
China's electric cars are becoming slicker and cheaper - but is there a deeper cost?
BBC
Go to the comments section at the bottom of this page to share what you think about the rise of these more affordable EVs
In China, they call it the Seagull, and it has looks to match. It is sleek and angular, with bright, downward-slanting headlights that have more than a hint of mischievous eyes about them.
It is, of course, a car. A very small one, designed as a cheap city runabout – but it could have huge significance. Available in China since 2023, where it has proved extremely popular, it has just been launched in Europe with the name Dolphin Surf (because Europeans apparently aren't as keen on seagulls as Chinese people).
When it goes on sale in the UK this week, it's expected to have a price tag of around £18,000. That will still make it, for an electric car on western markets, very cheap indeed.
It won't be the outright lowest-priced model on offer: the Dacia Spring, manufactured in Wuhan jointly by Renault and Dongfeng, and the Leapmotor T03, which is being produced by a joint venture between Chinese startup Leapmotor and Stellantis, both cost less.
But the Dolphin Surf is the new arrival that has long-established brands most worried. That is because the company behind it has been making ever bigger waves on international markets.
BYD is already the biggest player in China. It overtook Tesla in 2024 to become the world's best-selling maker of electric vehicles (EVs), and since entering the European markets two years ago, it has expanded aggressively.
"We want to be number one in the British market within 10 years," says Steve Beattie, sales and marketing director for BYD UK.
BYD is part of a wider expansion of Chinese companies and brands that some believe could change the face of the global motor industry – and which has already prompted radical action from the US government and the EU.
It means once-unknown marques like Nio, Xpeng, Zeekr or Omoda could become every bit as much household names as Ford or Volkswagen. They will join classic brands such as MG, Volvo and Lotus, which have been under Chinese ownership for years.
The products on offer already encompass a huge range, from runabouts like the tiny Dolphin Surf to exotic supercars, like the pothole-jumping U9, from BYD's high-end sub-brand Yangwang.
"Chinese brands are making massive inroads into the European market," says David Bailey, professor of business and economics at Birmingham Business School.
In 2024, 17 million battery and plug-in hybrid cars were sold worldwide, 11 million of those in China. Chinese brands, meanwhile, had 10% of global EV and plug-in hybrid sales outside their home country, according to the consultancy Rho Motion. That figure is only expected to grow.
For consumers, it should be good news – leading to more high-quality and affordable electric cars becoming available. But with rivalry between Beijing and western powers showing no sign of subsiding, some experts are concerned Chinese vehicles could represent a security risk from hackers and third parties. And for established players in Europe, it represents a formidable challenge to their historic dominance.
"[China has] a huge cost advantage through economies of scale and battery technology. European manufacturers have fallen well behind," warns Mr Bailey.
"Unless they wake up very quickly and catch up, they could be wiped out."
Cut-throat competition in China
China's car industry has been developing rapidly since the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001. But that process accelerated rapidly in 2015, when the Communist Party introduced its "Made in China 2025" initiative. The 10-year plan to make the country a leader in several high-tech industries, including EVs, attracted intense criticism from abroad, and particularly the US, amid claims of forced technology transfers and theft of intellectual property – all of which the Chinese government denies.
Fuelled by lavish state funding, the plan helped lay the groundwork for the breakneck growth of companies like BYD – originally a maker of batteries for mobile phones – and allowed the Chinese parent companies of MG and Volvo, SAIC and Geely, to become major players in the EV market.
"The general standard of Chinese cars is very, very high indeed," says Dan Caesar, chief executive of Electric Vehicles UK.
"China has learned extremely quickly how to manufacture cars."
Yet competition in China has become ever more cut-throat, with brands jostling for space in an increasingly saturated market. This has led them to hunt for sales elsewhere.
While Chinese firms have expanded into East Asia and South America, for years the European market proved a tough nut to crack – that is, until governments here decided to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel models.
The transition to electric cars opened the door to new players.
"[Chinese brands] have seen an opportunity to get a bit of a foothold," says Oliver Lowe, UK product manager of Omoda and Jaecoo, two sub brands of the Chinese giant Chery.
Low labour costs in China, coupled with government subsidies and a very well-established supply chain, have given Chinese firms advantages, their rivals have claimed. A report from the Swiss bank UBS, published in late 2023, suggested that BYD alone was able to build cars 25% more cheaply than western competitors.
Chinese firms deny the playing field is uneven. Xpeng's vice chairman Brian Gu told the BBC at the Paris Motor Show in 2024 that his company is competitive "because we have fought tooth and nail through the most competitive market in the world".
'Naked protectionism' from the US?
Concerns that Chinese EV imports could flood international markets at the expense of established manufacturers reached fever pitch in 2024.
In the US, the Alliance for American Manufacturing warned they could prove to be an "extinction-level event" for the US industry, while the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen suggested that "huge state subsidies" for Chinese firms were distorting the European market.
The Biden administration took dramatic action, raising import tariffs on Chinese-made EVs from 25% to 100%, effectively making it pointless to sell them in the US.
It was condemned by Beijing as "naked protectionism".
Meanwhile, in October 2024, the EU imposed extra tariffs of up to 35.3% on Chinese-made EVs. The UK, however, took no action.
Matthias Schmidt, founder of Schmidt Automotive Research, says the EU's tariffs have now made it harder for Chinese firms to gain market share.
"The door was wide open in 2024... but the Chinese failed to take their chance. With the tariffs in place, Chinese manufacturers are now unable to push their cost advantage onto European consumers."
Renault's ultra-modern EV hub
European manufacturers have been racing to develop their own affordable electric cars. French car-maker Renault is among them.
At its factory in Douai, in northeastern France, an army of spark-spitting robots weld sections of steel to form car bodies, while on the main assembly line, automated systems mate together bodyshells, doors, batteries, motors and other parts, before human workers apply the finishing touches.
The factory has been making cars for Renault since 1974, but four years ago, the ageing production lines were replaced with new highly automated, digitally-controlled systems.
Part of the site was also taken over by the Chinese-owned battery firm AESC, which built its own "gigafactory" next door.
Renault
It's part of Renault's wider plan to set up an ultra-modern EV "hub" in northern France. Mirroring the lean production techniques of Chinese manufacturers, the hub cuts costs by maximising efficiency and ensuring that suppliers are located as close as possible.
"Our target was to be able to produce affordable electric cars here to sell in Europe," explains Pierre Andrieux, director of the Douai plant, arguing that automated processes "will enable us to do that profitably".
But the company is also exploiting something the Chinese brands do not have: heritage. Its latest model, the Renault 5 E-tech, built in Douai, borrows its name from one of the company's most famous products.
The original Renault 5, launched in 1972, was a quirky little everyman car with boxy looks and low running costs that became a cult classic.
The new design, despite being a state-of-the art EV, pays homage to its predecessor in name and appearance, in an effort to emulate its popular appeal.
Security, spyware and hacking concerns
But irrespective of how desirable Chinese cars are in comparison with European rivals, some experts believe we should be wary of them – for security reasons.
Most modern vehicles are internet-enabled in some way – to allow satellite navigation, for example – and drivers' phones are often connected to car systems. Pioneered by Tesla, so-called "over-the-air updates" can upgrade a car's software remotely.
This has all led to concerns, in some quarters, that cars could be hacked and used to harbour spyware, monitor individuals or even be immobilised at the touch of a keyboard.
Earlier this year, a British newspaper reported that military and intelligence chiefs had been ordered not to discuss official business while riding in EVs; it was also alleged that cars with Chinese components had been banned from sensitive military sites.
Then in May, a former head of the intelligence service MI6 claimed that Chinese-made technology in a range of products, including cars, could be controlled and programmed remotely. Sir Richard Dearlove warned MPs that there was the potential to "immobilise London".
Beijing has always denied all accusations of espionage.
A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in London says that the recent allegations are "entirely unfounded and absurd".
"China has consistently advocated the secure, open, and rules-based development of global supply chains," the spokesperson told the BBC. "Chinese enterprises operating around the world are required to comply with local laws and regulations.
"To date, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that Chinese EVs pose a security threat to the UK or any other country."
Chinese government is 'not hell-bent on surveillance'
Joseph Jarnecki, research fellow at defence and security think-tank The Royal United Services Institute, argues that potential risks can be mitigated.
"Chinese carmakers exist in this highly competitive market. While they're beholden to Chinese law and that may require compliance with national security agencies, none of them want to damage their ability to grow and to have international exports by being perceived as a security risk," he says.
"The Chinese government equally is conscious of the need for economic growth. They're not hell-bent on solely conducting surveillance."
But the car industry is just one area in which Chinese technology is becoming increasingly enmeshed in the UK economy. To achieve the government's climate objectives, for instance, "It will be necessary to use Chinese-supplied technology", adds Mr Jarnecki.
He believes that regulators of key industries should be given sufficient resources to monitor cyber security and advise companies using Chinese products of any potential issues.
As for electric cars powered by Chinese technology, there's no question that they're here to stay.
"Even if you have a car that's made in Germany or elsewhere, it probably contains quite a few Chinese components," says Dan Caesar.
"The reality is most of us have smartphones and things from China, from the US, from Korea, without really giving it a second thought. So I do think there's some fearmongering going on about what the Chinese are capable of.
"I think we have to face the reality that China is going to be a big part of the future."
Top image credit: Reuters

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
35 minutes ago
- BBC News
World Business Report Disney and Universal sue AI company Midjourney
Disney and Universal are suing AI photo generation company Midjourney alleging its popular image generator had become a "bottomless pit of plagiarism". Rahul Tandon finds out how likely the lawsuit is to be successful. Also, can we expect peace between the US and China in their crucial trade war as both sides say they have agreed on a "framework" for a deal? And we hear how tensions between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk might be affecting investors. You can contact us on WhatsApp or send us a voicenote: +44 330 678 3033.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
High Court hears company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone must pay back £121m for ‘faulty' PPE
A company linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone should pay back more than £121 million for breaching a Government contract for 25 million surgical gowns during the coronavirus pandemic, the High Court has heard. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is suing PPE Medpro for allegedly breaching a deal for the gowns, with lawyers for the Government telling the court they were 'faulty' because they were not sterile. The company, a consortium led by Baroness Mone's husband, businessman Doug Barrowman, was awarded Government contracts by the former Conservative administration to supply PPE during the pandemic, after she recommended it to ministers. Both have denied wrongdoing. The Government is seeking to recover the costs of the contract, as well as the costs of transporting and storing the items, which amount to an additional £8,648,691. PPE Medpro said it 'categorically denies' breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed the company has been 'singled out for unfair treatment'. Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: 'This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty. 'It is, in short, a technical case about detailed legal and industry standards that apply to sterile gowns.' Mr Stanley said in written submissions the 'initial contact with Medpro came through Baroness Mone', with discussions about the contract then going through one of the company's directors, Anthony Page. Baroness Mone remained 'active throughout' the negotiations, Mr Stanley said, with the peer stating Mr Barrowman had 'years of experience in manufacturing, procurement and management of supply chains'. But he told the court Baroness Mone's communications were 'not part of this case', which was 'simply about compliance'. He said: 'The department does not allege anything improper happened, and we are not concerned with any profits made by anybody.' In court documents from May this year, the DHSC said the gowns were delivered to the UK in 72 lots between August and October 2020, with £121,999,219.20 paid to PPE Medpro between July and August that year. The department rejected the gowns in December 2020 and told the company it would have to repay the money, but this has not happened and the gowns remain in storage, unable to be used. In written submissions for trial, Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract, equating to one in a million being unusable. The DHSC claims the contract also specified PPE Medpro had to sterilise the gowns using a 'validated process', attested by CE marking, which indicates a product has met certain medical standards. He said 'none of those things happened', with no validated sterilisation process being followed, and the gowns supplied with invalid CE marking. He continued that 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing. He said: 'Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. 'On that basis, DHSC was entitled to reject the gowns, or is entitled to damages, which amount to the full price and storage costs.' In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the 'only plausible reason' for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to 'the transport and storage conditions or events to which the gowns were subject', after they had been delivered to the DHSC. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not 'representative of the whole population', meaning 'no proper conclusions may be drawn'. He said the DHSC's claim was 'contrived and opportunistic' and PPE Medpro had been 'made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors' by the department. He said: 'It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. 'In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money.' He also said there was a 'delicious irony' that Baroness Mone was mentioned in the DHSC's written submissions, when she had 'zero relevance to the contractual issues in this case'. Neither Baroness Mone nor Mr Barrowman is due to give evidence in the trial, and Baroness Mone did not attend the first day of the hearing on Wednesday. A PPE Medpro spokesperson said the company 'categorically denies breaching its obligations' and will 'robustly defend' the claim. The trial before Mrs Justice Cockerill is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Spending review: Treasury minister Emma Reynolds tells Sky News she is 'not ruling out' tax rises in the autumn
A Treasury minister has refused to rule out tax rises at the budget in the autumn, amid concerns that any global economic instability could mean the government will not have enough money to fund its spending plans. Speaking to Sky's Politics Hub With Ali Fortescue, Emma Reynolds defended how the economy was being handled, but would not say if more revenue might be needed from taxation. Asked repeatedly if she was ruling out tax rises, the minister said: "I'm not ruling it in and I'm not ruling it out. "We have got £9bn of fiscal headroom [money left in the budget], which is significantly more than the Tories had when they were in power, at the end of their time in power. "We've got a growing economy, and we, as the chancellor did say in the [Commons] chamber, the budget in the autumn last year was a once-in-a-generation budget where we had to do some very tough things, and we're not going to have another budget like that in the future." "Now we know - tax rises are coming." 3:43 Fiscal rules are non-negotiable Speaking to Sky's political editor Beth Rigby, the chancellor Rachel Reeves avoided the direct question about potential tax rises, saying: "Before any money goes out the door, we will have a budget in the autumn, and we will show in the round, when the Office for Budget Responsibility update their forecast, how everything is consistent with the fiscal rules that I set out as chancellor last autumn." She added that they "made the tax changes that were necessary last year to fund the spending that I've set out today". 4:28 Ms Reeves has imposed a set of "iron-clad" fiscal rules, which restrict government borrowing in order to ensure economic stability and reduce the UK's national debt, Labour says. These rules mean the amount of money she has available to spend on the day-to-day running of public services is limited to only what the government takes in tax revenue. 'A miniscule margin' But as Paul Johnson from the non-partisan Institute for Fiscal Studies told our presenter Jayne Secker, the chancellor has left herself very little room for manoeuvre. He said: "She set the fiscal rules and she's also meeting them by the most miniscule margin imaginable.