BYD doubles its Brazil market share to 9.7% a year after opening its local plant
Posted by dvaplima 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by VonLuderitz 1 day ago
They're amazing super quality cars. Cheap maintenance. There's no other can compete for quality + price. We was explored for decades from ocidental companies. No more.
Thanks GOD for BRICS.
Comment by MatekCopatek 1 day ago
I'm asking just because BYD is building plants and selling cars in Europe too, despite EU's tariffs on Chinese cars.
Do you think Brazil wouldn't be an interesting enough market for Chinese automakers without BRICS?
Comment by VonLuderitz 1 day ago
Already operating or confirmed here:
- BYD (former Ford plant)
- GWM (former Mercedes-Benz plant)
- Chery (CAOA Group plant)
- Changan (CAOA Group plant)
- Geely (Renault plant)
- GAC (Mitsubishi plant)
- Leapmotor (Stellantis plant)
- MG (former Ford/Troller plant)
- Omoda & Jaecoo (Jaguar Land Rover plant, in advanced talks)
I think opening up like this is more complicated for the EU, since almost every country there has its own national brands, and those brands are major drivers of their economies. In that context, a tariff isn't wrong. But for Brazil, right now, this approach has been an excellent choice. I bought two EVs, both very well equipped (not basic entry-level models), for the price of a single BMW 330e.
My appreciation for BRICS comes from several other initiatives being put in place. We Brazilians are very happy and confident about it, and that’s why I feel the urge to say so everywhere I can.
Comment by dzhiurgis 1 day ago
I read some horror stories chinese ev dealers charging $700 nzd to inspect exhaust system so your warranty stays valid (legally you can do maintenance in independent shops, but it’s rare). Coincidentally extra long warranty on car that has nothing to break is milking machine IMO. Over that period it costs more than competition.
Comment by VonLuderitz 1 day ago
Comment by conception 1 day ago
Comment by dzhiurgis 1 day ago
Comment by therealpygon 1 day ago
Comment by microsoftedging 1 day ago
Comment by bilalq 1 day ago
Comment by mattchamb 1 day ago
Comment by viraptor 1 day ago
In terms of data privacy which state isn't hostile? I'd like an EV which is not connected, but out of available choices, I don't care if it's China or the US or someone else.
I probably even prefer China since they usually collect data but not on a personal level. It feels like the US products say "link to all accounts, tell us everything about you", while the Chinese products are monitoring things in a more generic way.
Comment by deadbunny 1 day ago
Comment by qs1ykyusPlate 1 day ago
Comment by csomar 1 day ago
Comment by HDThoreaun 1 day ago
Comment by petcat 1 day ago
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fact-sheet-safegua...
Comment by loloquwowndueo 1 day ago
Comment by petcat 1 day ago
Comment by loloquwowndueo 1 day ago
Comment by petcat 1 day ago
Comment by triceratops 1 day ago
Comment by petcat 1 day ago
Comment by triceratops 1 day ago
Comment by echelon 1 day ago
We need to let them in at a limited capacity and our domestic companies need to feel the heat.
The geopolitical risks are real. Stronger foreign companies can kill local ones if there's no stopgap or means for local companies to catch up. The cars are microphones for politically exposed persons (which most of you are not). If there was ever a hot war, these cars can turn into remote bombs and take out key infrastructure.
But in the here and now, we need Ford and friends to grow up and face real evolutionary pressures.
American consumers like big SUVs. But they also want cheap and modern, and once they see what else the market has to offer, they'll use choice to force the hands of American auto.
Comment by cjbgkagh 1 day ago
Comment by perching_aix 1 day ago
could have banned the practice, demanded literal hardwire controls around it, etc. ensured that the customer cannot be pressured into enabling it all (so the vendor can't just disable unrelated functionality).
heaven forbid, demand selling infotainment-less configurations, or agreeing on a communication standard for real tablets and smartphones to communicate through.
instead, no, it's the chinese cars that should go.
Comment by litbear2022 1 day ago
Comment by microsoftedging 22 hours ago
Comment by litbear2022 16 hours ago
Comment by burntpineapple 1 day ago
Comment by maxglute 1 day ago
Comment by Danox 1 day ago
Comment by darth_avocado 1 day ago
The thing all these countries have in common is their own Automobile sector which is a huge part of the economy that they need to protect.
Comment by newyankee 1 day ago
Comment by darth_avocado 1 day ago
Comment by nextaccountic 1 day ago
BYD had to open factories here
Comment by motionlessveloc 1 day ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/chinese-evs-win-o...
Comment by therealpygon 1 day ago
Comment by mytailorisrich 1 day ago
Comment by unglaublich 1 day ago
Comment by lenerdenator 1 day ago
Comment by ZeroGravitas 1 day ago
Do you want your war munition manufacturers to say "we'd have better short term bonuses if we didn't manufacture what you need but instead just kept manufacturing our old stuff with no regard for the nations future"?
Comment by lenerdenator 1 day ago
The factory stops being efficient and easily pivoted the second the people running said factory want it to stop. That, in turn, depends on how friendly you are with the country running said factory.
Let's say there's some sort of negotiations going on between the country that hosts the factory and the country that operates the factory, which, in this case, means a country with a government that has a very deep cadre system that gives them control of almost all enterprises, state-owned or otherwise.
The negotiations (whatever it is, let's just say they're economic for an example) reach an impasse. You are the country that has control over the factory. Sure, the host country has the factory, but they don't have the institutional knowledge, intellectual property, or supply chain deals that your firm does.
Do you ignore this leverage? Hell no. You say "it'd be a real shame if we had to find a new place to make our products for your market", which would imply a serious loss of employment in the region and a massive factory complex sitting empty and decaying.
Unless you're talking about the sort of relationship the US and Japan have, the factory's host country now has to consider that possibility.
> Do you want your war munition manufacturers to say "we'd have better short term bonuses if we didn't manufacture what you need but instead just kept manufacturing our old stuff with no regard for the nations future"?
That's literally how pretty much all industrialized and post-industrialized nations' defense manufacturing sectors work to one extent or another. Some munitions and defense systems are incredibly complex. You can't just move the knowledge about their manufacture over in a few corporate wiki pages; you have to have the greybeards teach the young guys by doing. This happens all the time, particularly with nuclear weapons. If you don't do that, the greybeards retire or die off and no one knows how to make this system that the military has speced, tested, approved, and gone through the bureaucracy of acquisition for. This means they either do without or get to start over from scratch at tremendous cost.
Comment by alala-lala-lon 1 day ago
Comment by ivewonyoung 1 day ago
One example from Brazil since that's the topic:
> Brazilian prosecutors have filed a lawsuit accusing electric carmaker BYD of human trafficking and keeping its workers in “slavery-like conditions” in its biggest market outside China.
> The investigation found the Chinese workers were brought to Brazil under false pretences and their visas did not match their jobs.
> Prosecutors said the workers were found working in “slavery-live conditions” and with "minimum comfort and hygiene”, calling them victims of international human trafficking
> The workers were forced to sleep on beds that did not have mattresses and as many as 30 people shared a bathroom, MPT alleged.
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/china/byd-china-ev-sued-b...
Comment by Matl 1 day ago
There's also been plenty of reporting of 'slave like conditions' at Tesla, GM etc.
Comment by handle584 1 day ago
A few labor lawsuits show that in China Tesla wage starts at ~$4.5/hr while BYD ~$1.7/hr. Tesla also limits overtime to 36 hrs/mo by China labor law, while gov allows BYD workers to clock 441.5 raw hours in a single month. Pension and union is basically non-existent. And the reason why ppl work at BYD instead of Tesla is by clocking monstrous overtime they actually make more despite lower hourly pay.
There are reasons why Tesla consistently ranks in China 1st/2nd by sales. One of them is Chinese workers are the ones exploited by sweatshops and a government only nominally communist so they are paying the price, while Western customers are enjoying good ol' NIMBYism.
Comment by Matl 1 day ago
> In China Tesla wage starts at ~$4.5/hr while BYD ~$1.7/hr.
You can't compare wages in China vs the US like that. The cost of living is much, much different than in the US. Healthcare, energy costs etc. aren't comparable.
Comment by apercu 1 day ago
Comment by maxglute 1 day ago
Comment by Matl 1 day ago
Comment by maxglute 1 day ago
Comment by ecshafer 1 day ago
Comment by handle584 1 day ago
Comment by nxm 1 day ago
Comment by pasquinelli 1 day ago
Comment by holoduke 1 day ago
Comment by z2 1 day ago
As a side note, counterintuitively BYD has a lot more workers per car vs a lot of their competitors, but that's because of their extreme vertical integration where most are assembling upstream parts.
Comment by handle584 1 day ago
The dark factory part is simply propaganda, the viral WSJ interview is only about body assembly which is already automated everywhere. The labor intensive part is the general assembly and even they admit this in the video. However here it's like Chinese EV found the silver bullet in car manufacturing.
[0]: https://chinalaborwatch.org/building-byd-szeged-labor-risks-...
Comment by bijowo1676 1 day ago
in the US auto OEMs are mainly putting parts together, made by different suppliers like ZF, Bosch, Lemforder etc etc. Its assembly work and it split across hundreds of legacy car component suppliers
Comment by DaSHacka 1 day ago
Lol, I wonder why. It really is a mystery. Why did we once rule the world pre-1970's and have been waning and decaying ever since? Gee, maybe these Chinese geniuses can figure out the reason for us.
Comment by nxm 1 day ago
Comment by bluSCALE4 1 day ago
Comment by hniscrazy2025 1 day ago
Comment by sach1 1 day ago
Comment by maxglute 1 day ago
Comment by bijowo1676 1 day ago
the real argument is efficiency, US cannot match efficiency and scale. Thats the root cause.
Comment by johnofthesea 1 day ago
Comment by aurareturn 1 day ago
Comment by triceratops 1 day ago
Comment by eaisshutting 1 day ago
Comment by Revanche1367 1 day ago
Comment by IncreasePosts 1 day ago
Comment by nxm 1 day ago
Comment by IncreasePosts 1 day ago
Comment by triceratops 1 day ago
Comment by petcat 1 day ago
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fact-sheet-safegua...
For all the talk about data and technology sovereignty in Europe, you would think they would take that more seriously too. Instead Europe is flooded with underpriced Chinese cars that they have no control over.
Comment by ezst 1 day ago
Please someone fact check that, as far as I know there are import taxes on Chinese EVs, and protectionist measures. The only "loophole" I know is for vehicles built in the EU, which is fine as it employs local workforce.
Comment by triceratops 1 day ago
And if this were really the issue, why wouldn't BYD build vehicles with swappable control software and hardware? Ship unfinished vehicles to the US and install approved electronics in them?
Comment by IncreasePosts 1 day ago
Comment by SimbaOnSteroids 1 day ago
Comment by 100111011111 1 day ago
In Spain, they dont do that and adaption and dealerships for Chinese EVs is taking off nicely, I ask every single owner I can if they're happy with the service and the cars and all of them have never been happier. Subjective, yes, but I welcome the Chinese cars and free markets:-)
Comment by nsoam 1 day ago
Comment by maxglute 1 day ago
This about PRC localization, EU can't do shit. Think about insinuation if they tried? EU incumbent carmakers from economic giants, Germany, France, wants to prevent rest of EU from access to cheap cars to protect their industry and maintain economic hierarchy. What happens once PRC plants opens up in Spain, Hungary for whom DE, FR auto dying is now opportunity? Reality is EU is not so unified that smaller countries want to live in shadow of DE and FR forever. Once localized PRC plants take root, they become daggers vs incumbent EU producers instead of shields vs EU protectionism - they will be supported locally and the geopolitics of banning would break EU.
Comment by Symbiote 1 day ago
Comment by dnautics 1 day ago
Comment by hniscrazy2025 1 day ago
Comment by ggregoire 1 day ago
Or maybe BYD could just start its own ridesharing service.
Comment by mococa 1 day ago
Comment by tortela 1 day ago
Comment by mywittyname 1 day ago
What kind of vehicles are people replacing with BYDs? I always assumed Brazilians drove mostly "legacy" VW or Nissans, but I looked at VW's Brazilian website and you all seem to have most of the same vehicles that are available in Europe and North America, including the ID.4!
Comment by lucasoshiro 1 day ago
Very well. Not only BYD but also other brands like GWM and Geely.
> What kind of vehicles are people replacing with BYDs?
Combustion cars with the same price, they are not replacing other electrical vehicles because the Chinese brands are way cheaper yet they are good cars.
> I always assumed Brazilians drove mostly "legacy" VW or Nissans
Nowadays we have many models from different brands.
In the past the fleet was basically VW, Ford, Chevrolet and Fiat. In the late 90s and early 2000s the Japanesne (Honda, Toyota and Nissan) and French (Renault, Citroën, Peugeot) became popular, and then Hyundai also became a success here. Recently, the Chinese brands are becoming more popular, especially Chery and the ones that I mentioned before.
> including the ID.4
But I never saw it here, even though VW is a very popular brand here.
Comment by miguelxpn 1 day ago
I'd say around 60% of the Ubers I get are BYDs and I'm glad when it's one because that means it's a newer car and it's very comfortable.
Comment by pontes 1 day ago
Comment by nsoam 1 day ago
Comment by mywittyname 1 day ago
Comment by toast0 1 day ago
I think most of the established brands have stopped doing a lot of that, but it used to be very common. VW would build some models in Germany for several years, mostly for sale to higher priced markets; when it came time for a new model, the old production tooling would go to South Africa, Mexico, or Brazil where it would continue to be built (and refined) for many more years. It's great for parts availability too, and sometimes there's nice improvements available with parts that were designed after the model left my market.
But now it's more common to have completely different models for lower priced markets, or build a global model with different options in different markets. Soemthing, something, model consolidation is expected to reduce costs? But BYD (and others) are making big inroads into low cost markets by building models that are more affordable and using that volume to maybe move into higher priced markets over time.
Comment by matheusmoreira 20 hours ago
Comment by yieldcrv 1 day ago
cheap, fast, good, its a rare moment to pick all three and the market is
most reservations about EVs are based on range anxiety, charging time and cost. only people with a certain level of advantage will pay to experience inconvenience, and that issue disintegrates at a certain threshold for a much broader population
Comment by ortusdux 1 day ago
Comment by foobazgt 1 day ago
I'm kind of torn myself. Although I'd like more range, 300 does get me where I'm going, and performance vehicles want less weight, not more.
Comment by drop_star 1 day ago
Comment by pornel 1 day ago
Charging stations typically also have on-site battery storage to have peak charging power that exceeds grid supply (and also because energy arbitrage is profitable).
Comment by bluGill 1 day ago
Comment by overfeed 1 day ago
Comment by bluGill 1 day ago
Comment by pornel 1 day ago
Comment by bluGill 1 day ago
The letter of the law often says things like that.
Comment by pornel 1 day ago
These chargers are already deployed and used in China and Norway. There are also tens of thousands of 400kW chargers all over the world, even in the USA. People use them every day. It's not a hypothetical.
For the user the connector is foolproof and even a child can plug it in (the cable isn't energised until the plug is locked, all pins are connected and temperatures are nominal). It's safer than plugging in US 110V household plug.
Comment by bluGill 1 day ago
The above has nothing to do about safety or how practical it is. It is about people who can apply the law to their twisted ends.
Comment by adrian_b 1 day ago
There are international standards for 1000 V and 800 V charging, but I have no idea whether they are allowed in NA.
As another poster has already said, like in USB chargers, the charging voltage is negotiated with the car and the old cars are charged slowly, at a low enough voltage for them.
For now, most of these fast chargers have been installed in China, but there are plans to install them also in Europe.
Comment by helsinkiandrew 1 day ago
Comment by unglaublich 1 day ago
Comment by yieldcrv 1 day ago
listen to them, solve their frictions related to considering EVs, and more people choose EV
Comment by hmokiguess 1 day ago
Comment by spwa4 1 day ago
Comment by adrian_b 1 day ago
Moreover, I always wonder how Americans accuse China of subsidizing its industries, while I never hear about any serious investment done by any big US company that is not conditioned by huge tax reductions.
All the kinds of fiscal facilities that the big US companies receive from the state or federal governments would be strictly forbidden in most places of Europe, as being a form of state help that distorts competition.
Comment by dnautics 1 day ago
Where are you getting that idea?
Comment by adrian_b 1 day ago
I am too lazy to search now for quotations, but already the POTUS has referred to this subject so frequently that it should not be difficult to find such examples yourself.
Attempting nonetheless a very short search, one of the first entries is a New York Times article that says:
"The Trump administration has dismantled nearly 100 policies focused on clean air, water, wildlife and toxic chemicals"
The following is not a joke, but it is an official statement published on the White House site:
"The Administration approved 76 coal-related permits to reinvigorate America’s beautiful, clean coal industry."
Also from the White House official site:
"“In this Administration, NEPA’s regulatory reign of terror has ended,” said White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Katherine Scarlett. "
Comment by dnautics 1 day ago
Also consider: if California got rid of prop 65 warnings would that be bad? How would that fare on your scorecard?
Comment by adrian_b 1 day ago
Nonetheless, it is very likely that in many places they are not enforced, except perhaps when they might be used to punish someone who fell in disgrace for other reasons.
Comment by holoduke 1 day ago
Comment by eureka7 1 day ago
Comment by maxglute 1 day ago
Comment by dnautics 1 day ago
Comment by maxglute 1 day ago
Meanwhile PRC annual renewable production wipes about 100m barrel of oil energy equivalent per day over their life time, i.e. comparable to global oil consumption - they are functionally preventing oil use from doubling. To reiterate: every year, PRC is averting equivalent of 100m barrels of future oil consumption. For mental picture that's carbon sink size of 500,000 sqkm of rainforest, i.e. equal to planting 7% of Amazon per year. Literally the greatest emission aversion machine in human history - PRC functionally preventing so much emissions its net carbon foot print is negative if you use sensible attributions.
Comment by dnautics 1 day ago
Comment by maxglute 1 day ago
> Why not just go all in on that and zero out any country that doesnt extract carbon sources!
We should in fact, totally do that, aka on going GHG Protocol Scope3 Cat11 battleground, among others. Precisely to address statistically context illiterate claims like muh Murican emissions went down and muh trade corrected co2 went down because legacy (itself politicized) accounting standards specifically masks / offloads emissions extracted from US onto their customers. Shifting emissions to extractor responsibility is heavily politicized / lobbied against by US fossil industry to make US #s look better. But that's all it is, fabricated numbers for lame aktually arguments that somehow export oil cleaner than domestic coal... Maybe on a spreadsheet, using biased formulas, for useful idiots to quote. But in reality US extracted stupendous amount of new emissions from the ground vs paper peak.
Like US become the worlds largest fossil exporter, high consumption population grew by 50m, went from dirty coal to even worse leaky NG (more lobby shenanigans) and somehow have the audacity to claim US contribution to emissions is somehow down without realizing the double think involved to reach such conclusion. The US emits more than ever, it's just good at lobbying so spreadsheets say it isn't.
Comment by spwa4 1 day ago
1) China's government does not care, in the slightest, about the environment. Their big worry is energy independence, well lack of energy independence, which due to climate change has some overlap, but enough pictures have leaked about Chinese mines to establish that basic measures to protect the environment are not being taken.
This is also the only reason China has an advantage in rare earths, for example. Luckily now we have South America "promising to respect", and US and EU promising to believe, that they are now friendly to the environment. Of course, the first leaks have already come in, and what do you know? They lied (specifically Brazil under Bolsonaro lied, we'll see if things change now), and the EU is refusing to investigate as per traditional EU commission practice (which is very strict laws, very selective enforcement, especially when it comes to enforcement against governments or government companies)
2) While western countries lie, there's none that lie like China lies. In the sense that any number coming out of PRC is government-approved at the very least. Government-made-up more likely. They lie and lie and lie and lie. E.g. the 2007 housing crash is still happening in China, badly enough to get people constantly complaining about it because it's still stealing their savings. But on the official figures? Everything's fine! There was the incident just last year with Indian workers taking pictures of Beijing's (best city) homeless. An endless street with homeless encampments on both sides, as far as the camera could see (at least 300m). Homelessness, just like gays, don't exist in China. I don't understand why people laugh out loud when an Iranian politician says there are no gays in Iran, but nobody cares if ... And of course it's a lie. According to CCP there is no porn in China. Okay, now go to Youtube red and search ...
This combines to: the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of China's economic activity being horrible beyond belief for the environment, and you're just believing propaganda.
Overwhelmingly.
Comment by handle584 1 day ago
Comment by maxglute 1 day ago
Comment by maxglute 1 day ago
Which is reflection of your susceptibility to LIO propaganda.
1.
I did not claim PRC cares about environment. Well except they do, like when they shut down / relocate factories because people complaining. But that's response to populous sentiment.
What I assert, correctly (elsewhere in this chain), is that the downstream outcome of both energy / industrial policy on emissions. That US becoming fossil exporter has, in reality increased it's net emissions. That PRC becoming renewable juggernaut has in reality generated massive carbon sink and averted massive future emissions.
2.
What gov approved numbers did I use. Like number of renewable installation is trivially checked, cross border renewable trade as well. This all outdoor infra one can monitor on geospatial. The issue isn't countries propagandaize, it's LIOtards are so brainwashed and innumerate that they think somehow they less retarded useful idiots because they have access to muh free press even though their worldview shaped by captured fabricated press - just utter NPC tier smooth brain media literacy, at least those who grew up under PRC media tend to know know how to be universally skeptical.
Like your entire point 2) is symptomatic of this retardation. Official econ news talk about housing drag from 3RL all the time. There's barely any, not no homeless in most PRC cities, and basically no chronic, i.e. homeless gets shoved somewhere. Gays are everywhere, just not promoted (no approval, no disapproval, no promotion). Porn is banned but trivially accessible via vpn, or back in the good old days go through hutongs to find bootleg. Like basically all your points can simply be summarized by you acknowledging "I don't understand", which in some self awareness you have have acknowledged twice.
3.
lol no, PRC official propaganda trash, like their old uncles aren't brazen enough to outright claim downstream effect of PRC renewable push overwhelmingly makes PRC responsible for creating the largest manufactured carbon sink in anthropocentric history. That's what makes it most hilarious, PRC optimizing selfishly for domestic energy security made it global renewable savior as happenstance. They're doing more for the environment than the west granola eaters, and they don't, actually fucking care, it's just on net balance they are now the greatest emission aversion force on earth. PRC is the ideal emission aversion engine, you may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.
Comment by triceratops 1 day ago
Comment by dnautics 1 day ago
Comment by haunter 1 day ago
Comment by tpm 7 hours ago
Comment by everdrive 1 day ago
Comment by matheusmoreira 20 hours ago
Comment by rtaylorgarlock 23 hours ago
This whole BYD thing is weird, cuz as far as i can read, it's not just one particular auto maker that's threatened. It's all of them. Necessary to work through this as a broader systemic industrial risk rather than simply a comparo of which bloated ipad-telemetric-couch-battery-motorcar I'd rather have
Comment by bijowo1676 1 day ago
Whats the real argument for a Brazilian, why they should be concerned with this ludicrous claims from USA: "muh China is tracking you going to Copacabana beach. Stop buying Chinese EV for $20k, buy Tesla for $60k instead and you will be safe!!!!11"
Comment by andrewl-hn 1 day ago
Comment by bijowo1676 1 day ago
if you are not reckless driver yourself, I dont see a downside here. You get lower premiums, insurance is able to narrow down the pool of reckless drivers and properly price them and modify their behavior via monetary incentives
whats the actual downside here??????
Comment by everdrive 1 day ago
Comment by bijowo1676 1 day ago
Comment by matheusmoreira 20 hours ago
Comment by metalman 1 day ago
article that says and is titled like that :)
https://electrek.co/2026/11/04/germany-electric-car-sales-re...
Comment by dyauspitr 1 day ago
Comment by petesergeant 1 day ago