搜尋歷史
熱門搜尋
經銷商登入 / 註冊
In January to May this year, the cumulative number of new models launched in the domestic automobile market reached 542 models, translating to an average of 3.6 new cars officially announced daily. Meanwhile, about 1.65 million vehicles were recalled nationwide in the first half of 2026, with the recall volume of independent brands surging 681.2% year-on-year. On one hand, the high-speed launches brought by the "Sea of Cars" strategy; on the other, the recall pressure brought by speed. More and more people are starting to question: What exactly have those rapidly launched new cars cut out?
Chery Automobile Executive Vice President Li Xueyong stated plainly: "Automobiles are not FMCGs, they concern the safety of tens of millions of families, and bear the test of global road conditions, climates, and habits. There are some times, we really dare not save." Voyah Chairman Lu Fang publicly stated: "Quick-made cars" is a concept that has been "severely misread," a short development time does not equal quick-made cars. The watershed for judging "quick-made cars" lies in whether the verification is complete.
When industry anxiety found an outlet in the three words "quick-made cars", the discussion regarding the speed of car building between Chery and Voyah took on another meaning. The faster cars are built, the shorter the verification time is compressed; this is the fact on the table. What we want to know more is, how many unfinished lessons are hidden in "fast", and whether there is real skill in "slow". In the final analysis, what this controversy is more worth asking is not who is right between fast and slow, but under the "Sea of Cars" strategy, whether speed and quality can truly be achieved together.
Speed and Quality, Not So Easy to Balance
Some things hold theoretically, but in reality, they always incur some discounts. This is also one of the reasons for the industry's anxiety over "quick-made cars". In the past, a car from project initiation to market launch generally took 3 to 4 years, but in recent years this has been compressed to 18 months or even shorter. Where is the time saved? Platformization and modularization can save some repeated development, mature simulation testing can save some pure physical trials. These are technological progress, looking very reasonable. But the question is, the bottom line for saving time is hard to verify.
At the 2026 China Automotive Forum, Beijing Hyundai General Manager Li Fenggang said that some brands, in order to rush to launch, directly cut out the mandatory Design Verification (DV) and Production Verification (PV) links in overall vehicle development, pushing to market before verification is complete. Two links, one checks if the plan works, one checks if mass production is stable, neither can be missing. But once only one step is done, production consistency will be poor, and quality will be very unstable. The consequence is that customers turn from consumers into test drivers.
Voyah's Lu Fang believes "quick-made cars" were misread, short development time does not equal quick-made cars, the real yardstick is whether verification is complete. This viewpoint itself is not problematic, indeed some cars have short cycles but complete the necessary verification. But in reality, it is precisely the matter of "whether verification is complete" that is most easily fudged. When the whole industry is taking speed as results, how many can honestly run through every verification step? The "efficient cars" Lu Fang spoke of, hold theoretically, but verifying step by step without omission tests the automaker's bottom line. And the word "bottom line", is precisely the hardest thing to stick to under the "Sea of Cars" strategy.
Given that theory may have some disconnect with reality, Chery's attitude of "daring not to save time" is undoubtedly more reassuring. For this point, we can verify it by looking at the R&D process of Chery Fengyun T7. 2 years planning, 3 years forward development, this car took 5 years in total to reach the market. The first two years global research covered 15 typical countries, completed over 5,000 user questionnaires, breaking down car usage habits in different markets into over 80 adaptation details.
The following 3 years, 81 cars ran globally simultaneously, from Siberia -40℃ extreme cold to Middle East 55℃ intense heat, from Indonesia's high humidity acid rain to Mexico's pebble bumpy roads, all completed. Total accumulated vehicle test mileage exceeded 6 million kilometers, durability special actual testing reached 1.45 million kilometers alone. This is not running in a lab, but running on real road conditions around the world.
At present, technology can indeed reduce the car building cycle, but exchanging time for reliability, exchanging global verification for user trust, is still the more reassuring path for now.
Fast and Slow, Not a "Single Choice Question"
In the domestic car market, hardly anyone dares to slow down truly. Price wars come one after another, new cars come one after another, step back one step, might not even enter the track. So "speeding up" for most automakers is the only choice. In fact, in this era where technology develops rapidly, talking about bottom lines and efficiency, fast and slow themselves shouldn't be a "single choice question". To put it bluntly, the systematic leap of technology has improved the efficiency of building cars, this is an undeniable fact. But for automakers, how to grasp the proportion of fast and slow is a more worth thinking about question.
Li Xueyong said "some times we dare not save", this sentence is actually very interesting. This is a sentence with "room" left, we look at Chery's product renewal strategy, can find, it neither clings to "fast", nor completely obsesses over "slow". Objectively speaking, this is a "dual track" approach. For cars like Fengyun T7 that carry the brand and fight in the global market, do them slowly; for annual facelifts like Arrizo 8 PRO or classic IP electrification renewals like QQ3, do them quickly.
Why? The latter type of cars, platforms are already mature, three-electric systems cross-model reuse, core components have run multiple markets, the focus of verification changed from "zero verification" to "change point verification". What is saved here is repetitive labor, not bottom lines. In other words, Chery is not averse to pursuing speed; it simply applies "speed" to areas that are already proven, and reserves "slowness" for places that truly cannot be rushed. So, Chery can plan 17 models for 2026, yet also be willing to sink its heart and spend 5 years, solely to verify the reliability of the Fengyun T7.
Of course, to grasp the balance between fast and slow, it is very important whether the automaker has sufficient confidence. This means bearing the rhythm pressure brought by slowness without being overwhelmed by price wars, while possessing mature platforms and reuse capabilities to ensure quality isn't discounted despite speed. Just like Chery, it has already achieved commendable results in the global market. Profits from overseas feed back into domestic R&D, then using global road conditions and climates to verify vehicles. With no need to rely on cutting R&D time to protect profits, it naturally dares to spend sufficient time where it shouldn't be saved.
In the end, fast and slow shouldn't be a question requiring a binary choice, the real difficulty lies in the proportion. In this regard, Lu Fang's viewpoint that technology drives speed at Voyah is correct, but Chery's "dual-track" strategy is more worth learning from by the industry.
After Controversy, How to Solve Industry Anxiety?
For the whole industry, "quick-made cars" are indeed anxious. To speak plainly, the essence of the "quick-made cars" controversy is not fast or slow, it is information asymmetry. Beijing Hyundai General Manager Li Fenggang said someone "cut key links of DV (Design Verification) and PV (Production Verification), turning consumers into road testers" "only verifying one stage, leading to poor production consistency, large quality fluctuations", which hits the anxiety behind "quick-made cars". And in recent times, the status quo where multiple domestic automakers had products explode with quality issues, having to recall tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of cars, also made consumers' worry about "quick-made cars" quality issues reach the peak.
In an environment where 3.6 new cars per day, everyone shouting "fast", exactly what can be used to distinguish who is building cars seriously and who is cutting corners? Behind this controversy about "quick-made cars", what everyone is anxious about is whether the bottom line will be blurred because of this. After all, once the bottom line is blurred, finally the whole industry pays for the laziness of a few people. So, the controversy itself is not important, the important thing is how to solve the problem of industry anxiety.
At present, Chery's approach is relatively meaningful. Here we can see three relatively core things, one is external standards, Chery has IATF board member identity, can directly participate in global automotive quality standard formulation. This is not a certification that can be bought with money, requires the enterprise to reach international frontline level in technical system, quality control ability, globalization degree to enter.
Secondly, quantifiable results: 71 car models achieved global five-star ratings, J.D. Power ranked first in four autonomous categories; these are hard evidence that Chery's "verification was not in vain". Additionally, Chery has a safety net mechanism, such as Fengyun T7's promise to replace the new car in case of battery thermal runaway, and a maximum compensation of 5 million for intelligent driving liability accidents. Essentially, this transfers the risk of "insufficient verification" from the consumer back to the automaker. If the industry adopts such mechanisms, the cost of "slacking off" will be raised significantly.
Thirdly, a virtual-real combined verification loop. Chery's verification system is not "replacing real with virtual", but "using virtual to improve real efficiency". It uses simulation testing to filter out the vast majority of problems across massive working conditions, with real vehicle road tests making final confirmation. Real data collected from road tests then feeds back to optimize digital twin models, forming a closed loop of virtual-real mutual calibration. Technology improves efficiency, but nothing is saved in the parts that require time for verification; this is something the industry should learn.
According to reports, in 2027, the reliability road test for pure electric models will be uniformly raised from 15,000 kilometers to 30,000 kilometers. This information indicates that time will remain a key indicator for verifying vehicle reliability. The industry's bottom line cannot rely on "self-discipline" to maintain; establishing appropriate "standards" is what allows efficiency and quality to truly be balanced. The true value of this "quick-made cars" controversy may be forcing the entire industry to shift from the former to the latter.
Conclusion
In this controversy about "quick-made cars", "fast" or "slow" is not the key, we ultimately need to focus on the balance of efficiency and quality. Technology can improve efficiency in some stages of building cars, but some time cannot be completely omitted because of this. The ultimate proposition of the automotive industry has never been faster is better, nor slower is better, but under the premise of ensuring safety, let consumers not have to pay for "trust".
