BYD Denza B5: 677bhp hybrid Defender rival lands in UK
Launched in China last year as the Bao 5, the Defender 110 rival has made its UK debut at the Goodwood Festival of Speed ahead of a showroom launch early next year.
It is one of three models from BYD's new SUV sub-brand Fangchengbao, but will be badged Denza in the UK and positioned as a sibling to that premium brand's Z9 GT shooting brake - also headed to the UK.
Denza was founded in 2010 as a joint venture between BYD and Mercedes-Benz but is wholly owned by the Chinese firm.
The move to import the B5 confirms Autocar's previous report that BYD would launch its Fangchengbao cars here in a bid to diversify its powertrain offering and tap into new market segments.
The company's president, Stella Li, told Autocar at last year's Festival of Speed that she predicted the SUVs "will be very popular in the UK".
'In the UK, the roads are narrow but we love these big SUV off-road cars, so Fangchengbao will be here,' she said, referencing the popularity of large premium SUVs in this market, a sector in which BYD has until now been absent.
The company has not confirmed any specification details for the B5, but it is expected to be largely unchanged from the car in China, which uses a 'DMO Super-Hybrid Off-Road' ladder-frame platform and takes its power from a plug-in hybrid system centre around a 1.5-litre turbo engine with an electric motor on each axle.
The system pumps out up to 677bhp and 561lb ft - more than any Defender, including the new V8 Octa.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
China's manufacturing activity shrinks as exports drag, S&P PMI shows
BEIJING, Aug 1 (Reuters) - China's factory activity deteriorated in July, as a softening of new business growth led manufacturers to scale back production, a private-sector survey showed on Friday. The S&P Global China General Manufacturing PMI fell to 49.5 in July from 50.4 in June, undershooting analysts' expectations of 50.4 in a Reuters poll. The 50-mark separates growth from contraction. The reading, combined with Thursday's official survey, bodes ill for growth momentum at the start of the third quarter, following robust growth in the first half of the year. Amid a trade truce with Washington, economists say the support of exports front-loading ahead of higher U.S. tariffs to the world's second-biggest economy may fade over the remainder of the year. According to the S&P Global survey, new export orders contracted for a fourth straight month and at a faster pace than in June. After rising in June, manufacturing output declined in July. Firms looked to utilise their current stock holdings for the fulfilment of orders, which contributed to a second successive monthly decline in post-production inventories. Falling production together with a stable backlog prompted factory owners to lower their headcount in July. Firms also said cost concerns had underpinned decisions to shed staff. However, business sentiment improved at the start of the second half of 2025 but was still below the series average. Manufacturers expected better economic conditions and promotional efforts to spur sales in the year ahead. As Beijing started to tackle "price wars" among manufacturers, average input prices increased for the first time in five months. Firms nevertheless lowered their selling prices again as competition for new business intensified. But export charges increased at the fastest pace in a year due to rising shipping and logistics costs. Top leaders on Wednesday pledged to support an economy that is facing various risks, by managing what is viewed as disorderly competition in the second half of the year. Markets expected that Beijing may be about to start a new round of factory capacity cuts in a long-awaited but challenging campaign against deflation. From July, Caixin no longer sponsors the S&P Global China PMI.
Reuters
31 minutes ago
- Reuters
Oil steadies as concerns about tariff impacts vie with Russian supply threats
Aug 1 (Reuters) - Oil prices were little changed on Friday after falling more than 1% in the previous session as traders digested the impact of new higher U.S. tariffs that may curtail economic activity and lower global fuel demand growth. Brent crude futures rose 4 cents, or 0.06%, to $71.74 a barrel by 1201 GMT. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude rose 1 cent, or 0.01%, to $69.27. Still, Brent prices are set to gain 4.9% for the week while WTI is set to climb 6.4% after U.S. President Donald Trump earlier this week threatened to place tariffs on buyers of Russian crude, particularly China and India, to coax Russia into halting its war against Ukraine. On Friday though, investors were more focused on Trump's imposition of new, and mostly higher, tariff rates on U.S. trading partners set to go into effect on August 1. Trump signed an executive order on Thursday imposing tariffs ranging from 10% to 41% on U.S. imports from dozens of countries and foreign locations including Canada, India and Taiwan that failed to reach trade deals by his deadline of August 1. Some analysts have warned the levies will limit economic growth by raising prices, which would weigh on oil consumption. On Thursday, there were signs that existing tariffs are already pressuring prices higher in the U.S., the world's biggest economy and oil consumer. U.S. inflation increased in June as tariffs boosted prices for imported goods such as household furniture and recreation products. This is supporting views that price pressures would pick up in the second half of the year and delay the Federal Reserve from cutting interest rates until at least October. Maintaining interest rates would also impact oil as the higher borrowing costs can limit economic growth. At the same time, Trump's threats to impose 100% secondary tariffs on Russian crude buyers have supported prices because of concerns that would disrupt oil trade flows and remove some oil from the market. JP Morgan analysts said in a note on Thursday Trump's warnings to China and India of penalties on their ongoing purchases of Russian oil potentially puts 2.75 million barrels per day of Russian seaborne oil exports at risk. The two countries are the world's second- and third-largest crude consumers, respectively. "The Trump administration, like its predecessors, will likely find sanctioning the world's second-largest oil exporter unfeasible without spiking oil prices," the analysts said, referring to Russia.
BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
Heathrow Airport's expansion plans to cost £49bn, plans reveal
Heathrow Airport has revealed details of its plan to expand and modernise the airport at a cost of £49bn. Thomas Woldbye, CEO of Heathrow Airport, said expansion was "urgent" as the airport was currently working at capacity, "to the detriment of trade and connectivity". The work would be funded by private government has backed plans for a third runway, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves saying it would "make Britain the world's best connected place to do business".However, the plans face opposition from environmental groups, politicians, and locals. London's mayor Sir Sadiq Khan said it would have a "severe impact on noise, air pollution and meeting our climate change targets". The plans come a day after the deadline set by the government for parties to submit plans, which it estimates would be completed within a decade, include:Creation of a third runway, called the "North-Western Runway", which would be up to 3,500m (11,500 ft) long. Heathrow bosses say this will increase capacity to 756,000 flights and 150m passengers a year - it currently serves about 84mA new terminal called T5X, expanding Terminal 2 and three new satellite terminals. It would close Terminal 3Enhancement of local rail connections, plus walking and cycling routesDiversion of the M25, which would involve a new road tunnel under the airport, and widening the motorway between junctions 14-15Creation of two new Heathrow parkways Improvements to Heathrow's bus and coach stationsHeathrow said it would cost £21bn to build the third runway, which includes procuring the land, changing the M25 and other associated infrastructure costs while building the new terminal would be £12bn and modernising the current airport's infrastructure £15bn. Due to rounding, it will total £49bn.A spokesperson added the plans would grow the UK economy by 0.43% GDP. 'Unlock billions' The plans revealed by Heathrow were welcomed by business groups and airline companies. A joint statement from the Confederation of British Industry, British Chambers of Commerce, MakeUK, Federation of Small Businesses and Institute of Directors, said it was "an investment in the nation's future".It added: "The benefits are clear: for exporters, it opens up vital access to major and emerging markets; for visitors, it enhances global and domestic connectivity; and for businesses, it unlocks billions in private investment, strengthening supply chains, creating jobs, and driving skills across the country."John Dickie, chief executive of BusinessLDN, said as the airport was currently operating at full capacity, the expansion would give businesses "better connectivity to overseas markets and support Britain's growth".He added it would also help achieve the government's target of 50 million international visitors per year to the UK. Environmental damage Mr Woldbye said Heathrow's submission was in line with the aviation industry's target to be net zero by 2050. He added that Heathrow was "the airport in the world with the highest uptake of Sustainable Aviation Fuel", and that planning permission would not be granted by government unless legal limits of emissions were adhered to. However, the plans were heavily criticised by groups who called the environmental justifications for the plans as "hopeful marketing spin". Dr Douglas Parr, policy director for Greenpeace UK, said the government had "decided yet again to prioritise more leisure opportunities for a comparatively small group of frequent fliers, whilst the rest of us have to live with the consequences of their disproportionate polluting".He suggested a "frequent flier levy", and said no expansion should take place until there was a solution to the "pollution problem". His concerns were echoed by politicians including Sir Sadiq who said he remained "unconvinced" that hundreds of thousands of additional flights each year would not have a "hugely detrimental" added City Hall would "carefully scrutinise" the impact the extension would have on people living in the area and the "huge knock-on effects for our transport infrastructure, which would require a comprehensive and costed plan to manage". A Liberal Democrat spokesperson said: "Heathrow is already the single largest polluter in the UK, and the Climate Change Committee itself has said expansion would put the UK's climate goals at risk."It's also clear we can't rely on the silver bullet of Sustainable Aviation Fuels to save the day," they added. The Green Party deputy leader, Zack Polankski, said the plans were being delivered "regardless" of the environmental impact. "If Labour's environmental commitments were worth the paper they're written on, these proposals would never have seen the light of day," he residents living in Harmondsworth, near the airport, told the BBC earlier this year a third of the village would be destroyed if a third runway was to go ahead. Rival plans Heathrow's plans follow the publication of a rival proposal by the Arora Group, which has outlined a way to expand the airport without needing to redirect the M25. Owner of the group, hotel tycoon Surinder Arora, said the creation of a third runway and a new terminal, under his plans, had a cost estimate of under £25bn, not including the redevelopment of the airport's existing central proposal crucially does not involve an expensive alteration to the M25, as the group said it was possible to build a 2,800-metre (9,200 ft) third runway instead of the full-length 3,500-metre (11,500 ft) runway planned by the Group said its plan, called Heathrow West, could have a new runway fully operational by 2035, while a new terminal would open in two phases, in 2036 and 2040. Moving the M25 When asked about the added expense of altering the M25 to accommodate a new, third runway, Heathrow's CEO said: "The whole conversation about the M25 has been slightly exaggerated", and that disruption to drivers would be minimal. "We will build a new and much better M25, 100m (330 ft) to the west of the current one. It will be wider and it will be safer and it will have more capacity," Mr Woldbye added. He said plans to create a much shorter runway to avoid moving the M25 - like the one proposed by The Aurora Group - would "not provide the capacity that we and the airlines need", but said the airport would be open to a discussion with airlines about building a shorter runway if it could deliver the same benefits. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said the two proposals were a "significant step towards unlocking growth, creating jobs, and delivering vital national infrastructure"."We'll consider the proposals carefully over the summer so that we can begin a review of the Airports National Policy Statement later this year," she added. 'Half the battle' BBC London's political editor Karl Mercer said: "History has not been kind to plans to build a third runway, whoever has put them forward, and whichever colour government is in power."Gordon Brown's Labour government supported Heathrow expansion in 2009 - that didn't happen. "Then during Conservative Theresa May's reign in 2018, MPs voted overwhelmingly in support of a third runway - only for a series of court challenges and then Covid to put an end to those plans. "There are plenty of Labour MPs in the capital who are still strongly opposed to expansion - 28 voted against it last time and most are still in the House. "Having bidders interested is only half the battle - the hardest half will be getting it delivered."
