If you’re like most new car buyers, you’ve been excited by the latest crop of advanced, long-range, fast electric vehicles, all of which look sleek and modern. You walk around them with delight and interest, until you get to the rear. Then, whammo, you’re confronted by that cruel, vast expanse of glass, making a mockery of everything you know and believe in with its flashy, showy transparency. Yes, a rear window. Grotesque, isn’t it? Why can’t any carmaker find the courage to free humankind of from the tyranny of rearward transparency? Well, finally, one company has taken that bold step, and there is now a new car you can buy unburdened with a rear window: the 2024 Polestar 4.
Oh, it’s also a fastback battery-electric SUV with up to 544 hp in dual-motor configuration and a range of 348 miles (well, on that Euro WLTP cycle, at least). But let’s be honest: everyone’s going to be talking about the lack of a rear window.
We’re all talking about it, sure, but I’m not exactly sold on the idea that not having a rear window is a good thing, at least not yet. It’s not exactly the first time this has been attempted in a passenger car – cargo vans, of course, have gone without rear windows for decades—and cars like the Tatra T87 didn’t exactly have a rear window, at least not externally. The T87 actually had two rear windows inside, one in front of the rear luggage compartment, one behind it, and then you could sorta see through the vents on the rear engine lid, but it wasn’t great. The prototype Volkswagen Beetles VW30 series had no rear window, either, and plenty of mid-engine cars have had, at best a little mail slot rear window. So it’s not like there’s no precedent at all here, but in the modern era, no one has really attempted this.
Legally, it should be fine, surprising as that sounds. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMSS) Number 111, Rear Visibility really just sets a lot of requirements for being able to see objects behind the car, and not so much about how those objects need to be visible:
(b) Final requirements. Each passenger car with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less manufactured on or after May 1, 2018, shall display a rearview image meeting the requirements of S5.5.1 through S5.5.7.
S5.5.1 Field of view. When tested in accordance with the procedures in S14.1, the rearview image shall include:
(a) A minimum of a 150-mm wide portion along the circumference of each test object located at positions F and G specified in S14.1.4; and
(b) The full width and height of each test object located at positions A through E specified in S14.1.4.
S5.5.2 Size. When the rearview image is measured in accordance with the procedures in S14.1, the calculated visual angle subtended by the horizontal width of
(a) All three test objects located at positions A, B, and C specified in S14.1.4 shall average not less than 5 minutes of arc; and
(b) Each individual test object (A, B, and C) shall not be less than 3 minutes of arc.
S5.5.3 Response time. The rearview image meeting the requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2, when tested in accordance with S14.2, shall be displayed within 2.0 seconds of the start of a backing event.
S5.5.4 Linger time. The rearview image meeting the requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 shall not be displayed after the backing event has ended.
S5.5.5 Deactivation. The rearview image meeting the requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 shall remain visible during the backing event until either, the driver modifies the view, or the vehicle direction selector is removed from the reverse position.
S5.5.6 Default view. The rear visibility system must default to the rearview image meeting the requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 at the beginning of each backing event regardless of any modifications to the field of view the driver has previously selected.
S5.5.7 Durability. The rear visibility system shall meet the field of view and image size requirements of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 after each durability test specified in S14.3.1, S14.3.2, and S14.3.3.
We reached out to officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation to confirm all of this, but they said they couldn’t get back to us immediately.
Interestingly, side mirrors are still not permitted to be cameras in the American market—see how the Hyundai Ioniq 6 had to adapt for the US—but the internal rear view mirror can be a camera, no problem. That’s why the Polestar 4 has actual mirrors on the sides but a camera on the rear.
Personally, I don’t like the screen-and-camera-based rear view mirrors, because screens simply don’t work the same way mirrors do, and if you’re over 40 and have to wear reading glasses for close things but not distance things like driving, a real mirror will still look clear while a screen will look blurry. I go into all of the science behind that in this other article, but the point is that there is no other rear-visibility option other than a camera/screen setup in the Polestar 4.
Design-wise, the lack of a rear window does make the rear end distinctive. The glass roof extends quite far back, almost into rear window territory, but not quite, and the transition between roof and body is handled by blacked-out panels that contain the rear camera. The rear hatch seems to have another inset shutline that could be a deployable wing or maybe a separate opening panel, like an opening window would be on a more conventional hatch? It’s not clear just yet.
The inside does seem roomy, and the huge glass roof (which can be made opaque via electrochromic magic as an option) should help keep passengers from feeling claustrophobic back there.
The rearward visibility is shown on a conventionally-placed screen standing in for the rear-view mirror, so at least you don’t have to re-train your eyes where to look.
Here’s what Polestar has to say about the design, from its press release:
“With Polestar 4 we have taken a fundamental new approach to SUV coupé design. Rather than simply modifying an existing SUV, giving it a faster roofline and as a result, compromising elements like rear headroom and comfort, we have designed Polestar 4 from the ground up as a new breed of SUV coupé that celebrates rear occupant comfort and experience,” says Thomas Ingenlath, Polestar CEO.
Hear that, rear occupants? You’re going to be celebrated! Oh, and also, it’s still not a coupé, and I’m not going to call it one.
The front end is clean and revels in hard angles and crisp edges, with the distinctive Volvo-derived Thor’s hammer-like headlamps now being divided into four L-shaped units. There is a bit of a shark’s nose look about the front, which I kind of like.
The Polestar 4 is built on Geely’s Sustainable Experience Architecture (SEA) platform, which is the same family used for some Zeekr SUVs, Smarts (they’re partnered with Daimler), and even Lotuses.
The Polestar 4 will be the fastest car Polestar has made so far, getting from 0 to 62 mph in 3.8 seconds, which should be enough to put lots of cars behind you, where your back seat passengers will not be able to see them since, again, no back window. That’s for the dual-motor, 544 hp version; a single motor, RWD version making 272 hp is also available.
Long-range cars will have a 102 kWh battery pack, and EPA range estimate goals are expected to be over 300 miles.
Polestar is targeting a base price of $60,000, putting the Polestar 4 confusingly between the Polestar 2 sedan at $48,000 and the upcoming Polestar 3 SUV at $84,000.
The Polestar 4 seems like a competitive and attractive battery-electric SUV, but I bet salespeople are going to spend a lot of time convincing potential buyers that they won’t be running over kids and pets on a daily basis or smacking into so many phone poles that they’d just include a set of replacement bumpers when you buy one. I’m sure the no rear window will be polarizing, but maybe in this crowded and harder-and-harder-to-differentiate market, that’s a good thing.
I’m excited to try one out and see.
I can barely see behind my Polestar 2, I would rather have a camera helping me to view to the back of the vehicle. I like the design, at least they are trying something different and unique. I get a lot of good feedback from my P2, I think this will attract more people in a positive way
Did they intend to release this 18 days ago?
They give you a glass roof, but they don’t want glass at the back? That’s the opposite of what I prefer. Maximize visibility in the directions I am most likely to need it. If something’s coming at me from above, things have already gone too far awry.
There’s no earthly way of knowing
In reverse where we are going
There’s no window showing
Which way the drivers flowing
Is it raining, is it snowing?
Is a hurricane a-blowing? – uh!
Not a speck of light is showing
So the danger must be growing
Are the fires of Hell a-glowing?
Is there something we are towing?
Yes! The danger must be growing
For the windows are not showing
But the dash screens just keep growing
And they’re certainly not showing
Any signs that they are slowing!
A-aa-aaa-aaaah!
Well played Ghostpetalsyndrome
Paging Mercedes…
Mercedes we’ve got a COTD right here!
The suspense is terrible. I hope it’ll last.
– Are the fires of Hell a-glowing?
+ Are the tail lights even glowing?
(That’s been bugging me since I had to write it in a hurry and forgot to switch that bit).
Being an obsessive person can get exhausting.
– Are the fires of Hell a-glowing?
+ Are the tail lights even glowing?
(That’s been bugging me since I had to write it in a hurry and forgot to switch that bit).
Being an obsessive person can be exhausting.
The real pandemic is people allready NOT using their eyes to actually LOOK behind them ” I was watching the backup camera” as they smash into everything. Now let’s make it so….all the time. Commercial stuff gets a pass because generally the drivers have more sense about them to navigate without direct field of vision behind them…
I’ve never witnessed this happening. How much time are you spending in Walmart parking lots?
SYKO’s takes are so hot they can instantly melt lead.
Lol. I love you using that username to call out Syko.
It’s just dripping in irony.
Never been to Florida I see
Hot take: you don’t need a rear window.
Thousands upon thousands of delivery/commercial vans and trucks, semis, people towing with trailers, etc roam our streets with limited or no direct rear visibility every day. They seem to manage just fine using only side view mirrors. The camera is a perfectly adequate replacement for backing up. If it fails, a little extra care will keep little kids from getting run over, just like all those truck drivers do every day.
#flamesuiton
Counterpoint: Delivery/commercial vans and trucks and semis are usually driven by drivers possessing commercial driving licenses.
Semis, yes. The thousands of commercial landscaping, construction, amazon delivery, etc. roaming the streets … lol.
Also, in my state there isn’t a driving test to get a CDL, so I’m not sure how that would be evidence of driving skills in the first place.
In what state is there no test for a CDL? I was told that the CDL rules were imposed by the feds, which is why the CDL manuals from state to state tend to follow the same outline and vary in details. In the states I’m familiar with the requirements and procedures for obtaining a CDL are almost identical.
derrrr I am so dumb. We do have a driving test. I maintain that the state website is poorly written! And my first paragraph stands, dammit.
Counter-counterpoint: U-Haul trucks and most smaller vans don’t need a commercial license. You don’t need a special superpower to be able to operate a vehicle with no rear visibility. Just common sense which, admittedly, is lacking these days.
Good point about U-Haul operating requirements.
They have really, really, good mirrors though
I can’t recall a single instance where I’ve heard “common sense” referenced to indicate that someone actually did something correct/positive.
“Look at Johnson there… he used his ‘common sense’ and stopped at the train tracks before the crossing gate came down, thus saving himself from a potentially life saving accident with a train…”
Agreed. “Common sense” is mostly used in a derogatory way in conversation. Good observation. It’s called common, but maybe there’s only so much to go around. We could be running out of it as a species. Lord knows it’s getting harder to find these days.
I’d agree with you for backing up, especially given decent . But this has completely removed the 4 from my possibles list. I love my Polestar 2- and the spy shots of the 4 looked great. And the photos of the finished product look great too! But it’s not going to work for us.
My reason? Our dogs. We have two dogs, and they’re fine in the back of the 2, but it would be too dark and claustrophobic for them in the back of this. And so it’s a complete non-starter for us. Unless they build a wagon version… which I would be all over. Marginally worse range be damned.
Dog is always a valid reason, and often the best reason. I’ll give you that one.
It’s possible to drive without a rear window – but it’s not optimal. Rear view cameras do not work as well as mirrors (focusing) and introduce additional failure points.
It’s possible to drive in wooden clogs or while wearing mittens, but it seems dumb to force someone to do so. Although I will admit that my old Volvo 240 was perfectly designed around clogs and mittens.
Yeah, this. People do manage without a rear window. Is it easier with one, though? Yes, and it adds an additional point of failure to have to rely on a camera to see back there. Do I want the general population of mouth-breathing dingdongs to have to figure out how to split their attention between outboard mirrors and a screen? Not really!
Alfred Hitchcock certainly won’t be buying one.
Dammit, someone made the joke already and while I can edit my post I can’t delete it, so here I am lookin like a fool in public.
I read your comment first, and it helped me understand the (supposed previous) joke better. The references are too obscure independently for me to get the joke.
I didn’t know the corpse like actors name, but I remembered the director.
He definitely won’t be buying a new Polestar 4 any time soon. He’s unfortunately dead already as well.
Apparently I’m in the minority here, but even a blurry backup cam does better than your fully loaded car or truck that hasn’t had it’s cab cleaned in 10 years. And it helps a lot when the lifted truck behind has their high beams searing the eyes. This is a safety positive thing overall relative to poor visibilty rears without wipers, but sure consumer choice is nice (either/or ala the c8)
And the reading glasses bit is disingenuous to me. If you can’t see your mirror clearly, you also can’t see your instrument cluster and you shouldn’t be driving. End of story.
I don’t wear my glasses when I drive, and my instruments are a bit blurry. But I can tell I’m going about, say, 45 and have about 3/4 of a tank instead of seeing that I’m going 44 and have 8/12 of a tank. Nobody is driving by the instruments in a car. You don’t really need super-clear vision for your instruments. You do for your rearview mirror, though.
I actually broke down and recently bought bi-focal reading sunglasses from Amazon just for this reason. The full color LED display in my Volvo was pretty easy to read without readers, but the all-amber display in my MINI is stressing my near-distance vision. Now I need to buy a pair of clear bifocals for night driving.
Most instruments and rear view mirrors are far enough away that even people requiring reading glasses ought to be able to make them out fairly clearly. (There’s a reason for the trope of older people holding the newspaper at arm’s length to read it.)
I think it’s less about the camera image being too close to be clear than it is about older eyes taking much longer to adjust focus between near and far objects. I noticed as I’ve gotten older that shifting focus between a book, say, and the tv takes waaaay longer than it used to.
At the same time, you don’t need to be able to read the rear license plate of the car behind you. Seeing there is a car though….
If it is soo bad that it feels unsafe, the instrument cluster would also be unsafe. Now I don’t think either is true for most people most of the time (even with far sightedness), and the point of a camera being far better than a tiny window or none at all is still valid. When full with shit, towing, or backing with my MY, that rear camera is such a peice of mind.
But certainly, ideally we have both options.
Yeah on big trips the wagon is usually stuffed to the roof and I really miss using the rearview mirror. I know there is a weird way to adjust the side mirrors so that you don’t have a blindspot but it didn’t work too well for me
Instead of a solid rear with no window, they should mount a screen there, so when you look in your rearview mirror, you see the screen of what the camera sees.
There is no practical purpose for this, it would just make for some fun Autopian articles.
There is something vaguely unsettling about that cyclops look on the rear. Maybe I should zoom in on that camera…https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/6bb83d91-bd51-49c7-b054-550f5af8dc53.jpg
A lost letter in the first paragraph. “If you’re like most new car buyers, you’ve been exited” I assume it should be “excited“, but perhaps new car buyers are exiting based on new technology.
On another note, I like the fastback portion, but dislike cameras, just because of the fallibility based on conditions. Unless they have tiny wipers like the headlights on Mercs, it is difficult for me to trust them.
This solves no problems and introduces a few new ones. Thumbs down.
Then again, based on Polestar’s complete lack of penetration into the awareness of the general public maybe the problem solved here is that normies hear “Polestar” and think that must be the latest hot OnlyFans account.
It was just a matter of time. I’m not against this at all, at this point. With all the large SUV’s with headlights in my rearview mirror blinding me, I’m hoping this is better.
There definitely needs to be more engineering work done on these rear-view mirror/screens. If you do wear eyeglasses, there should be some way to program your prescription into the car computer so that the image on the screen could be adjusted on the fly. The technology exists for this, so do it, car manufacturers.
Also, there should be head/eye tracking and multiple cameras facing the rear. This way, the computer could adjust the image you see on the screen as you move your head around, just like you would see on a normal rear-view mirror. Again, the technology exists for this. Amazon had their Fire phone once that had 4 cameras on it, I think, that could track the user’s face/eyes. Apple has the parallax effect on their phones that simulates that movement.
And put the cameras into a pod that has small wipers on them to remove rain or fog.
Or, instead of over-engineering things, maybe just put a cheap bit of glass back there and a mirror up front?
Now how are Grace Kelly and I going to figure out that guy across the courtyard killed his wife?
I guess my first question would be: why do you have the corpse of Grace Kelly in your car?
Carpool lanes?
They took the camaro’s lack a visibility and ran with it
So I can see the sun and clouds and stars above me but if there is mist on the rear facing camera I can’t see the child behind me when I am backing up?
That’s my biggest problem here, far beyond aesthetics or rear passenger considerations. We’ll be given a 360-degree view of the sky but 100% obstruction of the direction I’m driving the car, if in reverse. Hard pass.
Edit: “Use the Force, Luke…”
These would be nice features in a world full of dragons. Who needs to look back? But you can look up.
I get why a company that was born from Volvo would want to take design cues from panel vans. I just expected it to be space efficient boxiness instead of svelte curves with no window.
I mean I think it seems fair to say… WHY
This could be like when Apple decided to kill off optical drives, or disk drives before that, or like when GM killed quarter windows. Sometimes, it just takes one innovative manufacturer making a unilateral decision to declare a feature obsolete and the rest of the industry will then fall in line behind them.
Courage
I think it’s more like when GM killed the wind-down rear windows on the A-bodies.
That was to increase advertised rear seat hip room, the quarter window elimination was purely for fashion (GM was powerful enough to make and break trends on a whim, they invented them, they killed them, probably could have stopped bell bottom pants if they had wanted to)
But you won’t be able to see them when they fall in line behind.
Polestar Not 4 Me
Well as Federal Bureau of Prisons said, lets celebrate these prisoners by limiting their exposure to daylight.
I feel like a rear window would look better than the expanse of sheetmetal out the back.
Damn! I was so hoping for a periscope.
The profile of the car is great. The price point is acceptable. I have to imagine the rear-view camera is good enough to let them make this otherwise-insane choice?
I’m curious how it compares size-wise to some of the other sorta-sedan-sorta-crossover-looking-things (new Peugeot 408, Toyota Crown)