Skip to main content
Log in

A SIZEABLE CHUNK OF YOUR TESLA IS NEARLY IDENTICAL TO A BYD EV...WHY PAY MUSK $5000 PER VEHICLE COMMISSION FOR A TESLA EV?

    Administrator
    By Administrator
    So EV makers share supply chains and how many parts in a Tesla would be identical to say a BYD EV
     
    Sider Fusion
     
     

    Short answer: there is a lot of overlap in EV supply chains and components across major makers, but not a perfect one-to-one repeat. Here’s a concise breakdown focused on Tesla vs BYD:

    Common supply-chain themes between EV makers

    • Battery cells and packs: sourcing (cathode materials, graphite, copper), cell chemistry choices, pack design, thermal management.
    • Electric motors, inverters, power electronics: many suppliers compete globally; some OEMs use similar architectures or third-party suppliers.
    • Control software and autonomy stacks: use of common software platforms, sensors, and AI compute hardware is widespread, with each company adding its own fleet software layers.
    • Semiconductors and sensors: radars (less common in newer EVs), cameras, LIDAR in some programs, ECUs, and SiP modules.
    • Electronics, wiring harnesses, HV safety components, battery management systems (BMS), thermal systems.
    • Manufacturing equipment and automation: robotics, paint lines, stamping, casting, and battery pack assembly lines—these are often sourced from the same global equipment suppliers.

    Key differences that reduce direct parts-for-parts parity

    • Vertical integration: Tesla historically self-produces many components (batteries partly, software, energy management, R&D); BYD also vertically integrated but pursues different integrations and joint ventures. This leads to different bill-of-materials and supplier bases.
    • Battery strategy: Tesla has aggressively pursued its own battery tech roadmap (e.g., 4680 cells in earlier plans) and unique pack architecture. BYD builds its own cells (LFP and others) and often uses BYD-branded cells in its vehicles, changing the supplier mix.
    • Vehicle platforms and architecture: chassis design, stamping, platform modularity, and cooling system layouts vary, so many parts are not interchangeable.
    • Supplier relationships and regional exposure: BYD has strong ties within China’s supplier ecosystem and government programs; Tesla has a more global supplier network with different regional dependencies.
    • Software and analytics: each company develops its own software stack for FSD/safety, OTA updates, energy management, and vehicle UX, reducing cross-compatibility in critical domains.

    Rough practical takeaway

    • There is substantial commonality at the component level (batteries, power electronics, sensors, EV drivetrains) across the industry, driven by standardization pressures and supplier ecosystems.
    • The exact parts lists, specifications, software stacks, and manufacturing processes are largely non-interchangeable between Tesla and BYD due to different designs, integration choices, and strategic priorities.

     

    Identical parts scenario
     
    Sider Fusion
     
     

    Here’s a scenario to illustrate when Tesla and BYD might have “identical parts” and when they almost certainly would not. I’ll present a few concrete domains and what an “identical parts” approach would entail, plus the practical feasibility and caveats.

    1. Battery cells and packs
    • Identical parts scenario:
      • Both use the same cell chemistry (e.g., NCA, LFP) and a shared, standard cell format (e.g., 2170/4680-like form factors) from the same supplier.
      • Shared battery-management-system (BMS) software and hardware interfaces.
      • Shared module/pack thermal design concepts and test protocols.
    • Feasibility:
      • In practice, Tesla and BYD do not share a single standardized cell supplier or pack architecture at scale. BYD manufactures many of its own cells (and uses BYD-branded cells) while Tesla sources from multiple suppliers and develops its own 4680 roadmap. A true “identical parts” scenario would require a rare alignment of cell chemistry, supplier contracts, and vehicle platform timing.
    • Caveats:
      • Some third-party cells and modules are used across brands in limited programs, but full interchangeability is unlikely.
    1. Electric motors, inverters, power electronics
    • Identical parts scenario:
      • Common off-the-shelf inverter platforms, power semiconductors (e.g., IGBTs/METs or SiC MOSFETs), and standard motor topologies (permanent-mmagnet or induction) sourced from the same broad supplier base.
    • Feasibility:
      • Both companies design bespoke powertrains tailored to their vehicle platforms. They rarely adopt the exact same motor design, rotor/stator geometry, or inverter control algorithms for mass-market vehicles.
    • Caveats:
      • Some shared components (DC-DC converters, HV relays, thermal management interfaces) could be similar, but the critical powertrain parts remain different.
    1. Sensors, ADAS hardware, and software
    • Identical parts scenario:
      • Using the same lidar (historically) or camera/SIM sensors, and a shared OTA/ECU software stack.
    • Feasibility:
      • Tesla has largely moved toward camera-based vision with Tesla Vision and minimal reliance on lidar. BYD uses different sensor strategies and software stacks. Alignment on identical sensors and software is unlikely in current roadmaps.
    • Caveats:
      • Broad semiconductor suppliers and software toolchains may be similar, but core ADAS components and data fusion pipelines are not interchangeable.
    1. Vehicle chassis components and body-in-white
    • Identical parts scenario:
      • Common stamping platforms, chassis bolts, fasteners, HVAC components, or door handles across both brands.
    • Feasibility:
      • Highly unlikely. Platform architectures, crash requirements, and supplier contracts are deeply customized to each company’s vehicles.
    1. Charging interfaces and electrical interfaces
    • Identical parts scenario:
      • Standardized charging connectors, communication protocols (ISO 15118, CCS), and maybe some standardized battery thermal management connectors.
    • Feasibility:
      • There is more potential here for standardization, and many external charging interfaces are indeed standardized across the industry. However, identical internal charging hardware and hardware-software integration is unlikely.

    Bottom line

    • In a strict “identical parts” sense, true one-to-one part interchangeability across Tesla and BYD is improbable due to differences in platform design, battery strategy, software architecture, and vertical integration goals.
    • In a broader sense, the industry does share common suppliers, standard components, and ecosystem players (cells, semiconductors, sensors, charging standards). That creates overlap, but it’s more about shared sub-systems and components than identical, drop-in parts.