I'm a retiree living in Mexico who owns a BYD and a Tesla. Here's why I prefer the Chinese car.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with John Romer, a retired radiologist from Huntsville, Alabama, about his BYD Song Plus hybrid and Tesla Model 3. It has been edited for length and clarity.
I'm a 73-year-old former radiologist. I retired from practice in Huntsville, Alabama, nine years ago, after working there for 35 years.
I retired to Florida, but after a while, my wife and I decided to move back to Alabama, where we bought a small home to be close to our children and grandchildren.
But I'm pretty much living in Mexico most of the time now. I've been a resident for eight years, and I spend about nine months of the year in the country, going back to Alabama around four times a year to see family.
Chinese cars have become extremely popular in Mexico, so when the time came to buy a new car, BYD was the logical choice. They've come in with a strong presence and have a number of dealerships scattered throughout the country.
I test-drove a BYD Song Plus hybrid SUV back in early October and really liked it. I bought one for around 777,000 Pesos ($41,000), and it came in early November. I've had it for six or seven months, and it hasn't had a single issue.
It's extremely efficient — I'm probably getting over 40 miles per gallon — and having a hybrid gives me the flexibility of being able to go wherever I want.
I would have gone with a pure EV, but Mexico doesn't have the charging infrastructure yet that they have in Europe or the US, so I was more comfortable with the hybrid here.
The Song is a very comfortable ride, and it also has a number of safety features that I like. It's very large, which can make it a bit difficult to drive, but it does have blind-spot warning and automatic front and rear braking if there's traffic that you haven't seen in front of you or behind you.
Tesla vs. BYD
Back home, I have a Tesla Model 3, which I bought two years ago for around the same price as I paid for the BYD Song Plus.
Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you.
What is your job title? (1 of 2)
Entry level position
Project manager
Management
Senior management
Executive management
Student
Self-employed
Retired
Other
Continue
By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy .
I use it when I go home to Alabama, but for now, it sits in the garage most of the time. I'm probably going to give it to my grandson, who's turning 16 next year.
Comparing a hybrid to a fully-electric car is like comparing apples and oranges, but I do prefer the BYD to the Tesla.
The Tesla has been a good car, but it is a little bit troublesome. When I'm in Alabama and I drive to see my daughter in Kentucky, I have to stop to recharge it.
It's not a huge deal, but it's a little awkward. I'm almost sure that if I had a hybrid, I wouldn't have to stop.
I also don't care for Tesla's 'Autopilot' mode at all. I update it regularly, but it has yet to perform the way I think it should. For instance, in my experience, it cannot handle traffic circles, and it struggles around construction work.
[Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.]
I don't think it's ready for primetime yet. The BYD has a similar setup, which I'm yet to use. The infrastructure in Mexico is not good, and there's a lot of construction around my area, so I'm a bit wary about using it here.
The Tesla is also not as well put together, in terms of the finish, as the BYD Song Plus. The BYD feels very solid, the interior is very well upholstered, and in my opinion, it has a better quality of construction than the Tesla.
I'm a real tech person, and the BYD has all kinds of advanced technology.
As well as a heads-up display and automatic lights, it's got a nice 3D model of the car on the display — Tesla has one too, but it's not as accurate as the BYD one, which is really helpful when parking and maneuvering the car.
US drivers miss out
BYDs are everywhere in Mexico, and their prices are very competitive. I'm planning to buy my wife the BYD electric Dolphin Mini.
We were going to get a golf cart to use around the community where we live, but the golf cart costs about $13,000, and you have to spend about $1,500 every two years replacing batteries. The BYD Dolphin Mini is $21,000 and has an eight-year battery guarantee, so it gives you a lot more flexibility for only $3,000 to 4,000 more.
I don't agree with the tariffs on Chinese EVs in the US. I've always believed in free trade. I'm very disappointed in the tariffs that Trump is imposing.
I think competition is always good, it encourages the development of new technology and better quality products.
I do think that if you can't compete in an industry, then you need to find another industry you can compete in and let things get sorted out, rather than trying to artificially encourage industries with tariffs, which only drives prices up.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

42 minutes ago

• Forbes

Tesla Misses Robotaxi Launch Date, Goes With Safety Drivers

A vehicle Tesla is using for robotaxi testing purposes in Austin, Texas, US, on Friday, June 20, ... More 2025.. Photographer: Eli Hartman/Bloomberg Tesla's much-anticipated June 22 'no one in the vehicle' Robotaxi launch in Austin is not ready. Instead, Tesla has announced to its invite-only passengers that it will operate a limited service with Tesla employees on board the vehicle to maintain safety. Tesla will use an approach that was used in 2019 by Russian robotaxi company Yandex, putting the safety driver in the passengers seat rather than the driver's seat. (Yandex's robotaxi was divested from Russian and now is called AVRide.) Having an employee on board, commonly called a safety driver, is the approach that every robocar company has used for testing, including testing of passenger operations. Most companies spend many years (Waymo spent a decade) testing with safety drivers, and once they are ready to take passengers, there are typically some number of years testing in that mode, though the path to removing the safety driver depends primarily on evaluation of the safety case for the vehicle, and less on the presence of passengers. Tesla has put on some other restrictions--rides will be limited to 6am to midnight (the opposite of Cruise's first operations, which were only at night) and riders come from an invite-only list (as was also the case for Waymo, and Cruise and others in their early days.) Rides will be limited to a restricted service area (often mistakenly called a 'geofence') which avoids complex and difficult streets and intersections. Rides will be unavailable in inclement weather, which also can happen with other vehicles, though fairly rarely today. Tesla FSD is known to disable itself if rain obscures some of its cameras--only the front cameras have a rain wiper. The fleet will be small. Waymo started testing with safety drivers in 2009, gave rides to passengers with safety drivers in 2017, and without safety drivers in 2020 in the Phoenix area. Cruise had a much shorter period with passengers and safety drivers. Motional has given rides for years but has never removed the safety driver. Most Chinese companies spent a few years doing it. Giving passengers rides requires good confidence in the safety of the system+safety driver combination, but taking the passengers does not alter how well the vehicle drives, except perhaps around pick-up and drop-off. (While a vehicle is more at liberty to make hard stops with no passengers on board, I am aware of no vehicle which takes advantage of this.) As such we have no information on whether Tesla will need their safety drivers for a month or a several years, or even forever with current hardware. Passenger's Seat vs. Driver's Seat Almost all vehicles use a safety driver behind the wheel. Tesla's will be in the passenger seat, in a situation similar to that used by driving instructors for student human drivers. While unconfirmed by Tesla, the employee in the passenger seat can grab the wheel and steer. Because stock Teslas have fully computer controlled brake and acceleration, they might equip the driver with electronic pedals. Some reports have suggested they have a hand controller or other ways to command the vehicle to brake. There is no value to putting the safety driver on the passengers side. It is no safer than being behind the wheel, and believed by most to be less safe because of the unusual geometr20 November 2024, Berlin: A prototype of the Tesla Cybercab stands in a showroom in the Mall of Berlin. Photo: Hannes P. Albert/dpa (Photo by Hannes P Albert/picture alliance via Getty Images)y. It's hard to come up with any reason other than just how it looks. Tesla can state the vehicles have 'nobody in the driver's seat' in order to attempt to impress the public. The driving school system works, so it's not overtly dangerous, but in that case there's an obvious reason for it that's not optics. Tesla Cybercab concept. With only 2 seats and no controls, not very suitable for a safety driver. ... More These are not being used in Tesla's Austin pilot. That said, most robocar prototypes, including Tesla supervised FSD, are reasonably safe with capable safety drivers. A negligent and poorly managed safety driver in an Uber ATG test vehicle killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona when the safety driver completely ignored her job, but otherwise these systems have a good record. The combination of Tesla Autopilot and a supervising driver has a reasonable record. (The record is not nearly as good as some people think Tesla claims. Every quarter, Tesla publishes a deeply misleading report comparing the combination of Tesla Autopilot plus supervisor to the general crash rate, but they report airbag deployments for the Teslas mostly on freeways and compare it without general crash numbers on all roads for general drivers. This makes it seem Autopilot is many times safer than regular drivers when it's actually similar, a serious and deceitful misrepresentation.) As noted, Yandex, now AVRide, has used safety drivers in the passenger seat, and has done so in Austin--also speculated to be mostly for optics, though there are some legal jurisdictions where companies shave made this move because the law requires safety drivers and they hope to convey an aura of not needing them. This has also been the case in China.) When Cruise did their first 'driverless' demo ride in San Francisco, they had an employee in the passengers seat. So Tesla has been ready to run with safety drivers for years. What's tested here isn't the safety of the cars, but all the complexity of handling passengers, including the surprising problems of good PuDo (Pick-up/Drop-off.) Whether Teslas can operate a safe robotaxi with nobody onboard, particularly with their much more limited sensor hardware, remains to be seen. Other Paths To Launch Tesla apparently experimented with different paths to getting out on the road before they are ready to run unsupervised. In particular, vehicles were seen with the passenger seat safety driver, and also being followed by a 'chase car' with two on board. Reports also came of Tesla planning for 'lots of tele-ops' including not just remote assistance (as all services do) but remote supervision including remote driving. We may speculate that Tesla evaluated many different approaches: Because Elon Musk promised 'nobody in the car' and 'unsupervised' in the most recent Tesla earnings call, there was great pressure to produce #1, but the Tesla team must have concluded they could not do that yet, and made the right choice, though #3 is a better choice than #4. They also did not feel up to #2, which is commonly speculated to be what other companies have done on their first launch, later graduating to #1 #5 just looks goofy, I think the optics would not work, and it's also challenging. Remote driving is real and doable--in spite of the latency and connectivity issues of modern data networks--but perhap Tesla could not get it ready in time. All teams use remote assistance operators who do not drive the cars, but can give them advice when they get confused by a situation, and stop and ask for advice. Even Waymo recently added a minor remote driving ability for low-speed 'get the car out off the road' sort of operations. I have recommended this for some time. It is worth noting the contrast beween Cruise's 'night only' launch and Tesla's mostly-daytime one. Cruise selected the night because there is less traffic and complexity. LIDARs see very well at night. Tesla's camera-based system has very different constraints at night and many fear it's inferior then. On the other hand Tesla will operate in some night hours and with more cars and pedestrians on the street. The question for Tesla will be whether the use of safety drivers is a very temporary thing, done just because they weren't quite ready but needed to meet the announced date, or a multi-year program as it has been for most teams. Tesla is famous for not meeting the forecast ship dates for its FSD system, so it's not shocking that this pattern continues. The bigger question is whether they can do it at all. Tesla FSD 13, the version available to Tesla owners, isn't even remotely close to robotaxi ready. If Tesla has made a version which is closer, through extra work, training and severe limitations of the problem space, it's still a big accomplishment. This will be seen in the coming months. Two robocar teams had severe interactions with pedestrians. Both those teams, and one pedestrian, are dead. Tesla knows they must not make mistakes.

Time​ Magazine

3 hours ago

• Time​ Magazine

Alexandr Wang on AI's Potential and Its ‘Deficiencies'

On June 12, Alexandr Wang stepped down as Scale's CEO to chase his most ambitious moonshot yet: building smarter-than-human AI as head of Meta's new 'superintelligence' division. As part of his move, Meta will invest $14.3 billion for a minority stake in Scale AI, but the real prize isn't his company—it's Wang himself. Wang, 28, is expected to bring a sense of urgency to Meta's AI efforts, which this year have been plagued by delays and underwhelming performance. Once the undisputed leader of open-weight AI, the U.S. tech giant has been overtaken by Chinese rivals like DeepSeek on popular benchmarks. Although Wang, who dropped out of MIT at 19, lacks the academic chops of some of his peers, he offers both insight into the types of data Meta's rivals use to improve their AI systems, and unrivaled ambition. Google and OpenAI are both reportedly severing deals with Scale AI over the Meta deal. Scale declined to comment, but interim CEO has emphasized that the company will continue to operate independently in a blog post. Big goals are Wang's thing. By 24, he'd become the world's youngest self-made billionaire by building Scale into a major player labeling data for the artificial intelligence industry's giants. 'Ambition shapes reality,' reads one of Scale's core values—a motto Wang crafted. That drive has earned him admiration from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who lived in Wang's apartment for months during the pandemic. But his relentless ambition has come with trade-offs. He credits Scale's success to treating data as a 'first-class problem,' but that focus didn't always extend to the company's army of over 240,000 contract workers, some of whom have faced delayed, reduced, or canceled payments after completing tasks. Lucy Guo, who co-founded Scale, but left in 2018 following disagreements with Wang, says it was one of their 'clashing points.' 'I was like, 'we need to focus on making sure they get paid out on time,'" while Wang was more concerned with growth, Guo says. Scale AI has said instances of late-payment are exceedingly rare and that it is constantly improving. The stakes of this growth-at-all-costs mindset are rising. Superintelligent Al 'would amount to the most precarious technological development since the nuclear bomb,' according to a policy paper Wang co-authored in March with Eric Schmidt, Google's former CEO, and Dan Hendrycks, the director of the Center of AI Safety. Wang's new role at Meta makes him an important decision maker about this technology that leaves no room for error. TIME spoke to Wang in April, before he stepped down as Scale's CEO. He discussed his leadership style, how prepared the U.S. is for AGI and AI's 'deficiencies.' This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity. Your leadership style has been described as very in-the-weeds. For example, it's been reported you would take a 1-1 call with every new employee even as headcount reached into the hundreds. How has your view of leadership evolved as Scale has grown? Leadership is a very multifaceted discipline, right? There's level one—can you accomplish the things that are right in front of you? Level two is: are the things that you're doing even the right things? Are you pointing the right direction? And then there's a lot of the level three stuff, which is probably the most important—what's the culture of the organization? All that kind of stuff. I definitely think my approach to leadership is one of very high attention to detail, being very in-the-weeds, being quite focused, instilling a high level of urgency, really trying to ensure that the organization is moving as quickly and as urgently towards the critical problems as possible. But also layering in, how do you develop a healthy culture? How do you develop an organization where people are put in positions where they're able to do their best work, and they're constantly learning and growing within these environments. When you're pointed at a mission that is larger than life, then you have the ability to accomplish things that are truly great. Since a trip to China in 2018, you've been outspoken about the threat posed by China's AI ambitions. Now, particularly in the wake of DeepSeek, this view has become a lot more dominant in Washington. Do you have any other takes regarding AI development that might be kind of fringe now, but will become mainstream in five years or so? I think, the agentic world—one where businesses and governments are increasingly doing more and more of their economic activity with agents; that humans are more and more just feeling sort of like managers and overseers of those agents; where we're starting to shift and offload more economic activity onto agents. This is certainly the future, and how we, as a society, undergo that transition with minimum disruption is very, very non-trivial. I think it definitely sounds scary when you talk about it, and I think that's sort of like an indication that it's not going to be something that's very easy to accomplish or very easy to do. My belief is, I think that there's a number of things that we have to build, that we have to get right, that we have to do, to ensure that that transition is smooth. I think there's a lot of excitement and energy put towards this sort of agentic world. And we think it touches every facet of our world. So enterprises will become agentic enterprises. Governments will become agentic governments. Warfare will become agentic warfare. It's going to deeply cut into everything that we do and there's a few key pieces, both infrastructure that need to be built, as well as key policy decisions and key decisions [about] how it gets implemented within the economy that are all quite critical. What's your assessment of how prepared and how seriously the U.S. government is taking the possibility of 'AGI' [artificial general intelligence]? I think AI is very, very top of mind for the administration, and I think there's a lot of trying to assess: What is the rate of progress? How quickly are we going to achieve what most people call AGI? Slower timeframe, faster timeframe? In the case where it's a faster timeframe, what are the right things to repair? I think these are major conversations. If you go to Vice President JD Vance's speech from the Paris AI action Summit, he speaks explicitly to this, the concept that the current administration is focused on the American worker, and that they will ensure that AI is beneficial to the American worker. I think as AI continues to progress—I mean, the industry is moving at a breakneck speed—people will take note and take action. One job that seems ripe for disruption is data annotation itself. We've seen in-house AI models used for the captioning of the dataset OpenAI's Sora, and at the same time, reasoning models are being trained on synthetic self-play data on defined challenges. Do you think those trends pose a threat of disruption to Scale AI's data annotation business? I actually think it's quite the opposite. If you look at the growth in the AI related jobs around contribution to AI data sets—there's a lot of words for this, but we call them 'contributors,'—it's grown exponentially over time. There's a lot of conversation around whether as the models get better does the work go away. The reality is that the work is continuing to grow many fold, year over year and you can see this in our growth. So my expectation actually is, if you draw a line forward, towards an agentic economy, more people actually end up moving towards doing what we'd currently consider AI data work—that'll be an increasingly large part of the economy. Why haven't we been able to automate AI data work? Automating AI data work is a little bit of a tautology, because AI data work is meant to make the models better, and so if the models were good at the things they were producing data for, then you wouldn't need it in the first place. So, fundamentally, AI data is all focused on the areas where the models are deficient. And as AI gets applied into more and more places within the economy, we're only going to find more deficiencies there. You can stand back and squint and the AI models seem really smart, but if you actually try to use it to do any of a number of key workflows in your job, you'd realize that's quite deficient. And so I think that as a society, humanity will never cease to find areas in which these models need to improve and that will drive a continual need for AI data work. One of Scale's contributions has been to position itself as a technology company as much as a data company. How have you pulled that off and stood out from the competition? If you take a big step back, AI progress fundamentally relies on three pillars: data, compute and algorithms. It became very clear that the data was one of the key bottlenecks of this industry. Compute and algorithms were also bottlenecked, but data was sort of right there with them. I think before Scale, there weren't companies that treated data as the first-class of a problem it really is. With Scale, one of the things that we've really done is treat data with the respect that it deserves. We've really sought to understand, 'How do we solve this problem in the correct way? How do we solve it in the most tech-forward way?' Once you have these three pillars, you can build applications on top of the data and the algorithms. And so what we've built at Scale is the platform that first, underpins the data pillar for the entire industry. Then we've also found that with that pillar, we're able to build on top, and we're able to help businesses and governments build and deploy AI applications on top of their incredible wealth of data. I think that's really what set us apart.

CNBC

3 hours ago

• CNBC

China car suppliers can be early winners in the humanoid race, Morgan Stanley says

If the future is all about building mechanical mobility, whether on wheels or robotic legs, auto parts suppliers have a competitive edge. "We believe humanoid robots will bring a third wave of growth for auto parts suppliers," Morgan Stanley analysts said in a June 18 report. The authors include lead autos analyst Adam Jonas, industrial analyst Sheng Zhong and hardware technology analyst Andy Meng. The team upgraded two self-described Chinese Tesla suppliers and maintained a rating of overweight on another given expectations the companies can benefit from the coming rise of humanoids. This would be similar to how auto parts suppliers got a boost from the growth of electric cars and subsequently growth in "smart" cars with driver-assist capabilities. One of the parts companies, Sanhua , is scheduled to list in Hong Kong on Monday in addition to its current listing on mainland China's Shenzhen exchange. Already, at least two automakers — Tesla and Xpeng — are developing humanoid robots. Other car companies such as Zeekr and Volkswagen have teased how they're trying out humanoids at their factories. Auto suppliers "have the chance" to capture 47% to 60% of spending on parts and materials, according to Morgan Stanley estimates. In dollar terms, auto parts suppliers can account for around $15,000, or 60%, of each humanoid's production cost, the firm's report said. Other humanoid components such as screws and bearings aren't commonly used in cars, making machinery companies better poised to supply them, the report said. By 2050, Morgan Stanley predicts the humanoid market will be worth $800 billion in China and $5 trillion worldwide. As it's still early days, the analysts prefer "tier-1" module assemblers such as Sanhua since they "can secure assembly orders no matter which tech path is chosen." That's in contrast with "tier-2" component makers such as lidar or chip producers. A trio of sector picks Here are Morgan Stanley's three sector picks, all currently traded in mainland China: Tuopu — The firm issued a price target of 63 yuan, for upside of nearly 39% from Friday's close. Tuopu makes actuators, which enable mechanical movement in a car , and act as joints and muscles in humanoids. Morgan Stanley trimmed its price target on Tuopu due to softer Tesla orders, but maintained its overweight rating. The analysts expect Tuopu can supply humanoid actuator models as well as dexterous hand models for the robots. Actuator modules account for just under half of a humanoid's total cost, but even when incorporating a price drop, the total addressable market for the modules worldwide is likely to grow by 57% on an annual basis through 2030, Morgan Stanley predicts. "Such a material value composition offers revenue upside to Sanhua and Tuopu," the analysts said. Sanhua — The firm assigned a price target of 30 yuan, reflecting 20% upside from Friday's close. Morgan Stanley upgraded Sanhua to overweight from equal weight, and the firm raised the price target mildly on stronger-than-expected 2025 revenue and expectations for rising electric vehicle penetration worldwide. "We estimate that every 10ppt of global market share in humanoid actuator modules by 2030E would bring incremental revenue to Sanhua equal to 11% of 2024 total revenue," the analysts said. "To mitigate geopolitical risk, Sanhua has been setting up a plant in Thailand, and it expects to start production there from 3Q25." Xusheng — The firm gave the stock a price target of 12 yuan. Shares closed at 12.08 yuan on Friday. Morgan Stanley upgraded the stock to equal weight from underweight on expectations Xusheng's revenue will "recover modestly" as startup automaker Li Auto launches more battery-only electric cars. However, the analysts cautioned that Xusheng may see lower-than-expected revenue from Tesla and other customers. In terms of humanoids, Xusheng can supply casting and torso structural parts, the analysts said. It's still not fully clear how easy it is for the auto parts suppliers to directly shift to making humanoid parts. There are many questions about how quickly and how large the industry of human-like robots will become. The analysts also cautioned that despite Chinese humanoid parts suppliers' cost advantage over overseas peers, U.S.-China tensions could force businesses to choose more expensive alternatives.