EV

AUTOMOTIVE: Porsche Profits Apply The Big Stoppers

| admin
Porsche, once the golden child of German engineering and luxury performance, has hit an unexpected crisis in 2025. After years of record profits and unmatched prestige, the carmaker has reported a devastating fall in earnings, with operating profit plunging by more than 99 percent. The decline raises urgent questions about Porsche’s electric strategy, global sales slump, and future in an increasingly uncertain automotive market.

There was a time when the air in Zuffenhausen smelled of success and the confidence of endless growth. Porsche was the brand that never stumbled, the company that made perfection seem routine. Yet this year the balance sheets told a very different story.

For the first time in living memory, Porsche has posted a loss. Not a minor dip or a brief misfire, but a full-blown financial skid. In the third quarter of 2025, the company recorded an operational loss of nearly one billion euros. Across the first nine months of the year, profits collapsed from around four billion to just forty million. The figures landed like a crash through the guardrail at La Source.

The roots of Porsche’s decline lie in its costly electric gamble. Determined to lead the luxury EV revolution, the company poured billions into its own battery programme and an ambitious range of electric cars. The goal was clear: by 2030, eighty percent of new Porsches would run silently rather than roar. The market, however, had other ideas.

Buyers loved the Taycan’s design and speed, but hesitated at the price and limited range. High costs and lukewarm demand forced Porsche to retreat. The battery division was scrapped, new electric SUVs cancelled, and the firm took a three billion euro write-down. The pivot back to hybrids and combustion engines restored a little sanity, but the damage was done. Investors saw indecision. Customers saw confusion.

External pressures made things worse. In America, new tariffs on European luxury cars have already cost Porsche hundreds of millions of euros. Prices have risen, and demand has fallen. Across the Pacific, China’s once-booming market for Western prestige cars has cooled sharply. Sales dropped by more than twenty-five percent as domestic electric brands took centre stage.

Europe offered no comfort either. Economic fatigue and tighter emissions laws have hit the high-end market. Even the 911, the timeless heartbeat of Porsche, faces an uncertain future in a world determined to phase out petrol. Volkswagen Group, Porsche’s parent company, has reported its own steep drop in profit, much of it linked to this turmoil in Zuffenhausen.

The response has been fast and severe. Around four thousand jobs have already gone, and restructuring costs have topped three billion euros. Meetings that once celebrated lap times now focus on cost savings. Michael Leiters, Porsche’s new chief executive and a former McLaren man, has inherited the unenviable task of restoring confidence while steering a bruised and bewildered company back to growth.

Behind the scenes, engineers are refocusing. Porsche will rely on its most loyal strengths: craftsmanship, performance, and the feel of quality that no algorithm can reproduce. Future cars will blend petrol and electric power rather than replace one with the other. The idea is to rebuild gradually, balancing innovation with identity.

For decades, Porsche was defined by certainty. Every car, from the 911 Turbo to the Macan, carried the same message of precision and purpose. But the modern world is no longer so simple. Customers expect luxury, performance and sustainability in a single package. Governments demand cleaner cars. Markets demand profit. Somewhere in that storm, Porsche lost its footing.

Yet history suggests the brand knows how to recover. In the early Eighties, Porsche faced a similar reckoning. Sales were weak, costs were high, and purists feared the end of the 911. The company survived by listening to its engineers rather than its accountants. It rediscovered its essence. That may be the lesson Zuffenhausen needs again today.

If Porsche can blend its heritage with a clearer, more measured path to electrification, it could regain its balance. The 911 remains a global icon, and the Taycan, for all its struggles, proved that electric Porsches can still thrill. What the brand needs now is consistency and patience. The next great Porsche story will not be written in spreadsheets but in steering feel, design integrity and engineering bravery.

For now, though, Porsche’s halo has dimmed. The numbers are harsh, the markets unforgiving, and the pressure immense. Yet if any marque can turn a loss into a lesson, it is the one that made imperfection an art form.

What Porsche Could Do Next?

– Refocus the product line: Build hybrids and performance models that maintain the emotional core of the brand while easing customers toward electric power.
– Control production costs: Simplify supply chains, delay unnecessary launches, and invest only in platforms that deliver profit and flexibility.
– Strengthen brand storytelling: Reignite the emotional link between car and driver through heritage design cues and motorsport engagement.
– Win back key markets: Adjust pricing and marketing strategies in the United States and China to match shifting buyer sentiment.
– Prepare for the long term: Develop a steady, sustainable EV roadmap that doesn’t gamble the company’s identity on unproven demand.

If Porsche manages to balance its heart with its head, it will emerge stronger. The figures may be grim today, but the brand’s legacy of resilience remains intact. The brand is used to the smell of victory.

CAR DESIGN: Positive and Negative Euro Supermini EV

| admin
EV Supermini Battle Renault 5 EV and Fiat 500E


There was once a time when a supermini was a matter of necessity, not indulgence. The 1970s gave us the first Renault 5 a pert little pâtisserie of pressed steel and whimsy in vivid colours, every bit as much at home dodging gendarmes in a subtitled film fantasy as it was rusting gracefully on the fringes of Calais. Fiat, of course, had its own proletarian darling, the original 500, its rear-engined, frugally upholstered buzzbox or colloquially in the Coulter household ‘fart box’ – but nonetheless a model long synonymous with post-war Italian redemption.

Fast forward five decades and we arrive at a curious juncture. Both marques, veterans of automotive egalitarianism, have chosen to reinstate their icons as electric cars (EV) the Fiat 500e appearing first, in 2021, to much fanfare and fawning from urbanites and influencers flown out to test it and now, Renault’s thoroughly modern reinterpretation of the 5 arrives, seemingly sculpted from the same nostalgia-drenched clay. But only one has truly understood the brief.

Let’s examine why, first of all heritage vs homage. Fiat’s 500e is undeniably adorable. Styled with exquisite reverence to Dante Giacosa’s original shape, it trades mightily on its cuteness and perceived Italian flair. But beneath the surface, the car is more pastiche than progression. It is a fashion statement, not a philosophical one.

Yet perhaps this misses the point entirely. Fiat’s approach wasn’t born from ignorance of mass-market electrification, but from a calculated decision to position the 500e as a premium lifestyle product. In urban environments where the 500e primarily operates, its design excellence becomes a genuine strength. The car’s visual impact is undeniable, its ability to turn heads and spark conversations in city centres is precisely what many buyers actually want. When parking space is at a premium and daily commutes rarely exceed 30 miles, the 500e’s boutique-like character transforms from apparent weakness into selling point.

The interior, whilst admittedly compact, demonstrates genuine attention to detail and material quality that feels authentically Italian. The premium feel isn’t accidental, it’s strategic. Fiat understood that electrification offered an opportunity to move upmarket, to transform the 500 from economy car to desirable urban accessory. In Chelsea or Notting Hill, this strategy makes perfect sense.

Renault, by contrast, has dug deeper. The new 5 EV does not merely mimic its predecessor, it reinterprets it. The original 5 was a clever, modular platform that underpinned everything from the humdrum TL to the tempestuous Turbo. It was pragmatic yet cheeky. The new car carries this spirit not in shape alone (though that face is exquisitely reimagined), but in function: it is a clever, resolutely French attempt at democratic electrification, not just a rolling Instagram post.

Secondly, beneath the skin let’s compare engineering. Fiat’s 500e is built upon a bespoke EV platform, dubbed “Mini BEV.” It offers a 42kWh battery, up to 199 miles of range (WLTP), realistically 148 (I owned one for two years) and a single front-mounted motor delivering 117bhp. It is whisper-quiet, beautifully finished especially as my car in top ‘La Prima’ trim, and drives with a certain Mediterranean élan but when the government subsidy dried out became expensive for what it is.

Renault’s 5 EV rides atop the all-new CMF-B EV platform, shared with the forthcoming Nissan Micra EV. It too features a 52kWh battery option (with a 40kWh entry-level variant with range almost mid to top 500e level), promising a range up to 250 miles. Even adjusting for ‘real world’ alone marks a step beyond Fiat’s offering. Moreover, the Renault tips the scales at just 1,450kg some 100kg less than the 500e, due to clever packaging and a refusal to bloat the body with frivolous weight. A gold star from this Chapman ‘add lightness’ acolyte who really struggles with EVs on the scales.

Renault have also opted for a synchronous motor with a wound rotor technically more complex but free of rare earth magnets, which makes it both greener and a subtle exercise in Gallic engineering pride.

Thirdly let’s look at matters inside. The Fiat’s cabin is charming in the same way a Dolcé & Gabbana kitchen appliance is charming. But it is tight, rear accommodation is lacking, and the boot is more gesture than utility. Materials, though pleasant to the touch, drift into lifestyle accessory territory. The 500e is less a car, more a boutique on wheels but in fairness at launch in top trim one of the closest models to evoke the spirit of (ironically) Renault’s Monaco-Baccara-Initiale car as fashion brand ideal.

The Renault 5, however, feels engineered with a more adult sense of purpose. Its cabin is roomier, more rational, yet still playfully detailed. The pixel-matrix dashboard graphics and central avatar (dubbed “Reno”, a digital Gallic shrug in anthropomorphic form) are delightfully French in their eccentricity, but not at the expense of ergonomics or comfort. Predisposed with Google Maps, Google Assistant and Google Play it’s a great leap forward in convenience and easily recognisable tech. The car’s multimedia system ‘openR link’ provides a seamless and customizable interface for all Google connected services

On to dynamics and driving. Neither car is built for Nürburgring glory, but here again Renault shows more depth. The 5 EV’s steering is light but precise, its ride supple yet controlled. It feels composed at speed in a way the 500e doesn’t quite manage. Fiat’s car, while sprightly in a scurry, lacks the damping sophistication to settle itself on rougher A and B-roads. Ride is killed by the semi-run flat seventeens with stiffer low profile sidewalls beloved of designers wanting to make a statement in a new car showroom.

That said, the 500e’s urban capability shouldn’t be underestimated. Its compact dimensions and tight turning circle make it genuinely excellent for navigating congested city streets. The instant torque delivery, whilst less sophisticated than Renault’s implementation, provides perfectly adequate performance for town work. In London traffic, the 500e’s party trick of near-silent operation combined with its striking appearance creates a surprisingly satisfying driving experience.

Renault, by contrast, understands that electric torque delivered abruptly must be tamed, not merely unleashed.

And let us not forget regenerative braking. The 5 EV offers multiple levels, with a true one-pedal drive mode, while the 500e’s regen is more brutal and unsophisticated. For the discerning driver, that matters not merely for efficiency, but for fluidity and passenger comfort.

Fiat’s 500e was, at launch, widely praised. It won a slew of accolades from EV magazines to Marie Claire and a nod in the World Urban Car of the Year awards. It is undeniably chic and competent, particularly in cities. It also played a short burst of very European classical music after the day’s first fifty metres

But Renault’s new 5 has already garnered a 2025 Car Of The Year, the Design Award at the 2024 Geneva Motor Show, and is being positioned not just as a halo car, but the spearhead of Renault’s mass-market EV strategy. Where Fiat’s car is a boutique item, Renault’s is an attempt at mobility for the many, a return to form reminiscent of the R5’s original purpose.

And, most crucially, Renault has priced the 5 EV more aggressively, £22995 for the Evolution base model, with Techno top trims just beneath the £30000 mark. Fiat’s 500e, particularly in its lauded La Prima trim, can stretch well past that. In an era where electric adoption is still handbraked by cost (and potential eye-watering depreciation), this is no small distinction.

In summary, the Fiat 500e is a fine car, as mentioned I ran one for a couple of years and really enjoyed the performance and features of what was my first foray into EV ownership. Its design excellence remains genuinely impressive, and for urban dwellers seeking a premium electric experience, it delivers precisely what was promised. But unfortunately it is not the future – it is an echo.

Renault’s new 5 EV, by contrast, is a forward-thinking machine draped in historical allusion. It is clever, dynamic, well-priced, well equipped and fundamentally imbued with the same spirit that made the original such a quietly revolutionary car.

Fiat built a retro trinket. Renault has built a car and in the process, they’ve done something far more valuable than resurrect an icon, they’ve reminded us that, done properly, the humble hatchback still matters.

Fin.

AUTOMOTIVE: Red Alert – The Chinese EV Disruptors

| admin
2025 Chinese EV Biggest Sellers in EU and UK

The numbers don’t lie: Chinese Electric Vehicles (EV) now command over a quarter of Europe’s electric vehicle market, up from virtually nothing in 2020. This isn’t just market disruption – it’s a complete rewriting of automotive rules. I investigate how European manufacturers are responding to the challenge of a lifetime, and what it means for the future of legacy manufacturers and motoring.

If someone had told you in the days of driving a Ford Cortina with a ten-day holiday in the Costas that by 2025, European roads would be bustling with fully electric cars bearing names like BYD and XPeng, you’d have assumed they’d been at the sherry. Yet here we are, witnessing one of the most dramatic shifts in automotive history. Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers haven’t just entered the European market, they’ve fundamentally altered it.

The numbers tell a remarkable story. The market share of Chinese-built EVs (including foreign brands such as Tesla) rose from 3.5% in 2020 to 27.2% of all EVs sold in the EU in the second quarter of 2024. Naturally there are country differences, but across Europe in total that’s not a gradual market entry, it’s a seismic shift that’s left traditional European manufacturers scrambling to respond.

What’s driving this transformation? It’s a combination of competitive pricing, impressive technology, and strategic timing. Chinese manufacturers have leveraged their domestic market scale to achieve manufacturing efficiencies that European competitors are struggling to match. China’s BEV market share hit 27% in 2024, far ahead of the EU (13%) and U.S. (8%).

Take BYD, now a household name in many European markets. Their vehicles consistently undercut European alternatives whilst offering sophisticated infotainment systems, advanced driver assistance features, and impressive safety ratings. The company has demonstrated that affordable doesn’t mean compromised, a lesson that’s resonating strongly with European consumers facing cost-of-living pressures.

In the EU, the new BYD Dolphin Surf is available from €22,000. Compare that to the latest Renault 5 E-Tech EV starting at €27,000 and the Peugeot e-208 at €28,000. With car finance around €30 per month per thousand borrowed, that could mean a €150 per month saving to a cost-conscious family.

The appeal extends beyond mere affordability. These vehicles often feature over-the-air updates, AI-enhanced driving systems, and battery technology that delivers competitive range figures. Chinese manufacturers have essentially leapfrogged traditional automotive development cycles. They’ve moved straight to the latest technologies without the burden of legacy systems.

To meet production the Chinese brands are scrambling to sign up franchisees across the continent to meet sales and after-sales demand. BYD alone is seeking 1,000 service facilities across EU markets this year. Chinese cars adopt the familiar CCS2 charging standard, enabling easy charging at third-party facilities between 65kW and 85kW – not ground breaking but offering acceptable charge times. Manufacturer warranty at six years/150,000km for the car and eight years/200,000km for the battery makes the cars competitive on peace of mind.

European manufacturers haven’t been sitting idle. Stellantis, Renault-Nissan and Volkswagen, along with prestige German brands, are all accelerating their electrification programmes. They’re investing heavily in battery technology and manufacturing capabilities. However, they’re operating from a different starting point, retrofitting existing business models rather than building from scratch around electric-first principles.

The structural advantages Chinese manufacturers possess run deep. They benefit from integrated supply chains, significant government support for the EV transition, and a domestic market that provides both scale and testing ground for new technologies. European manufacturers are now having to navigate this new ultra-competitive landscape whilst simultaneously managing the transition away from internal combustion engines – still in real demand from a population weighing up the EV pros and cons in a media landscape that is fairly hostile to EV in general. Luddite is too strong a word, but the ICE demand is strong due to a Western pro-carbon fuel sentiment and the convenience of familiarity, legacy infrastructure and no range anxiety.

In Europe, BEVs are expected to account for 16.8% of total light vehicle sales this year (compared to 14.1% in 2024). This growth is driven by policy pressure and localised battery production. It’s occurring against a backdrop of intensifying competition that’s forcing down prices and tightening margins across the industry.

The European Union’s response has been swift and decisive. The EU has imposed tariffs ranging from 7.8% for Tesla to 35.3% for SAIC, on top of the standard 10% car import duty. These measures, implemented in October 2024, represent the EU’s largest trade case to date and signal genuine concern about market distortion.

The tariffs are specifically designed to address what the European Commission views as unfair subsidies provided by the Chinese government to domestic manufacturers. However, early evidence suggests these measures may have limited impact. BYD managed to outperform Tesla in European EV sales despite facing higher tariffs, indicating that the competitive advantages run deeper than just pricing.

There’s also ongoing discussion about replacing tariffs with minimum price agreements. These would establish floor prices for Chinese EVs whilst allowing market competition to continue. This approach might prove more effective than blanket tariffs, though negotiations remain complex.

The current situation represents more than just increased competition, it’s a fundamental reshaping of the automotive industry. Chinese brands were responsible for 62% of EV global sales in 2024, demonstrating their dominance extends far beyond Europe.

For European consumers, this shift has brought tangible benefits: more choice, better value, and accelerated adoption of electric vehicle technology. The increased competition is also spurring innovation among traditional manufacturers, ultimately benefiting the entire market.

The industrial implications are significant. European manufacturers are being forced to reconsider their entire approach to vehicle development, manufacturing, and market positioning. Some are forming partnerships with Chinese companies, others are investing heavily in their own capabilities, and all are grappling with the new competitive reality.

This transformation isn’t slowing down. Chinese manufacturers continue to expand their European presence, with many establishing local manufacturing facilities and service networks. They’re also diversifying their offerings, moving beyond basic models to premium segments that directly challenge European luxury brands.

The success of Chinese EVs in Europe reflects broader changes in global automotive manufacturing. It’s a story of how quickly established market positions can shift when new technologies create opportunities for disruption. European manufacturers, once confident in their engineering prowess and brand heritage, are discovering that in the electric age, different rules apply.

Of course, with anything China there’s a darker undertone to all this. Some of the continental boffins are fretting about data privacy. Chinese firms are obliged to share data with state security if asked, and that has set off alarm bells in Brussels and beyond. Imagine your car knowing not just where you’ve been but who you’ve been with, and that information possibly ending up in a CCP filing cabinet. Orwell, anyone?

Some defence ministries have already banned the use of Chinese EVs on or near sensitive infrastructure. One assumes that if your Tesla can dance, your BYD might be able to whistleblow.

Ultimately what we’re witnessing isn’t just a market shift, it’s a case study in industrial transformation. The question now isn’t whether Chinese EVs will continue to gain market share in Europe, but how European manufacturers will adapt to this new reality. The answers will shape the automotive industry for decades to come.

The electric revolution has arrived, and it’s powered by competition that’s forcing everyone to raise their game. For consumers, that’s undoubtedly good news. For the traditional European automotive establishment, it’s the challenge of a lifetime.

 

AUTOMOTIVE: Tesla In Reverse

| admin

Tesla faces its gravest crisis yet with plummeting sales, legal battles, and brand toxicity. Can Musk’s desperate sales intervention save the company he built?

Tesla Sales Slump. A Company In Reverse.
The numbers tell a brutal story. Tesla’s second-quarter deliveries plummeted 13.5% year-on-year to just 384,000 vehicles, whilst European sales collapsed by as much as 45% in early 2025. Even in Tesla’s stronghold markets of China and the United States, rivals including BYD, Volkswagen, and Hyundai are systematically dismantling the company’s once-impregnable market position.

What began as isolated competitive pressure has metastasised into an existential crisis encompassing product stagnation, mounting legal challenges, and a brand toxicity that would have been unthinkable just two years ago. Elon Musk’s response – personally commandeering Tesla’s sales operations from the company’s headquarters – represents either inspired leadership or desperate theatre. The evidence suggests the latter.

Tesla’s troubles extend far beyond routine quarterly fluctuations. Industry analysts point to a fundamental product problem: the company has launched no genuinely new mainstream models since the divisive Cybertruck, leaving its core range looking increasingly antiquated. The Model S and Model X, now approaching their second decade, lack the technological edge that once justified premium pricing, whilst even the refreshed Model 3 and Model Y variants have failed to generate meaningful market excitement.

Manufacturing bottlenecks from Model Y production transitions have exacerbated inventory buildups, creating the paradox of falling sales alongside unsold stock. “Tesla is caught between worlds,” explains one former executive who departed the company last year. “They’re trying to maintain premium positioning whilst competing on volume, and it’s not working.”

The human cost of these missteps extends beyond shareholders. Recent months have witnessed an exodus of senior talent, including the head of North American sales and key battery engineering leaders, suggesting internal recognition that current strategies are failing.

Perhaps more damaging than operational setbacks is Tesla’s reputational crisis. Musk’s increasingly vocal political alignment, particularly his association with Donald Trump, has triggered what industry observers term a “consumer revolt” in traditionally progressive markets where Tesla once dominated.

The “Tesla Takedown” movement, documented across social media platforms, encompasses everything from organised boycotts to physical vandalism of vehicles. Resale values have declined accordingly, with specialist automotive data firms recording measurable drops in Tesla’s brand perception scores throughout 2025.

“We’re seeing something unprecedented,” notes Professor Sarah Davidson, who studies automotive consumer behaviour at Warwick Business School. “Political polarisation is directly impacting purchase decisions in ways we’ve never measured before. Tesla owners are reporting embarrassment about their vehicles.”

Tesla’s troubles extend into America’s courtrooms, where multiple high-stakes cases threaten both immediate operations and long-term viability. California’s Department of Motor Vehicles is pursuing a 30-day sales ban over allegedly misleading advertising of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving capabilities, a move that would devastate Tesla’s largest single market.

Simultaneously, a wrongful death trial in Miami centres on Autopilot’s role in a fatal 2019 crash, with potential punitive damages that could establish precedents for autonomous vehicle liability. Legal experts suggest the outcome could fundamentally reshape how self-driving technologies are marketed and deployed. Tesla’s very own Trolley Car Problem.

Beyond these headline cases, Tesla faces a growing constellation of “phantom braking” complaints, quality control lawsuits, and antitrust challenges to its repair monopoly. Each represents not merely financial exposure but further erosion of consumer confidence in Tesla’s core technologies.

Central to Tesla’s current predicament is a business model that once represented revolutionary thinking but now appears increasingly anachronistic. The company’s rejection of traditional franchise dealerships delivered early advantages in pricing control and customer experience, yet state-level dealership protection laws have created a patchwork of legal restrictions that limit Tesla’s expansion opportunities.

More problematically, Tesla’s insistence on controlling all aspects of vehicle servicing has created what consumer advocates term a “repair monopoly.” Owners face extended delays, higher costs, and limited alternatives when vehicles require maintenance, issues that traditional franchise networks handle through distributed infrastructure and competitive pricing.

“The direct-to-consumer model worked brilliantly when Tesla was a premium niche player with devoted customers,” observes automotive retail consultant James Morrison. “But mass-market consumers expect convenience and choice that Tesla’s current structure simply cannot deliver at scale.”

Industry data supports this assessment. Whilst traditional manufacturers leverage dealer networks to manage demand fluctuations and regional variations, Tesla must shoulder these burdens independently. The resulting bottlenecks in service capacity and inventory management become particularly acute during periods of market stress.

Reports from Tesla’s Fremont headquarters suggest Musk has resumed the hands-on approach that characterised the company’s early years, reportedly employing Musk’ peculiar trademark of sleeping at the facility whilst personally directing sales strategy. The company has rolled out aggressive incentive programmes including discounted financing, complimentary software trials, and targeted offers for military veterans and educators.

These measures represent classic demand stimulation tactics, designed to shore up quarterly numbers ahead of Tesla’s earnings announcement. However, automotive industry veterans express scepticism about their long-term effectiveness.

“Incentives are a sugar rush,” explains former General Motors executive Patricia Williams, now an independent consultant. “They can mask underlying problems temporarily, but they don’t address fundamental issues of product competitiveness or brand perception. Tesla’s challenges are structural, not tactical.”

Stock market analysts echo this assessment, noting that Tesla’s current crisis encompasses precisely the factors that discount-driven sales campaigns cannot address: ageing product lines, manufacturing inefficiencies, legal liabilities, and consumer sentiment.

Tesla’s recovery requires acknowledgement that its original advantages have largely evaporated. The company’s technological lead has narrowed considerably, with competitors matching or exceeding Tesla’s capabilities in areas from battery range to autonomous features. Meanwhile, manufacturing cost advantages have disappeared as established automakers achieve economies of scale in electric vehicle production.

Perhaps most critically, Tesla must confront the limitations of its direct-to-consumer model. Industry experts suggest hybrid approaches, incorporating elements of traditional franchise or agency partnerships, could address current bottlenecks whilst maintaining some operational control.

“Tesla needs to swallow its pride about the dealership model,” argues automotive strategist David Chen. “The best aspects of direct-to-consumer can be preserved whilst addressing the very real scalability and service issues that are alienating customers.”

Similarly, product renewal cannot wait for revolutionary technologies. Tesla requires incremental but meaningful updates to its existing range, coupled with genuinely new models that recapture market imagination.

Where is the Tesla equivalent ‘Dolphin Surf’ or WuLing Baojun’s funky “Yue Ye” a Suzuki Jimny impersonator, on price and desirability?

Tesla’s current predicament represents more than routine corporate turbulence. The company faces simultaneous challenges across every aspect of its operations, from product development to legal compliance to consumer perception. Musk’s personal intervention in sales operations, whilst symbolically significant, addresses none of these fundamental issues.

The electric vehicle market Tesla created has matured beyond recognition, populated by government funded capable competitors offering consumers genuine alternatives. Tesla’s survival depends not on charismatic leadership or promotional campaigns, but on systematic operational reform that acknowledges this new reality.

Whether Musk and his leadership team possess the humility to undertake such reform remains the critical question facing Tesla shareholders, employees, and customers. The company’s next chapter will be written not in boardrooms or Twitter feeds, but in the quotidian work of building better products and serving customers more effectively than increasingly capable rivals.

The Tesla revolution may be ending. What comes next depends entirely on the company’s willingness to evolve beyond the mythology that created it.

AUTOMOTIVE: China Crisis?

| admin

China’s electric vehicle sector has emerged as one of the most significant industrial transformations of our time, fundamentally reshaping global automotive markets through strategic state investment and genuine technological innovation. From Manchester offices to Berlin showrooms, Chinese EVs are capturing consumer attention with competitive pricing and advanced features, whilst raising important questions about trade fairness, data security, and technological sovereignty. This comprehensive analysis examines how coordinated industrial policy, supply chain integration, and genuine market innovation have enabled Chinese manufacturers like BYD and NIO to challenge established Western competitors, exploring both the legitimate security concerns and economic opportunities presented by this automotive revolution.

The rise of Chinese EV Around The World Security Threat

A sleek electric vehicle charges quietly outside a Manchester office block. In Berlin, a young professional considers a Chinese-made EV for half the price of its German equivalent. Across Southeast Asia, affordable electric cars are transforming urban transport. These scenes reflect one of the most significant industrial shifts of our time, driven by China’s remarkable rise in the electric vehicle sector.

This transformation raises important questions about trade, technology, and national security that deserve careful examination beyond the headlines about trade wars and technological threats.

China’s dominance in electric vehicles did not emerge by accident. Following decades of playing catch-up in traditional automotive manufacturing, Beijing identified electric mobility as an opportunity to leapfrog established competitors. The timing was astute: Western manufacturers were still heavily invested in combustion engine technology, creating space for new entrants.

Between 2009 and 2023, the Chinese government invested approximately $230 billion in subsidies across the EV supply chain, from battery research to charging infrastructure. This approach enabled companies like BYD, NIO, and CATL to achieve scale and vertical integration that would have taken decades through market forces alone.

However, this state support, whilst substantial, occurred alongside similar programmes in other nations. The United States has committed over $100 billion through the Inflation Reduction Act, whilst the European Union has allocated €3 billion specifically for battery manufacturing. The difference lies not in the presence of state support, but in its coordination and timing.

China’s approach also reflected genuine domestic priorities. With 70% of oil imports traversing potentially contested sea lanes, electric vehicles offered a path towards energy security that aligned with both economic and strategic interests. This convergence of commercial and security considerations helped sustain long-term investment even when short-term returns remained uncertain.

Chinese EVs succeed internationally because they offer genuine value to consumers. Modern Chinese electric vehicles combine competitive pricing with advanced features, often incorporating software capabilities that rival Silicon Valley products. The price advantage, typically 30-50% below Western equivalents, reflects not just subsidies but also manufacturing efficiencies and supply chain integration.

European consumers increasingly choose Chinese EVs based on practical considerations: lower purchase prices, competitive range, and modern infotainment systems. This market response suggests that Chinese success stems from meeting consumer needs, not merely undercutting competitors through state support.

Yet this consumer appeal operates within a broader industrial context. Chinese manufacturers benefit from controlling much of the battery supply chain, from lithium processing to cell production. This vertical integration creates cost advantages that would be difficult to replicate quickly, regardless of subsidy levels.

The data collection capabilities of modern electric vehicles do raise genuine privacy and security concerns. Contemporary EVs function as mobile data centres, gathering information about location patterns, driving habits, and even conversations through voice assistants. Under China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, domestic companies must cooperate with intelligence gathering when requested.

These concerns apply broadly to connected vehicles regardless of origin. Tesla vehicles collect extensive data, as do European manufacturers increasingly reliant on Chinese components. The issue is not unique to Chinese brands, but rather reflects the broader challenge of data governance in an interconnected automotive sector.

Security analysts have identified potential vulnerabilities in vehicle connectivity systems that could theoretically enable remote interference. However, documented cases of such interference remain limited, and automotive cybersecurity standards are evolving to address these risks across all manufacturers.

The more immediate concern may be economic rather than directly security-related. As Chinese companies gain market share, they increasingly influence technical standards for charging protocols, battery interfaces, and vehicle software. This standardisation power could create long-term dependencies that extend beyond individual purchase decisions.

The rapid expansion of Chinese EV exports has created significant pressure on established automotive manufacturers. In 2023, Chinese firms exported 1.5 million electric vehicles, compared to fewer than 200,000 three years earlier. This growth has coincided with mounting challenges for European manufacturers, from Volkswagen’s plant closures to Ford’s restructuring plans.

However, attributing these difficulties solely to Chinese competition oversimplifies complex market dynamics. European manufacturers also face regulatory pressure to accelerate electrification, supply chain disruptions, and changing consumer preferences that favour software-defined vehicles over traditional automotive engineering.

Some European companies are adapting by forming partnerships with Chinese firms or sourcing Chinese components whilst maintaining design and assembly operations in Europe. This approach suggests that the relationship need not be purely adversarial, though it requires careful management of technological dependencies.

Western governments are implementing various measures to address the challenges posed by Chinese EV expansion. The United States has imposed tariffs exceeding 100% on Chinese electric vehicles and restricted federal subsidies for vehicles containing Chinese components. The European Union has launched anti-subsidy investigations and is considering additional trade measures.

These responses reflect legitimate concerns about fair competition and technological dependency. However, they also risk delaying the transition to electric mobility and increasing costs for consumers. The challenge lies in balancing security considerations with the benefits of technological competition and innovation.

More constructive approaches might focus on strengthening domestic capabilities whilst maintaining open markets. This could include accelerating investment in European and American battery manufacturing, developing robust cybersecurity standards for all connected vehicles, and creating reciprocal market access agreements that ensure fair competition.

China’s success in electric vehicles occurs within a larger context of technological competition between major powers. Similar dynamics are visible in renewable energy, semiconductors, and artificial intelligence. The question is not whether such competition will occur, but how it can be managed constructively.

The electric vehicle sector demonstrates both the benefits and risks of economic interdependence. Chinese innovation has accelerated global EV adoption and reduced costs for consumers worldwide. Simultaneously, the concentration of production capabilities raises questions about supply chain resilience and technological sovereignty.

China’s rise in the electric vehicle sector represents a significant shift in global industrial capabilities that reflects both strategic planning and genuine technological achievement. Whilst legitimate concerns exist about data security and market dependencies, addressing these challenges requires nuanced policies that distinguish between different types of risks.

The success of Chinese EVs demonstrates the effectiveness of coordinated industrial policy combined with genuine innovation. Rather than simply restricting market access, Western nations might focus on strengthening their own capabilities whilst developing frameworks for managing technological interdependence constructively.

The electric vehicle revolution will continue regardless of trade disputes or security concerns. The question is whether this transformation can occur in ways that benefit consumers whilst addressing legitimate national security considerations. This balance requires sophisticated policy responses that move beyond simple narratives of technological conflict towards more constructive approaches to managing global industrial competition.

The Chinese EV challenge is real, but it is also an opportunity to develop better frameworks for technological cooperation and competition in an interconnected world. How we respond will shape not just the automotive sector, but the broader relationship between economic integration and national security in the twenty-first century.

AUTOMOTIVE: Enter The Dragon

| admin

China’s EV brands are conquering the UK market faster than Japan did in the 1970s. How BYD, MG, and others are reshaping British motoring through technology, pricing, and perfect timing.

Chinese EV Surge In U.K.

How China’s U.K. EV Assault Surpasses Japan’s Seventies Invasion.

There’s a familiar tremor running through the British motor trade. A certain déjà vu. The showroom floors, now electrified with pixel-heavy infotainment and suede-trimmed crossovers bearing names like BYD, Omoda and Jaecoo, are humming not just with battery current – but with history. We’ve seen this play out before. Back in the oil-slicked, strike-riddled 1970s, when Japanese badges like Datsun and Toyota crept into British driveways while the unions down at Cowley and Longbridge were still arguing over tea breaks.

But here’s the kicker: this isn’t just a rerun with better batteries. It’s something bigger, bolder, and infinitely faster.

Let’s rewind to the early 1960s. Britain was still clinging to its imperial swagger, and its car industry was a global heavyweight. We were second only to the Americans in output, churning out Cortinas, Minxes and Victors at a blistering pace. But beneath the bonnet lay a wheezing, smoke-belching machine that hadn’t seen a proper rebuild in decades. Chronic underinvestment, fractious management, and mass walkouts meant the rot was deep-set long before anyone uttered the word “Datsun”.

By the close of that decade, Japan had quietly overtaken us, not with muscle cars or motoring romance, but with small, efficient, no-nonsense machines that started every morning and didn’t eat their own gearboxes. British Leyland, our great white hope, was a bureaucratic Frankenstein built to paper over the cracks. The Japanese, meanwhile, had mastered kaizen, built factories that ran like Swiss watches, and tapped into a global shift toward smaller, thriftier motoring just in time for the 1973 oil crisis.

Now? Britain’s car industry still exists, but mostly as an assembly annex for global players; Jaguar Land Rover (Indian-owned), Mini (German), Nissan (Japanese). There’s no national champion, no coherent industrial policy, and certainly no answer to what’s happening in 2025.

If the Japanese invasion of the Seventies was a creeping tide, China’s EV offensive is a tsunami and it’s already at the top of the high street.

Brands like BYD aren’t interested in mimicking Europe. They’re not building cut-price Golfs or knock-off 3 Series. They’re building next-generation tech ecosystems, cars integrated with their own batteries, software, semiconductors and AI platforms. Vertical integration gives them control over cost, quality, and pace that would’ve made Soichiro Honda weep with envy.

MG, once the darling of leafy Home Counties motoring is now a Chinese spearhead, its ZS EV undercutting legacy rivals by thousands while offering more kit, more range and fewer reasons to say no. Omoda and Jaecoo, still unfamiliar to British tongues, are bringing cars that wouldn’t look out of place in a Mercedes showroom but cost the same as a base Focus.

Unlike the Japanese back in the day, these newcomers don’t need to earn trust through decades of reliability reports and mechanically sound mediocrity. They’ve entered a market that wants disruption. Today’s car buyer shops online, trusts tech reviews more than showroom patter, and is more concerned with charging speed and infotainment updates than whether the badge has a Le Mans win.

The Seventies were no picnic; oil shocks, inflation, a government more concerned with surviving until Thursday than with industrial strategy. But crucially, consumers shifted toward Japanese imports because of price and economy. The Datsun 120Y, the darling of driving school cars, wasn’t just cheaper, it went further on a gallon, didn’t need fettling every weekend, and looked vaguely modern compared to a Maxi.

Today, the driver isn’t petrol prices, it’s policy. The UK’s net-zero mandate has lit a fire under EV adoption, and with the 2030 ICE ban looming, demand is being turbocharged not by market whim, but by regulation.

The Chinese have timed it to perfection. While European and Japanese marques scramble to electrify ICE platforms and untangle semiconductor bottlenecks, Chinese firms are shipping fully electric, ground-up platforms by the boatload. And they’re doing it without the millstone of legacy dealerships or brand baggage.

The UK, still licking its post-Brexit wounds, has kept tariffs off the table. Although just this week has excluded Chinese EV from the £3750 EV Subsidy redux. Unlike the EU, which has slapped Chinese EVs with duties up to 45% and minimum pricing, Britain remains wide open. The logic? Lower prices accelerate EV adoption. There’s no domestic champion to shield, and Downing Street would rather see a car plant in Swindon even if it flies a red star than an empty field.

In the Seventies, faced with growing Japanese dominance, the UK government tried the polite approach: voluntary export restraints, 20% tariffs, and veiled threats in Hansard. It didn’t work and by the time ministers finished their brandy, Nissan was already laying foundations in Sunderland.

This time, we’re not even pretending to resist. Open markets, loose regulation, and generous tax incentives make the UK a Chinese dream. While Brussels rattles sabres, Whitehall rolls out the red carpet.

Strategically, it’s a gamble. We’re hoping that in return for market access, Chinese brands will localise production, build battery plants, and create jobs. It’s industrial policy by osmosis. If it works, we’ll get investment without picking winners. If it doesn’t, we’ll be left with a forecourt full of imports and no local stake in the future of motoring.

Let’s put it in context. Japanese brands took a decade to crack the UK market. Chinese brands have done it in less than five years. BYD sells more EVs than Volkswagen globally. Their battery division, CATL, probably supplies half the industry. This isn’t incremental progress it’s industrial domination.

Technologically, the difference is night and day. Japan gave us better-built Escorts. China is giving us cars that update over-the-air, offer Level 2 autonomy, and come with smartphone apps that track your tyre pressure from Tenerife, they’re also safe with the top 5 Star NCAP safety rating. The EV isn’t just a new drivetrain – it’s a software platform, and China with 1.5 Billion inhabitants to test new tech on is miles ahead on that front. They can launch in foreign markets with proven new tech.

British car buyers in the 1970s were brand-loyal, suspicious of imports, and only changed their tune after being burned too many times by dodgy electricals and engines that were engineered to throw con-rods for fun at sixty five thousand miles (cough Ford). Today’s buyers are patently open to new brands and don’t care where a car is built – they care if it syncs with Spotify and charges in under 30 minutes.

Younger buyers, the key demographic for EVs, have no nostalgic attachment to Ford or Vauxhall. They trust influencers more than dealers. They’re digital natives in a world where Tesla has already redefined what a car can be and how it’s sold. Chinese brands, with their TikTok-savvy launches and online sales funnels, get this. The legacy players mostly don’t.

Will Chinese EVs kill off what remains of the British car industry? Unlikely, it’s already on life support. But they will dictate the pace, the technology, and the price point of Britain’s motoring future. That, more than anything, is the lesson we should have learned in the Seventies.

Then, we tried to shield British brands behind tariffs and pride. Now, we’ve flung the gates open and invited the dragon to dinner.

POSTSCRIPT:

In the Eighties, the Japanese built factories here. They hired local. They became part of the landscape. The Chinese? That’s still up in the air. The smart money says we’ll see BYD or Chery setting up UK operations soon – if not for patriotism, then for EU access via a tariff-free back door.

And when they do, remember this: we weren’t conquered. We just let them in. Smiling, silent, and WiFi-enabled – and that, is another story.