This was posted 8 months 28 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Up to $5,900 off BYD Dolphin Premium, Seal Range, Atto 3 Premium & Sealion 6 Dynamic + On-Road Costs @ BYD Automotive

5610
Up to $5,900 off BYD Dolphin Premium, Seal Range, Atto 3 Premium & Sealion 6 Dynamic + On-Road Costs @ BYD Automotive
Go to Deal
11112007 on 13/01/2025 - 18:51 bydautomotive.com.au (10196 clicks)
Last edited 13/01/2025 - 20:51 by 1 other user

Continuing on from this deal: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/888203

Let the price war continue!

BYD have now announced further price reductions across the full range of vehicles for 2025.

Model 2024 Price 2025 Price Difference
Atto 3 Essential Not available $39,990
Atto 3 Standard $44,990 Not available
Atto 3 Premium $47,499 $44,990 -$2509
Dolphin Essential Not available $29,990
Dolphin Dynamic $36,890 Not available
Dolphin Premium $42,890 $36,990 -$5900
Seal Dynamic $49,888 $46,990 -$2898
Seal Premium $55,798 $52,990 -$2808
Seal Performance $65,748 $61,990 -$3758
Sealion 6 Dynamic $48,990 $45,990 -$3000
Sealion 6 Premium $52,990 $52,990
Shark 6 Premium $57,900 $57,900

https://www.carsauce.com/car-news/byd-announces-new-discount…

Automotive BYD Auto Car Electric Vehicle

Related Stores

BYD Automotive
BYD Automotive

closed Comments

        • E5TOQUE on 13/01/2025 - 21:39
          +3

          MG have done a few things you are completely disregarding.

          1. They are a 100% factory backed operation in Australia. Not a 3rd party importer.

          2. MG have pushed their warranty out to 10 years across all their cars.

          3. They have invested heavily in a growing dealer and service network. With over 87 dealers and growing.

          4. They are launching 8 new cars in Australia in 2025 alone.

          XPeng has only just launched.
          - No real proper dealer network
          - No real proper servicing network
          - No factory backed operation. It's a 3rd party importer, but not even a known one with any past experience to go from. If you check the people that work there, alot of them worked in finance. Have very little experience in the automotive space.
          - Launched their big seller G6 mid size SUV and it doesn't even work on the Tesla Super Charger network.
          - No indication on how they are managing spare parts availability. Etc

          They have alot of potential.
          But right here, right now, today in January 2025.
          I personally wouldn't be investing my hard earned money in the brand and the 3rd party importer until they prove themselves a little longer.

          BYD Sealion 7 launches next month
          Refreshed Model Y shortly after that
          MG has like 3 EV SUV's arriving this year.
          All from established players.

          It will be interesting to see how the brand goes. I hope it goes well.

          • nightelves on 13/01/2025 - 22:32

            @E5TOQUE: Will BYD be launching the U9?

          • serpserpserp on 13/01/2025 - 23:11
            +1

            @E5TOQUE:

            MG have pushed their warranty out to 10 years

            So has XPeng if you buy this month. Who is to say that won't continue

            No factory backed operation. It's a 3rd party importer

            I get your point, but when you have 1 car to sell, this makes business sense. Once they get some traction and more models, it makes sense to go directly into the market at a later stage.

            Super Charger Network

            This is getting fixed apparently. Not all cars work with the Tesla Super Charger Network.

            No indication on how they are managing spare parts availability. Etc

            When it is one car model and you are just starting out, you don't ship 100,000 parts to sit in a warehouse and pay money on storage. You run a just in time model which is what any car manufacture would do in this situation.

            until they prove themselves a little longer

            Sure, that is your preference. But it is a little chicken and the egg situation here. If everyone waits for them to prove themselves, no one buys the car, they pull out of the market.

          • Buddy195 on 15/01/2025 - 01:07

            @E5TOQUE: What are the 3 SUV’s? I’m only away of ES5!

            • E5TOQUE on 15/01/2025 - 04:58

              @Buddy195:

              • MG ES5 (compact)
              • MG Marvel R (mid size) (final name not confirmed)
              • MG LS6 (large/luxury) (final name.not confirmed)

              All 3 of these cars have/are being tested in Australia before they launch.

      • bajillionaire on 14/01/2025 - 01:46

        If Li Auto ever bring their extended range EVs down here I reckon they would do very well.

    • Berry2 on 13/01/2025 - 21:54
      +3

      The BYD Xia in China launched with about the same price as the Seal (slightly higher I think) definitely looking forward to this one being the MPV competitor we sorely miss in AUS.

  • littlesoldier on 13/01/2025 - 19:23

    Did a chat with BYD last month, current Atto 3 premium on sale seems to be MY24, the MY25 won’t be available until mid year, not sure if that’s true?

    • shxhshzhz on 13/01/2025 - 19:29
      -6

      Yes, all that is needed nowadays is a cheap price to lure people in. Will be interesting to see what these cars are like after 10+ years.

      • Zizkov on 13/01/2025 - 19:34
        +12

        Toyota are yet to make a competitive EV. BYD make more cars than Telsa.

    • doptimal on 13/01/2025 - 19:30
      -6

      price dumping

      • Eeples on 13/01/2025 - 21:07
        +5

        Isn't that a good thing?

        Is it really hurting Australia's local EV manufacturers?

      • CheapBrah on 13/01/2025 - 19:38

        It's wild that anyone thinks buying a Chinese brand gives them the moral high ground. Unlike a western company building EVs in China, these Chinese brands don't care about ethical supply chains and will likely not have a problem with, for example, using aluminium built by Uyghur slaves in Xianjing.

        Buy it because it's cheap if you want to, but there is no moral high ground.

      • azm on 13/01/2025 - 21:11
        -2

        I guess those who talk about moral high ground but forgot about ethics.

      • sm3004 on 14/01/2025 - 10:10
        +1

        You do know that Australian Teslas are also made in China, right?

      • Randolph Duke on 14/01/2025 - 11:59

        Aren’t Australian delivered Tesla’s also built in China?

    • Creamsoda on 13/01/2025 - 19:36
      +11

      It sold well because people who do the research knows BYD is a top EV maker and one of the best battery manufacturers in the world. Not to mention Eagers Automotive which is responsible with distribution in Australia has been around for a very long time. There is pedigree and experience behind the BYD Australia team.

        • Creamsoda on 13/01/2025 - 20:00
          +4

          Hi BYD bot

          which part of my statement is false?

            • Creamsoda on 13/01/2025 - 20:13
              +4

              @Brick Tamland: If i were a BYD bot i would of said "BYD is global #1 in new energy vehicles sales, partnering with largest and oldest car dealership business Eagers in Australia consumers can't go wrong"

      • Zizkov on 13/01/2025 - 19:40
        +12

        BYD supply batteries for Telsa, produce more cars than Telsa, and have been making cars since before Telsa. If that doesn't convince these people away from Chinese fear I don't know what will.

        Its not just cheap, its market leading.

          • Zizkov on 13/01/2025 - 19:48
            +6

            @EitherWayUp: I agree with that. Seems to be a weak point of criticism though in comparison to the strengths ive just highlighted..

          • twig on 13/01/2025 - 20:38
            +5

            @EitherWayUp:

            • Sent from my Fruit
        • timthetoolman on 13/01/2025 - 19:58

          Is Telsa a new Chinese EV brand?

        • E5TOQUE on 13/01/2025 - 20:20
          +5

          Forgot to add that Toyota is getting them to help make EV's for them too.

          Toyota have also asked to use BYD's PHEV tech in their cars too.

          Must be pretty decent if Toyota of all brands is happy to borrow the tech and stick their badge on them.

        • Corgsta on 14/01/2025 - 08:51

          You spelled Tesla wrong 3 times but I’m noticing others do as well. Is this a Chinese language joke?

      • OzViper on 13/01/2025 - 19:58
        +3

        Eagers are just involved to fleece you with servicing after you bought the cheap upfront car. Doesn't bring much legitimacy to the table..

        • Creamsoda on 13/01/2025 - 20:05

          What ever they do they've been involved with the Australian Automotive industry for a 100yrs and one of the largest in Australia. What legitimacy do you want?

          • CocaKoala on 13/01/2025 - 21:55
            +1

            @Creamsoda:

            What ever they do

            Yeah, nah. That part is actually important.

    • Brick Tamland on 13/01/2025 - 19:36
      +1

      Make it cheap and people will buy anything.

    • cumova on 13/01/2025 - 19:40
      +7

      Hyundai excel always comes to mind..

    • lafriel on 13/01/2025 - 19:42
      +7

      unproven chinese vehicles with little to no history on service and support

      Yes, BYD is only the most popular EV brand sold in China, and is one of the top EV battery manufacturers in the world. But sure, unproven Chinese vehicle.

      • 11112007 on 13/01/2025 - 19:47

        BYD sold 3.7 million units in the domestic chinese market last year! Insane!

    • FXx on 13/01/2025 - 19:44
      +1

      True. Though EVs are rather simple things compared with a typical ICE vehicle. There really is less to go wrong.

      • Corgsta on 14/01/2025 - 08:53
        -1

        Doubt it from how I see software being written these days. And these things run lots of software.

        • Ryanek on 19/01/2025 - 17:07

          And how is software being written these days?

    • littlesoldier on 13/01/2025 - 19:45
      +5

      BYD starts making EV since 2005, even before Tesla (2008), and they are currently the biggest EV + PHEV car manufacturer in the world, so while they are quite new in Australia, they have a good history in making cars and servicing

      On the other hand, there are many other new Chinese EV brands coming to Australia this year, and supports can be an issue if some of these brands collapse in few years time

      • Corgsta on 14/01/2025 - 09:00

        Wrong. They were both roughly the same time. According to Wikipedia, BYD’s first EV, the e6, was launched (started selling) in 2009, and Tesla started selling its first EV, the Roadster in 2009. BYD were making ICE cars prior to getting into the EV/PHEV market.

        • Gdsamp on 14/01/2025 - 14:12

          BYD has been a battery manufacturer since 1995

    • Anonymous User 2780 on 13/01/2025 - 20:27
      +6

      And there was people buying holdens which was proven to be shit boxes.

    • serpserpserp on 13/01/2025 - 21:11

      That is how it works with any brand. They sell their cars cheaper so people buy them. It has been happening for 50 years. Times haven't changed at all.

    • Corgsta on 14/01/2025 - 08:40
      -1

      Fully agree. But this is an echo chamber. Go out and talk to a sample of the general public and the eagerness and delusion is just not there like it is here. I mean your comment was downvoted heaps, proving this.

      Let them buy these vehicles, I’ll stick with my Subaru and Holden for a while until the dust settles.

  • salin on 13/01/2025 - 19:29
    +1

    Where is BYD Yangwang U8 and U9

    • JakeyJooJoo on 13/01/2025 - 21:47
      +1

      The Yangwang U8 is expected to arrive by the end of 2025. No decision on the U9 yet that's been public at least

      • nightelves on 13/01/2025 - 22:36

        Isn’t the Yangwang like $250k there abouts?

        • salin on 14/01/2025 - 18:08

          I think its 210Kish in China

      • Duff5000 on 23/01/2025 - 17:08

        I hadnt heard of the 'Yangwang' so i googled it……

        "….four electric motors that have claimed combined outputs of 880kW/1280Nm."

        wtf?

        • klaw81 on 24/01/2025 - 15:05

          EVs are relatively easy to make super powerful.

          A base model Tesla Model 3 has 220kW, and the MG4 XPower (a small $60k hatchback) is an AWD 320kW beast. Only a few years ago, Holden were boasting about those kind of figures from their top-end HSV models.

          The Rimac Nevera R, a $2.2m EV supercar, has an output of 1571kW, does 0-300km/h in 8.66 seconds, and absolutely crushes the quad-turbo 16-cylinder Bugatti Chiron SuperSport over a standing mile.

          The numbers are crazy, and Chinese manufacturers are absolutely pushing the limits with their flagship road cars.

    • hypnOtixx on 13/01/2025 - 20:18
      +11

      We should send you to China :)

    • Anonymous User 2780 on 13/01/2025 - 20:29
      +13

      Without Chinese products, everything in Australia would be much more expensive. You’re obviously not very educated

      • Grok on 13/01/2025 - 22:19
        +1

        Without China buy our dirt we would be a much much poorer country.

        We not called the lucky country for nothing.

        • lafriel on 13/01/2025 - 23:35
          +1

          I agree, but also, I would like to see China (or any other country) NOT buy our resources so we're forced to at least have some innovation in this country.

          I would love for us to be a country more than just "I dig rock, I sell rock" because that's not sustainable for our growth - we let corporations dig up all of our resources for peanuts, and what are we left with when it's all gone?

          • Grok on 14/01/2025 - 08:26
            -1

            @lafriel: It’s called the resource curse.

            We are in the same boat as other resource countries, yes that includes Saudi Arabia.

            We are not really good at anything except literally digging up dirt and shipping it. And that wealth is being constantly squandered on social programs.

            How many times do you hear in the news media “Australia is a rich country” so why is this happening? Let’s spend money to fix it.

            • Frozensage on 14/01/2025 - 09:50

              @Grok: Not true. We also good “inflating” house prices and selling visas.

            • Save Medicare on 14/01/2025 - 11:24

              @Grok: The wealth is being kept by the mining companies

              • Grok on 14/01/2025 - 12:33
                -6

                @Save Medicare: Typical leftwing commo talk.

                I own mining companies they pay me.

                The mining industry provided the only income for Australia during the COVID lockdowns. They still pay the majority of the budget.

                • Igaf on 24/01/2025 - 17:28
                  +3

                  @Grok: Your ignorance is profound. Mining contributes ~6% of revenue, 3% if you combine state and fed govt revenues, and employ ~2% (they claim ~9% based on spurious 'multipliers' pooh-poohed by statisticians). Australian households contribute FAR more, although not to your pocket - apart from the obvious cost to everyone's pocket of tax concessions given to mutlinational mining and petro companies.

                  Mining companies pay far too little for the privilege of exploiting OUR mineral and petro assets, as Norway has shown clearly with its oil assets.

                  Your "social program" throwaway line is simplistic twaddle. Some of the biggest recipients of "welfare" in this country are private companies. A single decision by Howard and Costello cost taxpayers $100B in lost gas revenue, and laughably didn't even secure us rights over domestic gas supply.

                  • Grok on 25/01/2025 - 14:18
                    -2

                    @Igaf: What exactly would Australia’s income be like without the mining companies you seem to hate so much?

                    Nothing, Australia manufactures nothing significant, our agricultural exports are also insignificant on a world scale and could barely feed another few million people. We would be a third world backwater.

                    As for your gas income comment, the WA gas facilities cost 100 billion US dollars or more to build, it wasn’t Australian money. No-one here wanted to invest their money due to activism by the usual political suspects in Australia torpedoing their efforts. The only way we could get the required foreign capital was with partial ownership and long term supply contracts. Also the tax deduction of construction costs is extremely standard financial practice worldwide in civilised countries.

                    I bet you hold the dubious distinction of being against mining and fossil fuel extraction in Australia while also wanting to heavily tax them to the point of confiscation.

                    Typical leftwing commo.

                    • Igaf on 25/01/2025 - 17:02
                      +3

                      @Grok: Lol, how old are you, 13? "hate", "commo ". The word you're looking for is commie. Look under your bed, you'll likely find a few lurking there.

                      Your straw men are puerile, as is your language. I'll disabuse you right up front. Does/has mining contrbute/d to our economy - obviously. Has it had a ridiculously free ride for more than half a century due to lazy, incompetent and gutless government? Undoubtedly.

                      Did the intellect of tweenager construct your comments? As your patently wrong statement about mining's contribution to our economy shows ("majority of the budget" - lmao), you clearly know nothing about the history of Australian mining. I doubt you're even aware who owns resources. Here's a clue it isn't private companies. You no doubt also don't know about the free reign mining gets with our water resources, nor who paid for, collected, analysed and provided most of the data which underpinned resource exploration and development in this country. Here's your second clue - it wasnt private companies. See a pattern developing there? If not, ask the reds under your bed I'm sure they can explain.

                      The old furphy that Australian governments should (absolutely no doubt they have) roll over while the taxpayer gets shafted by multinational mining and petro companies is classic conservative fwitism which has cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars. As you would know if you took time away from you navel fluff collection, Norway showed what competent govt management of resources can achieve for the country, while simutaneously giving both "taxpayers" and private companies excellent returns on their investments.

                      Sadly for this country the ignorance, complacency, lack of thinking ability, and acceptance of mediocrity evident in your comments are not atypical. Drongism is alive and well, as Horne suggested in The Lucky Country, a book you should read.

                      • Grok on 25/01/2025 - 22:05
                        -2

                        @Igaf: Australia overly depends on mining, indisputable.

                        Norway is the best, and near only example, of a government taking over a nations resources and making a “success” of it. Saudi Arabia would be another but they had special factors.

                        What has happened to both? Saudi Arabia has a good chance to be back in tents by the end of the century. No Saudi national actually does any work.

                        Norway has crippled its economy due to the resource curse they have gone full socialist, attacking wealth, taxing wealth and unrealised gains in a desperate attempt at social equity. Their few rich people are leaving and they are trying to stop them with even more onerous taxes.

                        They have no successful startups, the easy oil riches have removed any business sense.

                        Governments are terrible at running businesses, you need insanely profitable resources like oil to make it possible yet most still fail. Mining iron ore is insanely more difficult in comparison.

                        The Australian government didn’t find the iron ore or oil and gas resources here. They were busy living off the sheep’s back in the 60s. They didn’t pay to develop the resources either but have massively profited from other people’s work.

                        Look at how governments here run everything, all money pits. At the moment public sector wages are ballooning because government can’t control costs and often don’t want to in the case of Labor.

                        Thank you for pointing out the spelling mistake, I copied a line from my above post.

                        You correctly pointed out, you’re a commie.

                        • Igaf on 26/01/2025 - 00:12
                          +3

                          @Grok: Norway has the largest foreign wealth fund in the world - almost entirely on the back of its resource management decisions and actions. Had it used the Australian model of unfettered exploitation by multinational companies that fund would a tenth of what it currently is (approaching K1.8T). This fund is largely independent of their oil income because as you (cough) know they use the accumulated wealth to invest around the world in diversifed asset classes, just as you should. It also has considerable foreign reserves, and like most Scandanavian countries is in the top 10 world "happiness" ratings esentially because it doesn't have huge wealth imbalances and invests (note that word) in social programs. It has relatively low unemployment and inflation. They have implemented budget rules which limit deficits according to their oil returns.

                          But all that is largey irrelevant - although not as irrelevant as one bloke whinging on the X cess pit, although I understand how you'd arrive at the idea that it's an excellent and statistically accurate guide to Norway's economic future, at least as much as Musk's irrational rants are representative of that nation's views on anything. What is relevant is: (1) how Norway successfully overcame political differences and united to reject traditional private enterprise resource development models for the benefit of the country; and (2) the fact that they successfully managed not just their oil industry but also the transition to a public/private partnership of the assets - despite your generalised waffle about governments running businesses.

                          Despite your claims iron ore is one of the simplest minerals to produce - essentially blow it up and ship it out using govt sponsored - nothing essentially wrong with that - port facilities.

                          The Australian government didn’t find the iron ore or oil and gas resources here. They were busy living off the sheep’s back in the 60s. They didn’t pay to develop the resources either but have massively profited from other people’s work.

                          Not even the minerals and petroleum industries (who aren't backwards in their exaggeration of their own importance) would roll that tosh out, and for patently obvious reasons you obviously know nothing about. The geological and geophysical mapping undertaken by state and federal geoscience agencies over decades underpinned pretty much every major modern mineral discovery in this country, either directly or indirectly. Again, nothing wrong with that if you aren't getting the rough end of the pineapple economically. The work (surveys, analysis and modelling) undertaken by Geascience Australia's geophysical and marine science divisions not only provided high quality data for offshore gas exploration but seabed mapping and analysis actually helps companies pinpoint prospective gas/oil fields - as I'm sure you know (is that a pig I see in the sky?). As you also know (lol) this is the basis for the govt's Acreage Release programs. That you have no understanding of the billions of dollars invested (or in your words - "paid") by govts in research, mapping, data acquisition, infrastructure development and land and resource "gifts" (did I previously mention water?) to rapacious multinational resource companies is the understatement of the century.

                          Look at how governments here run everything, all money pits.

                          Not that I agree with that ignorant and puerile characterisation but the obvious retort to your fatuous generalisation is this: Yes, and many private companies - esp big mining and big petro - both know it and take advantage of it. A quick look at Auditor General's numerous reports on Morrison govt behaviour with taxpayer funds makes interesting reading if you ever sell your navel fluff collection.

                          Public and private sector wage costs are increasing for two reasons: (1) the massive overuse of contractors and consultants by govt has been reined in; (2) wages have been neglected by successive state/federal govts and private industry for a decade, esp in ridiculouly undervalued sectors like health, child care, social work etc. Looked at any profit to wage index graphs in the last decade? Rhetorical question.

                          The only difference between you and "commies" (which version were you thinking of - the Chinese autocracy, Russian kleptocracy, or maybe the USA technocracy/corporatocracy variety?) - apart from common sense - is that commies know when, and how, the hoi polloi are getting shafted.

                          Did I overstate my case? Of course, but it seems that suits your level of understanding.

                          • Grok on 26/01/2025 - 09:13
                            -1

                            @Igaf: The happiness in the euro zone is along the lines of You'll own nothing and be happy. You will be taxed into submission, your free speech will be non existent and your culture will not be protected.

                            You have no understanding of the difficulties in iron ore mining in general and in Australia in particular.. The deposits are in extremely remote areas. There are zero government facilities there. Everything has to be paid for and provided by the miner before a tonne of ore is sold. Energy, transport, extensive long distant railways, accommodation, communications etc etc.

                            If it was so easy other countries would be doing it as well. Australia has the dubious distinction of being the world champion in digging up, sorting and transporting dirt. In Africa almost every time a private company starts a resource project the local government tries to confiscate it or a war breaks out, or both. Rio is building a massive new iron mine in Africa now, I am waiting for the inevitable nationalisation by the government.

                            The success of the euro zone now is being severely tested, it was largely based on highly regulated closed markets, cheap Russian energy and a highly educated workforce with a strong work ethic (the last part only in Germany).

                            All of it is now rapidly unraveling, all of it. The euro zone and the USA were equal in GDP a decade ago, now the USA is 50% higher and growing quickly. The eurozone has effectively no tech sector, founders are taxed out of existence early on. Their car industry is set for implosion as they cannot make good EVs profitably. Unions run companies, they are mandated on boards in most of the eurozone especially in Germany.

                            Europe is in rapid decline and the reasons are everything you regard as positives.

                            • Igaf on 26/01/2025 - 13:18
                              +2

                              @Grok:

                              The happiness in the euro zone is along the lines of You'll own nothing and be happy. You will be taxed into submission, your free speech will be non existent and your culture will not be protected.

                              Lol. You know as much about how the happiness index is calculated as you do about Australian mining. Look it up and get informed.

                              Took a while before you spat out your ludicrous "culture" comment. What culture is yours? Judging by your comments it would include a celebration of gross ignorance and misinformation, anti-science, anti-thinking and anti-social, and of course a belief in the law of the jungle. Just what ultra conservative and despotic govts and profit-is-everything companies love their minions to embrace.

                              You have no understanding of the difficulties in iron ore mining in general and in Australia in particular.. The deposits are in extremely remote areas.

                              Lol. I've worked in some of those remote areas in a closely related industry and have more knowledge and experience than a million of your credulous ilk. I don't dismiss the complexities, I'm simply putting things in the childish back and white terms you deal in.

                              If it was so easy other countries would be doing it as well. Australia has the dubious distinction of being the world champion in digging up, sorting and transporting dirt. In Africa almost every time a private company starts a resource project the local government tries to confiscate it or a war breaks out, or both. Rio is building a massive new iron mine in Africa now, I am waiting for the inevitable nationalisation by the government.

                              You do understand the basics of mineral deposits presumably? That very few countries have them in minable quantities which can be extracted easily and economically? But I congratulate you - you've stumbled on the reasons why multinationals love this country. Stable govt, rule of law, complacent politicians who are essentially pushovers or too timid/incompetent to make a stand/argument (Gillard/Swan with the MRRT), relatively straightforward access - hence our massive open cut mines, good trnsport infrastructure (since added to by big mining, using some of the funds which should have gone to the common wealth [sic].

                              The success of the euro zone now is being severely tested, it was largely based on highly regulated closed markets, cheap Russian energy and a highly educated workforce with a strong work ethic (the last part only in Germany).
                              All of it is now rapidly unraveling, all of it. The euro zone and the USA were equal in GDP a decade ago, now the USA is 50% higher and growing quickly. The eurozone has effectively no tech sector, founders are taxed out of existence early on. Their car industry is set for implosion as they cannot make good EVs profitably. Unions run companies, they are mandated on boards in most of the eurozone especially in Germany.
                              Europe is in rapid decline and the reasons are everything you regard as positives.

                              What has Europe or the rise of Chinese (esp) electric car making got to do with your ludicrous exhortation of big mining in Australia? Nothing at all. Nor has the extremely imbalanced (huge gaps in wealth, properity, access to basic health etc, huge violent crime rates etc etc) American economy. Irrespective, per capita GDP and buying power are more important measures than gross GDP. I could just as easily throw out gross debt as a measure (of what exactly in your simple mind?). As you know (cough) companies own about 53% of global debt, govts slightly more than half that. America's public debt is twice the next country's (China) which has a completely different form of government and hence their public debt numbers are significantly exaggerated compared to other coutries.

                              But all this is a distraction from your original and ongoing inanely incorrect claims about mining in Australia.

                              Bottom line is this: in the last four decades Australian citizens have been denied hundreds of billions of dollars due to the greed of private multinationals and a conga line of indifferent, credulous, arguably anti-Australian politicians who put power before the interests of the people they are supposed to serve. Norway showed what bipartisanship can achieve, it also showed just what a backwater of ideological decrepitude our federal parliament has developed into since 1996.

                              • Grok on 26/01/2025 - 14:29
                                -1

                                @Igaf:

                                Bottom line is this: in the last four decades Australian citizens have been denied hundreds of billions of dollars due to the greed of private multinationals and a conga line of indifferent, credulous, arguably anti-Australian politicians who put power before the interests of the people they are supposed to serve.

                                Your whole premise is based on one of two possible scenarios.

                                One, the Australian government did a Norway on iron ore 40 years ago.

                                Two, the Australian government taxed the mining and oil companies into submission 40 years ago.

                                Both scenarios assume the resulting companies profited equally to the present situation. A ludicrous proposition.

                                You don’t seem to remember or know that iron ore sales were based on a lowish yearly contract price with Japan and then China. Japan screwed us over for decades because iron ore is a commodity. Many years during the 90s Japan lowered the contract price because they could.

                                Iron ore was not very profitable until the last decade or two with the rise of China. Australia, BHP specifically, bravely abandoned the contract price system for the spot price system because China during the GFC reneged on the contract price.

                                That year I also lost my job at BHP.

                                If the government owned it I would still have a job in a bloated overmanned far less profitable company.

                                The number of ventures, large and small, some that I witnessed and even participated in, that BHP started in the last 40 years which failed miserably is legendary. Imagine if it was run by government committee?

                                You are advocating for communism, you like Bernie Sanders (another commie) point to Norway as the shining example of what can be done. You have few or no other comparable examples.

                                Norway was lucky they are also monstrous hypocrites, their wealth is based purely on insanely profitable fossil fuels yet they preach to the world on climate change. They hold 1.5 trillion dollars of blood money by their own standards.

                                That is governments for you.

                                • Igaf on 26/01/2025 - 19:53
                                  +1

                                  @Grok: My "premise" as you call it isn't based on either of your two confections but on facts regarding the costs of tax concessions and ludicrously generous profit sharing arrangements with its mineral and petroleum renters under federal resource legislation.

                                  Howard/Costello wiped $100B from the common wealth's share of gas revenues via their tax concessions under the PRRT (they also squandered $330B of resource income on tax cuts for the top end (you may have heard about the effects of Howard's structural deficit passed on to future govts, although I doubt it) and Rudd/Gillard/Swan's pathetic failure to implement a RSPT/MRRT, which meant the vast majority of resource boom super profits (you appear to have overlooked those) went into the pockets of both offshore multinational companies/investors and already extremely wealthy individuals like Palmer, Rhinehart and Forrest.

                                  If the government owned it I would still have a job in a bloated overmanned far less profitable company.
                                  The number of ventures, large and small, some that I witnessed and even participated in, that BHP started in the last 40 years which failed miserably is legendary. Imagine if it was run by government committee?
                                  You are advocating for communism, you like Bernie Sanders (another commie) point to Norway as the shining example of what can be done. You have few or no other comparable examples.

                                  As the saying goes if you can't refute facts, try inventing straw man nonsense. I can't think of anyone in the country who has seriously advocated governments run industries even though Norway clearly showed what can be done with good planning, intelligence and commitment. Turnbull's ego-driven Snowy2 and the NDIS rollout both show that OUR technical expertise is a long way from world leading.

                                  What is obvious is that our resource arrangements have grossly favoured resource renters to the detriment of the nation's coffers for decades, with no obvious end to the rogering due to the current LNP and Labor rabble in federal parliament.

                                  Norway was lucky they are also monstrous hypocrites, their wealth is based purely on insanely profitable fossil fuels yet they preach to the world on climate change. They hold 1.5 trillion dollars of blood money by their own standards.

                                  Norway doesn't preach to anyone, they're getting on with green initatives knowing that resources aren't inexhaustible even as they earn money from their petro resources at FAR higher rates than Australia ever will. As I mentioned and you obviously know (joke Joice) the majority of their sovereign wealth comes from sources other than their petroleum so you may want to revise your number down (along with Australian mining's contribution to national wealth) when you next attempt to inflict your waffle on fellow credulous ideologues.

                                  That is governments for you.

                                  Yep governments have never achieved anything much (well apart from obvious things like law, education, treansport, resource pooling for the benefit of all, health, etc). No doubt we'd be better off being ruled by the Musks, Suckuperbergs, Bezos', Hancocks and Palmers of this world and be content with the crumbs from their tables.

                                  • Grok on 27/01/2025 - 14:35
                                    -1

                                    @Igaf:

                                    Rudd/Gillard/Swan's pathetic failure to implement a RSPT/MRRT, which meant the vast majority of resource boom super profits (you appear to have overlooked those) went into the pockets of both offshore multinational companies/investors and already extremely wealthy individuals like Palmer, Rhinehart and Forrest.

                                    The majority of those profits went to Australian investors and super funds. Palmer, Rhinehart and Forrest built enormous wealth in Australia, Rhinehart built a huge new mine recently at huge risk which now pays massive taxes as does she. In fact she claimed to be the biggest taxpayer in 2018.

                                    The RSPT was purely a money grab at the top of the market to pay for upcoming Labor hare-brained schemes. It had little or nothing to do with the sovereign own resources premise.

                                    Do you remember that Ken Henry, the designer of the RSPT put out during the Gillard election that a Super Profits tax on the Banks was next. He was quickly sidelined, he let the cat out of the bag. Gillard lost.

                                    This was just a money grab at a time of profits but not in normal times.

                                    By the way, the structure of the crazy RSPT, with its effective nationalisation was they would also refund losses. The industry promptly crashed (temporarily) after the Liberal win and the government would have had to refund billions to the mining companies in a time of austerity.

                                    Of course Labor would have reneged like China and their media lap dogs would have spun it.

                                    Everything you are advocating is pie in the sky money grabbing, money that would be quickly squandered on outlandish social programs.

                                    Anyway I’m out, thanks, I enjoyed the exchange.

                                    • Igaf on 29/01/2025 - 12:33
                                      +1

                                      @Grok:

                                      Do you remember that Ken Henry, the designer of the RSPT put out during the Gillard election that a Super Profits tax on the Banks was next. He was quickly sidelined, he let the cat out of the bag. Gillard lost.

                                      No I don't remember that because Henry didn't propose a super profits tax on banks at all, he actually suggested a reduction in the tax on bank deposit earnings. The Labor govt duly despatched that over the fence, with good reason as the regularly pro-establishment and far from agnostic AFR wrote at the time. A few years later Henry slammed Morrison for imposing a bank levy (for conservatives reading this, a levy is a conservative euphemism for a TAX, although for some reason /s they (and their obsequious enablers Newscorpse [sic]) always seem to forget that when they lie about their literally 'fantastic' record of being "low taxing" during federal elections. Interestingly, Morrison imposed another such levy to stop taxpayers having to pay for the decommissioning and remediation of an ex-Woodside Timor platform - arguably one of the few decent things his fwitted govt did. Naturally, Woodside and APPEA argued - as wealthy companies and their industry bodies often do, it's in their genes after all - that taxpayers should pay the $1B clean up fee. A classic case of privatise the profits and socialise the losses.

                                      Treasury is always modelling tax alternatives and presenting options to govt about taxes ( and levies), the vast majority of which never see the light of day. The last serious attempt at tax reform - the 'Henry Report' - has remained virtually untouched as you know.

                                      By the way, the structure of the crazy RSPT, with its effective nationalisation was they would also refund losses. The industry promptly crashed (temporarily) after the Liberal win and the government would have had to refund billions to the mining companies in a time of austerity.

                                      You really should do some reading before posting such waffle. Both RSPT and MRRT gave considerable concessions to mining companies. Concessions such as only taxing profits (look that word up - you seems not to understand its significance) above the cost of capital, a 40% rebate of the mine development costs, and astonishingly - tax deductions for RSPT payments (lol). Yes you read that right, they were given a tax deduction for their tax payments!!! Wage earners would give their eye teeth and possibly consider selling their grannies to be able to claim personal tax payments as a deduction, don't you think?

                                      I agree that the RSPT was certainly far too complicated, but that's what happens when you make continual concessions to powerful lobby groups. In the end the MRRT was so watered down with concessions to big mining by the Gillard govt that it raised no significant money ($300M versus the expected $12B in 2 years). As we know, your con hero Abbott subsequently axed it entirely. Raw onion eating Tones was not content just giving Australian taxpayers that one kick up the @rse though, he also poked a stick in our eyes by slowly returning the taxes already paid. Modern conservatism in a nutshell. In return Gina has done her bit by investing what should have been OUR money in the LNP and the Oz Dolphins, Twggy did better with First Nations and energy alternatives, and Clive- well we know he frittered away $100M on a single senate seat.

                                      The majority of those profits went to Australian investors and super funds. Palmer, Rhinehart and Forrest built enormous wealth in Australia, Rhinehart built a huge new mine recently at huge risk which now pays massive taxes as does she. In fact she claimed to be the biggest taxpayer in 2018.

                                      You appear to be attempting to give the impression that "ordinary Australians" were significant direct beneficiaries (everyone benfited indirectly from the boom, for many reasons) of resource company super profits. That's a huuuge stretch, unless of course you count in your "Australian investors" the Hancocks (100%), the Forrests (37%, China 15%) and Palmer (basically 100%). Australian super funds were very minor players. The major multinational mining companies involved in the mining boom - notably Rio Tinto and Vale - were overwhelmingly "owned" by overseas interests at the time. BHP Bill had a wide range of os corporate investors and numerous small investors, including Oz super funds.

                                      Sorry, I must have missed it. What huge risk did the much loved Gina take with the relatively tiny McPhee mine?

                                      Everything you are advocating is pie in the sky money grabbing, money that would be quickly squandered on outlandish social programs.

                                      Outlandish social programs like what? Education perhaps? We all know education makes thinking people dangerous because at least some learn to apply rational thought to complex issues and don't accept the inevitability of the status quo (see 'suffragettes' if you want an obvious example). For patently obvious reasons, issues like the topic under debate here - getting a better share of the profits from OUR resources - are significant to the national interest, as is massive corporate tax evasion. As RK famously said: *Some men see things as they are and ask 'why'. I dream things that never were and ask, 'why not'. Sadly, for a variety of reasons most people see things and accept their inevitability without question.

                                      Despite recent PRRT changes by Chalmers to cut out transfer pricing (a euphemism for tax rorting as you know) and get a better deal for taxpayers, getting REAL control over our dwindling non-renewable natural assets is probably 'pie in the sky' as you say because of (1) the capture of politicians (conservatives especially) by industry; (2) attitudes - like yours - which deny reality because they're in on the rort and don't want it cut back (to wit, property investors and the ludicrous CGT/negative gearing concessions which cost taxpayers ~$20B annually (> double what state/territories spend on public housing); (3) the ignorance and complacency of politicians and the hoi polloi (an extension of Horne's The Lucky Country thinking).

                                      By the way, the structure of the crazy RSPT, with its effective nationalisation…

                                      It would help if you knew what nationalisation is but you obviously have no idea so I'll give you some clues. First you have to answer this simple question - When was the last time a major resource company was taken over in this country? You can stop fretting because modern history shows the only time govts "take over" private resource companies (well, their responsibilities) is when they fail/shut up shop/onsell their liabilities to other private companies and the taxpayer is left to foot the bill. This is euphemistically known as socialising the losses and along with massive tax concessions and subsidisation (much of which is both necessary and worthwhile) is assumed and expected by private industry. Conservatives call this "welfare" or "waste" when applied to others in the economy. Go figure.

                                      To give you a flavour of how socialising losses works see the Woodside-Noga oil rig case. Basically a mining company offloads infrastructure and clean up responsibilty to another company, this company goes @arse up, mining company and industry wipe their hands saying the taxpayer has to fix the mess using taxes already paid. This rort isn't confined to resources of course as the current Port Hinchinbook resort fiasco shows only too well. Didn't take Katter junior long to learn the playbook.

                                      Neither the RSPT nor the MRRT had even the faintest whiff of nationalism either via regulation or via stealth. Even as far back as Rex Connor's failed attempt to 'buy back the farm' it wasn't about govt control of resource businesses, it was about putting Australian resource ownership and control back where it should have always been. The RSPT and MRRT fiasco proved just how right Connor was. They failed primarily for one major reason - because the LNP opposition put their lust for power over the national interest.

    • TightAl on 13/01/2025 - 21:07
      +2

      Do you think China doesn't send money to Australia?
      Australia has a surplus on it's trade with China.

      MSM did one helluva of a job on you

  • Edsanwong on 13/01/2025 - 19:31
    +4

    Hmm yesterday Atto 3 was $44K including home charger, but now $47K.

    • Benzy on 13/01/2025 - 20:06

      yes i think the Atto 3 was cheaper yesterday.

    • Inyokuchi on 14/01/2025 - 04:04

      Yesterday is still cheaper. Difference is 3 grand extra for the 10 extra kWh battery minus home charger. Still havent received mine yet

  • CheapBrah on 13/01/2025 - 19:31
    -2

    Do we think there is much chance of Chinese EVs disappear due to increasing pressure on the government to take action on security risks (whether real or perceived)? Doubt we'd see an outright ban but if the government makes things difficult enough for them through banning components or other regulations/restrictions they might pull out.

    Solid chance of a change in federal government this year as well which increases the chance of action being taken.

    • Kommodore on 13/01/2025 - 19:40
      +5

      0% would be political suicide even if risk is great.

      No different than being dependent on China for making almost everything else, even food now.

      • CheapBrah on 13/01/2025 - 19:43

        We were the first country to ban Chinese countries from our mobile network hardware, then others followed. This time we are behind other countries who've already taken action on the security risks (whether they're real or just perceived I genuinely don't know but it doesn't really matter). So I don't think it's 0%, maybe low but not 0%.

        • WhyAmICommenting on 13/01/2025 - 20:43
          +4

          I don’t really care if China know where I drive my car and when I charge it.

          • CheapBrah on 13/01/2025 - 21:07
            -3

            @WhyAmICommenting: It's more about being able to spy on everyone, or an escalating range of possibilities from turn off everyone's cars to blow up the batteries of all of them on command, there is a high likelihood of increasingly hostile relations between Australia and China and software updates exist.

            • serpserpserp on 13/01/2025 - 21:14
              +4

              @CheapBrah: Who is to say they can't do that on the mobile phones and laptops you already own from them?

              • CheapBrah on 13/01/2025 - 21:25
                -3

                @serpserpserp: My phone may be made in china but it isn't a Chinese brand, the software isn't controlled by them.

            • Save Medicare on 14/01/2025 - 11:26
              +2

              @CheapBrah: Only 1 country in the news recently for exploding consumer electronics and it wasn't China

        • TightAl on 13/01/2025 - 21:08
          +3

          Meanwhile the CIA / US Army is exempt from sanctions on Huawei, what a joke :)

      • pizzaofpeace on 13/01/2025 - 21:04
        -3

        Doubt it.

        The Chinese have tried all kinds of political pressure - the trade war, cyber attacks on unis, not so subtle military threats - and Australia still flipped them off.

        They’ve clearly eased off the hostility and are trying the sweet approach now because they’ve utterly failed.

        Their significance as a trade partner is falling given their economic troubles and falling consumption of iron ore and other minerals from Australia.

        At the end of the day, Australia is America’s loyal vassal due to shared values and security. With the right push from America, Australia would tariff all China made cars out of sale.

    • Brick Tamland on 13/01/2025 - 19:47
      +2

      I dont think it's impossible, as someone said we have banned telecommunications companies and govt workplaces have banned TikTok. But the risk could be mitigated by removing SIM cards and data links

    • Cheap Rich Guy on 13/01/2025 - 19:54

      Either way, they should get rid of that luxury car tax that kicks in around $75K.

      • Save Medicare on 14/01/2025 - 11:27

        I think LCT makes sense as a progressive tax on conspicuous consumption, but 1) it should include luxury "work utes" and 2) the threshhold should be raised to >$100k at least given real inflation at the coalface outpacing CPI

  • Zizkov on 13/01/2025 - 19:44
    +7

    I imagine the fear of Chinese EVs is similar to what people thought about Japanese, and then Korean, and now Chinese cars versus European and American auto makers.

    I invite people to do their research on BYD who sell more cars than Tesla, supply batteries for Tesla cars, and have been producing electric vehicles since before the Tesla roadster.

    I think people are still failing to grass with that legacy auto makers are failing to adapt to the EV landscape. I don't own a BYD, but personally I would rather go with a car maker who has been making electric cars for almost 20 years than something based off a petrol car.

    • E5TOQUE on 13/01/2025 - 20:23

      Toyota are asking BYD to assist in making their EV's for the Chinese market too.

      Look up the Toyota BZ3 and BZ3c.

      Toyota are also apparently talking to BYD to assist in PHEV's too.

      • serpserpserp on 13/01/2025 - 21:15

        A lot of legacy auto get the chinese brands to help build the EVs

      • Inyokuchi on 14/01/2025 - 04:08

        Mazda partnered with Changan Auto to co-design their EZ-6. The EZ-6 is literally a rebadged version of Deepal SL03

        • E5TOQUE on 14/01/2025 - 05:49

          There is some modifications done to it.

          • Interior materials are changed to suit Mazda
          • Front and rear design modified slightly to suit Mazda
          • Suspension, steering package has been completely redone by Mazda's European team.
  • beltdrive on 13/01/2025 - 19:50
    +1

    I really want a pink car tbh. Tempted

    • Protractor on 13/01/2025 - 19:59

      Cheap keyed one may be available.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join