A while back, comparison videos testing the new Li Auto L9 Livis and Nio ES9 on undulating roads went viral online. Instead of debating which model performs better or dissecting the technical specs—the Nio ES9’s 48V integrated fully active suspension versus the L9’s 800V active suspension—we will dive into what premium hardware like active suspension truly signifies for car manufacturers.
Advancements in electrification and intelligent driving have delivered transformative improvements to vehicle experience. Features such as full-scenario voice assistants, smart parking, vehicle-to-load discharge, and rear-wheel steering, now commonplace, have greatly boosted daily driving convenience.
This raises a critical question: Do experience gains enabled by new technology equate to improved in-house engineering capability? An active suspension undeniably elevates ride comfort or handling dynamics, switchable with a single tap on the infotainment screen. Yet we must ask: Have manufacturers genuinely upgraded their foundational chassis tuning expertise? Or in today’s market, can brands mask weak engineering fundamentals with off-the-shelf high-end hardware to deliver competitive performance?
1. A Shift in Chassis Evaluation Logic
In the internal combustion engine (ICE) era, chassis quality was first judged by hardware layout: double-wishbone front suspension outperformed MacPherson struts, and multi-link rear setups were superior to torsion beams. Test drives then separated great tuners from average ones within identical hardware tiers.
Some brands with sharp tuning prowess even defied hardware limits. Mazda, for instance, extracted sporty, responsive handling from non-independent torsion-beam suspensions, outperforming many cars fitted with multi-link independent layouts. Back then, chassis calibration know-how, built over decades of trial and error, was a true marker of a manufacturer’s real capability. As a core component of the three major vehicle assemblies, the chassis gap largely kept domestic Chinese brands confined to budget segments while foreign joint ventures dominated higher price brackets.
The electric vehicle (EV) era introduced a fresh, severe challenge: heavy battery packs drastically increase curb weight, exponentially raising demands on suspension tuning. In early EV testing, enthusiasts frequently watched hill-jump demonstrations, where body control during takeoff and landing offered a quick visual gauge of chassis competence.
EV owners who switched over from gasoline cars share a universal pain point: early EV suspensions struggled to contain body bounce and rebound, creating pronounced motion sickness—a rarely widespread complaint in ICE vehicles. The root cause was simple: vehicle weight surged, yet many manufacturers’ chassis tuning expertise failed to keep pace. This explains why anti-motion-sickness chassis tuning became a staple of EV launch presentations, a talking point almost unheard of for gas-powered models.
With mature supply chains reshaping the landscape, traditional budget-focused domestic brands rapidly rolled out EVs priced from 200,000 up to 400,000 RMB, marketing them as products forged by decades of manufacturing heritage. This rapid leap into premium pricing stemmed not from overnight breakthroughs in in-house high-end vehicle development, but from access to modular, ready-made premium components available from suppliers.
This trend is especially pronounced among new EV startups. Lacking legacy mass-production engineering experience, they launched premium models starting at 300,000–400,000 RMB from day one. Rather than building cars from the ground up using traditional manufacturing workflows, they assemble electronic consumer-style products leveraging mature supply chain resources.
Foreign OEMs initially lagged as they clung to conventional automaking mindsets, slow to adapt to this component-integrated EV development model. Hesitation cost them market ground, allowing Chinese brands to seize a dominant position.
This brings us to our core discussion: Does traditional hands-on manufacturing and tuning capability still matter? What tangible impacts do these capabilities have on consumers? Is proficient integration of third-party “black tech” hardware a valid form of brand competence? Does effective deployment of advanced hardware render legacy calibration and validation skills obsolete?
2. What Constitutes True Automaking Capability Today?
The divide in foundational tuning ability remains tangible. To revisit the suspension example: Mazda tunes torsion beams for sharp cornering, while other brands deliver boat-like floaty handling even with full multi-link setups. This gap only closes over years of iterative engineering testing and real-world validation.
Today, manufacturers can bypass limitations of basic passive coil-spring suspensions by adopting ready-to-install hardware: CDC dampers, air springs, magnetorheological systems, and fully active suspensions. Some brands do not even need deep mastery of suspension mechanical principles; they purchase complete supplier packages and add a one-tap “magic carpet” mode toggle to the vehicle touchscreen.
Whether acknowledged or not, the definition of automaking competence has fundamentally shifted in the EV age. Highly standardized three-power systems and modular intelligent hardware mean manufacturers’ core responsibilities have shifted from full mechanical R&D to product definition and system integration.
That said, seamless integration is itself an elite skill. Apple serves as a parallel benchmark: it manufactures zero core hardware components yet outpaces competitors through unmatched product definition and ecosystem synergy. Tesla mirrors this within the auto industry; much of its hardware comes from external suppliers, while its proprietary software-defined chassis, electrical architecture, and continuous over-the-air (OTA) optimization form its competitive backbone.
From this perspective, brands that unlock the full performance potential of active suspension hardware and refine ride quality via iterative OTA updates demonstrate modern-era engineering strength—one rooted not purely in mechanical tuning, but in electrical architecture, algorithm development, and user experience design.
For consumers, real-world driving experience is the ultimate metric, regardless of whether performance stems from in-house tuning or supplier hardware. A brand that extracts above-spec performance from off-the-shelf suspension kits delivers genuine value. Conversely, flashy hardware buzzwords mean nothing if on-road body control and shock absorption disappoint.
A far greater concern amid the industry’s rapid expansion is compressed development cycles and accelerated model iteration. Tight timelines risk cutting corners on long-term durability and reliability validation. No matter how impressive active suspension or three-power hardware may be, consumers, brands, and the wider market all suffer if chassis components loosen prematurely after a few years, battery capacity fades drastically, or replacement parts become scarce long-term. Such outcomes erode consumer trust, ruin brand reputation, and drain market confidence in electric mobility as a whole.
Advanced technological hardware delivers powerful performance boosts, but time-tested manufacturing standards and rigorous durability validation will always remain the non-negotiable foundation of a dependable vehicle. Balancing cutting-edge hardware with refined integration and long-term reliability is the core internal skill every automaker must cultivate for sustainable success.
English
Chinese
浙公网安备33038102332475号
