of the journey
02:25 What's the point of a PHEV?
03:50 Welcome to day two
05:15 Not so smooth sailing
05:53 Verdict
Subscribe for the latest advice, reviews and comparison tests 👍
kzbin.info...
STAY UP TO DATE & CONNECT WITH US AT
carsales.com.au
/ carsales.com.au
/ carsales
/ carsalescomau
----------------------------------------------------------------------
carsales - Australia's #1 for cars
Whatever badge on your bonnet, we want you to know, we love cars.🚗
Shamelessly so.
That’s why we pooled our decades of passion and know-how into one, easy to get to place.
So for helpful advice, reviews, comparison tests and everything you auto know, like and subscribe to the official carsales KZbin channel today. kzbin.info...
#carsaleschannel #Mitsubishi, #Outlander, #PHEV, #Mitsubishi Outlander Plug-in Hybrid EV, plug-in, #russellcoight #hybrid, #plug-in hybrid, #EV, #outback, #Nullarbor

[@200mphgt40]

Nullabor winds can be savage! Last time across we were towing a big enclosed car trailer with a 4L v6 navara. We stopped early arvo at eucla as the headwind that day was just killing us for fuel use! It happens...as do dodgy chargers. So your test condiditons show one benefit f PHEV vs full EV. Sure, you burn more fuel in bad weather...but you can keep on going!

[@AJ93HD]

As an owner of a 23 PHEV Exceed, my last 1,000km combined fuel usage is 1.0L/100km. Charging from solar panels, it works well day to day commuting, only needing to charge a couple of times per week. When I’ve done 700km return weekend trips, I’ve had an economy of 5.5L/100km including city driving at the destination. This includes 1 fast charge at a shopping centre to get full battery for the way home. Some chargers are free, others around $4.50 to get a full charge. The novated leasing of this vehicle is the big saving for me. The economy side of things interests me but isn’t where the true saving is. Without the leasing, the economy and amazing drive the vehicle is wouldn’t be enough for me to buy it outright. I would go for a RAV4 Hybrid instead as there’s no charging required, great economy, little depreciation, less outlay, etc.

[@ravingmad765]

Yeah um Nullarbor is harsh depending on wind. I remember driving a dual fuel tank Cruiser across and wondering what we had strapped to the top. You could see the gauge move..

[@Pdougie2]

What would the results have been, if you had just left it on "Normal" mode for the entire trip, and let the on board computer make the decisions about using the battery or petrol to drive the vehicle?

[@garystill2370]

Worth considering. Does this plugin hybrid class cover utes as well?

[@YZJB]

Ranger PHEV is coming in a year or two

[@electricdiesel1993]

Ditch a diesel 4X4 for a 4X4 PHEV goes best with ethanol unleaded (E10) to save fuel and electric range anxiety.

[@morningsideable]

I have a skoda 3cyl 1.0ltr turbo. Goes well no charging to worry about gets 5.4ltr/100ks. 900ks a tank.

[@gpurkeljc]

This was always going to be a tough challenge. Apart from the more populated eastern coast, most destinations in Australia would gain little advantage from the hybrid system given that the vast amount of driving would be at highway speeds.

[@rustykilt]

The question is, is it worth the extra cost of a phev over a Diesel. The extra cost would take some years to recover the cost saving in fuel consumption.

[@pathankotiya]

Still impressive. I am getting 7.5L/100km in Melbourne city driving and I am yet to start charging the vehicle (looking for a Type2 charger to install at home and too lazy to wait 12 hrs on normal plug)

[@perpetualgrin5804]

Caravaneers know more about the wind than the most astute sailor😅.

[@Pdougie2]

Also, how fast were you going on the open road sections? 100, 110 or 120 km/hr?

[@edincanada]

Yeah, this would be awesome to know. It makes a huge difference.

[@filippoleombruno8624]

I own one of these, have covered 22000 km, the fuel consumption is a bit hard to fully,gauge, you may use 7.6l per 100,on the trip,but if you spend 2 weeks ,ev you will get it down to 1.5, I charge at night,at 7c kwh

[@Kryojenix]

They should further hybridise it by putting sails on the top. Now I have to go study Sydney to Hobart yacht race and work out how to make sails work in a headwind. Or strap a wind turbine on the bonnet as well. Srsly but, Outlander PHEV has been on the cheaper end of my shortlist for nearly 10 years, but I get tempted by all the bling EVs instead, and I just keep my petrol boxes because: sentimental attachment...

[@Pdougie2]

When you said you were using the petrol engine on the higher speed legs, did you use the SAVE, CHARGE or NORMAL mode when you were supposedly using the engine to drive the vehicle. From what I have seen and read about the Outlander PHEV, I think you would have made it all the way to Adelaide if you used the CHARGE mode on those higher speed legs of the journey.

[@RichardJoashTan]

Well done review as always, considering that PHEVs have the advantage over BEVs and the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV is no exception. Glad that I am buying one in a fully loaded Exceed Tourer soon.

[@pummyy]

For that price it is atleaet 10k more expensive than what it shud be

[@stevenalexander403]

Congratulations! I was considering the same model in the metallic pearl white. Happy motoring, I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

[@KaineTube]

I've got one on order too. Thankfully I had novated leasing available so it's a lot more affordable. Our use case is pretty much perfect for a PHEV too. I live very close to work in a semi-rural area and have a fair size solar system and 3-phase to charge from. Can't wait!

[@SchumieFan01]

Okay so first - its not a turbo - and the claimed usage is 1.9L not 1.5Lp hundred ks. Assume you drive 100kms on full ev and 100kms on petrol (at the lab tested never correct economy) the average will be 1.9. But yes - i went for the petrol outlander over the PHEV - worked out it would take me 13 years to get thebpetrol savings back to equalise thebprice point difference @ $2 per litre.

[@roooozbeh]

What about urban driving? I've heard that it goes over 2000km on a tank!?!?!?!

[@homie100968]

Our mitsubishi between townsville and cairns did 7.3l/100km my ancient jeep cherokee on bio diesel does 6.5 ...

[@patrickhawley1392]

This is kind of a strange test for a PHEV. The real benefit of a PHEV comes in with getting one that does all, or at least most, of your daily drive on battery. Even for just regular hybrids, their benefits are most apparent in city type driving. Really, this test was mostly just measuring the size of the gas tank.

[@bryanmathews7226]

This is relevant here because it means that if I buy one, I can use it as my daily vehicle, but when it comes to trips, I have a car that can go for 1000ks

[@edincanada]

It proves this PHEV is proficient at covering such a long distance without any re-energizing (refueling or recharging). It might not be the best at this, but it can do it.

[@patrickhawley600]

I guess. The title of the video still seems odd to me. To me it implies that there migh be a reason that a PHEV would not be expected to have a long range. Whether or not a PHEV can go over 1000 kms ( because it happens to have a large gas tank) has nothing to do with it being a PHEV.

[@ravingmad765]

Too many of these reviews focus on fuel economy. It PHEV provides a vastly superior drive experience. It's very common to pay a premium for say a V6 Q5 interested of the TSI. But, no everyone focusses on fuel saving alone.

[@perpetualgrin5804]

Agree, let's all ride postie bikes for the economy.

[@planestrainsdogsncars4336]

All ride what?.

[@adampoll4977]

Exactly! And in most use cases a PHEV costs you NO fuel for normal daily driving. The difference in drive experience is chalk and cheese.

[@1945sas]

errr..."NO fuel" NO. Obligatory 20L / 3 months to avoid stale fuel.@@adampoll4977

[@Pdougie2]

One more question. Did you use the "One pedal driving" button/option during your test drive, or did you use the flappy paddles to change the regenerative braking levels during your test. If you didn't use one or both of these, then I think you did not make the best use of what the Outlander PHEV has to offer.

[@edincanada]

you are technically right, but because, I assume, over 90% of his driving was open road, that might not have mattered much. Maybe more importantly, did he use cruise control and at what speed? over 1000km, speed and cruise control would make a significant difference.

[@argent10k]

This test is a simply to see if what the Outlander PHEVs absolute long range is. Nothing more - nothing less. A lot of commentors who don't own one (or other manufacturer models) or even a few who do, don't understand the design use case and worse, they shoe horn their arguments into a narrow view that fits their agenda. PHEVs are designed for many short trips with the odd long trip. Typically that would mean approx 80% short range to 20% long range. During short range within the 84km (I get nearer to 94km on Adelaide roads depending on traffic), you emit zero emissions and the cost to travel is cheap. On long range, compared to a pure petrol/diesel, it'll use more fuel generally (I drive in Save mode and it is far more economical than in Charge - only set to Charge when at 20-25% if I know I need more than 30km of EV range without high speed) but over a few trips averaged once you factor in the short trips, it'll average out much lower than petrol/diesel (my current consumption over the last 1000km is currently sitting at 2.8L/100km). PHEVs are not suitable for all people - check your use case carefully especially if you do not have offstreet charging. As for saving money on fuel, you don't buy this for saving money. That $15k premium pretty much kills that. Instead consider the drive train a significant upgrade over the petrol version much like you purchase an R-line Tiguan instead of a regular or a GR over a standard Yaris.

[@nickvdk11]

Agree with your points. But there are other factors why I chose this PHEV over the Tesla Y. 10 year warranty, heads up display, physical buttons, emergency 7 seats, subjectively looks very good to me, and no crazy 1 year plus wait times on the Rav4 hybrid.

[@edl8111]

Even the dealer rep had trouble convincing me of the price jump from full ICE to PHEV. Listen, I loved the PHEV on an extended test drive, but I'm retired so no novated lease option. Maybe a few more options for PHEV from other manufacturers will get Mitsubishi to bring its price back to reality.

[@ianking8197]

Still don’t get why I would pay over $15000 premium for PHEV, price in my state for Outlander PHEV ES $56,500 vs non PHEV ES $39,500. I can’t even calculate the breakeven in my head. But say it’s $5 per 100km in favour of PHEV then my calculations say breakeven at 300000kms?

[@lucanucci79]

It is hard to justify if you think this way, I agree. But, the pleasure of driving EV is on another planet, and a normal petrol 4x4 mid/big SUV 7 seaters like this in the city can burn much more, easily 12L/100km. If you can do a salary sacrifice/leasing, it is a no brainer as there is no FBT and the net cost/week is comparable to a cheap 30k hatch, around $200/week net. Considering all of them....

[@ravingmad765]

@@lucanucci79 so well said. People often pay extra for a V6 Diesel over say the 4cyl petrol option on a car for the driving pleasure. The PHEV takes the driving into a different class. But when you absolutely need to drive 400km + you've got petrol backup.

[@200mphgt40]

@@lucanucci79 the novated leasing tax break makes it hard to ignore. Got an aspire PHEV on order, 4 year lease at $200 per week. And Electric drive is so nice. Instant effortless torque.

[@lucanucci79]

@@200mphgt40 exactly my point, cheaper and with much more compared to petrol in this case

[@Sedge86]

As someone who test drove both and just bought a PHEV I can share my opinion 1. The petrol/CVT combination is horrendous and drives like rubbish in comparison 2. FBT exemption essentially eliminates the difference with better resale if you can novated lease.

[@Antiorganizer]

The Outlander PHEV uses 9L/100km and when still on the battery, 52 kWh/100km. These aren't good numbers at all.

[@TB-up4xi]

The numbers don't add up either there were some electric top-ups along the way or the trip computer is wrong. You drove 296km day 1 used 27L and = 9l/100 and basically zero battery, so far so good, everything adds up fine, but day 2 doesn't work. Day 2 = 640km (936-296 from day 1) To average 7.6L/100 on petrol that's another 440km at 6.6L/100 for a total of 736km / 56L = 7.6L/100 That leaves 200km needed from the battery (936-736 from petrol), the outlander PHEV has a 13.8 kWh battery / 12kwh usable , at 23.8kwh/100 that's a maximum of 50km on electric. Before anyone says yeah but what about regen - the 23.8 kWh/100 is already NET of regen - i.e. if you started at the top of a hill, engine off and used regen braking only on the way down you would get negative kwh/100 on the trip computer.

[@callumhuntermtb4252]

The full feature article addresses some of this. The fuel tank and system can take an extra 12-13L than Mitsubishi claims. Official figure is 56L but it took 66L when refuelling on the way out there

[@mclheaven]

It’s a 20kwh battery not 13.8kw of the previous model. I own an exeed tourer 2023phev and regularly see above the claimed 84km of electric range from a full charge driven in eco and one pedal mode. Best has been 18.3kwh/100km.

[@gregj7916]

Mitsubishi need to get a new design team…..

[@planestrainsdogsncars4336]

ON a road like that a VF2 V8 Commodore would have got 8l/100km...so it has to be said this was a fail.

[@Melbourne1004.]

too expensive

[@skitzvitz]

I guess we conveniently forget that a 15 year old diesel Audi will happily do 1300km on 60lt. 1.5L/100km is a complete lie.

[@MadMatty72]

Incredibly misleading video from an economy standpoint, shame on you.

[@Pdougie2]

Also, do you realise that when you thought you were using the petrol engine to drive the wheels, you were in fact just using the petrol engine to charge the battery, which was in turn driving the wheels? The petrol engine only ever drives the FRONT wheels directly when extra power and torque is required at high speeds, like when overtaking, or accelerating while going up steep hills.

[@davidroberts5199]

Na I have one and the engine drives the front wheels a lot at speeds over 80kmh. It's the default mode when there's little demand for power. More efficient than the generator/electric motor path. The engine revs low and keeps you moving and any excess is sent to the battery through the generator. When the battery is topped up a bit the car goes in to EV mode for a while. And so the cycle continues. Under full throttle its more likely that the engine will be acting only as generator. This is true up to speeds of around 140 when the engine can run at perfect revs for the road speed and the electric motors start to run out of puff.