Horsepower is easy to measure. What it feels like to deploy that horsepower at the limit, with full confidence, is considerably harder to put a number on. That is the problem a University of Oxford pilot study, conducted in collaboration with Polestar, attempted to solve.
Twelve drivers spent time at Gotland Ring in Sweden driving two versions of the Polestar 4: the Rear motor variant and the Dual motor with Performance pack. The setup paired vehicle telemetry with heart-rate monitoring, eye tracking, psychological assessment scales, and post-session interviews. The goal was to connect what the car was doing with what was happening to the person driving it.
The gap between the two cars is not subtle. The Dual motor with Performance pack produces 544 hp (400 kW) against the Rear motor’s 268 hp (200 kW). On matched fast laps, the Performance version delivered 32% higher peak acceleration while requiring 15% less steering effort, a combination that reflects how much work the car is doing on the driver’s behalf rather than demanding it from them. It also generated greater cornering loads and more frequent hard-acceleration events across the same circuit.
Drivers noticed. On the study’s Performance/Dynamics scale, the Performance pack version scored 89.2 out of 100 against 67.7 for the Rear motor. Overall experiential quality came in at 93.0 versus 77.9. Those are not marginal differences for a 12-person pilot.
The physiological data followed a consistent pattern during dynamic driving. Participants blinked less, their pupils enlarged, and they held their gaze longer, signs of deeper attentional engagement rather than stress or distraction. Researchers were able to correlate telemetry events with changes in physiological activation, which is the methodological foundation the study was built on: linking engineering outputs to human response in something approaching real time.
What the interviews added was more nuanced. Drivers did not describe the Performance pack experience purely in terms of physical intensity. They described trust. Several participants independently compared the experience to a controlled roller coaster, and one characterised it as a car that makes you feel like a better driver than you are. The researchers found that the Performance version more consistently delivered that specific combination of thrill, confidence, and perceived control. Max Klapow, a doctoral researcher at Oxford’s SDG Impact Lab, framed it this way: performance is not simply about going faster, it is about giving the driver a sense of confidence and control through predictable vehicle responses.
Oxford and Polestar are careful to flag the study’s limits. Twelve participants constitutes a feasibility pilot, not a validated framework. A larger study is required before the methodology can be used to draw reliable conclusions or to set benchmarks. The long-term ambition is a measurable framework for driving thrill that could inform vehicle development and EV performance comparisons more broadly. Results are due to be presented at Oxford later this autumn.
Polestar has been busy on multiple fronts in recent months. The Formula 2030 concept previewed design direction for the 2027 Polestar 2 successor and the 2028 Polestar 7 compact SUV, while the brand restructured its European charging subscription with two tiers priced at EUR 7.99 and EUR 14.99 per month. The Oxford study fits that pattern: Polestar is investing in research infrastructure around the EV experience, not just around the hardware.
Whether that investment produces something engineers can actually use depends on what a scaled study finds. A 12-person pilot that shows promise is, at minimum, a reason to fund the next one.
Source: Polestar. Images courtesy of Polestar.
