EXCLUSIVE China's largest car exporter Chery is coming to the UK this summer - and its first SUV will be unveiled this week
This summer Chery International will enter the British car market under its own name as it continues its rampant expansion, after already launching its Omoda/Jaecoo sub-brands in the last year.
Chery's first step of its ambitious plans includes launching two SUVs, which the Chinese car maker promise will be optimised for the local market in specification and pricing.
Both will be on sale in the coming months through a UK-wide dealer network, and the first model will be unveiled at the Goodwood Festival of Speed later this week on the first glance stand.
Chery UK Country Director, Farrell Hsu, says that Chery is 'recognised globally' for 'quality at a cost-effective' price so while we don't know the cost of the two SUVs yet, they will likely cost around the same as the Jaecoo and Omoda SUVs already on offer.
In China, Chery has sold its Tiggo crossover SUV series since 2005. It launched with the Tiggo 3, and currently offers iterations of the 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 to customers, covering everything from sub compact SUVs to seven-seater flagship SUVs.
The Wuhu brand's global SUVs have three million drivers across 80 countries. It says it 'makes advanced features accessible to everyday families and urban explorers alike'.
Speaking about Chery's stepping out under its own name, UK chief executive Gary Lan, who leads both Omodo and Jaecoo - and now Chery UK - said: 'Chery's introduction to the UK market this summer not only shows Chery's commitment to growth, but also reflects our confidence in the UK automotive sector, and the appeal of our vehicles to local buyers.
'Expect the same innovation, style, technology focus, and exceptional value.'
Since Chery launched its Omoda and Jaecoo brands in August 2024 and January 2025, the sister companies have already gone on to have a combined market share of 2 per cent in just under a year.
Both brands have quickly become known for offering cheap SUV alternatives to much more expensive European names including Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Volvo, while still delivering an impressive amount of tech, safety features, comfort and mpg for the low prices.
In particular, both have caused a stir with their plug-in hybrid SUVs that have ranges of over 700 miles, thanks to their 'Super Hybrid System' which combine a 1.5-litre petrol engine with an EV battery.
This is Money reviewed Jaecoo 7 SHS with its 745-mile combined range and 56-mile EV range back in March, and the flagship Omoda 9 SHS with its 700-mile combined range and class-leading 93-mile EV range last month.
Both times we concluded that it would be silly for UK drivers to turn their noses up at these cheap offerings when motoring has never been more expensive and you'd struggle to find a European manufacturer offering you the same 'premium without the price premium'.
Country Director Hsu said: 'We've been working behind the scenes, learning from our experience with other Chery International-derived brands in the UK, and have taken this time to refine and refresh our approach to this important market.
'We look forward to sharing more details on Chery's UK introduction soon.'
Chery Automotive - a brief overview
Chery is a rare one among the Chinese brands sweeping up on British shores because it started life as an automotive maker and not a tech company - or in the case of Geely a refrigerator producer.
It was founded in 1996 by a group of government officials who realised that establishing an automotive company would reduced poverty in Anhui and drive wider economic development.
The first Chery car launched in 1999 and mass production came a year later.
It became the first passenger car company in China to export complete vehicles and as of 2024 it sold more cars last year than BMW: Chery shifted a whopping 2.6million units in 2024 - a 38.4 per cent increase on 2023.
In recent years Chery's become synonymous with making intelligent, stylish and capable SUVs for drivers around the world.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Bailey provokes Chancellor over pension fund plan - but he does have a point, says ALEX BRUMMER
Andrew Bailey and Rachel Reeves may be former Bank of England colleagues. But it does not mean they always sing from the same songsheet. The Governor has been uneasy for some time about Labour assuming powers to mandate pension funds to invest in riskier assets. The Pension Schemes Bill, introduced in the House of Commons this week, would give ministers 'backstop' capability. The Government would assume powers requiring trustees to plough up to 10 per cent of funds into infrastructure, private firms, start-ups and equities. Governor Bailey acknowledges the case for greater retirement fund investment in Britain but does not support compulsion. One doesn't have to be a free marketeer to recognise Bailey has a point. Reeves has been impressed by the way that the Australian and Canadian pension fund managers invest beyond domestic shares and infrastructure. They also co- invest in UK assets such as Heathrow. British pension funds are nowhere to be seen at a time when Labour is seeking to speed up and bolster investment in cleaner energy and transport projects. Taking reserve powers over the pension funds might, however, cut across the fiduciary duty which state trustees must invest safely and cautiously for pensioners and future retirees. There must also be a fear of what might happen should a less scrupulous government than that led by Keir Starmer were to grab the reins of power. A leftie or populist administration might seek to take assets into part-public ownership or only back projects favoured by trades unions or financial backers of the governing party. The Reeves-Bailey pensions dispute is nothing like the bitter, public assault on chairman Jay Powell and the independent Federal Reserve by Donald Trump in the US. He wants rid of Powell and to see borrowing costs slashed. Reeves too craves lower UK borrowing costs before growth heads over the horizon. One trusts the Chancellor is conscious enough of the sensitivity of Bank independence not to rock the boat. Drug therapy Whatever happened to the Government's life sciences strategy? Britain's pharmaceutical giants are caught in a regulatory pincer movement. On this side of the Atlantic, differences between science minister Patrick Vallance and the Treasury over rebates to the Government on drug sales is proving a block to better access by the UK's life science pioneers to innovation in the NHS. In the US, President Trump is threatening a 200 per cent tariff on imported medicines unless the pharma industry gets its act together. The White House argues that dependence on foreign drug supplies is a national security threat. Both AstraZeneca and GSK have substantial research and manufacturing capacity in America. But there is genuine concern that, as overseas-based and listed enterprises, they could be targeted. Despite the status of Britain's big pharma companies as R&D powerhouses, with an opportunity to make an enormous contribution to growth, they are failing to get the attention they should from the Government. There is a brief reference to a special status for UK pharma in Britain's outline trade deal with the US. But almost all the efforts of negotiators has been on the UK's steel industry and car makers. It is not surprising that Pascal Soriot, chief executive of AstraZeneca, is reported to have considered shifting Britain's most highly valued enterprise to the US. Drug firms were initially encouraged by NHS reforms to make greater use of digital tech to test new treatments and roll them out quickly in Britain. There is acute pain over the failure of the Government to recognise the critical role of the sector in fuelling productivity and growth. Comeback kid? New chairman Philip Jansen's work is cut out if he is to reverse the fortunes of UK marketing powerhouse WPP. Shares in the group plunged 18.8 per cent after the advertising group scythed its revenue and earnings projections. Maybe WPP creator Martin Sorrell could come to the rescue with a reverse takeover masterminded by his S4 Capital digital and AI-enabled agency.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Government sees off backbench rebellion as welfare reforms clear Commons
A proposed benefit cut for future out-of-work claimants has cleared the Commons after Labour ministers saw off a backbench rebellion. The Universal Credit Bill cleared the Commons at third reading, after it received MPs' backing by 336 votes to 242, majority 94. 'If you can work, you should,' social security minister Sir Stephen Timms told MPs before they voted on the welfare reforms. 'If you need help into work, the Government should provide it, and those who can't work must be able to live with dignity. 'Those are the principles underpinning what we're doing.' Work and pensions ministers faced calls to walk away from their universal credit (UC) proposals at the 11th hour, after they shelved plans to reform the separate personal independence payment (Pip) benefit and vowed to only bring in changes following a review. 'When this Bill started its life, the Government was advocating for cuts to Pip claimants and UC health claimants now and in the future. They conceded that now wasn't right, and it was only the future,' Labour MP for Hartlepool Jonathan Brash said. 'Then they conceded it shouldn't be Pip claimants in the future, leaving only UC health claimants in the future. Does (Sir Stephen) understand the anxiety and confusion this has caused people in the disabled community, and would it not be better to pause and wait for the review and do it properly?' Sir Stephen replied: 'No, because reform is urgently needed. We were elected to deliver change and that is what we must do. 'And it's particularly scandalous that the system gives up on young people in such enormous numbers – nearly a million not in employment, education or training.' The minister said the Government wanted to 'get on and tackle the disability employment gap' and added the Bill 'addresses the severe work disincentives in universal credit, it protects those we don't ever expect to work from universal credit reassessment'. As part of the Bill, the basic universal credit standard allowance will rise at least in line with inflation until 2029/30. But the Government has proposed freezing the 'limited capability for work' (LCW) part of the benefit until 2030, which a group of 37 Labour rebels including Mr Brash opposed in a vote. The move was ultimately approved by 335 votes to 135, majority 200. New claimants who sign up for the 'limited capability for work and work-related activity' payment would receive a lower rate than existing claimants after April 2026, unless they meet a set of severe conditions criteria or are terminally ill, which the same rebels also opposed. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central who was among them, had earlier said: 'No matter what spin, to pass the Bill tonight, this will leave such a stain on our great party, founded on values of equality and justice.' She warned that making changes to universal credit before a wider look at reform was putting 'the cart before the horse, the vote before the review', and branded the Government's decision-making an 'omnishambles'. Ms Maskell pressed her own amendment to a division, which she lost by 334 votes to 149, majority 185. It would have demanded that out-of-work benefit claimants with a 'fluctuating medical condition' who slip out of and then back into their eligibility criteria either side of the changes would receive their existing – not the lower – rate. Marie Tidball said that during the review of Pip, which Sir Stephen was tasked with leading, 'the voices of disabled people must be front and centre'. She proposed putting a series of legal conditions on the so-called Timms review, including that disabled people should be actively involved in the process. The Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge did not move her amendment to a vote, on the basis Sir Stephen could offer 'further assurances that there will be sufficient link between the Timms review recommendations and subsequent legislation on Pip to ensure accountability and that the voices of disabled people are heard'. The minister said he could give her that assurance, and added that 'the outcome of the review will be central to the legislation that follows'. A total 47 Labour MPs voted against the Bill at third reading including Mr Brash, Ms Maskell, Mother of the House and Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP Diane Abbott, and former minister Dawn Butler. The Bill will undergo further scrutiny in the Lords at a later date.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Ex-Tory minister breached post-government jobs rules, watchdog says
A member of the House of Lords and former Tory minister has breached the rules ex-government figures should follow when taking jobs after leaving office, a watchdog has said. Lord Harrington, a non-affiliated peer who was a Conservative minister under Boris Johnson, failed to tell the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) about two roles he took after leaving government in 2022. Acoba said the peer's failure to notify it of roles with Stephenson Harwood LLP and Regal Holdco Limited showed an 'unambiguous breach and clear disregard' of the rules governing ex-ministers. He apologised, telling the committee he miscalculated the period within which he had to give notice, while Acoba has written to the current Government complaining there is a 'general lack of understanding' of the rules it enforces. On leaving Government, all ministers must notify Acoba for the next two years of any jobs they go on to hold, to ensure they do not use their influence or knowledge of government improperly. Lord Harrington left his role as a refugees minister, working across the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Home Office, in September 2022. In the role, he spearheaded co-ordination of the UK's efforts to house Ukrainian refugees in the early days of the war, as well as working to accommodate Afghan refugees fleeing the resurgent Taliban. Acoba said it found out he had taken up a role with law firm Stephenson Harwood, which he began in March 2024, when a member of the public made a freedom of information request about it. The committee also became aware of an appointment with Cluster Partners Limited in December 2023, and another with Regal Holdco Limited in July 2024. It wrote to Lord Harrington asking why he had failed to give notice of the jobs, describing his actions as 'surprising', as he had sought advice for past roles after serving in David Cameron's government, and 'within the first few months of leaving office in 2022'. In correspondence with the watchdog from April, which has now been published on Acoba's website, Lord Harrington apologised to the committee. He said: 'I apologise for miscalculating the period in which I was required to notify Acoba of such appointments. The ministerial role I undertook in 2022 was a strictly limited project, concerning a subject on which I have had no professional interaction with prior or since that period. 'No paid employment I have commenced within two years of leaving ministerial office has been related to that role nor to Government.' While he said Cluster Partners was established in 2023, Lord Harrington said the company did not 'commence any activity until much later on', until after the deadline by which he had to notify Acoba. The watchdog accepted his explanation, but said of the other two appointments: 'The purpose of the rules is to protect the integrity of Government by considering the real and perceived risks associated with former ministers joining outside organisations. 'Protecting the integrity of the Government has not been possible here. Failing to await advice before taking up roles with Stephenson Harwood LLP and Regal Holdco Limited is an unambiguous breach and clear disregard of the Government's rules and the requirements of the ministerial code.' Acoba also wrote to Pat McFadden, the most senior minister of the Cabinet Office, notifying him of the breach. In its letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the watchdog complained that the rules governing ex-ministers jobs are inadequate. It said: 'These breaches, alongside those of others, raise the wider issue around the general lack of understanding of the rules and the inadequacies of the framework in which the rules operate. 'As it stands, the process relies entirely on the co-operation of applicants in the absence of any sanctions or incentives to maintain compliance. This has risked undermining the integrity of the committee and the rules.'
