Converts to about $34500 for the Premium version

Although, when you toss the Chinese text through Google Translate you get "National uniform price after subsidy"

According to this Bloomberg article

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/china-scales-back-subsidies-for-electric-cars-to-spur-innovation

the EV subsidy got cut from 50,000 to 25,000 RMB three weeks ago, so the if this price is new then its closer to 40K, if its an older price then its 45,000 NZD

Then you add 15% GST and your prices become $45K NZD, or $51.5K NZD....

Cheap EVs only exist (even in places like China)  because governments throw gobs of cash at them in terms of exemptions and rebates

What I would want to know is - Which method of death will occur after a crash

- electrocution or fire or decapitation

Just look at the Samsung Note 7. You really want very high R&D + QC for an EV. 

Probably won't be an issue, probably battery degradation would be the issue rather than death by battery but thought I'd put it out there.

Batman:

 

What I would want to know is - Which method of death will occur after a crash

 

- electrocution or fire or decapitation

 

Just look at the Samsung Note 7. You really want very high R&D + QC for an EV. 

 

Probably won't be an issue, probably battery degradation would be the issue rather than death by battery but thought I'd put it out there.

 

Yeah, I have to back you up here. With cheaper brand new vehicles from these emerging brands comes poor quality components, including using asbestos (2012).

And the concerning part is their exceptionally poor crash ratings (2014) compared to their more well known competitors.

And in all honesty I really hate their state sponsored repeated hacking and stealing of IP from many American companies too afraid to risk trade relations to speak up/stop it so avoid buying cars that are in all fairness built on someone else's IP.

In China a few years back a genuine Range rover crashed into a Chinese copycat - the similarities are uncanny.

Just be wary of what you're buying with these Chinese made vehicles - they do not have the same scruples or safety checks as required by Western governments.

tehgerbil:

And the concerning part is their exceptionally poor crash ratings (2014) compared to their more well known competitors.

Aredwood:

tehgerbil:

 

And the concerning part is their exceptionally poor crash ratings (2014) compared to their more well known competitors.

 

Except that Mitsubishi were still happy to sell the L300 Van in NZ and Australia in 2014. Despite it only having a 1* crash safety rating.

https://rightcar.govt.nz/ancap-test-result.html?q=218

At least the Chinese companies are actually making an effort to improve safety. Unlike Mitsubishi, who do know how to make safe vehicles. But they instead decided not to bother improving safety on the L300.

A 3* safety rating, although still poor. It is still a big improvement over 1*

Holy poos, that's APPALLING!! No sides are perfect, I thought better of the Japanese brands though.

Aredwood:

tehgerbil:

 

And the concerning part is their exceptionally poor crash ratings (2014) compared to their more well known competitors.

 

Except that Mitsubishi were still happy to sell the L300 Van in NZ and Australia in 2014. Despite it only having a 1* crash safety rating.

https://rightcar.govt.nz/ancap-test-result.html?q=218


At least the Chinese companies are actually making an effort to improve safety. Unlike Mitsubishi, who do know how to make safe vehicles. But they instead decided not to bother improving safety on the L300.

A 3* safety rating, although still poor. It is still a big improvement over 1*

Isn't the issue there more to do with forward driver position "cab over" design.  You could throw as many airbags and active safety features in as you like, but putting the driver (and front seat passengers) in what would otherwise be the crumple zone isn't going to be pretty in an accident.

I don't like Mitsubishi, but blaming them for making a van which from outset has a flawed but common design for occupant safety is like blaming Harley Davidson for making vehicles that are about 50 times more likely to kill their riders in the event of a head on accident than drivers of a normal sedan.

More the fault IMO of governments for not regulating them out of existence sooner, and buyers who'd contemplate a new 1 star safety rated vehicle, especially for use by employees who may only have the choice to drive an unsafe van for work or find another job. By way of comparison most motorcycle riders have a choice, should know the risks and make a conscious decision to take that risk.

Fred99:

 

Isn't the issue there more to do with forward driver position "cab over" design.  You could throw as many airbags and active safety features in as you like, but putting the driver (and front seat passengers) in what would otherwise be the crumple zone isn't going to be pretty in an accident.

 

Toyota Hiace gets 4 stars , so its not the inherent design....

https://rightcar.govt.nz/ancap-test-result.html?q=434

wellygary:

 

Fred99:

 

Isn't the issue there more to do with forward driver position "cab over" design.  You could throw as many airbags and active safety features in as you like, but putting the driver (and front seat passengers) in what would otherwise be the crumple zone isn't going to be pretty in an accident.

 

 

Toyota Hiace gets 4 stars , so its not the inherent design....

 

https://rightcar.govt.nz/ancap-test-result.html?q=434

 

 

 

True - kind of.  The frontal offset data on the Hiace doesn't look too flash though, even if possibly better active safety systems improve the overall score.

All this talk of Geely being Chinese so therefore inherently shoddy are a bit rich, aren't they? 

Don't they also own Volvo? Aren't they universally considered the safest cars on the planet? 

Handsomedan:

 

All this talk of Geely being Chinese so therefore inherently shoddy are a bit rich, aren't they? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't they also own Volvo? Aren't they universally considered the safest cars on the planet? 

 

now here's a Chinese EV that looks serious. I immediately thought of it as a Tesla clone and it promises to do smart things like park itself and drive itself with a 600km range and has already raised nearly a billion investment dollars ...

Batman:

What I would want to know is - Which method of death will occur after a crash

- electrocution or fire or decapitation

Just look at the Samsung Note 7. You really want very high R&D + QC for an EV. 

Probably won't be an issue, probably battery degradation would be the issue rather than death by battery but thought I'd put it out there.