Cupra Terramar PHEV here in November
Cupra Australia head of product Jeff Shafer confirmed local-spec Terramar VZe vehicles are now in production at the Hungarian factory (shared with Audi) from which it's sourced for Australia, and are scheduled to arrive here in November.
Full pricing and specifications for the PHEV are still to be confirmed, but it will complete the four-strong lineup and likely be positioned in line with the $73,490 drive-away Terramar VZ petrol variant. For reference, the 200kW e-Hybrid is actually cheaper in the UK after on-road costs than the equivalent 195kW 2.0 TSI.
CarExpert can save you thousands on a new car. Click here to get a great deal. Supplied Credit: CarExpert
The Terramar VZe will be powered by the beefier 1.5 e-Hybrid drivetrain already available overseas and in other VW Group models, quoting system outputs of 200kW and 400Nm.
Drive is sent to the front wheels via a six-speed DSG dual-clutch automatic, while the 25.8kWh (gross) lithium-ion battery allows 69-72 miles (111-115km) of WLTP-certified electric driving.
While it's technically the most powerful Terramar variant available, the 200kW e-Hybrid's front-drive layout means it's not quite as quick as its all-wheel drive turbo-petrol contemporary.
Cupra claims a 7.3-second 0-100km/h sprint time, compared to the VZ's 5.9 seconds. Supplied Credit: CarExpert
The Terramar will be Cupra's second model to offer the VW Group's second-generation plug-in hybrid system for vehicles based on the MQB platform, following the Leon Sportstourer in October.
Cupra continues to lead the VW Group's erm… charge towards electrifying its models in the mainstream segments, now offering mild-hybrid (MHEV), plug-in hybrid (PHEV) and all-electric (EV) products across several segments.
The Spanish brand has pipped Volkswagen and Skoda locally in offering both MHEVs and PHEVs, despite a catalogue of options being available in overseas markets.
Using the Terramar alone as an example, it offers the 1.5 eTSI mild-hybrid and will soon have the 1.5 e-Hybrid PHEV in Australian showroom, whereas the VW Tiguan with which it shares its underpinnings currently offers no electrified options locally – though the same mild-hybrid and plug-in hybrid powertrains are available in the VW overseas. Supplied Credit: CarExpert
Stay tuned to CarExpert for our Australian first drive review of the Cupra Terramar on August 7.
MORE: Everything Cupra Terramar
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
3 hours ago
- Perth Now
2025 MG IM5 price and specs
MG has added a pair of premium electric vehicles (EVs) to local showrooms. Supplied Credit: CarExpert The MG IM5 liftback and IM6 SUV are borrowed from IM Motors, parent company SAIC Motor's premium brand, and slot between more mainstream EVs like the MG 4 hatchback and MG S5 EV small SUV, and the Chinese brand's flagship Cyberster sports car These new EVs wear an MG Motor badge on their tailgate, but feature IM's logo throughout. Though it's larger, the IM5 is arguably MG's rival for the Tesla Model 3. The base IM5 Premium RWD uses a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery and a 400V electrical architecture, resulting in slower charging speeds than the others which use a nickel manganese cobalt (NCM) battery and an 800V electrical architecture. Supplied Credit: CarExpert MG quotes 20 minutes to charge the IM5 Premium RWD from 30 to 80 per cent using a DC fast-charger, against 15.2 minutes for the Platinum and Performance variants. All IM5s feature vehicle-to-load (V2L) functionality, with a maximum output of 6.6kW. MG doesn't quote total system power and torque outputs for the flagship Performance AWD, which is the only variant with two electric motors. It's also the only variant with air suspension and Continuously Controlled Damping. All IM5s feature double-wishbone front and multi-link rear suspension, as well as four-wheel steering. All IM5s ride on staggered wheels, and feature four-piston front brake calipers with ventilated discs at all four wheels. The IM5 has a drag coefficient of 0.226Cd in base Premium RWD trim, and 0.237 in the others. MG's IM models are covered by a seven-year, unlimited-kilometre warranty, though if you don't service within MG's network this drops down to a five-year, unlimited-kilometre warranty (or five years/160,000km if the vehicle is being used for commercial purposes). Supplied Credit: CarExpert The battery warranty is eight years, 160,000km no matter how you use it. The air suspension and four-wheel steering systems are backed by a five-year, unlimited-kilometre warranty. There's a capped-price servicing program that spans five years/100,000km, with servicing required every 12 months or 20,000km. The IM5 has yet to be tested by ANCAP or Euro NCAP. Supplied Credit: CarExpert Standard safety equipment across the range includes: Adaptive cruise control Autonomous emergency braking Blind-spot monitoring Driver attention monitoring Lane-keep assist Emergency lane-keep assist Intelligent Lane Change Lane centring Rear cross-traffic assist Safe exit warning Front and rear parking sensors Surround-view camera Tyre pressure monitoring Front, side and curtain airbags Far-side airbag Its suite of active safety and driver assist technology is powered by 12 ultrasonic sensors, nine high-definition cameras, three millimetre-wave radar, one positioning unit and one inertial measurement unit. There are three variants in the MG IM5 lineup. Supplied Credit: CarExpert Supplied Credit: CarExpert The Premium RWD comes standard with the following equipment: 19-inch alloy wheels Tyre repair kit Automatic LED headlights Rain-sensing wipers Heated, power-folding exterior mirrors Electronic park brake with auto hold Semi-autonomous parking assist Hands-free power tailgate Proximity entry and start Panoramic glass roof Rear privacy glass 26.3-inch touchscreen 10.5-inch touchscreen Wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto DAB digital radio Leatherette upholstery Heated and ventilated front seats Heated rear seats 12-way power driver's seat 6-way power passenger seat 60:40 split/fold rear seats with adjustable backrest 3 x ISOFIX child-seat anchor points 256-colour ambient lighting 50W ventilated wireless phone charger 20-speaker sound system Road Noise Control 3 x USB-C outlets (2 x front, 1 x rear) Dual-zone climate control Heat pump The Platinum RWD adds: 20-inch alloy wheels Hankook iOn high-performance EV tyres Air suspension is optional on the Platinum. The Performance AWD adds: Pirelli P-Zero tyres Air suspension Continuously Controlled Damping A Highland Grey interior is standard, with a Dover Beige interior available on all IM5 models for an extra $990. Supplied Credit: CarExpert Supplied Credit: CarExpert Supplied Credit: CarExpert Supplied Credit: CarExpert Supplied Credit: CarExpert Athena White is the standard exterior finish, with the following costing an extra $1000: Rembrant Grey Nevis Blue Ares Black Raphael Beige MORE: Explore the MG IM5 showroom
Sydney Morning Herald
4 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
