NoMIS Power has demonstrated its first 6.5 kV large-die SiC MOSFET, which it measured at over 8 kV blocking, 90 mΩ on-resistance and 55 A drain current. The part is now sampling to US-based customers, and deliveries of production versions are scheduled to begin in Q4 2026.
The 6.5 kV family will grow beyond the demonstrated device to add on-resistance variants, small-die parts, hybrid junction-barrier Schottky FET (JBSFET) devices and standalone diodes. JBSFET construction, the company says, prevents body-diode degradation. NoMIS Power lists high-voltage direct current (HVDC), solid-state transformers, pulsed power, rail traction and MW-scale EV charging among the intended applications.
Higher blocking voltage lets a converter run a higher DC-link voltage without series-connecting lower-voltage devices, an approach that requires voltage-balancing circuitry and adds losses. SiC’s higher critical field allows a thinner drift region than silicon at the same blocking voltage, which holds down on-resistance and conduction losses in the multi-kilovolt classes.
The 3.3 kV MOSFET family is in production: 80 mΩ at 34 A, 50 mΩ at 55 A and 25 mΩ at 105 A, in TO-247-4L-HC and bare die. The portfolio also includes 50–160 mΩ bidirectional SiC switches and a 500 A half-bridge power module. Charged covered the company’s 3.3 kV and 1.7 kV planar devices in February 2026.
Above 6.5 kV, NoMIS Power has 10 kV MOSFETs, diodes, JBSFET parts and SiC IGBTs in development for grid-scale HVDC, traction and pulsed power, and says they will sample in Q4 2026. The roadmap extends toward 20 kV.
“Demonstrating 6.5 kV blocking to over 8 kV proves our planar SiC platform scales cleanly from the 3.3 kV devices shipping today into the high-voltage class,” said Adam Morgan, co-founder and CEO of NoMIS Power.
One of the biggest gripes EV drivers have about public charging is the proliferation of apps. Every charge point operator wants you to set up an account and use their app. Frequent long-distance drivers often have to juggle several apps—and some of them are badly designed.
Now Octopus Energy US promises to “bring public charging into one seamless experience with one-tap access to tens of thousands of charging stations across North America.”
The company’s new Octopus Charge program builds on the success of Octopus Energy Group’s Electroverse platform in the UK and Europe. Since launching in 2020, Electroverse has grown into a major EV charging platform—the company says it provides access to more than one million public charge points across more than 40 countries through a single app and a single account.
The company boasts an impressive number of member CPOs in the US and Canada:
EVGo
ChargePoint
BLINK
Lynkwell
Red E
bp pulse
Shell Recharge
Flo
EVCS
Circle K
Couche Tard Recharge
Circuit Électrique
Hypercharge
SWTCH Energy
EVoke
ChargerQuest
EV Connect
AppleGreen Electric
FPL EVolution
ABM
ZEF Energy
Flash Parking EV Charging Network
Monta
Stay N Charge
If this works consistently, it would be extremely cool—almost as cool as Plug & Charge, which is (too) slowly being rolled out here in the US.
We haven’t yet heard any testimonials from drivers who have actually used Octopus Charge. Some of the best-known networks (Tesla, Electrify America, IONNA, Walmart) are missing from the list (at least for now), but several networks that I use on a regular basis are on the list, so I shall be testing Octopus Charge on my next road trip. Stay tuned, and let us know if you have any experience with this new service.
“Drivers shouldn’t have to juggle multiple apps and accounts just to charge their cars,” said Nick Chaset, CEO of Octopus Energy US. “By bringing public charging into one seamless experience, Octopus Charge gives drivers the confidence to hit the road, helping remove another barrier to EV adoption.”
“We built Octopus Charge to remove unnecessary friction from the charging experience, helping drivers spend less time managing charging and more time enjoying the drive,” said Sebastian Blake, Head of Product at Octopus Energy US.
BorgWarner has won an order for its integrated drive module (iDM) from an unnambed “global OEM.” Production is scheduled to begin in 2027.
BorgWarner’s iDM packages the electric motor, gearbox and inverter as a single unit in “what BorgWarner calls “a three-in-one coaxial layout.” In a coaxial e-drive the motor typically sits on the same axis as the output shafts, rather than on an offset, parallel axis. BorgWarner says the gearbox layout improves packaging flexibility in the vehicle.
The motor is oil-cooled. Oil is dielectric, so unlike water-glycol it can be run in direct contact with windings and end-turns instead of through a jacket outside the stator.
Power conversion is handled by the company’s GenIV inverter, which is built into the drive unit. The inverter uses the latest generation of BorgWarner’s Viper power switch, designated Viper D, which the company says cuts switching losses and carries more current, raising the efficiency of the whole drive system. Switching losses turn into heat inside the inverter, so reducing them lowers the cooling burden and leaves more battery energy available at the wheels. BorgWarner has used Viper switches in 800 V silicon carbide inverters for other OEM programs, including an extension of PHEV and BEV inverter contracts with a European automaker.
The module’s hardware and software are organized as building blocks, an approach the company says makes the platform adaptable to different customer requirements and shortens development cycles.
The public EV charging experience has long been a sore point among users. EV drivers have complained about malfunctioning or out-of-service chargers and unnecessarily complicated apps and payment systems. More recently, there’s a sense that things have greatly improved, and—coincidentally or not—the number of available charging sites continues to expand.
Customer satisfaction with DC fast chargers increased 12 points compared to last year, to 666 (on a 1,000-point scale). Respondents reported improvements in all 10 factors in the study. Charger availability saw the largest improvement (+27 points), followed by location safety (+18) and cost of charging (+18).
Charging failures have reached a record low: the public charging non-charge visit rate fell to 12%, down from 14% a year ago and the lowest level ever recorded in the study.
Three new OEM-backed DC fast charging networks have recently come on the scene, and all three performed well in the survey. Customers praised the ease of charging, charging speed and charger availability. IONNA ranked highest among DC fast charger stations in its first year of award eligibility.
Site selection matters—a lot. JD Power found that satisfaction is highest for DC fast chargers located at hotels (692), gas stations/convenience stores (689) and restaurants (688), while dealership locations scored significantly lower (570).
Colorado’s school districts seem to be engaged in a healthy competition—who can deploy the most electric school buses? Boulder Valley School District has 13 electric buses; Cherry Creek is about to deploy its first six; Aurora Public Schools has seven and is about to receive six more.
However, it’s only logical that the state’s largest school district should have the state’s largest electric vehicle bus fleet. Denver Public Schools recently announced plans to add 25 e-buses to its fleet, as local TV new show 9News reports.
The district already has three electric buses, so adding 25 more will make e-buses 12 percent of the nearly 300-bus fleet, which drives a collective 12 thousand miles per day. Grant funding covered the $11-million price tag for the buses and associated charging infrastructure.
DPS bus driver Ayana Evans told 9News that she’s looking forward to the lack of loudness. “It’s going to be great for the environment, and I’ve heard that kids actually tend to be quieter on electric buses because they don’t need to raise their voice over the engine.”
“This will give us the largest fleet of electric school buses in the state of Colorado,” said Tom Wildman, DPS Director of Sustainability. “We’ve got no exhaust coming out of these buses, which is obviously going to benefit the students that ride in it, the schools that they pull up to, but also everyone who lives in this wider community. Especially with all the air pollution issues that we have here in Denver and along the Front Range, that’s a significant contribution to driving down problems with respiratory health.”
Samora also noted the welcome savings on diesel fuel. A typical diesel bus costs the district $6,800 per year in fuel. Each of the electric buses is expected to cost the district only $1,900 a year in fuel costs.
As the world accelerates towards a sustainable future, the electrification of commercial vehicles is becoming increasingly imperative. This technical presentation explores the rising demand for megawatt charging solutions in the electric commercial vehicle industry, technical hurdles, cost-efficiency, and performance advantages. We delve into the costs to enable megawatt charging onboard commercial vehicles. These technical enablers must be understood when evaluating the vehicle’s desired performance and charging speed. Our presentation will review these key technological requirements, including high-capacity batteries, high fault current protection systems, and advanced thermal management systems. Each of these can be a limitation on available charging speed of the vehicle but addressing them comes at additional cost.Using an analysis of available time in the usage of commercial vehicles in a variety of business models, we will identify required charging speeds to electrify that business model. The flexibility of when and where to charge a vehicle becomes the primary benefit of faster charging. We present 3 potential business models that will require different charging solutions:
Local Delivery – Low energy use with high available downtime can be electrified with relatively slow 150kW charging. Medium Haul – Medium energy use with medium available downtime can be electrified with currently available charging speeds of 350kW. Long Haul – High energy use with low available downtime will require 1MW charging to be widely available before electrification.
While all BEV applications could benefit from the flexibility of faster charging, and in fact, potentially most applications could be electrified with widely available 1MW charging. It is important to understand that not all will require megawatt charging. Many business models can go fully electric and manage vehicle cost by using slower charging speeds.
Through innovative research and development, Eaton is at the forefront of developing scalable and efficient onboard charging solutions and can help OEMs and fleets understand the trade-offs between cost and benefit specific to each vehicle’s application.
Cost of Faster Charging
Central to this discourse is the concept of charging speed, a pivotal factor influencing the practical deployment and utilization of electrified vehicles. Charging speed dictates the operational dynamics, dictating the feasibility of various business models transitioning to electrification. While some applications may seamlessly integrate electric vehicles (EVs) into their existing business frameworks, others may necessitate the advent of novel technologies or creation of new business models to utilize the strengths of electrification. The assertion that expedited charging equates to superior performance holds merit; however, a comprehensive analysis of the constraints faced by vehicle manufacturers and fleet operators is imperative. This encompasses evaluating the technical and economic implications of vehicle electrification, ensuring that the transition is not only technologically viable but also sustainable in the long-term market landscape.
Battery Cells
Battery cells, akin to the human preference for climate-controlled environments, exhibit optimal performance within specific temperature parameters. Ideally, these cells operate efficiently within a thermal window of 15 to 35 degrees Celsius. It is noteworthy that the preferred operational temperature range may vary contingent upon whether the cells are in the process of charging or discharging.Figure 1shows the relationship between temperature of a battery cell and it’s relative performance. The range for performance is greater during battery discharge than it is for charging.
Figure 1: Battery Performance vs Cell Temperature
This analogy underscores the necessity for sophisticated thermal management systems in electric vehicles (EVs). Such systems are designed to maintain the battery cells within their ‘comfort zone,’ thereby ensuring consistent performance. Furthermore, integrating intelligent features like route planning enables the vehicle to anticipate upcoming charging sessions, allowing for the pre-conditioning of the battery. This proactive approach facilitates optimal charging efficiency.
The second factor that can effect a cell’s ability to take in energy is its current state of charge. Drawing a parallel to the process of individuals entering a movie theater and locating a seat, charging a battery pack can be similarly conceptualized. When the ‘theater’—or battery pack—is unoccupied, the process is straightforward. However, as occupancy increases, finding available ‘seats’—or charging points within the cells—becomes increasingly challenging. Figure 2 shows this relationship graphically. As the state of charge approaches full capacity, the rate of charging can degrade to the point at which charging is un-economical. The driver will be better served driving to a second charging location using energy and plugging in at a lower state of charge than to sit and wait at the reduced speed.
Figure 2: Charging Power vs State of Charge
This state of charge relationship can also effect a vehicle’s ability to use the drive motor as a secondary retarder. Therefore, a vehicle must maintain a sizable buffer in the battery pack to ensure sufficient charge rate and storage to perform regenera-tive braking. A sophisticated route planning tool should be able to predict energy consumption as well as predicted energy recovery to optimize efficiency.
Battery Size and C-rate
A critical aspect of battery chemistry is the relationship between a pack’s peak theoretical charging speed and its capacity. The pursuit of faster cell chemistries is achievable; however, it often incurs higher costs and a compromise on longevity. The commercial electric vehicle (EV) market has shown a predilection for Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) chemistry, which strikes a balance between cost-effectiveness and durability. Recent advancements in LFP chemistry have elevated the pack’s C rate from approximately 2 to a range of 3 to 4. However, even with a C rate of 3, attaining a charging power of 3.75MW—the upper limit of the Mega Charging Standard (MCS)—a vehicle would necessitate an onboard battery capacity nearing 1000kWh. Conversely, a charging power of 1MW could be achieved with a 400kWh battery. While substantially larger than the batteries found in light vehicles, this size remains within a more manageable spectrum.
Figure 3 shows this relationship at various theoretical C-rates.
The highlighted example shows that a 3C battery connected to a 1 Megawatt capable charger will be limited in charging speed if the battery is below 350 kWh. Above that size, the charger’s max power can be achieved.
It is important to note that a larger battery not only extends the vehicle’s range and accommodates greater energy recovery through regenerative braking but also impacts the vehicle’s cargo capacity. This trade-off highlights the intricate balance between enhancing EV performance and maintaining practical utility.
Potential Thermal Bottlenecks
In the context of charging, thermal constraints are a significant factor to consider. Each element within the battery and charging infrastructure is susceptible to becoming a constriction point. The losses within the electrical system adhere to the I2r rule, indicating that resistance losses are proportional to the square of the current. When currents range from 800 to 3000 Amps, even marginal increments in resistance, particularly around contactors, can lead to substantial heat generation.
Figure 4: The thermal duration curve for Eaton’s Breaktor 900
Figure 4 Shows the thermal analysis of Eaton’s Breaktor® circuit protection technology. It provides insight into these dynamics, showing an ability to carry 350A continuously, but much higher currents for limited durations. Incorporating active cooling mechanisms can enhance the duration for which components can operate within safe thermal parameters. It is crucial to recognize the individual limitations of each component and to manage the thermal thresholds at a system-wide level to ensure safe and efficient operation. The best way to manage this onboard a vehicle is using temperature sensing and transfer functions to monitor the internal temperature of components. Using an active monitoring system will allow a vehicle to demand maximum power for as long as possible while staying within thermal limitations.
Power Distribution
High-voltage system design encompasses not only the opera-tional parameters but also the protection strategies required to ensure safe operation and minimizing the impacts of a fault event. In scenarios where multiple battery packs are employed, each pack may necessitate the management of only a segment of the charging current and exposure to a proportional segment of potential fault conditions. For this reason, each pack’s Battery Disconnect Unit (BDU) may resemble the requirements of a light vehicle application.
Figure 5: An example HD BEV with MCS using Breaktor and Eaton EV Fuse
As shown in Figure 5, Breaktor 900 emerges as an optimal protection solution for individual battery packs. Individually capable of handling 500kW charging for a limited duration and safeguarding against faults up to 20kA, it meets the require-ments of the individual pack after the MCS power is divided evenly. However, its capabilities do not extend to the high currents encountered at the MCS port.
At the MCS port, the system must be fortified against full system faults from either the charger, or multiple battery packs at once. This could be fault current of up to 70kA. The protection mechanism here is required to be current-limiting to shield the vehicle systems effectively. This is where Eaton’s truck series EV fuses become particularly relevant. These fuses can be arranged in parallel to forge a scalable protection strategy that spans the entire MCS current spectrum. Nonetheless, these fuses must be meticulously coordinated with a suitably sized pair of contactors to facilitate normal switching operations, ensuring a robust and reliable high-voltage system design.
Charging Session
Synthesizing the elements, let’s visualize an actual EV charging session. Calculating charging time lies in the area under the curve. Most charging systems are current limited meaning there is a maximum current output for the charger. Multiplying this by the system voltage will yield maximum peak charging power. Enhancing the current limit on either the charger or the vehicle —through thermal mitigation strategies or the augmentation of contactors for example—can elevate the peak charging speed, thereby diminishing the duration required for a full charge.
Table 1 and Figure 6 show three theoretical charging sessions with different current limitations
Figure 6: Visualizing Charging Sessions
In the scenarios involving 1MW and 500kW charging sessions, the system sustains the peak charging rate only transiently before encountering thermal bottlenecks or intrinsic pack limitations that necessitate a reduction in charging speed. Conversely, a low power charging application, operating beneath these thresholds, can maintain peak speed for the majority of the charging duration. All three charging sessions deliver the same 600kWh, but it takes substantially different amounts of time to do so.
These charging profiles are pivotal for Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and fleet operators to comprehend. They must align the vehicle’s charging capabilities with its designated operational role. This alignment is crucial in ensuring that the vehicle’s performance meets the expectations set by its intended use case. Next, we will delve into how these considerations translate into practical applications for OEMs and fleet operators.
Required Charging Speed
In order to understand how fast is fast enough, we must first examine a selection of commercial vehicle applications. Using a combination of real world data from the NACFE Run on Less initiative and a theoretical long haul trucking application we will look at the amount of energy used in a day vs the available time a vehicle has to charge.
Local Delivery Application
The first application is a local delivery vehicle from for NACFE data provided by Penske. In this application, the vehicle performs a short local delivery route covering approximately 200 kilometers each day in a single shift. This means the vehicle only uses about 250kWh and has over 15 hours of down time at the depot to add back charge. Theoretically, this could be managed by commercially available level II AC charging, but the vehicles would have to be plugged in the entire time they are not moving. In practice, Penske uses 150kW DC fast charging that is able to re-fill the truck in 2 hours at the end of its shift before the truck can be moved to a regular parking spot at the depot, this concentrates the infrastructure required to handle multiple vehicles and keeps them operationally flexible. Table 2 and Figure 7 represent this application.
Figure 7: Local Delivery Available Time
Regional Delivery Application
The second example to examine is also from the Run on Less Electric Depot. Here Pepsi is running a fleet of Tesla semi-trucks on a regional delivery route. The vehicle travels up to 965 kilometers in a 24hr period over two driving shifts. This leaves a limited window at the end of each shift of 3 hours to add back charge. Using a similar method of looking at all available time, this could theoretically be managed by 250kW charging, but again that would require maximum charging for every moment the vehicle is not moving.
In practice, Pepsi uses 600kW charging to re-fill the trucks in 2 two hour sessions giving increased flexibility and potential up time. Table 3 and Figure 8 show this application.
Figure 8: Regional Delivery Available Time
Long Haul Application
The last scenario to review is a theoretical example of a long haul sleeper cab. This is often considered one of the hardest applications to electrify because it currently relies on a dispersed network of re-fueling stations rather than a controlled depot that is owned by the fleet or operator.
Legally long haul drivers in most countries are required to take rest at certain intervals. In an ideal state, the 10 hour rest period as well as all regular stops during the day would be available to charge the vehicle, an operator would be able to cover 965 kilometers per day and only require 150kW charging. But with the distributed nature of where this charging would need to occur, consistently finding a plug every time the truck is not moving will likely be impossible.
For this reason, we must assume the truck is only able to find a plug a limited number of times during the day and does not plug in during it’s overnight rest period reducing the available window to charge down to around 3 hours per day. This more closely models the business model used today with rest stops and diesel refueling stations. Using this available time, adding back the required range theoretically requires an average of 666kW charging. Understanding everything we have learned about charging limitations of peak charging and flexibility, a 1MW or higher charger will be required. Table 4 and Figure 9 represent this theoretical scenario.
Figure 9: Long Haul Available Time
This is not to say megawatt charging solves all issues associated with electrifying long haul trucking, charger availability and grid connection will be challenging. But this analysis shows that if 1MW charging is widely available, electrifying even the most difficult business case could become a reality.
How Fast is Fast Enough?
Finally, let’s pull the whole picture together. Each application will exhibit a different amount of energy used during the day vs the available time to charge. Figure 10 represents this graphically with shaded regions to represent the three applications examined. By graphing the curves of different peak charging rates, we can identify a threshold below which an application could feasibly be supported by a given charger.
Figure 10: Required Energy vs Available Time
Incorporating the three examples we examined into this graph reveals how each could be accommodated by a distinct charging network. It also indicates that a majority of applications could be adequately served by the widely available 1MW charging infrastructure.
While the MCS standard does permit charging capacities of up to 3.75MW, it’s important to note that the costs associated with enabling such high-power charging tend to increase exponentially. Therefore, the financial justification for enabling such high-power charging will likely be limited to niche applications. This approach ensures a balance between operational efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Conclusion
Each commercial vehicle application will be unique and require a unique assessment of its energy requirements and business case for electrification. Understanding the limitations and cost of increasing charging performance allows fleets and OEMs to analyze cost vs the flexibility benefits afforded by faster charging. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. Many applications can be adequately served by the charging technology of today and the advent of widely available Megawatt charging should open the window of electrification to most of today’s commercial vehicle applications.
About Eaton: Eaton has long been a leading supplier in the commercial vehicle space. As our product portfolio grows for electrification, Eaton is the ideal partner for OEM customers to understand that cost benefit equation. Our expertise in power distribution and protection can help OEMs design cost effective High Voltage architectures that meet their customer’s needs.
A compact SUV with a nominal third row and 45 miles of range, the updated Outlander PHEV can be a viable EV alternative—if owners plug it in.
For much of the 2010s, the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV was the world’s best-selling plug-in hybrid. Hitting the European market just as incentives and tailpipe limits were finalized, that first-generation model sold roughly 300,000 units in 60 countries from 2013 through 2021.
The second-generation Outlander PHEV arrived in the U.S. as a 2023 model; roughly 22,000 units have been sold through this past June. I drove the 2023 model almost four years ago, and found it a notable upgrade from the previous model: better looking, more electric range, and significantly upgraded appointments.
Now, midway through its model life, that second-generation Outlander PHEV has been refreshed. It gets a different battery pack with higher capacity, more all-electric range, and a few upgrades to appearance, trim, and digital equipment as well. Exterior appearance is all but unchanged, but the EV part of the powertrain is significantly upgraded—except for its fast-charging port, anyway.
Complex powertrain
As before, the Outlander PHEV’s front motor and generator and rear motor offer series and parallel operation via the front transaxle, depending on which mode will use the least energy to move the vehicle. Transitions are largely imperceptible to the driver, as are many (if not all) engine-start events. Like any hybrid the Outlander uses regenerative braking to recapture energy that would otherwise be lost to friction brakes. But if anything, Mitsu offers too many different ways to configure the driving experience.
Photos by John Voelcker
Powertrain settings, for instance, include the default Normal; EV for electric-only running; Save to conserve battery charge for later; and Recharge to use the engine as a generator to recharge the battery. There are also three drive modes: Normal, Eco, and Power. And then there are four traction options: Tarmac, Gravel, Snow, or Mud.
On top of all that, drivers can choose among five levels of increasingly strong regen, B1 through B5 (B0 is coasting with no regen at all). Those levels only address regenerative braking, however, whereas the Innovative Pedal (i-Pedal) blends regenerative and friction brakes for stronger yet deceleration. “Think of it as about B8,” said Sittner. It’s not true one-pedal driving, however: The driver must brake to a complete stop from about 8 mph. Drivers can eliminate the idle creep programmed in, regardless of regen level, by activating the Auto Hold function.
As in many battery-powered cars, the Outlander PHEV’s various driver settings vary in whether they’re retained through on/off power cycles (known as “latching”) or wiped out, which forces the driver to ask for them every time the car is switched on. As it is, while Auto Hold is retained, the drive mode reverts to Normal whenever the car is switched off. Both GM and Hyundai-Kia have figured this out in their EVs, and we’d very much like Mitsu to do the same.
On the road, the 2026 plug-in Outlander drove much like the 2023 one. I put more than 50 miles on a couple of different plug-in Outlanders outside Seattle in early August. It’s relatively quiet and comfortable, engine starts go largely unnoticed, and it will operate exclusively on battery power for most—if not all—driving circumstances. Accelerating up a fairly steep hill, however, did flip on the engine even with a fully charged battery. There’s a pedal detent that helps prevent drivers from accidentally demanding engine power, too.
Overall, it’s a pleasant compact crossover, though it “drives large” against the 2027 Mitsubishi Eclipse Sportback battery-electric hatchback we also drove. That’s effectively a current Nissan Leaf with a new name and some mild styling changes, whereas the Outlander is a large compact SUV—with a third row, although we were unable to get any adults into it.
Returning to Mitsubishi roots
As the latest generation of Outlander was being designed, Mitsubishi became part of the Nissan Renault Mitsubishi Alliance—an ultimately doomed attempt to bring a large Japanese maker together with a large French maker, plus a much smaller Japanese maker. Nissan then owned 34 percent of Mitsubishi, giving it a controlling interest and veto power under Japanese law.
So not only was the Outlander built on the underpinnings of the Nissan Rogue, its gasoline version used the Rogue’s 2.5-liter engine. The PHEV model, however, stuck with the Mitsubishi 2.4-liter Atkinson Cycle engine used in the first-gen model—essentially transplanting that PHEV’s powertrain into the Rogue platform. The pouch cells in its 20-kilowatt-hour battery pack—which deliver an EPA-rated 38 miles of range—came not from Mitsu’s longtime cell partner Lithium Energy Japan (a joint venture with GS Yuasa), but from Nissan’s battery joint venture AESC.
Photos By John Voelcker
Times change. Nissan’s corporate convulsions—including its CEO Carlos Ghosn’s arrest for fraud and subsequent escape to Lebanon—led the company to shutter plants, shed staff, and reduce its Mitsubishi stake to 24 percent. Perhaps as a result, both updated Outlander versions now have more Mitsubishi in them. The gasoline version has dumped the Nissan 2.5-liter engine, instead using a 1.4-liter Mitsubishi engine (as found in the Eclipse Cross small SUV) with a 48-volt mild-hybrid system added.
More relevant to this piece, the PHEV model has returned to GS-Yuasa prismatic cells for its updated battery, as it used throughout the first generation of PHEV. The cells are skewed more toward power delivery (suited to hybrids) than to overall energy capacity (more suitable for BEVs). Mitsubishi says the newer cells have 33 percent less internal resistance, allowing the battery to deliver up to 60 percent more power than its predecessor. That power reduces the number of times the engine must switch on above 25 mph, and allows more electric-only operation even at highway speeds.
Wait, whut? CHAdeMO, still?
Capacity is now 22.7 kWh, for a rated range of 45 miles. The total powertrain output has also risen, from 248 horsepower last year to 297 hp. The motors haven’t changed, explained Kevin Sittner, manager of EV powertrain engineering for Mitsubishi Motors North America. Instead, updated control software safely draws more power from the larger battery pack.
The previous Outlander PHEV had a J-1772 port for Level 1 and Level 2 charging on its left-rear fender, and a DC fast-charging port using the CHAdeMO connector on its right-rear fender. While the industry is now moving from CCS to NACS for EVs sold in North America, the plug-in Outlander remains the sole vehicle sold in the U.S. with a 50-kilowatt CHAdeMO port. It’s only offered on the SEL and Black Edition trim levels, but it’s not surprising Mitsubishi simply omitted any mention of it during its presentation. (It was in the specs, to be fair.)
Reduced resistance and improved cooling lowers the heat generated during charging, meaning the 2026 model holds its maximum rate for longer in the charge curve. Charging from 0 to 100 percent on Level 1 remains tedious, at 16.5 hours for the 2026 model against just 30 minutes less before. Level 2 charging remains at 6.5 hours, despite the larger battery, owing to the 3.3-kW onboard charger. For intrepid owners who manage to find a CHAdeMO fast-charging station en route, the DC fast-charging time quoted to 80 percent has fallen to 29 minutes from 38 minutes.
Do these PHEVs get plugged in? Mitsubishi says it now has some limited, preliminary data on the plugging-in behavior of its 2023-2025 Outlander PHEV buyers in the U.S. Note the $7,500 federal incentive for leased EVs was available while the previous version was on sale. That made it effectively a top-trim Outlander with a four-figure discount on the price—and may have lured buyers uninterested in the plug. We’ll update this article if we get the data.
Four trim levels, starting at $45K
The 2026 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV is offered in three trim levels, starting with the ES. It’s fitted with 18-inch wheels, a pair of 12.3-inch displays (one in front of the driver for instrumentation, and a center touchscreen for various controls), LED headlights and taillights, an auto-dimming rear-view mirror, and heated front seats.
Moving up to the mid-grade SE model adds 20-inch alloy wheels, an available light grey interior, various semi-autonomous safety and driving features, a hands-free liftgate, rain-sensing automatic wipers, and heated and folding mirrors, among other upgrades. An optional Tech Package adds a power panoramic sunroof and a premium 12-speaker Yamaha Ultimate audio system.
Above that, the Outlander SEL adds leather seating, ventilated front seats, heated steering wheel, a power panoramic sunroof, and the DC fast charging option. A Premium Package on top of the SEL trim adds leather upholstery, the Yamaha audio system, a head-up display, a digital rear-view mirror, and niceties like illuminated scuff plates. Finally, a new-for-2026 ‘Black Edition’ appearance model blacks out all body chrome and much of the rest of the car’s trim. It adds most of the SEL Premium equipment, along with massaging front seats.
PHEV models of the Outlander range from $44,990 for the ES to $55,440 for the Black Edition. All prices include a mandatory delivery fee of $1,745. All Outlanders are imported from Japan; the 2026 models are available now.
Mitsubishi provided airfare, lodging, and meals to enable Charged to bring you this first-person drive report.
