Due to market uncertainties, the shipping cost per vehicle has increased by at least USD 60.
A Perth, Australia, dealer for Byd Company Limited reported that March store revenue surged over 50% year-on-year, with one staff member achieving monthly sales exceeding 100 vehicles. The primary challenge currently is ensuring timely vehicle delivery. As Byd Company Limited does not have a passenger car assembly plant in Australia, it relies entirely on imports, making roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) vessels crucial for local electric vehicle deliveries.
Data from the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers shows that in March, 875,000 complete vehicles were exported, a 72.7% year-on-year increase. Exports of new energy vehicles reached 371,000 units, surging 130% year-on-year. However, the volatile situation around the Strait of Hormuz has significantly impacted shipping times and costs for overall Chinese auto exports. Information from multiple automakers, import/export firms, and shipping companies indicates that over the past month, automotive shipping costs have risen 30% to 40%, with shipping capacity becoming relatively tight.
As Chinese auto exports continue to grow daily and international uncertainties persist, the scale and freight rates of car carriers now account for up to 10% of total auto export costs. To secure more controllable capacity, automakers such as SAIC Motor, Byd Company Limited, and Chery have started building their own fleets of ro-ro vessels, aiming to overcome a critical bottleneck in the automotive export chain.
The volatile strait and rising freight costs are pressing concerns across the shipping market. The general manager of GAC's import/export company stated that overall shipping market costs are rising, including freight and bunker surcharges, and companies must accept market adjustments. While exports to regions like Central Asia, Africa, and Southeast Asia continue normally, the average shipping cost per cubic meter for vehicles has increased by USD 5 to USD 8. For a standard family car, this translates to an additional shipping cost of approximately USD 60 to USD 96 per vehicle.
He noted that recent geopolitical factors are highly volatile, changing daily, and the company is closely monitoring the situation, particularly focusing on cost control for trade involving the Middle East and other urgent regions. However, he believes that even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens fully, logistics freight rates will not drop immediately in the short term, as price adjustments follow a process and range. A backlog of vehicles has accumulated, necessitating a push to increase exports during any open window.
Similar views are common within the industry. Sources from Byd Company Limited indicated that global shipping faces a harsh choice due to geopolitical conflicts: diverting via the Cape of Good Hope adds over 10 days to the voyage and skyrocketing fuel costs per trip, while transiting the strait entails exorbitant canal fees and insurance premiums. This dual pressure of delays and rising costs is severely testing the supply chains of Chinese automakers expanding overseas.
The general manager of Guangzhou Port's Haijia Automobile Terminal also acknowledged ongoing regional uncertainties leading to increased freight costs but emphasized that such fluctuations are cyclical. He noted that current ro-ro vessel shipping rates have already decreased by 40% from their 2023-2024 peaks.
According to data from shipping business data provider VesselsValue, daily charter rates for car carriers began rising in 2020 and peaked in 2024. At the peak, the daily charter rate for a 6,500-car-capacity vessel reached USD 123,500, a fivefold increase from USD 20,000 per day in 2021, equivalent to the manufacturing cost of one vehicle. Since entering 2025, with an increasing number of Pure Car and Truck Carriers (PCTC), a type of ro-ro vessel, daily charter rates have gradually declined from their highs.
Data from AXS RoRo shows that over the past three years, 133 new PCTCs entered service, adding nearly 1 million CEU (Car Equivalent Units) of capacity. An additional 67 new vessels are expected for delivery this year, a figure still near historical highs. The agency analysis suggests that the sustained strong growth in Chinese auto exports is replacing shipment volumes from traditional auto-producing nations. Importantly, this growth is reshaping, rather than merely expanding, the global automotive trade landscape.
Uncertain conditions have exacerbated capacity shortages and freight rate volatility for Chinese auto exports. For automakers without their own ro-ro fleets, overseas expansion faces three major challenges. First, vessel schedules often do not align with production, leading to rolled cargo, inventory buildup, significant waste, and potential losses from unmet orders. Second, inability to control port calls for third-party vessels prevents optimization of routes from industrial parks to ports, increasing inland transportation costs. Third, it is difficult to ensure emergency deployments during rush periods without the ability to mobilize dedicated fleet resources for special tasks.
The head of Byd Company Limited's in-house logistics stated that before 2022, the company had the technology, production capacity, and market demand but lacked shipping capacity, even experiencing situations where booked cargo was rolled by shipowners just before departure. Shipping capacity was the biggest bottleneck constraining exports at that time. To avoid constraints affecting their expansion pace, Byd Company Limited initially adopted a hybrid model of "early-stage leasing + later-stage self-building," securing some capacity through long-term charters while simultaneously developing its own fleet.
To resolve the shipping capacity dilemma, a group of automakers including SAIC Motor, Byd Company Limited, and Chery began establishing their own ro-ro fleets around 2022. For instance, Byd Company Limited announced a CNY 5 billion investment to build its own ro-ro vessels, placing orders with domestic shipyards like Guangzhou Shipyard International, China Merchants Industry, and CIMC Raffles. Within three years, it launched 8 car carriers into operation, achieving an annual transport capacity of 250,000 to 300,000 passenger vehicles.
Currently, SAIC's Anji Logistics operates a deep-sea fleet of over 20 vessels. Byd Company Limited operates 8 self-owned car carriers, Chery has 3 vessels in service, and Geely's Jisu Logistics operates 2 self-owned car carriers.
Globally, Japan, Norway, and Korea dominate the PCTC ownership landscape, holding a combined 60% market share. Japan alone possesses over 300 car carriers, accounting for 36% of the global fleet, making it the country with the largest ro-ro shipping capacity. As Chinese auto exports grow, China's share of the car carrier market is also gradually increasing.
AXS RoRo data indicates that of the 276 PCTCs delivered or scheduled for delivery between 2023 and 2028, nearly 80% were built by Chinese shipyards, giving them a competitive edge over Japanese and Korean yards. Guangzhou Shipyard International's current car carrier orders primarily come from Korea and China, secured based on high cost-effectiveness, reliable delivery schedules, and strong technical capabilities. The company's general manager stated that it currently holds contracts worth CNY 100 billion, with over 95% being international orders, and production is scheduled until 2030, with expected revenue surpassing CNY 35 billion by then.
The capacity of individual car carriers is also continuously increasing. In May 2025, Anji Logistics took delivery of a 9,500-CEU ocean-going car carrier. Less than a year later, a 10,800-CEU vessel built by Guangzhou Shipyard International for Korea's HMM began sea trials on March 31, setting a new record for the capacity of a car carrier under construction globally. However, this trend comes with high costs for automakers; vessels with over 9,000 CEU cost between CNY 500 million and CNY 1 billion. This indicates that alongside the vast prospects for Chinese auto exports, automakers must also bear substantial upfront costs.
Comments