How do the returns look when the open road beckons for this new compact petrol-electric?

Price: Full RRP $65,990, $57,990 launch price (down to $52,240 with Clean Car rebate).
Powertrain and economy: 2.4-litre MIVEC petrol engine with front and rear high-power electric motors, single-speed planetary gearbox, super all-wheel control, claimed combined economy 1.9 L/100km, 43 g/km.
Vital statistics: 4545mm long, 1805mm wide, 1685mm high, 2670mm wheelbase. Luggage space 359-626 litres. 18-inch alloys, 225/55 R18 tyres.
We like: Short-range EV performance, good ride, decent driving position.
We don’t like: Dated fixtures and awkward ergonomics, EV involvement ultimately falls away sharply in distance driving.

Fact: Hybrid electric vehicles are among the most fuel-efficient cars on our roads.

Another fact: The above statement demands caveats. Such as ‘when in the right environment’ and ‘when driven the right way’ and, most pressingly, ‘when significant distance isn’t a factor.’

For several reasons, they shine brightest around town whereas on the open road, economy advantages have tendency to erode. The point of complete undoing is once the battery expends beyond usefulness. Then you’re left with a car with two propulsion units instead of one to lug around. The weight of the battery and electric motor has telling impact.

Placing the tech is the most aero packaging would be beneficial, yet of course we get the complete opposite. It’s always seemed a bit weird that what is conceptually an outdoorsy vehicle gets a drivetrain that delivers best result in the very environment in which it might be least physically comfortable, but there you go. Sports utility settings are increasingly common.

The success of Mitsubishi’s Outlander PHEV proves we can accept this with batting an eye.

Expanding the availability of the model’s well-established and now-prescient powertrain – a 2.4-litre (94kW/199Nm) petrol engine backed by two electric motors (60kW/137Nm driving the front axles and 70kW/195Nm driving the rear) –into the platform-sharing, but five-seater focused, Eclipse Cross makes good logic.

Yes, it’s second time around the block for MotoringNZ.com and this car. My time followed Rob Maetzig’s; his test focussed on more on urban use. Mine on the one box he didn’t tick, due to time consideration.

Before getting into that, an acknowledgement of Mitsubishi Motors NZ for being so bold with its plug-in hybrid drivetrain. They very much were pathfinders in this sector and it’s good to see them reaping good reward.

Could introduction timing of this new product be better? Government’s rebate atop a decent discount to fizz up launch impact plus it comes into the market just when the current Outlander is heading off.

The Eclipse Cross only recently underwent a major mid-life refresh that by and large remedied some glaring design and dynamic shortcomings; it’s not the best product in its category, but has certainly moved up a few places. The PHEV is in the latest packaging and, save for the requisite added badges (in blue, of course), there’s no further design change to differentiate it from the petrol 1.5.

That’s in look. In driving, they’re well separated. Inasmuch as the 2.4-litre drivetrain is primarily to enhance eco ambition, it is patently more powerful than the ‘regular’ car’s 1.5-litre, and on top of that the drivetrain is much techier.

And more bewildering? That probably is also the case. Plug-in hybrid drivetrains in general can demand a decent degree of driver involvement if you’re seeking to optimise the experience; though it has been refined over the years, Mitsubishi’s in in some ways less advanced by some others.

It remains particularly hands-on in respect to regenerative braking, which can feed small dollops of energy back into the battery. The modes of operability that influence the energy use are more profuse.

If you get a handle on how to use everything to best outcome, it’s said to be brilliant. If you cannot get your head around the finer points, it can be a bit bewildering. Given how the car performed for me, my competence might fall into question.

Base operability goes like this: Especially when the car is left to sort itself out, which means engaging in ‘Normal’, the engine will either drive the wheels with the help of the batteries, or it can charge the batteries to keep them topped up, or it can be switched off entirely and run in electric mode.

Mitsubishi says the 13.8kWh battery pack provides a maximum petrol-free driving range of up to 55km. It also takes up to seven hours to recharge from empty using a 10-amp household power point, which is fine for overnight replenishment. For daily use, you’d want to organise access to a fast charger.

As in the larger car, there are five driving modes. Gravel, Snow, Normal and Eco are obvious (though ‘Snow’ could be considered inconsequential). ‘Tarmac’ is the twister, in that it suggests a better setting for tarseal than ‘Normal.’ Not so. This is a rename for what Outlander drivers know as ‘Sport’. Why is anyone’s guess .. the Eclipse is sportier than the Outlander, though not emphatically so.

There are also button-activated battery-specific functions. ‘EV’ forces the car into a purely electric mode, at any speed up to 135kmh, both the front and rear electric motors involving. ‘Save’ puts that effect on hold until you specifically need it. And that’s for 55km? Well, not always. The test car never showed it had that much capacity when showing full replenishment; the top figure being 48kms. Not unusual for a PHEV, actually.

Most of the time, then, the engine is running though it’s not always working hard. Sometimes at open road cruise it is barely idling, which is great for thrift, but as said the most effective parsimony is best discovered around town.

Until 70km the car prioritises the battery to power the front and rear motors, while the petrol engine is engaged to run the generator to charge the battery while driving. Only above 70kmh does the car transform into a traditional hybrid, whereby the petrol engine drives the front wheels in tandem with the front electric motor … and the rear electric motor drives the rear wheels. It can still revert to EV mode if it senses opportunity. Still with me?

Regenerative braking will replenish some zap back into the battery, but it’s not a lot; Charge mode (yes, another button) to use the engine as a generator is far more effective. Except in respect to fuel burn as it forces the engine to work harder by producing more power than would be necessary from using it to run the car in its own right.

Before talking actual figures, let’s say now that it’s difficult to pin down expected fuel economy. It really depends on the driver’s routine, including how often they charge the battery and how many kilometres they drive.

My job was to undertake a big day out. Rob hadn’t the opportunity but his focus being on urban usage was still, of course, very fruitful.

All well and good, but what about when an owner wants to go further? We agreed that question is relevant; SUVs are born to roam, right?

My route was a tidy 400km round trip from my home in the Manawatu to the Taranaki township of Eltham (why there? Answer: The cheese factory has an excellent shop). The run delivered a good mix of roads and traffic conditions; the weather was brilliant, too. And I came home with a big bag of cheddars, blues and haloumi.

With a full battery charge and well-stocked petrol tank; the trip computer at journey’s start related 574kms’ range, i 46km of which could conceivably be entertained on pure electric.

The 33kms from Palmerston North to Sanson was in ‘Eco’ mode and, boy, did it deliver; an average of 1.0 litres per 100km (yes, 0.9L better than the maker-cited overall optimal burn!) One drawback. It used 92 percent of its battery. A change of tactic was required.

From there to Whanganui, I dabbled with Charge mode to restore some battery life but, perturbed by how much more work the engine was doing, wondered if Normal might deliver a happier state of balance. Entering my old home town, the battery was at 50 percent state and indicating 21kms of involvement, with trip computer also suggesting an overall range of 467km.

Whanganui to Eltham. Mt Taranaki directly ahead and Mt Ruapehu off to the right was a sight to see and a good distraction; the powertrain was losing ground again. Again, Normal was prioritised and slow traffic was possibly a bonus, but it’s a deceptive climb and that took a toll. By Hawera the fuel consumption was up to 5.8L/100km and, when I rolled in Eltham 15 minutes later, it registered 6.4. Basically, what’d you expect were this a fully petrol model.

Why? Again, I’d resorted to using Charge mode for the last bit because the battery was down to its last bar, showing just 10km EV driving remaining when I switched off to raid Fonterra of its finest.

From there back to Hawera, where I wondering if effectively ‘resetting’ the car back to its pre-start state, that is, with a fully-replenished battery, might turn the situation around?

So, I located the town’s Chargenet post, and gave it a good DC replenishment to 80 percent, accomplished in barely the time it took to buy a sandwich and an orange from the adjacent supermarket. The combined total of that purchase being around half the $8.19 wallop of electricity. Realistically, I should have then energised it the final 20 percent. Except, well, because of the way lithium ion batteries work, that always takes an age. Potentially at least another hour for this car. Time I didn’t have.

Leaving town, the car was back in reasonable form. Battery up to 80 percent capacity and promising 42kms EV operation, while the overall range, after 212kms’ running, was still a highly healthy 437km.

Sadly, the good times didn’t last. The car seemed hungrier for Taranaki electricity than it had been for Manawatu’s. The fuel consumption average gradually began rising, to at 5.3L/100km by Patea, and 60 percent battery life had been expended.

From there on, I might as well have been driving the orthodox pure petrol Eclipse Cross. The battery assist was waving a white flag and just along for the ride. At journey’s end, the average petrol consumption was back to 6.2L/100k and the EV opportunity was down to a sorry 4km’s cited range. That initial period of battery brilliance aside, the oil barons still won the day.

Breaking down the outing into a series of mini drives, in which each would end with the car being fully recharged, would like have delivered a wholly different outcome. But such an approach who be so highly impractical as to be totally implausible.

There’s another lingering issue. Aside from the powertrain change, and badging, the PHEV version here is basically the same car as the regular petrol VRX tested in May; kitted identically and delivering better ride – thanks, no doubt, to the additional weight - the same strengths (decent comfort, good driving position) and the same weaknesses: Cheap plastics, parts-bin switches quite probably from last century, and, despite some nice upmarket touches, also some shortcuts (like no auto tailgate on a flagship).

Going for full petrol means taking a 115kW/254Nm 1.5 turbo, also hooked up to a CVT, that isn’t as smooth or as refined as the PHEV unit, nor – you’ll be please to know - as frugal: Consumption was about 2 litres’ shy of Mitsubishi’s official reckoning of 7.7L/100km during our test.

Even after exploiting the Government’s rebate and buying in at the launch special sticker, a PHEV still sits $8250 above the full petrol. That’s a lot of refills. When (or if) the PHEV reverts to its advertised full RRP, it will be a $65,990 car pre-rebate.

After all that, there’s the next Outlander PHEV. Not arriving until next year, sure, but still surely a contender, given how it’s been priced and positioned in past form. New platform, new look but seeming set to keep the same drivetrain … it’s been a huge fan favourite in the past. What’s to keep it staying that way in the future?