Talk:BYD Qin

Something doesn't add up...
According to the article the Qin has a battery of 13kW, against 16kW on the F3DM, but that BYD also says the Qin to be 7% more efficient. That would mean it could run (13/16)*1.07 = 87% of the distance on a full battery charge compared to the F3DM.

Yet the article mentions a BYD estimate that the Qin would run 50 km all-electric, against 97 km on the F3DM. That is only 51.5%.

Simonbr (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dubious 1Q 2014 sales reports
In a press release dated March 21, 2014, BYD announced it had sold over 6,000 Qin plug-in hybrids during 1Q 2014. This release was published by several reliable sources: Wall Street Journal, EV World and several other news outlets. I removed this content because this claim seems dubious and contradicts recently published reports about sales in China during 1Q 2014:
 * The Financial Times reports total sales of fewer than 7,000 plug-in electric vehicles during 1Q 2014. Of these, about 2,750 are plug-in hybrids (see here). So, how come BYD claims it sold 6,000 Qins?
 * China Auto Web reported the top 100 best-selling sedans/hatchbacks/coupes in January 2014 (see here), February 2014 (see here), and March 2014 (see here). Correspondingly, the car listed in the 100th place each month sold 2,867, 2,185 and 2,888 units, and the Qin did not make it in any of these monthly lists. If the Qin sold 815 units through January 2014 (as now reported in the article), and less than 2,185 in February and 2,888 in March, how come BYD claims sales of 6,000 units for the quarter.

I think that since this is not the first time a Chinese car manufacturer makes an exaggerated claim, until a detailed plug-in electric car sales report by model is available for 1Q 2014, the article should not include the 6,000 sales figure and associated claims made by BYD. Any comments? --Mariordo (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the following sources here, here, and here, Qin sales during 1Q totaled 2,384 units for cumulative sales of 2,526 units between December 2013 and March 2014. The article now reflects this fact, and the issue is now settled.Mariordo (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)