The same could be said for electric cars, and helps explain why earlier projections for sales figures had to be repeatedly reined in.

Some manufacturers have got close to cracking the code, but there has always been a downside. Tesla created a product that would make day-to-day life easier, but the relatively high purchase price put it out of reach of many. Likewise, the first Mini Electric ticked the desirability box, and it wasn’t wildly expensive, but a real-world range of 100 miles meant it failed the ‘make life easier’ test.

But it seems we’re at the tipping point, where car makers are finally offering EVs that are affordable, usable and – importantly – desirable; cars that appeal to both head and heart. We’ve seen it in the supermini class this year (including the latest Mini, Fiat Panda, Citroën e-C3 and the universally admired Renault 5), but compact crossovers out-sell superminis. And now there are some intriguing new electric choices – the EV alternatives to huge sellers like the Nissan Juke, Vauxhall Mokka, Seat Arona and so on.  

We’ve assembled the three electric crossovers with the most potential for having that magic ‘iPhone’ moment, thrusting EVs into the mainstream and proving that switching to an electric car doesn’t need to be a daunting or expensive prospect, and maybe that there’s something cool about them too.

We’ve driven all three previously to varying degrees, but this is the first time two of them have been tested in the UK. Although we’ve driven the third plenty of times in other guises, this is our first taste of it in the bare-bones specification manufacturers are often unwilling to hand out for tests.

Our trio includes an intriguing new Kia, the smallest in its so far excellent ‘EV’ family, and for the first time an electric version of one of Britain’s best-selling cars, the Ford Puma.

But let’s start with the car that has the most pressure on its shoulders – the new Renault 4. The difficult second album after the outstanding R5, it’s a larger (20cm longer), more practical version built from essentially the same bits and pieces. It also faces the challenge that car makers so often struggle to crack – doing retro on a bigger scale; just see Fiat’s failed attempt at making larger versions of the 500.

The first photos were underwhelming, and the connection to the original long-running 4 seemed tenuous. But it’s a big improvement in person. The cool round headlights, one-piece grille, stamped doors and general boxiness are distinctive, and people definitely notice it, albeit not quite so much as they notice the Renault 5. If the 4’s overall design isn’t as effective as the 5’s, then that’s hardly a failure, as the 5 is extraordinary in its meshing of past, present and future.

By the standards of the class the Renault 4 has modest dimensions. At 4144mm it’s the smallest car in this test, and Renault’s equivalent petrol car, the Captur, is almost 10cm longer.

While the Renault 5 gets the choice of small or bigger battery, the 4 is currently available only with the larger of the two. At 52kWh it’s no whopper. Paired with a 148bhp electric motor, the 4 has the least power here, but at 1462kg is very light by EV standards, and therefore performance figures on paper aren’t far behind. It’s also equipped with 100kW DC charging, meaning a 10 to 80 per cent charge will take a little over half an hour.

Every 4 comes on 18-inch alloy wheels, the right balance between style and ride comfort on this occasion. You certainly wouldn’t want anything bigger – it’s generally fine but can be unsettled on a rougher surfaces at low speeds. Renault’s Multi Sense button on the steering wheel lets you flick between drive modes but I leave it in Comfort for the most part.

Despite only being slightly behind the others’ performance on paper, the 4 never feels as eager, in keeping with its relaxed and easygoing nature. Refinement on the move is impressive, even at speed, and the three levels of regenerative braking, selected using paddles on the steering wheel, are quick to get used to. You’ll definitely want to use regenerative braking, as the pedal for the traditional friction braking system is awkwardly positioned, and leaves you digging your heel into the carpet. The brakes are rather sharp for a car of this type, too.

Where the 4 regains all those docked points is with its interior, a true class act. Like many other current Renaults, it’s an excellent blend of tech and physical buttons, especially for the climate control, which still has actual buttons to control the fan speed. Quite a novelty in 2025.

Trim levels on the 4 consist of Evolution, Techno (as tested) and Iconic, and although standard equipment includes keyless entry, a reversing camera and LED lights, the 10-inch touchscreen doesn’t include Renault’s OpenR system on the basic model, which you’ll want for its in-built Google services. It’s one of the best infotainment systems on any car. The Techno’s ‘blue jeans’ upholstery, bobbly roof lining and backlit ambient lighting are further excellent inclusions befitting a more expensive car.  

Pity Renault hasn’t given the 4 more rear space. It’s slightly more spacious than the 5 but is still short on legroom and somewhere for your rear passengers’ feet to go unless you jack up the front seats. As a small family car it’s quite compromised, and although the boot is flat and low it has no clever features, and the tailgate itself swings out miles, which will probably prove a real pain in multi-storey car parks.

Fellow tester Colin Overland sums it up perfectly: ‘I’d got it into my head from the exterior size and shape that it was going to be very roomy with a massive boot, whereas the reality is that it’s roomy up front, so-so in the back and nothing special when it comes to luggage space.’

It doesn’t feel like much of a step up over a Renault 5 in terms of usability, though the one good thing is that it doesn’t actually cost any more. When they’re both equipped with the 52kWh battery, prices start from £26,995, and even a top-spec 4 costs only a fraction over £30,000 – you’ll struggle to buy either of today’s two rivals for that.

If Renault is looking to attract new customers with its 4, Ford is with the Puma Gen-E looking to make sure existing owners don’t look elsewhere. Ford’s EVs have so far have been rather under-appreciated. There’s been a lot of badge-related hostility, rather than anyone thinking the cars aren’t up to much; but equally there’s been very little to make them stand out in a positive way.

The Gen-E trades on familiarity, being the electric version of a car that’s just about everywhere. The mild hybrid version continues alongside the new EV, and will doubtless outsell it, but if the Gen-E can convert just a fraction of those Puma sales from combustion to electric then Ford is on to a winner.

The trouble is, this is a new EV that’s trying to be very similar to a petrol car that is, for all its sales success, quite dull.

It doesn’t take long to spot the differences. The EV’s grille is closed off, and it has a longer and lower spoiler, and various new air vents and curtains in the front end to improve aerodynamics and maximise range. You also can’t help but notice the ungainly battery pack hanging from the Gen-E’s underside. The Puma is a car from the last decade; the Puma Gen-E is a brand new car that looks like it’s from the last decade.

While the Renault 4’s interior is a great example of how pleasing a new car’s cabin can be, the Puma’s is a masterclass in how not to do it. This compact crossover’s interior has never exactly been class-leading, but it’s been made worse as part of the midlife facelift introduced to coincide with the Gen-E’s arrival.

The once-logical climate control knobs and buttons have been moved into the touchscreen, which is massive but not very easy to use, and there’s a new and weirdly large steering wheel from a Transit Custom. What Ford was thinking the day that was approved, I do not know. The interior in general looks a mess and the quality isn’t great, although our top-spec test car has agreeable part-suede seats.

Space in the rear is comparable to the Renault 4 in that it’s a bit cramped, not helped by this car’s optional panoramic roof, but the Ford’s trump card is its boot, and especially its underfloor storage. Renamed from the MegaBox on the petrol car to the GigaBox here, it’s essentially a deep plastic-lined area under the main boot, ideal for storing muddy boots or for carrying tall items upright. There’s even a plug hole for washing the GigaBox out. It sounds gimmicky, but for anyone even remotely outdoorsy it has a real benefit. Pity the parcel shelf feels like a light breeze could destroy it.

While the other two cars were devised from the outset as EVs, Ford had the challenge of squeezing a battery into an existing car without sacrificing cabin and boot space, which explains why it uses a smaller 43kWh battery. How very 2018. But the Puma makes up for it with its efficiency. It means that, despite the Ford’s battery being almost 10kWh smaller than the Renault’s, its 200-mile tested range is a match for the R4’s.

It also has the same 100kW charging speed as the Renault, but because the battery is smaller Ford claims just 23 minutes will get the battery from 10 to 80 per cent charged – around 10 minutes less than the Renault. You wouldn’t take it on a longer journey, though, as like the 4 its efficiency nosedives at motorway speeds.

You’re missing a trick if you spend a lot of time on motorways in the Puma, as it’s the best to drive on twisty roads out of this trio, and in many ways feels quintessentially like a Ford. The firm’s typical strong self-centring steering is present, and the rack is super quick, almost alarmingly so if you jump into it straight after one of the other two. But there’s a pleasing balance to the chassis in the dry and it feels the most capable in the bends, though tester Alan-Taylor Jones reports it has ‘no front end at all’ in the wet.

He’s also not a fan of the ride, saying: ‘You’re aware of the rear suspension occasionally struggling to deal with the mass of the battery.’

Its e-motor, mounted in the front, puts out 166bhp, and at 214lb ft it has the most torque of any car here. Though not the quickest on paper, it feels the most alert, and is the one you’d actually drive the most with your right foot flat to the floor. I’m not a fan of the inconsistent brakes, and the fact the regenerative braking is either on or off doesn’t provide the adjustability of the other two. The Puma is also the only car available with any engine-mimicking noise, which is quite enjoyable to leave on if you’re not a fan of the full-fat serenity of EVs.

The Gen-E starts at a fiver under £30,000, a price which doesn’t seem too bad in isolation, or next to the myriad of overpriced, highly average Stellantis cars in this class, but the sticker looks expensive next to the more polished Renault 5. When you factor in our test car’s options, it’s the most costly car here by quite a margin, and the trouble is it feels the cheapest.

Talking of cheap, this is the first time we’ve tried the Kia EV3 in its cheapest trim, called Air. It costs £33,005, which includes our car’s zero-cost (but expensive looking) Sunset Orange paint.

You’ll have spotted from the photos that the EV3 is a larger car than the other two here at 4.3 metres long. But it’s currently Kia’s smallest EV, and will doubtless be on the shopping list of people also considering a Puma Gen-E or Renault 4.

The versions of the EV3 we’ve driven previously have impressed us, distilling all that’s great about the EV6 and EV9 into a more compact package – but also copying the looks of those larger cars, which isn’t to everyone’s taste.

This Air specification doesn’t flatter the EV3 inside or out, and the design differences between this basic car and the GT-Line versions are quite stark when you see them side by side, with gloss black arches replacing the cheaper unpainted surrounds here, and the bumpers completely different.

But it’s inside where the big cost savings have been made. Hard door cards are the most obvious, and a lot of grey, which is far less appealing than the multi-tone look on higher-spec models. But the fundamentals are the same, including the merged touchscreen and instrument cluster, which give the EV3 the most modern-looking cabin here. There are still proper buttons for changing the temperature, but further controls sit in a screen in the small gap between the touchscreen and digital dials, often obscured by the steering wheel. A rare faux pas as far as Kia interiors go.

The EV3 comes with by far the most equipment. Heated seats, a heated steering wheel and a plethora of safety kit are all standard on this entry-level EV3. Ford would ask you to pay for them as options even on the top-grade Puma.

Based around the Hyundai group’s highly adaptable E-GMP platform, the EV3 utilises the available space brilliantly, making this an impressively roomy interior for a car of this size. Rear-seat space is generous enough for two adults to sit in comfort, while the flat floor is beneficial for those both in the front and back. It’s the only car here I could see being used as a proper family car. The boot’s not as large as a Puma’s, but with a height-adjustable floor and square shape it’s almost as useful.

While the EV6 and EV9 use 800-volt architecture, to lower costs the EV3 uses the more commonplace 400-volt set-up. In this Air guise, its 100kW DC charging speed doesn’t seem very impressive by Kia standards, delivering the 10 to 80 per cent charge in half an hour.

Even in entry-level guise, the EV3 has the biggest battery (58.3kWh) and most power (201bhp) here. Kia claims 270 miles of range, and 245 miles was the figure we were getting during our testing, comfortably more than the rest. It’s by far the best for motorways, too, given its efficiency remains at least mildly respectable at 70mph. The EV3 can have a big 81.4kWh battery for an extra £3000, bringing a claimed 375-mile range.

But for all that practicality and family-friendliness, it’s not a driver’s car. The super-light steering is ideal for around town and when parking but feels a bit disconnected at speed. You can also feel it’s hundreds of kilos heavier than the other cars here, with the front end tending to wash out if you floor the accelerator. But these cars are not designed to be driven with brio, and the EV3 excels in the areas of more importance.

The 17-inch wheels on the Air may not flatter its design but they do help bring exceptional ride comfort, in combination with the fairly soft suspension, and it’s whisper quiet even at higher speeds. Kia’s regenerative braking, and – in particular – its one-pedal drive setting is also the most intuitive. It’s a pity about its over-zealous driver assistance warnings, which do their best to spoil the experience: this is a car that’s constantly binging and bonging. Half the time I don’t even know what for. I resort to turning practically everything off via an on-screen menu, which takes several button presses to find, and which I need to repeat before every drive.

I can live with that minor nuisance, but my colleague Piers Wards is less accommodating. He says: ‘The Kia EV3 is exactly the type of car I’d look at as an alternative to a diesel SUV. But I just could not buy one, based on how irritating its assistance features are.’ Tough crowd.

If nothing else, this assortment of cars shows just how far small electric crossovers have come. Just a couple of years ago, if you wanted something battery powered of this shape and size, you were limited to an electric MG that many people would have gone out of their way to avoid, or a choice of overpriced, inefficient Stellantis EVs.

There’s much to consider with these three EVs. Although they all compete in the same field, each feels like it has a different agenda, with the manufacturers’ priorities becoming clear the more you drive them. Time for a long think on which is best.