A decade ago PHEVs were nearly always so compromised that they only made sense to a few people in certain circumstances. But now, in 2024, that’s flipped around. There’s been so much improvement across the board that very often a PHEV is the smart family choice.

That said, there are still plenty of reasons to be dubious about plug-in hybrids – not least because the official mpg figures are the result of a process so convoluted and unrelated to the real world that they are ludicrous. That’s why one of our missions here is to provide plausible economy figures that might actually be repeatable in your life.

Not wishing to bore you with the details of our methodology, put simply the idea is that as well as driving the cars in their ‘hybrid’ modes, with engine and battery working together, we also see how far they will go on battery power alone, from full to empty, and we test the consumption of the engine when it’s having to propel the car on its own, unaided by electric motors.

I can see why you might hold the view that a plug-in hybrid is a cynical tax dodge, rather than a clever ‘best of both worlds’ compromise or stepping stone to full electric. But in a busy decade of car testing, I’ve experienced for myself the rapid improvement of the plug-in hybrid. I used to expect glacial acceleration in electric mode, 20 miles of range if I was lucky, and prodigious thirst when running on petrol. These days, many PHEVs will complete my 40-mile commute at a decent speed without bothering the engine once.

To examine how far we’ve come, I’ve assembled eight family-friendly plug-in hybrids not just from different manufacturers, but from completely different automotive conglomerates – one from the BMW Group, one from Stellantis, and so on.

As well as the overall eight-car tussle for supremacy, there are four fights-within-a-fight going on, as each car has a direct rival. With range, efficiency, performance, price and practicality all weighed up, we’ll crown the winners of those duels and then the overall best family PHEV.

Up first is a very traditional dust-up between BMW and Mercedes, 5-series versus E-Class. Our BMW is the 550e saloon, while the Merc is the E300e estate. Six-cylinder saloon against four-cylinder estate might sound a mismatch, but they’re actually not far apart on price, and both claim good electric-only range. And in any case, the 550e is available only as a saloon; the PHEV estate is the weedier/more sensible 530e.

Then we have a couple of traditional, unflashy compact family SUVs. The Kia Sportage is one of the UK’s best-selling cars, while the Ford Kuga has just received a midlife facelift. Both are far more attainable than BMW and Merc, and should offer better economy from their smaller engines.

If you like the raised ride height of an SUV but prefer the looks of a coupe-style roofline, two cars aimed at you are the Peugeot 408 and the new version of the Toyota C-HR.

The line-up is completed by two relatively swish, large and expensive SUVs. The Volvo XC60 has been around since 2008, and in its earliest incarnation was one of those compromised vehicles that gave PHEVs a bad name. The PHEV on sale now, by contrast, has a bigger battery and better electric motor, among many other evolutionary changes.

But the Volvo won’t have an easy ride, as it’s up against one of the PHEVs currently promising a remarkably long electric range. The Range Rover Sport, here in P440e guise, is by far the most expensive car here, in exchange for which you get a very classy package as well as those green claims.

Setting aside considerations of economy for a moment, let’s talk about luggage space. You’d assume that the Merc, being an estate, would dwarf the BMW’s carrying capacity. But there’s in fact a pleasant surprise from the BMW. Clever battery packaging means the 550e has a 520-litre boot – the same as a 5-series with a conventional (non-PHEV) combustion engined. A folded pushchair and a week’s worth of shopping will fit easily.

By contrast, the Merc’s big battery pack requires the E300e to come with a higher boot floor than its non-hybrid alternatives. That reduces carrying capacity (measured up to the parcel shelf) at 460 litres, rather than the 600-plus it would otherwise be.

That said, the parcel shelf is easily removed, thus liberating much more capacity, whereas the traditional saloon car’s bootlid means 520 litres is as much as the BMW can manage.

Giving the E-Class a further advantage on practicality, it also has more rear headroom than the BMW and similar legroom.

In keeping with the usual pattern of these 5/E clashes, the BMW feels the more dynamic, faster car. Rear-wheel steering and adaptive dampers, both fitted as standard, help mask the car’s bulk, allowing you to really press on and enjoy the rear-biased four-wheel drive and that engine. The noise is a bit synthetic, although better than the sound of the four-cylinder E-Class engine. Both have smooth hybrid systems, although the E-Class’s brake feel isn’t as reassuring as the BMW’s.

A soft suspension set-up highlights that this Merc is a wagon built for comfort, although it can still be caught out by sharp ruts and potholes in a way the 5-series isn’t. Rear air suspension is standard, but you can’t have full air suspension and rear steer on plug-in versions of the E-Class. It’s a shame, as it lifts the ride from acceptable to cushiony, and sharpens up the handling in the sportier driving modes.

Efficiency is better in the Mercedes. With a full battery it managed an impressive 54.7 miles until it was forced to switch to petrol power. The 550e falls more than 10 miles short of the Merc, but in most comparisons its 44.6-mile electric range would still be impressive. (The 530e, which is lighter – not least because it has rear- rather than all-wheel drive – gets far closer to the E’s figure.)

When the test turns to engine-only running, the BMW’s 35.8mpg is beaten by the Merc’s 40.2mpg. If performance is your priority, that’s not a huge penalty to pay at the pumps considering the far faster acceleration from the significantly bigger engine – but it’s a financial difference that will matter over the course of a year. So it’s victory in this bout for the Mercedes.

The moment you get into the Kia Sportage, it’s easy to see why it’s one of Britain’s best sellers. Its interior looks and feels more expensive and appealing that the recently facelifted Kuga’s. Ford is stingier with the soft-touch materials and metal-effect trim pieces, and the heater controls have now annoyingly migrated into the touchscreen. Those things matter, and it’s a comparison that will happen in showrooms around Britain and beyond every day.

In both cars there’s plenty of space up front for tall adults, with the Kuga slightly ahead for rear legroom when the sliding bench is in its rearmost position. Headroom is similar for both in the back, with panoramic sunroofs eating into that space – something to avoid if you’ve tall friends or giant teenager passengers.

Plug-in hybrid Sportages get a very respectable 540 litres of boot space. That’s way more than the Kuga’s 412 litres. But slide the Ford’s bench forward and this increases to 553 litres at the expense of rear legroom. Sportages get a usefully versatile 40/20/40 split folding rear seat, with the Kuga making do with a 60/40 split.

However, the Sportage’s advantage disappears as soon as you hit the road. In electric mode you’re aware of automatic gearchanges, and it gets even worse when the engine fires. The hybrid system is sluggish to respond, jerky and generally a bit of a disappointment. The chassis could also do with a bit more polish. It’s comfy enough, but the steering is vague, and it doesn’t feel agile in the bends.

The Range Rover Sport is a fair bit bigger and more expensive than the Volvo XC60 but both are sportier-looking five-seat SUVs playing little brother to more stately older siblings – the Range Rover and XC90/EX90 respectively. Neither feels remotely cramped up front and there’s a multitude of electric adjustments to allow all heights to get comfortable.

Move to row two, and the Sport feels that bit bigger, although the XC60 is by no means stingy, with enough space for those over 6ft tall, and the option of clever integrated booster seats. Three will be happier in the Sport thanks to its flat floor and wider cabin, though.

A 483-litre boot is perfectly serviceable for many families but the XC60 can’t come close to the usefulness of the Sport’s 647-litre cavern. Both get handy load separators that pop out of the floor, with the Sport’s 40/20/40-split folding and electrically reclining rear bench beating the XC60’s plain 60/40 split.

Quality impresses in both, with a finish that seems appropriate for their prices. Both go for a minimalist aesthetic with not many buttons and touchscreens that have to control almost everything. Volvo’s Google-based system is fine to use, but the 9.0-inch screen seems tiny and it’s not as simple as Land Rover’s more attractive and responsive unit.

Given that the XC60 has a 2.0-litre four-cylinder engine and the Sport a 3.0-litre inline-six, it’s a surprise to find the former is faster; credit to its lower weight and greater output. However, it’s the Sport that feels happier to deploy its power, all of it channeled through all four wheels. In the XC60, the engine drives the front wheels and the electric motor the rears, leading to a bit of torque steer.

Similarly, the XC60 always feels more front-biased in bends, with the Sport exhibiting a more neutral to rear-led balance accelerating hard out of a corner. It’s astonishing how much lighter it feels than it really is on account of clever air springs, adaptive dampers and rear-wheel steering. It’s also very comfortable, and feels more relaxed and less sudden when dealing with bumpy roads than the XC60.

A big jump in battery capacity has really helped the XC60, yet its 14.7kWh pack is a tiddler compared to the giant 31.8kWh in the Sport. The Range Rover clocks an impressive 51.2 miles on the battery.

You won’t get nearly as far in the XC60 – although its maximum in our test of 37 miles would have been impressive a couple of years ago, such is the rate of improvement. Flat-battery economy is improved from the 28mpg the early cars managed; 33mpg is palatable for a big petrol SUV, especially one with such a turn of speed.

We had high hopes for the Sport based on a near-31mpg performance from the bigger, heavier and less aerodynamic Range Rover. Disappointingly, we managed only 26.9mpg. I should point out that the P440e has been replaced with a more efficient and powerful P460e. If you’re buying used, make sure you know which you’re getting.

The electric motor gets a boost in power and efficiency in the 460, which should help the petrol engine stay idle longer in hybrid mode. It’ll also perk up the rather sluggish performance in electric mode. Like the P440e, it sits in a five per cent BiK tax rating, making for a temptingly low monthly payment for company car drivers. It’s enough to tip victory in the Land Rover’s direction.