Leapmotor B01 Electric Sedan Launches in China with 650km Range
The variant line-up includes the 430 Comfort Edition priced at 89,800 yuan (RM58,900), 550 Comfort at 95,800 yuan (RM62,900), 550 Enjoy at 103,800 yuan (RM68,100), and 550 LiDAR Edition at 113,800 yuan (RM74,700). The longer-range 650 Enjoy Edition comes in at 109,800 yuan (RM72,100), while the flagship 650 LiDAR Edition tops the list at 119,800 yuan (RM78,700).
Built on the manufacturer's LEAP 3.5 modular platform, the B01 boasts a remarkably low drag coefficient of 0.197 Cd. In terms of size, it measures 4,770 mm in length, 1,880 mm in width, and 1,490 mm in height, with a wheelbase of 2,735 mm—positioning it closely alongside the Tesla Model 3 in the mid-size electric sedan segment. Depending on the trim, the curb weight ranges from 1,550 kg to 1,711 kg.
All B01 variants utilise a rear-wheel-drive setup and feature different powertrains to match performance demands. The 430 Comfort Edition is equipped with a 134hp electric motor delivering 175Nm of torque, drawing energy from a 43.9 kWh lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery. It achieves a top speed of 150km/h and accelerates from 0–100km/h in 9.4 seconds.
The mid-range 550 variants offer two motor options—either 177hp or a more potent 215hp version, with up to 240Nm of torque, powered by a 56.2 kWh LFP battery. These models hit 160km/h, with the quickest acceleration time recorded at 6.4 seconds.
The high-end 650 Enjoy and LiDAR Editions feature the same 215hp motor with 240Nm, paired with a larger 67.1 kWh LFP battery. Top speed remains at 160km/h, with a 0–100km/h sprint time of 6.5 seconds.
On the technology front, the B01 is equipped with Leapmotor Pilot—an advanced driver assistance system powered by Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8650 chip. The standard safety suite includes five cameras and 12 ultrasonic radars, while premium versions gain 10 cameras, three millimetre-wave radars, and a 128-line lidar sensor with a 300-metre range and 140° field of view. Altogether, the system enables 26 autonomous driving features, including navigation on autopilot in city and highway settings, as well as comprehensive parking assistance.
The interior of the B01 is designed with a strong focus on comfort and digital functionality. Buyers can select either a grey or purple cabin theme, both of which are anchored by a flat-bottom steering wheel, an 8.8-inch digital instrument cluster, and a 14.6-inch 2.5K central touchscreen. The car operates on Leapmotor OS 4.0 Plus and features Qualcomm Snapdragon 8155P or 8295P chips, depending on trim level. AI voice command functionality is supported through integration with DeepSeek's proprietary AI model.
To enhance practicality, six modular 'magic expansion holes' are located in front of the front passenger seat, allowing users to attach various add-ons such as foldable tables and smartphone mounts. Luggage space is also generous, offering 460 litres of cargo capacity.
With a compelling mix of design, electric performance, advanced software, and competitive pricing, the Leapmotor B01 enters the electric vehicle market as a strong alternative to established rivals like the Tesla Model 3—particularly for buyers prioritising cutting-edge features and real-world value.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
NST Leader: Subscription squeeze
There was a time when entering into a contract was as simple as ABC. The company handed you a contract and you sign off if the terms were acceptable. When you wanted to end the service, you pay the current bill and that was it. But with competition getting intense, businesses have become creative by inventing the subscription contract that comes with a self-renewal clause, unless terminated with notice. And the auto-renewal clause comes with a termination penalty. As high as RM58,000 for quitting a wellness programme, as one complainant told the National Consumer Complaints Centre (NCCC). Herein lies a trap. When you try to unsubscribe from the service, it is like searching for a needle in a haystack. If you managed to do so, you end up paying a hefty penalty. Is this legal? Here, we come face to face with the "on the one hand and on the other hand" argument of lawyers. As a general legal principle, a contract is an agreement between parties. Were the terms made explicit to the consumer? If so, then the consumer's case ends there, except if the penalty is excessive, like the RM58,000 imposed by the wellness company. In such cases, it is best to proceed to the Tribunal for Consumer Claims. Vigilance is the key. But being vigilant isn't easy in a business environment where companies push the concept of consent to the edge of the law. Complaints to the NCCC tell us that the subscription contracts need regulatory intervention. Not that Malaysia doesn't have laws. It has several, but unlike the United Kingdom, not specific to subscription contracts. Do we need one? Certainly, but first, let's look at what we already have. The Contracts Act 1950 (CA) is one of several. Subscription agreements are contracts, they clearly fall under it. The CA makes consent of the parties a critical element. Another, and perhaps more relevant, is the Consumer Protection Act (1999), which specifically addresses unfair contract terms. Astronomical penalties, either made known or hidden, are likely to be treated as such. So will deceptive auto-renewals. Finally, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA). Interestingly, the CMA imposes a duty to act reasonably on all service providers. If the auto-renewals and penalties are not made known to and agreed by the consumer, then the service providers could be found to have failed in their duty to act reasonably. A point needs to be made, though. Despite scores of complaints to the NCCC, there has been no litigation on such issues. Neither have the regulators acted on the complaints, Perhaps, they are waiting for the consumers to lodge a report with them. A report from the consumer shouldn't be the only way for regulators and enforcement agencies to act. Even the police are using viral videos to launch their investigations. The regulators must go where the complaints are: consumer associations, NCCC and media reports. Malaysia needs a specific law such as the UK's Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Proper consent of the consumer, together with a cooling-off period of 14 days, is a pillar of these regulations.
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
NST Leader: Subscription squeeze - Regulating the auto-renewal trap
THERE was a time when entering into a contract was as simple as ABC. The company handed you a contract and you sign off if the terms were acceptable. When you wanted to end the service, you pay the current bill and that was it. But with competition getting intense, businesses have become creative by inventing the subscription contract that comes with a self-renewal clause, unless terminated with notice. And the auto-renewal clause comes with a termination penalty. As high as RM58,000 for quitting a wellness programme, as one complainant told the National Consumer Complaints Centre (NCCC). Herein lies a trap. When you try to unsubscribe from the service, it is like searching for a needle in a haystack. If you managed to do so, you end up paying a hefty penalty. Is this legal? Here, we come face to face with the "on the one hand and on the other hand" argument of lawyers. As a general legal principle, a contract is an agreement between parties. Were the terms made explicit to the consumer? If so, then the consumer's case ends there, except if the penalty is excessive, like the RM58,000 imposed by the wellness company. In such cases, it is best to proceed to the Tribunal for Consumer Claims. Vigilance is the key. But being vigilant isn't easy in a business environment where companies push the concept of consent to the edge of the law. Complaints to the NCCC tell us that the subscription contracts need regulatory intervention. Not that Malaysia doesn't have laws. It has several, but unlike the United Kingdom, not specific to subscription contracts. Do we need one? Certainly, but first, let's look at what we already have. The Contracts Act 1950 (CA) is one of several. Subscription agreements are contracts, they clearly fall under it. The CA makes consent of the parties a critical element. Another, and perhaps more relevant, is the Consumer Protection Act (1999), which specifically addresses unfair contract terms. Astronomical penalties, either made known or hidden, are likely to be treated as such. So will deceptive auto-renewals. Finally, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA). Interestingly, the CMA imposes a duty to act reasonably on all service providers. If the auto-renewals and penalties are not made known to and agreed by the consumer, then the service providers could be found to have failed in their duty to act reasonably. A point needs to be made, though. Despite scores of complaints to the NCCC, there has been no litigation on such issues. Neither have the regulators acted on the complaints, Perhaps, they are waiting for the consumers to lodge a report with them. A report from the consumer shouldn't be the only way for regulators and enforcement agencies to act. Even the police are using viral videos to launch their investigations. The regulators must go where the complaints are: consumer associations, NCCC and media reports. Malaysia needs a specific law such as the UK's Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. Proper consent of the consumer, together with a cooling-off period of 14 days, is a pillar of these regulations.
New Straits Times
a day ago
- New Straits Times
NST Leader: Agrofood sector set for major reforms under 13MP
THE 13th Malaysia Plan (13MP) has big ideas for the agrofood sector. High time, we say. It has been treated as a stepchild since the country transitioned to manufacturing in the 1980s. That should change by 2030, when the 13MP reforms the sector, leading to RM58 billion in value creation. Self-sufficiency rates are also being scaled up to 80 per cent for rice, 98 per cent for fisheries, 83 per cent for fruits, 79 per cent for vegetables, 140 per cent for poultry, 123 per cent for eggs and 50 per cent for beef and buffalo meat. Ambitious? Yes, given that the Agriculture and Food Security Ministry has to hit the targets within five years, on top of resolving numerous issues plaguing the agrofood sector. Surely, an unenviable task. Land is a big ticket item, with most of what is available being devoted to industrial crops such as oil palm and rubber, because they are more profitable. In 2020, 7.6 million hectares of arable land was used for agriculture, of which 5.2 million was dedicated to industrial crops. Little wonder, our Asean neighbours' agrofood products are everywhere. Former director of Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute, Rozhan Abu Dardak, provides another reason why this is so in his article published in the Food and Fertilizer Technology Centre Agricultural Policy Platform website on April 14: Vietnam dedicated 33 million hectares for rice cultivation. Thailand 9.2 million hectares, Indonesia 10.6 million hectares and the Philippines 5.6 million hectares. What about Malaysia? Of the 996,950ha dedicated to the agrofood sector, only 373,383ha is being used to cultivate rice. The rest is used for growing fruits, other food crops and vegetables, the last, a measly 64,220ha to work on. If that is not enough, the agrofood sector has to compete with industries and housing for land. More land for agrofood should certainly be a reform to aim for. There is one reality our policymakers often miss. Malaysia is a land of small things. Like the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) that dominate the country's economy, so do small-scale farms. According to Rozhan, more than 90 per cent of Malaysian farmers own small plots of land, averaging 2.5ha per person. Logically, bigger means better yields. But that doesn't mean technology can't be made to work on small plots to increase yields. Like we have learnt to live with SMEs, we must learn to live with small-scale farms. What the agrofood sector reform should focus on are the farms themselves: the what and how of the trade. The skyrocketing prices of farm inputs, too, are making farming a challenging vocation. Farmers need help. Providing subsidies to those who deserve it is one way. The 13MP's move to incentivise young agroentrepreneurs takes the reform to a good place. We are a nation of old farmers, most of whom are in their 60s. At that age, farming is a struggle. Malaysians will be keeping a keen eye on the agrofood sector reforms, because what happens in the farms will determine whether or not we have home-grown food on the table.
