BYD Yangwang U8 vs Honda CR-V vs Chevrolet Silverado 1500
BYD Yangwang U8
$150,000
Honda CR-V
$37,899 – $38,650
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
$53,599 – $54,800
AI Comparison Summary
Comparing BYD Yangwang U8 vs Honda CR-V vs Chevrolet Silverado 1500. Honda CR-V offers the strongest value on price. BYD Yangwang U8 leads on expert rating.
Category Winners
Overall Winner
BYD Yangwang U8
Best Value
Honda CR-V
Fuel Economy
BYD Yangwang U8
Performance
BYD Yangwang U8
Visual Comparison
Category Radar
Price & Reviews
Model Year
Expert Rating
BYD Yangwang U8
$150,000
Rating: 4.8/10
Honda CR-V
$37,899 – $38,650
Rating: 4.7/10
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
$53,599 – $54,800
Rating: 4.5/10
| Specification |
BYD Yangwang U8 |
Honda CR-V |
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand | BYD | Honda | Chevrolet |
| Model | Yangwang U8 | CR-V | Silverado 1500 |
| Year | 2026 | 2026 | 2026 |
| Type | — | Suv | — |
| Body Style | Full-Size Luxury SUV | Compact Crossover SUV | Full-Size Pickup Truck |
| Current Price | $150,000 | $37,899 – $38,650 | $53,599 – $54,800 |
| MSRP | $150,000 | $38,650 | $54,800 |
| Dealer Price | $145,000 | $37,299 | $52,499 |
| Engine | 2.0L Turbo I4 + Quad Electric Motors | 1.5L Turbo Inline-4 | 5.3L EcoTec3 V8 |
| Horsepower | 1180 hp | 190 hp | 355 hp |
| Torque | 1280 Nm | 179 lb-ft | 383 lb-ft |
| 0–60 mph | 3.6 sec (0-100 km/h) | Approx. 8.0 sec (0-60 mph) | Approx. 6.1 sec (0-60 mph) |
| Top Speed | 200 km/h | Approx. 116 mph | Approx. 112 mph |
| Fuel Type | Range-Extended Electric (EREV) | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Mileage / MPG | 1000 km comprehensive CLTC range | 29 MPG combined | 18 MPG combined (EPA est., configuration dependent) |
| Range (EV) | 180 km CLTC Pure Electric | N/A | N/A |
| Emissions | Low emission EREV | Meets applicable U.S. federal and state standards | Meets applicable U.S. federal and state standards |
| Battery | 49.05 kWh | N/A | N/A |
| Charging | 110 kW DC Fast Charging | N/A | N/A |
| Expert Rating | 4.8/10 | 4.7/10 | 4.5/10 |
| Community Reviews | 450 | 1340 | 870 |
| Performance Score | 9.8 | 8.2 | 8.8 |
| Comfort Score | 9.5 | 9.2 | 8.6 |
| Safety Score | 9.4 | 9.4 | 8.9 |
| Fuel Economy Score | 8.5 | 9.0 | 7.9 |
| Technology Score | 9.9 | 8.8 | 9.0 |
| Value Score | 8.8 | 9.0 | 8.7 |
| Pros | Staggering 1,180 horsepower quad-motor performance; Innovative tank turn and crab walk modes; Emergency floating capabil... | Spacious and practical cabin design; Strong standard and available safety tech; Comfortable ride and quiet interior; Com... | Strong maximum towing capability; Broad engine and trim lineup; Useful trailer and bed technologies; Large infotainment... |
| Cons | Massive kerb weight over 3.4 tonnes; High acquisition and maintenance cost; Limited charging infrastructure compatibilit... | Acceleration is adequate rather than sporty; Higher trims increase total cost quickly; No dedicated performance-oriented... | Ride quality can feel firm on rough surfaces; Fuel economy is average for the segment; Some advanced features locked to... |
