喺馬來西亞嘅 SUV 市場,好多買家喺揀車嘅時候都會拎 寶騰 X90 同 現代途勝 嚟做比較。這兩款車喺價位同定位上都幾接近,今日我哋就從多個方面做一個詳細對比,幫你省返做功課嘅時間。
寶騰 X90 喺馬來西亞嘅 OTR 售價係 RM 106,800 - 122,800,總共有 4 個版本,包括 2026 1.5T Prime X(RM 122,800)、2026 1.5T Prime(RM 116,800)、2026 1.5T Lite(RM 106,800) 等。
現代途勝 喺馬來西亞嘅 OTR 售價係 RM 143,888 - 197,888,總共有 5 個版本,包括 2025 HEV 1.6T AT 2WD Prestige(RM 197,888)、2025 1.6T DCT 4WD Prestige(RM 186,888)、2025 1.6T DCT 2WD Prime(RM 164,888) 等。
從價錢睇,寶騰 X90 嘅起步價確實比 現代途勝 平咗 RM 37,088。如果你預算有限,寶騰嘅入門版已經可以滿足日常需要。但亦都要留意,平嗰幾千蚊,可能會喺配備上面有取舍,具體要睇你嘅需求。

寶騰 X90 搭載 1.5L Turbo,馬力 140 hp。官方油耗 7.0 L/100km。
現代途勝 搭載 1.5L Turbo,馬力 140 hp。官方油耗 7.0 L/100km。
兩款車用嘅係同一套動力系統,日常開起嚟嘅感受基本冇差別。油耗方面都差唔多,唔使太糾結呢一點。

寶騰 X90 嘅安全評級係 5★ (ASEAN NCAP),主動安全系統包括 ADAS (ACC, AEB, LKA, LDA, BSM, RCTA)。
現代途勝 嘅安全評級係 5★ (ASEAN NCAP),主動安全系統包括 SmartSense。
兩款車嘅安全評級一樣,喺呢個級別入面安全配備都算好齊全。而家嘅新車安全性都唔差,唔使太擔心呢一點。

寶騰 X90 保修 5 年/150,000km,保養間隔 每 10,000km 或 6 個月。
現代途勝 保修 5 年/300,000km,保養間隔 每 10,000km 或 6 個月。

總體嚟講,寶騰 X90 同 現代途勝 都係馬來西亞市場幾靚嘅車型。揀邊一輛,關鍵都要睇你嘅個人需求同預算。建議大家做好功課,多比較幾間車行嘅報價,先至去試駕做最終決定。買車係件大事,花啲時間做功課絕對唔會錯。


Written by | Li Hezi
Edited by Huang Dalu
Designed by Zhen Youmei
Costs rose directly by nearly 40%, and we are no longer facing an impact, but a question of how to survive." With aluminum prices doubling over the past few years, this entrepreneur focused on aluminum auto parts found it unbearable; at the end of June 2026, he told Automotive Commercial Review.
In 2020, domestic electrolytic aluminum prices were around 12,000 yuan/ton. Over the following years, aluminum prices climbed continuously: in 2025, domestic electrolytic aluminum prices broke through the 20,000 yuan/ton threshold; since 2026, aluminum prices have further surged to a high range of 24,000 to 25,000 yuan/ton, with March even briefly exceeding 25,000 yuan/ton, reaching a new high in recent years.
The continued rise in aluminum prices is transmitting downward along the automotive industry chain.
Data from the Global New Automotive Ecology Association shows that the proportion of aluminum in body part costs has increased from around 12% in 2020 to over 22% currently. A typical medium-sized intelligent electric vehicle requires about 200 kg of aluminum; from November 2025 to January 2026 alone, the aluminum material cost per vehicle increased by about 600 yuan.
An aluminum processing company interviewed by Automotive Commercial Review, with an annual output of 60,000 to 70,000 tons, incurred nearly 100 million yuan in additional procurement costs due to the rise in the base aluminum price in the first five months of 2026 alone, most of which the company still had to digest itself.
However, costs did not transmit smoothly along the industry chain. Upstream electrolytic aluminum capacity is constrained by a 45 million-ton capacity ceiling; midstream processing enterprises find it difficult to fully pass on rising raw material costs, while downstream vehicle manufacturers continue to propose annual cost reduction requirements for suppliers, constantly compressing profit margins.
At the same time, although new cars are getting heavier (see the article "Weight Reduction, The Biggest Lie of New Energy Vehicles" published in Automotive Commercial Review on June 25, 2026 at Weight Reduction, The Biggest Lie of New Energy Vehicles), the trend of automotive lightweighting has not slowed. Using aluminum alloys to replace traditional steel to achieve body weight reduction is currently the mainstream lightweighting solution for auto enterprises.
Under cost pressure, manufacturing cost-reduction technologies represented by integrated die-casting are accelerating adoption, and the rise in aluminum prices is amplifying another side of it: while this technology reduces manufacturing costs, it also raises maintenance costs; insurance companies and car owners are bearing new costs for the automakers' "cost reduction".
Setting aside the price increase of memory chips, the ongoing rise in aluminum prices further leverages a series of deep-seated contradictions in China's new energy intelligent network automotive industry chain: rigid capacity upstream, imbalance in bargaining power midstream, limits in cost reduction downstream, and the chain reactions brought by technological route adjustments.
Why Aluminum Prices Can't Be Contained

Chart: Automotive Commercial Review
The continuous rise in aluminum prices first stems from the supply side.
"The ceiling for electrolytic aluminum capacity in China is 45 million tons, and currently the overall state is a tight balance." Cheng Haifeng, General Manager of Nannan Aluminum, an aluminum processing enterprise, told Automotive Commercial Review.
In 2017, multiple departments of the state jointly released the "Special Action Work Plan for Cleaning Up and Rectifying Illegal and Non-compliant Projects in the Electrolytic Aluminum Industry", setting 45 million tons as a rigid upper limit and drawing a red line for the disorderly expansion of the electrolytic aluminum industry; the mechanism of equivalent or reduced capacity replacement is strictly enforced, and enterprises wishing to add new capacity must first shut down or purchase backward capacity of the same scale.
This policy red line has remained firm until now. In March 2025, the National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, and ten other departments jointly issued the "Implementation Plan for High-Quality Development of the Aluminum Industry (2025-2027)", once again emphasizing "insisting on the total capacity constraint of electrolytic aluminum".
As of the end of February 2026, domestic operating capacity was close to 44.91 million tons, capacity utilization exceeded 97%, and industry capacity was basically running at full load.
Under the constraint of the 45 million-ton capacity red line, this global largest electrolytic aluminum producing country, China, has seen its capacity growth nearly stall. At the same time, the growth rate of global aluminum output is also slowing down. Global primary aluminum output in 2025 was about 73.78 million tons, with the growth rate slowing dramatically from 3.24% in 2024 to 1.1%.
While capacity is capped, demand is expanding.
New energy vehicles are the most active field for aluminum use. Aluminum materials are widely used in battery pack casings, body structural parts, wheel hubs, and thermal management systems. Automotive Commercial Review learned that traditional fuel vehicles use about 120 to 150 kg of aluminum per vehicle, while new energy vehicles have broken through 200 kg, and high-end models reach over 300 kg.
In April 2026, the retail penetration rate of new energy vehicles in the domestic passenger car market broke through 60% for the first time, and this single item is expected to contribute a million-ton level increase in aluminum demand.
"Downstream fields using aluminum like new energy vehicles are actually still booming," Cheng Haifeng said.
The demand for aluminum from new energy does not come only from automobiles, but also from fields such as photovoltaics. Each GW of photovoltaic installation uses about 12,000 tons of aluminum; global new photovoltaic installation in 2026 is expected to be about 400 GW, corresponding to aluminum demand of about 4.8 million tons; energy storage fields are expected to bring about 570,000 tons of aluminum demand. Combined, these exceed 5 million tons.
With the systemic substitution of "aluminum replacing copper" in fields like new energy vehicle high-voltage wire harnesses and power grid transmission, the aluminum demand structure is shifting from "mainly construction" to "high-end manufacturing + new energy".
Last October, Huatai Securities predicted that in 2026, global electrolytic aluminum supply growth would be about 1.93%, demand growth about 2.3%, and the supply-demand gap might expand to over 800,000 tons. After the outbreak of the Middle East conflict, multiple institutions further downgraded production expectations, making the supply-demand gap potentially larger.
"The rise in aluminum prices is mainly structural," another aluminum auto parts entrepreneur told Automotive Commercial Review.
He continued, "The real reason for the price increase is the supply-demand contradiction between the rapid rise in aluminum demand led by the new energy industry and the domestic 45 million-ton electrolytic aluminum capacity red line."
If the domestic capacity ceiling is the "internal cause" of the aluminum price rise, then the continuous shocks on the global supply side are the "external cause".
In late May 2026, Guinea, the world's largest bauxite producing country, announced it would officially introduce bauxite export control policies in June. The market generally predicts that the total upper limit of Guinea's bauxite exports in 2026 will be 150 million tons, a decrease of about 33 million tons compared to 183 million tons in 2025, a drop of 18%.
Guinea accounts for more than one-third of the global bauxite supply, and China's dependence on it is even higher. From January to April 2026, China accumulated imports of 77.728 million tons of bauxite, of which 62.946 million tons were imported from Guinea, accounting for 81%.
As of the end of June, the policy has not officially landed, but mine shipment volumes have voluntarily contracted. According to preliminary research and estimates by aluminum industry research institution Aladdin (ALD), shipments from 19 mining enterprises in Guinea in June were about 16 million wet tons, a decrease of about 5 million tons compared to the peak in March.
Over the past two years, Guinea has continuously launched a series of policy "combinations" such as raising export tariffs, clearing out idle mining rights, establishing pricing indexes, and mandating foreign mining enterprises to build alumina plants locally. This is also a microcosm of the global "resource nationalism" wave—from Indonesia's nickel export ban to Zimbabwe's lithium concentrate export restrictions, resource countries are shifting from "price takers" to "rule makers".
More violent shocks come from the Middle East.
The six Middle Eastern countries have a combined electrolytic aluminum capacity of about 7 million tons/year, accounting for 9.2% of global total capacity, with actual production in 2025 of about 6.95 million tons. However, on February 28 this year, the US and Israel launched a military strike on Iran; Iran subsequently implemented retaliatory measures and blockaded the Strait of Hormuz.
This region's industry relies heavily on strait transportation, with an alumina self-sufficiency rate of only 34%, and over 90% of alumina imports must pass through the Strait of Hormuz. After the conflict broke out, regional aluminum enterprises fell into a triple crisis of facility damage, raw material supply interruption, and energy shortage.
In early March, the Qatar Qatalum aluminum plant was forced to suspend production comprehensively due to natural gas supply interruption. The plant has a nominal primary aluminum annual capacity of 636,000 tons, belonging to one of the marginal capacities with lower costs globally. Official statements indicate that if production is fully suspended, full resumption may take 6 to 12 months.

Qatar Qatalum Aluminum Plant
In the same month, one of the largest single aluminum smelting plants in the world, Bahrain Alba Aluminum (annual capacity about 1.6 million tons), announced encountering force majeure due to blockage of the Strait of Hormuz shipping channel.
As of early May, the Middle East had cumulatively affected electrolytic aluminum capacity exceeding 2 million tons/year. Automotive Commercial Review believes that the increase in global electrolytic aluminum production in 2026 cannot cover the scale of production cuts.
Cheng Haifeng views the Middle East conflict as the direct driver of this round of aluminum prices surging to 25,000 yuan/ton: "After the US-Iran conflict, aluminum prices were immediately boosted." In the fourth quarter of last year, domestic aluminum prices were still operating in the range of 21,000 to 22,000 yuan/ton. Since the beginning of this year, aluminum prices have started to rise with fluctuations, and after the outbreak of the conflict, prices jumped to over 25,000 yuan/ton.
Domestic capacity capped, Guinea tightening export valves, Middle East conflict cutting off supply, the three combined forces pushed aluminum prices to historical highs.
As of June 9, the annual average price of electrolytic aluminum reached 24,219 yuan/ton, an increase of 16.9% over 2025, reaching a high of 25,260 yuan/ton on March 12. On the futures market, the SHFE Aluminum main contract soared to 26,185 yuan/ton in January and then stalled repeatedly in the 24,000 to 26,000 yuan/ton range for nearly four months.
"It might not return to the original price level." Regarding future trends, Cheng Haifeng talked about his judgment.
He predicts that prices in the third quarter may slightly fall from 24,000 yuan to 23,000 yuan, and drop to 22,000 yuan in the fourth quarter, but the level of around 21,000 yuan last year "should not be reachable".
The rigid constraints on the supply side are locking aluminum prices into an unprecedented high level range. And this price has only just begun to transmit downward along the industry chain.
Who Is "Squeezed"?

Aluminum prices rose from 12,000 yuan to 24,000 yuan, and every link on the industry chain is under pressure, but the ways and degrees of bearing pressure are different.
The first to feel the impact is the upstream aluminum processing enterprises.
"Prices simply cannot be transmitted down," Cheng Haifeng told Automotive Commercial Review; the pricing model for aluminum processing enterprises is usually "aluminum ingot price + processing fee", where the aluminum ingot price refers to the market average price of the few months or first half of the year before signing. That is to say, spot price increases will not immediately reflect in selling prices.
This means there is a time lag between aluminum price increases and transmission to customers.
But even entering the transmission cycle, aluminum processing enterprises find it hard to fully pass on costs. Cheng Haifeng described in detail the complexity of the transmission mechanism: when aluminum prices are in an upward cycle, losses in the first three months are borne by aluminum plants; after three months, contracts are renegotiated, aluminum prices are locked at high levels, pressure on aluminum plants eases, and car manufacturers begin to bear high prices. When aluminum prices fall, car manufacturers will refuse to pay according to the high contract prices on the grounds that the current market price is lower.
"When aluminum prices rise, aluminum plants bear everything; when aluminum prices fall, aluminum plants bear nearly more than half."
More tricky is the bargaining power of car manufacturers. Cheng Haifeng said that every year car manufacturers require price reductions of 7% to 10%; even so, they still receive complaints from car manufacturers: "Quality defects that could originally be accepted are easy to become unacceptable quality defects under the aluminum base price game; price fluctuations amplify quality problems, demanding returns."
Aluminum processing enterprises are thus in a situation of "pressure from both ends". Upstream aluminum ingot prices rise rigidly; downstream car manufacturers use quality determination and bargaining power to constantly compress profit margins.
Taking Guangdong Hongtu as an example, this leading domestic aluminum alloy die-casting enterprise had operating revenue of 9.198 billion yuan in 2025, a year-on-year increase of 14.22%, but net profit attributable to the parent company was 362 million yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 12.74%. Another aluminum alloy casting enterprise, Wenchuan Shares, faced a more severe situation; net profit attributable to the parent company in 2025 was a loss of 348 million yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 402%.
Similarly, aluminum processing enterprises, other enterprises faced completely different situations.
An business manager of another aluminum product processing enterprise backed by a large automotive group told Automotive Commercial Review that his perception of the aluminum price rise was "actually not bad". The reason is that most car manufacturers use "aluminum price floating calculation" for heavy parts.
That is, when pricing the contract, material costs are locked at the then aluminum prices; subsequent aluminum price increases are calculated based on weight and the latest aluminum prices. Taking aluminum wheels as an example, a wheel is 350 yuan, of which one-quarter is processing fee, and the remaining 75% is material fee. If aluminum prices rise from 20,000 yuan/ton to 25,000 yuan/ton, material fees are calculated by weight multiplied by 25,000 yuan. "We mainly earn processing fees, and aluminum price fluctuations have limited impact on our profits."
The main impact of aluminum price rises on this enterprise is at the capital level. "Originally, preparing 600 million yuan per month was enough; now about 1 billion yuan per month is needed," he said. "Capital risks are increasing, but the benefit is that the business scale is also growing."
But as a subsidiary of a large automotive group, capital is not his biggest concern; "it is better to find shade under a big tree".
Despite this, cost reduction pressure exists within the group as well. "There are cost reduction requirements every year," he said, "but the results reached are relatively reasonable, nothing too outrageous. It's like bargaining, the other party quotes a high price first, and finally both parties can accept the negotiated price."
Similarly aluminum processing enterprises, one independent, one backed by a group. The difference in situation illustrates a reality: under the impact of aluminum price rises, whether one can respond relatively calmly depends not only on cost control capabilities but also largely on the position of the enterprise in the industry chain.
Further downstream, independent parts suppliers face the most difficult situation.
The aforementioned aluminum auto parts entrepreneur told Automotive Commercial Review: "Downstream car manufacturers rarely adjust prices according to market conditions for price linkage; either they directly disagree, or they don't give an answer and drag on, but our suppliers must guarantee delivery, so losses are inevitable."
He continued analyzing; aluminum part suppliers' processes mainly involve melting, die-casting, stamping, extrusion, welding, assembly connection; except for melting where one can consider setting up factories in areas with cheaper electricity to fight for a cost space of hundreds of yuan per ton, other processes have almost no room for cost reduction. "Between the best and worst suppliers in the industry, production costs will not differ by more than two percentage points."

"Most suppliers can't roll anymore," he said, "New project bidding will add the aluminum price increase to costs; if the target price is low, we'd rather not do it."
This "rather not do it" mentality is spreading. Automotive Commercial Review learned that an automotive supplier told a new automotive power that they could only deliver 10,000 units of a certain key part per month, while the other party's demand was 30,000 units. The supplier's reason was "insufficient capacity, shortage of workers", but the root cause was that according to the current contract price, supplying means losing money.
This part is not an aluminum product; it belongs to a key component, making it difficult for car companies to find qualified alternative suppliers in the short term, so they are forced into a passive position. However, even for aluminum products, car companies will increasingly find it difficult to find downstreamers willing to accept orders at low prices; supplying means losing money, and in the long run, no one can stand it.
Anxiety from car manufacturers is also heating up.
According to data from the China Passenger Car Association, from January to May 2026, the profit margin of China's automotive industry dropped to 3.4%, lower than the average level of 6.1% for downstream industry. Price increases in raw materials such as lithium carbonate, copper, and aluminum are one of the main reasons. Nio founder, Chairman and CEO Li Bin revealed that affected by price increases in raw materials such as memory chips, lithium carbonate, copper, and aluminum, Nio's single vehicle cost increased by about 10,000 yuan. Among them, just copper and aluminum raw materials pushed up the single vehicle cost by several thousand yuan.
Since the beginning of 2026, over 15 car companies have announced price increases or reduced discounts for products. BYD's optional packages for some models rose by 2,100 yuan; Xiaomi SU7 full series raised prices by 4,000 yuan. For a mainstream 200,000 yuan level new energy vehicle, comprehensive manufacturing costs increased by 6,000 to 14,000 yuan compared to the same period last year.
European and American car companies are also under pressure; Stellantis CEO warned that if raw material prices continue to stay high, additional cost increases will approach 1% of company revenue; Ford also estimated that this year's bulk commodity costs will exceed 2 billion USD.
But car manufacturer pressure has not transformed into understanding for suppliers.
Automotive Commercial Review learned that many car manufacturers are still proposing annual cost reduction requirements of 10% or even 15% to suppliers. The aforementioned aluminum auto parts entrepreneur in the squeeze judged: "What needs to be truly solved is the problem of the entire automotive industry; when car manufacturers stop price rolling, configuration rolling, and parameter rolling, focusing on brands, design, service, and reputation, having reasonable added value, will suppliers return to normal development."
The rise in aluminum prices is exposing a long-hidden structural problem in China's automotive industry chain: when industry profit distribution highly leans towards car manufacturers or some core parts suppliers, while most parts suppliers are in a state of micro-profits or losses for a long time, any raw material price shock could become the last straw that crushes these suppliers.
The "Paradox" of Lightweighting

The continuous rise in aluminum prices is pushing the new energy vehicle lightweighting strategy into an awkward situation.
Lightweighting is a proposition that new energy vehicles cannot avoid. Vehicle weight affects energy consumption, and for every kilogram of body weight reduced, it can directly translate to range improvement. Due to characteristics such as low density, high specific strength, and corrosion resistance of aluminum alloys, it becomes the most mainstream lightweight material choice.
The China Society of Automotive Engineers proposed in the "Energy Saving and New Energy Vehicle Technology Roadmap" released as early as 2017 that the target for single vehicle aluminum usage would reach 250 kg in 2025 and 350 kg in 2030. According to market research company DuckerFrontier predictions, single vehicle aluminum net weight in North America may reach 570 pounds (about 259 kg) in 2030; taking Ford F-150 as an example, it accounts for about 10% of curb weight.
But aluminum prices have already risen from 12,000 yuan to 24,000 yuan. Liu Qing, Chinese Regional Director of Novelis, the world's largest aluminum rolling enterprise, told Automotive Commercial Review that lightweighting "not only considers one-time usage costs but also requires full lifecycle cost assessment". And when aluminum prices double, the scale of this assessment is shifting.
The aforementioned aluminum auto parts entrepreneur revealed that due to rising aluminum prices, some car manufacturers have already switched back to steel on low-priced models. "The wide application of aluminum was originally to replace steel for lightweighting, and the popularity of new energy vehicles brought the demand for lightweighting," he said. Now with high aluminum prices, this trend is partially reversing.
But the greater contradiction is not in "using aluminum or not", but in "how to use aluminum".
Industry hands have long had a path to reduce manufacturing costs—integrated die-casting. The adoption of this technology preceded this round of aluminum price rises, but high aluminum prices are simultaneously amplifying its benefits and costs.
This technology was first widely applied by Tesla, using ultra-large die-casting machines to die-cast body structural parts originally welded from dozens or even hundreds of parts into a single shape at once. Integrated die-casting significantly improved production efficiency; Model Y rear floor production time was shortened from 1 to 2 hours to 3 to 5 minutes, reducing more than 700 weld points.

From Tesla to NIO, XPeng, Xiaomi, Zeekr, more and more new car makers are using it as a core technology selling point. According to predictions by Western Securities at the end of last year, integrated die-casting penetration rate is expected to exceed 10% in 2025 and over 30% in 2030.
Integrated die-casting does reduce costs on the manufacturing side, at least in production efficiency. But this "cost reduction" answer is creating a new problem.
Automotive Commercial Review learned that although integrated die-casting saves a large number of parts and labor hours, maintenance costs will increase exponentially once an accident occurs.
The problem lies in the maintenance link. Traditional bodies follow the principle of "repair where damaged", replace the part where it is damaged. But integrated die-casting integrates dozens of parts into a single overall structural part; once damaged, it cannot be locally repaired or replaced, only the whole can be replaced.
Great Wall Motor Chairman Wei Jianjun once publicly criticized this technology. He stated at a press conference in December 2025 that integrated die-casting uses more aluminum alloy materials; once a collision occurs, aluminum material is prone to "brittle" fracture, unable to be locally shaped and repaired like steel components, often requiring overall replacement, significantly pushing up maintenance costs. According to official information from Great Wall Motor, maintenance costs for integrated die-casting are 4 times that of traditional structural parts.
Data from the China Insurance Association shows that vehicle models adopting integrated die-casting technology have mean accident repair costs reaching 3.8 times that of traditional structural vehicles. Based on this calculation, for the same medium-level accident, if traditional structural vehicle repair costs are around 30,000 yuan, integrated die-casting vehicles could exceed 110,000 yuan.
This is not repair shops "intentionally replacing more", but the technology itself determines individual parts cannot be replaced alone.
This "cheaper to build, more expensive to repair" contradiction is spreading across the industry. In June 2026, the Ministry of Commerce and eight other departments jointly issued the "Notice on Cultivating and Strengthening Automotive Aftermarket Consumption Measures", specifically addressing the high cost of new energy vehicle maintenance. The document explicitly proposes three measures: "do not exempt enterprise 'three guarantees' responsibility because consumers choose third-party maintenance services"; "guide whole vehicles and battery enterprises to open maintenance technology authorization to third parties"; "encourage promotion of 'repair instead of replacement'".
The issuance of the policy itself is a signal: maintenance cost problems have become serious enough to require top-level intervention.
The surge in maintenance costs directly transmits to the insurance side. In 2025, the new energy vehicle insurance premium income of the entire industry reached 190 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 34.8%, accounting for the first time for over 20% of the proportion of total vehicle insurance premiums. But in the same period, the new energy vehicle insurance industry had underwriting losses of 5.6 billion yuan, and 143 car models had claim ratios exceeding 100%.
Data from the China Institute of Actuaries shows that the average risk cost for new energy vehicle insurance is about 2.2 times that of fuel vehicles, while premiums are only 1.7 times that of fuel vehicles.
A report by the China Insurance Automotive Technology Research Institute points out that integrated die-casting integrates hundreds of parts into a single component; minor scratches can only be replaced as a whole; combined with "hardware plus calibration" dual costs of perception components like LiDAR, traditional actuarial models can no longer cover.
"The saved oil money has all been paid as insurance premiums", this sentence is transforming from a joke into reality. Integrated die-casting reduces car company manufacturing costs but transfers the high maintenance burden to consumers and insurance companies.
Liu Qing views this problem from a more macro perspective: "Integrated die-casting and aluminum alloy rolling sheet used in stamping have essential differences in the production process and application fields... it can be foreseen that future development in the automotive industry will definitely be accompanied by more rolling, casting, forging, extrusion aluminum alloy applications." He does not believe integrated die-casting itself is the wrong direction, but emphasizes the need for "full lifecycle cost assessment".
Faced with structural high aluminum prices, the industry is not just able to endure hard; two exits have surfaced.
The first is recycled aluminum. Recycled aluminum production energy consumption is only about 5% of electrolytic aluminum, and it is not constrained by the 45 million-ton capacity red line. The aforementioned ten departments' "Implementation Plan for High-Quality Development of the Aluminum Industry (2025-2027)" explicitly proposed that by 2027, domestic recycled aluminum production will reach above 15 million tons.
The second is financial hedging. Aluminum is one of the most mature varieties in the domestic futures market; multiple listed parts enterprises have announced conducting aluminum futures hedging, locking procurement costs and smoothing price fluctuations through SHFE Aluminum contracts.
But hedging offsets volatility, not trends. When the aluminum price center systematically rises from 12,000 yuan/ton to 24,000 yuan/ton, hedging can only delay cost transmission, not eliminate it. Moreover, hedging requires professional teams and margin occupation; for small and medium suppliers with already micro-profits, this threshold is not low.
In the view of the aforementioned aluminum auto parts entrepreneur, the technical barrier of aluminum parts itself is not high; "more dependent on the development of the matched car manufacturers for development".
The real problem perhaps does not lie in material technology, but in the industrial ecosystem. When car manufacturers transmit cost reduction pressure layer by layer to suppliers, while not willing to bear profit losses brought by raw material price increases, the entire industry chain falls into a deadlock of "no one has profits, everyone endures hard".
When "low price involution" meets the structural rise in raw material prices, pressure transmission eventually reaches limits. When all profits are squeezed out, the next thing to "brittle fracture" in collisions might not be integrated die-casting aluminum parts, but China's auto industry's originally proud local supply chain.

喺馬來西亞嘅 SUV 市場,好多買家喺揀車嘅時候都會拿 Proton X90 同 GWM Haval H6 做比較。這兩款車喺價位同定位上都幾近,今日我哋就從多個方面做一個詳細嘅比較,幫你省下做功課嘅時間。
Proton X90 喺馬來西亞嘅 OTR 售價係 RM 106,800 - 122,800,一總共有 4 個版本,包括 2026 1.5T Prime X(RM 122,800)、2026 1.5T Prime(RM 116,800)、2026 1.5T Lite(RM 106,800) 等。
GWM Haval H6 喺馬來西亞嘅 OTR 售價係 RM 139,750 - 139,750,一總共有 2 個版本,包括 1.5L Turbo Standard(RM 140,000)、1.5L Turbo Premium(RM 155,000) 等。
從價錢睇,Proton X90 嘅起步價確實比 GWM Haval H6 平咗 RM 32,950。如果你預算有限,Proton 嘅入門版已經可以滿足日常需要。但亦都要注意,平嗰幾千蚊,可能喺配備上會有取捨,具體要看你嘅需要。

Proton X90 車身長 4400 mm,後備箱 400 L。
GWM Haval H6 車身長 4400 mm,後備箱 400 L。
兩款車嘅尺寸幾乎一樣,車內空間差別唔大。呢個級別嘅車,日常使用完全足夠。

Proton X90 保修 5 年/150,000km,保養間隔 每 10,000km 或 6 個月。
GWM Haval H6 保修 7 年/150,000km,保養間隔 每 10,000km 或 6 個月。

Proton X90 同 GWM Haval H6 都係馬來西亞市場嘅主流選擇,適合家庭使用、日常通勤。如果你更加重視品牌口碑同二手價,可以優先考慮口碑更好嗰一款;如果你更加在意性價比同配備,嗰就揀配置更豐富嗰款。最終都係建議兩款都去試駕,親身體驗先係最重要嘅。
總體嚟講,Proton X90 同 GWM Haval H6 都係馬來西亞市場好唔錯嘅車型。揀邊輛,關鍵係要睇你嘅個人需要同預算。建議大家做好功課,多比較幾間車行嘅報價,再去試駕先做最終決定。買車係件大事,花啲時間做功課絕對唔會錯。

In Malaysia's SUV market, many buyers compare Proton X90 and Toyota Fortuner when choosing a car. These two cars are quite close in price and positioning. Today, we will make a detailed comparison from multiple aspects to help you save time on research.
The OTR price of Proton X90 in Malaysia is RM 106,800 - 122,800. There are 4 versions in total, including 2026 1.5T Prime X (RM 122,800), 2026 1.5T Prime (RM 116,800), 2026 1.5T Lite (RM 106,800), etc.
The OTR price of Toyota Fortuner in Malaysia is RM 195,880 - 241,880. There are 3 versions in total, including 2024 2.8T VRZ Diesel (RM 241,880), 2024 2.7L SRZ Petrol (RM 202,880), 2024 2.4L Standard Diesel (RM 195,880), etc.
From the price perspective, the starting price of Proton X90 is indeed RM 89,080 cheaper than Toyota Fortuner. If your budget is limited, Proton's entry-level version is already sufficient for daily needs. But also note that the savings of a few thousand might involve trade-offs in features, depending on your specific needs.

Proton X90 safety rating is 5★ (ASEAN NCAP), active safety systems include ADAS (ACC, AEB, LKA, LDA, BSM, RCTA).
Toyota Fortuner safety rating is 5★ (ASEAN NCAP), active safety systems include .
Both cars have the same safety rating. Safety equipment is quite comprehensive in this class. New car safety is not bad nowadays, no need to worry too much about this.

Proton X90 adopts FWD drive mode.
Toyota Fortuner adopts FWD drive mode.
Both cars have the same drive mode, both are FWD. There won't be much difference in daily driving experience.

Proton X90 warranty is 5 years/150,000km, maintenance interval every 10,000km or 6 months.
Toyota Fortuner warranty is 5 years/unlimited mileage, maintenance interval every 10,000km or 6 months.

Overall, Proton X90 and Toyota Fortuner are both very good models in the Malaysian market. Which one to choose depends mainly on your personal needs and budget. We suggest doing your research well, comparing quotes from several car dealers, and test-driving before making a final decision. Buying a car is a big matter, spending time on research will never be wrong.

喺馬來西亞嘅 SUV 市場,好多買家喺選車嘅時候都係拿 Proton X90 同 Honda CR-V 嚟做比較。
Proton X90 喺馬來西亞嘅 OTR 售價係 RM 106,800 - 122,800,合共 4 個版本,包括 2026 1.5T Prime X(RM 122,800)、2026 1.5T Prime(RM 116,800)、2026 1.5T Lite(RM 106,800) 等等。
Honda CR-V 喺馬來西亞嘅 OTR 售價係 RM 178,200 - 195,900,合共 4 個版本,包括 2026 e:HEV 2.0L 2WD RS(RM 195,900)、2026 1.5T 4WD V(RM 181,900)、2026 e:HEV 2.0L 2WD E(RM 178,200) 等等。
從價錢嚟睇,Proton X90 嘅起步價確實比 Honda CR-V 平咗 RM 71,400。如果你預算有限,Proton 嘅入門版已經可以滿足日常需要。但都要注意,平嗰幾千蚊,喺配備上或有取舍,具體就要睇你嘅需求。

Proton X90 嘅安全評級係 5★ (ASEAN NCAP),主動安全系統包括 ADAS (ACC, AEB, LKA, LDA, BSM, RCTA)。
Honda CR-V 嘅安全評級係 5★ (ASEAN NCAP),主動安全系統包括 Honda SENSING (ACC, CMBS, LKAS, RDM)。
兩款車嘅安全評級一樣,喺呢個級別入面安全配備都算好齊全。而家嘅新車安全性都唔差,唔使太擔心呢一點。

Proton X90 車身長 4400 mm,行李箱 400 L。
Honda CR-V 車身長 4500 mm,行李箱 450 L。
空間方面,Honda CR-V 嘅車身比 Proton X90 長咗 100 mm,乘坐空間更有優勢。不過 Proton X90 喺城市入面泊車會靈活少少,各有取舍。

Proton X90 保修 5 年/150,000km,保養間隔 每 10,000km 或 6 個月。
Honda CR-V 保修 5 年/無限制里程,保養間隔 每 10,000km 或 6 個月。

總嘅嚟講,Proton X90 同 Honda CR-V 都係馬來西亞市場幾唔錯嘅車型。揀邊一輛,關鍵都要睇你個人需要同預算。我建議大家做好功課,多比較幾間車行之報價,再去試駕做最後決定。買車係件大事,花少少時間做功課絕對唔會錯。

In the Malaysian SUV market, many buyers often compare Proton X70 and GWM Haval H6 when choosing a car. The price and positioning of these two cars are quite close. Today we will make a detailed comparison from multiple aspects to help you save time on research.
The OTR price for Proton X70 in Malaysia is RM 106,800 - 122,300. There are a total of 3 versions, including 1.5L Standard 2WD (RM 106,800), 1.5L Executive 2WD (RM 115,800), 1.5L Premium 2WD (RM 122,300), etc.
The OTR price for GWM Haval H6 in Malaysia is RM 139,750 - 139,750. There are a total of 2 versions, including 1.5L Turbo Standard (RM 140,000), 1.5L Turbo Premium (RM 155,000), etc.
From the price perspective, the starting price of Proton X70 is indeed RM 32,950 cheaper than GWM Haval H6. If your budget is limited, Proton's entry-level version can already meet daily needs. However, also note that saving a few thousand might involve trade-offs in equipment, it depends on your specific needs.
Proton X70 is equipped with 1.5L Turbo, 140 hp. Official fuel consumption 7.0 L/100 km.
GWM Haval H6 is equipped with Hybrid, 170 hp. Official fuel consumption 4.5 L/100 km.
In terms of power, GWM Haval H6's Hybrid has 30 more horsepower than Proton X70's 1.5L Turbo. However, for daily city driving, the power of both cars is sufficient, you won't feel it's lacking power.
Proton X70 body length 4400 mm, trunk 400 L.
GWM Haval H6 body length 4400 mm, trunk 400 L.
The dimensions of both cars are almost identical, interior space difference is not significant. Cars in this class are fully sufficient for daily use.
Proton X70 adopts FWD drive mode.
GWM Haval H6 adopts FWD drive mode.
The drive mode of both cars is the same, both are FWD, daily driving experience won't have much difference.
Proton X70 warranty 5 years/150,000 km, maintenance interval every 10,000 km or 6 months.
GWM Haval H6 warranty 7 years/150,000 km, maintenance interval every 10,000 km or 6 months.
Overall, Proton X70 and GWM Haval H6 are both very good car models in the Malaysian market. Which one to choose depends on your personal needs and budget. We suggest doing your research, comparing quotes from several dealerships, then going for a test drive to make the final decision. Buying a car is a big matter, spending some time doing research will never be wrong.
In Malaysia's SUV market, many buyers compare the Proton X70 and Toyota Corolla Cross when choosing a car. The price and positioning of these two cars are quite close. Today, we will make a detailed comparison from multiple aspects to help you save time on research.
The Proton X70 OTR price in Malaysia is RM 106,800 - 122,300, with a total of 3 versions, including 1.5L Standard 2WD (RM 106,800), 1.5L Executive 2WD (RM 115,800), 1.5L Premium 2WD (RM 122,300) etc.
The Toyota Corolla Cross OTR price in Malaysia is RM 133,800 - 148,800, with a total of 3 versions, including 2026 HEV 1.8L GR Sport (RM 148,800), 2026 HEV 1.8L Standard (RM 140,800), 2026 1.8L Standard (RM 133,800) etc.
From the price perspective, the starting price of the Proton X70 is indeed RM 27,000 cheaper than the Toyota Corolla Cross. If your budget is limited, Proton's entry-level version can already meet daily needs. But you should also note that the few thousand difference might involve trade-offs in features, depending on your specific needs.

Proton X70 is equipped with a 1.5L Turbo, 140 hp. Official fuel consumption is 7.0 L/100km.
Toyota Corolla Cross is equipped with a 1.5L Turbo, 140 hp. Official fuel consumption is 7.0 L/100km.
Both cars use the same powertrain, the driving experience is basically the same. Fuel consumption is also similar, no need to worry too much about this point.

The Proton X70 safety rating is 5★ (ASEAN NCAP), active safety systems include ADAS (ACC, AEB, LKA, LDA, BSM, RCTA).
The Toyota Corolla Cross safety rating is 5★ (ASEAN NCAP), active safety systems include TSS (PCS, LDA, ACC, LTA).
Both cars have the same safety rating, safety features are quite comprehensive for this level. New car safety is generally good nowadays, no need to worry too much.

Proton X70 uses FWD drivetrain.
Toyota Corolla Cross uses FWD drivetrain.
Both cars have the same drivetrain, both FWD, no big difference in daily driving experience.
Proton X70 and Toyota Corolla Cross are both mainstream choices in the Malaysian market, suitable for family use and daily commuting. If you value brand reputation and resale value more, consider the one with better reputation first; if you care more about cost-performance and features, choose the one with richer configurations. Ultimately, we suggest test driving both, as personal experience is the most important.
Overall, Proton X70 and Toyota Corolla Cross are both very good models in the Malaysian market. Choosing which one depends on your personal needs and budget. We suggest doing research, comparing quotes from a few dealerships, and then test driving to make the final decision. Buying a car is a big matter, spending time on research will definitely not be wrong.

喺馬來西亞嘅 SUV 市場,好多人買家在揀車嘅時候都會拿 Proton X70 同 Toyota Corolla Cross 去做比較。這兩款車喺價錢同定位上都好接近,今日我哋就從多個方面做一個詳細嘅比較,幫你省下做功課嘅時間。
Proton X70 喺馬來西亞嘅 OTR 售價係 RM 106,800 - 122,300,總共有 3 個版本,包括 1.5L Standard 2WD(RM 106,800)、1.5L Executive 2WD(RM 115,800)、1.5L Premium 2WD(RM 122,300) 等。
Toyota Corolla Cross 喺馬來西亞嘅 OTR 售價係 RM 133,800 - 148,800,總共有 3 個版本,包括 2026 HEV 1.8L GR Sport(RM 148,800)、2026 HEV 1.8L Standard(RM 140,800)、2026 1.8L Standard(RM 133,800) 等。
由價錢睇,Proton X70 嘅起步價確實比 Toyota Corolla Cross 平咗 RM 27,000。如果你預算有限,Proton 嘅入門版已經可以滿足日常需要。但都要注意,平嗰啲幾千蚊,可能喺配備上會有取舍,具體睇你嘅需求。

Proton X70 配備 1.5L Turbo,馬力 140 hp。官方油耗 7.0 L/100km。
Toyota Corolla Cross 配備 1.5L Turbo,馬力 140 hp。官方油耗 7.0 L/100km。
兩款車用嘅係同一套動力系統,日常開落去嘅感受基本冇分別。油耗方面都差不多,唔使太糾結呢一點。

Proton X70 採用 FWD 驅動方式。
Toyota Corolla Cross 採用 FWD 驅動方式。
兩款車嘅驅動方式一樣,都係 FWD,日常駕駛感受唔會有太大分別。

Proton X70 保修 5 年/150,000km,保養間隔 每 10,000km 或 6 個月。
Toyota Corolla Cross 保修 5 年/無限制里程,保養間隔 每 10,000km 或 6 個月。
Proton X70 同 Toyota Corolla Cross 都係馬來西亞市場嘅主流選擇,適合家庭用、日常通勤。如果你更重視品牌口碑同二手價,可以優先考慮口碑更好嗰款;如果你更重視性價比同配備,就揀配置更豐富嗰款。最終都建議兩款都去試駕,親身感受先至最重要。
總括嚟講,Proton X70 同 Toyota Corolla Cross 都係馬來西亞市場幾唔錯嘅車型。揀邊一部,關鍵都睇你嘅個人需求同預算。建議大家做足功課,多比較幾間車行嘅報價,再去試駕做最終決定。買車係一件大事,花啲時間做功課絕對唔錯。

In Malaysia's SUV market, many buyers compare Proton X50 and Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV when choosing a car. These two cars are quite close in price and positioning. Today we will do a detailed comparison from multiple aspects to help you save time on research.
Proton X50 OTR price in Malaysia is RM 89,800 - 113,300, with a total of 4 versions, including 1.5T Executive (RM 89,800), 1.5T Premium (RM 101,800), 1.5T Flagship (RM 113,300), etc.
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV OTR price in Malaysia is RM 129,750 - 129,750, with a total of 2 versions, including 2025 1.5T 90km CSH (RM 129,750), What charging methods does the Tiggo 7 PHEV support? Can it be charged using a home power socket? (RM 117,478), etc.
From a price perspective, Proton X50's starting price is indeed RM 39,950 cheaper than Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV. If your budget is limited, Proton's entry-level version can already meet daily needs. But also note, the few thousand cheaper might involve trade-offs in features, it depends on your specific requirements.

Proton X50 comes with 1.5L 4-cyl, horsepower 105 hp. Official fuel consumption 6.0 L/100km.
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV comes with Hybrid, horsepower 170 hp. Official fuel consumption 4.5 L/100km.
Regarding power, Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV's Hybrid has 65 more horsepower than Proton X50's 1.5L 4-cyl. However, for daily city driving, both cars have enough power, you won't feel underpowered.

Proton X50 safety rating is 5★ (ASEAN NCAP), active safety systems include ADAS (ACC, AEB, LKA, LDA, BSM, RCTA).
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV safety rating is TBD, active safety systems include Basic.
Regarding safety features, both cars have received good ratings. However, Proton X50's ADAS (ACC, AEB, LKA, LDA, BSM, RCTA) and Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV's Basic differ in functions. If you value active safety, you can compare their feature lists in detail.

Proton X50 warranty 5 years/150,000km, maintenance interval every 10,000km or 6 months.
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV warranty 3 years/100,000km, maintenance interval every 10,000km or 6 months.

Proton X50 and Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV are both mainstream choices in the Malaysian market, suitable for family use and daily commuting. If you value brand reputation and resale value more, consider the one with better reputation first; if you care more about cost-performance ratio and features, choose the one with richer configuration. Finally, it is recommended to test drive both, personal experience is the most important.

Overall, Proton X50 and Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV are both very good car models in the Malaysian market. Which one to choose depends on your personal needs and budget. It is recommended to do your homework, compare quotes from several dealers, and then test drive to make the final decision. Buying a car is a big matter, spending time on research will never be wrong.

喺馬來西亞嘅 SUV 市場,好多買家喺揀車嘅時候都會拿 Proton X50 同 Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 嚟做比較。呢兩款車喺價位同定位上都好接近,今日我哋就由多個方面做一個詳細嘅對比,幫你省返做功課嘅時間。
Proton X50 喺馬來西亞嘅 OTR 售價係 RM 89,800 - 113,300,合共 4 個版本,包括 1.5T Executive(RM 89,800)、1.5T Premium(RM 101,800)、1.5T Flagship(RM 113,300)等等。
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 喺馬來西亞嘅 OTR 售價係 RM 129,750 - 129,750,合共 2 個版本,包括 2025 1.5T 90km CSH(RM 129,750)、Tiggo 7 PHEV 支援邊種充電方法?可以用家居電源插座充電嗎?(RM 117,478)等等。
睇返價錢,Proton X50 嘅起步價的確比 Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 平咗 RM 39,950。如果你預算有限,Proton 嘅入門版已經可以滿足日常需要。但都要留意,嗰幾千蚊,可能喺配備上會有取捨,具體要視乎你嘅需求。

Proton X50 裝載 1.5L 4-cyl,馬力 105 hp。官方油耗 6.0 L/100km。
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 裝載 Hybrid,馬力 170 hp。官方油耗 4.5 L/100km。
動力方面,Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 嘅 Hybrid 比 Proton X50 嘅 1.5L 4-cyl 多咗 65 匹馬力。不過日常喺市區開,兩款車嘅動力都夠用,唔會覺得唔夠力。

Proton X50 車身長 4400 mm,尾箱 400 L。
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 車身長 4400 mm,尾箱 400 L。
兩款車嘅尺寸幾乎一樣,車內空間差別唔大。呢級別嘅車,日常使用完全夠用。

Proton X50 採用 4WD 驅動方式。
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 採用 FWD 驅動方式。
Proton 嘅 4WD 同 Chery 嘅 FWD 喺操控上會有唔同感受,建議試駕對比。

Proton X50 保修 5 年/150,000km,保養間隔 每 10,000km 或 6 個月。
Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 保修 3 年/100,000km,保養間隔 每 10,000km 或 6 個月。

總括嚟講,Proton X50 同 Chery Tiggo 7 PHEV 都係馬來西亞市場幾唔錯嘅車型。揀邊一輛,關鍵都要睇你嘅個人需求同預算。建議大家做好功課,多比較幾間車行嘅報價,再試駕做最終決定。買車係件大事,花少少時間做功課絕對唔會錯。

July in Baoding is scorching. But hotter than the weather is the scene at Great Wall Motor's Xushui Proving Ground. Global investors fly in from all over the world, drill into wind tunnel labs to check data, crouch in crash labs to verify safety, then sit into different power versions of the Great Wall Ora 5 to personally test and experience them at the test track.

This is the scene at the Great Wall Motor Global Exploration Day. Superficially it looks like a channel investment promotion, but deep down it is a "goods inspection": before global capital votes with their feet, they first vote with their seats and steering wheels.
This three-day "Great Wall Motor Global Exploration Day" is essentially a cross-border "goods inspection".

1, Ora's "Growth Studies"
In June, the Ora brand sold 10,806 units in a single month, a year-on-year increase of +229.15%, with cumulative series sales exceeding 584,133 units; in Brazil, the first batch of Great Wall Ora 5 units went on sale on June 24th, with 2,000 units sold out in 24 hours, and orders in Thailand exceeded 5,000. Starting in July, they will sequentially enter Australia, South Africa, Indonesia, and South America, a matter worth discussing in depth.

Ora didn't suddenly get it; someone had to admit first that the "pure EV cult" is wrong.
In mid-2025, Lu Wenbin was transferred from General Manager of Haval Technology to General Manager of Ora. He was the seventh boss of the brand. The first thing he did upon taking office, in his own words, was to "break the pure EV cult".
This sounds rather contradictory—Ora has been an EV brand since its establishment in 2018. The slogan "New Energy Vehicles that love women more" once helped it reap the dividends, but it also welded it to the small car + female tracks. When the pure EV penetration rate growth curve entered a plateau and the HEV ratio rose, continuing to sell only pure EVs is equivalent to giving half the market away.
The Great Wall Ora 5's approach is to directly put three sets of powertrains—pure EV/hybrid/fuel—into the same body shell—this is Great Wall's first realization of "one car three powertrains" on the same model. The industry calls this "Powertrain Co-line", which sounds easy to say but involves tens of billions in platform investment. Great Wall's solution is the "Guiyuan Platform"—native compatible with BEV/HEV/PHEV/FCEV/ICE five powertrains, covering SUV, Coupe, Wagon multi-categories.
Lu Wenbin had a sentence worth the whole industry to savor: "Even three years later, range anxiety will still affect some users' choice of pure electric vehicle models."—There is no standard answer globally, only scenario answers. In the past, Chinese car brands going overseas loved to talk about "one car to hit the global market", which is essentially betting domestic blockbusters on overseas luck; Great Wall Ora 5 turns it around. With the same architecture, flexible power combination adjustment, pure EV for Europe, hybrid for Southeast Asia, fuel for emerging markets, configuration without discounts, intelligence without shrinkage. This is the real weight of the four words "Born Global".

2, Technology Depth One Level Deeper
Regarding automotive technology, I am most afraid of seeing "Three Motors Six Modes" "AI Intelligent Switching" piled up as decorations. This time the "Coffee No-Spill Challenge" "Balloon Upright Challenge" at Xushui, looking like gimmicks, actually put the industry's long-standing difficult problems on the table—the "Smoothness" and "Speed" of hybrids are mutually exclusive under traditional configurations.
Let me say it in plain terms: Single-speed series-parallel is smooth at low speeds, but engine direct drive intervention inevitably causes jerks; to be fast, you have to let the engine intervene early, keeping "Smoothness" becomes impossible.
Great Wall's Hi2 Intelligent Hybrid System solution is a 2-speed DHT, 1.5T hybrid dedicated engine plus dual motors, with 2-speed transmission, first creation of P3 motor decoupling mechanism, enter direct drive at 70km/h, motor decouples to reduce loss during cruising. System power 166kW, torque 476N·m, WLTC fuel consumption 4.5L, full tank range exceeds 1,100km.

The key is not the numbers, but how the numbers were achieved. Great Wall Ora 5 traversed Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Chongqing four direct-controlled municipalities, 3,004 km real road, normal AC, mountain climbing, altitude difference 1,445 meters, achieved 3.74L/100km fuel consumption, directly taking the Guinness World Record. It is two different things from those "running 1.X liters without AC at constant speed". Ora calls this "Active Smoothness"—not relying on sacrificing power for smoothness, but using motor torque compensation and two-speed calibration to actively eliminate jerks. This is the difference in engineering philosophy, not the difference in marketing jargon.
Pure EV version is also solid: range 480km/580km, 100km power consumption 11.6kWh, 4nm chip plus Coffee OS 3 intelligent cockpit, high spec with LiDAR, supports mapless city NOA and multi-floor memory parking. The 100,000-level brings down past 200,000-level, 300,000-level intelligent driving.

But the truly valuable detail is "Same Intelligence for Electric and Fuel". Regardless of choosing pure EV, hybrid or fuel, the three powertrains share one electronic electrical architecture, calibration team must serve three torque output characteristics at the same time. Only by achieving this step is the Guiyuan Platform's real technical ace.
3, Overseas Order Boom
2,000 units sold out in 24 hours in Brazil, not an accident but a plan.
Many attribute Brazil's order boom to "cheap". Flip through local records: Great Wall Ora 5 Brazil first launch promotion price 159,000 Reais (about 199,000 RMB), after July tariff increase slightly adjusted to 159,900 Reais, guarding the 160,000 threshold.
Where is this pricing interesting? In Brazil's big cities, middle class buying mainstream fuel compact SUV budget range is 180,000-220,000 RMB, long time monopolized by European, American, Japanese joint ventures, configuration still stays at fabric seats + mechanical gauges. Great Wall uses one imported pure EV SUV, price pressed into fuel car heartland, 204 horsepower (compare to same price Volkswagen T-Cross), standard compact SUV size (compare to same price BYD Dolphin)—Cross-Class Product Power hits same price point.
And Great Wall locked in sale on June 30th night before Brazil pure EV import tariff from 优惠恢复 35%, both competing on business sense and supply chain execution. After 2,000 units cleared in 24 hours urgently released 1,500 units new batch, Volkswagen T-Cross same week urgent price cut 10,000 Reais to 151,500 Reais defense. Brazil best-selling SUV urgent price adjustment and Ora 5 first day sold out occurred in the same week—this scene is more convincing than any sales number.
Thailand side is same: Right-Hand Drive Version rolled off line at Thailand factory, Bangkok Motor Show orders exceeded 5,000, hybrid version directly competes arm wrestling with Japanese brands, Great Wall adds 10 billion Baht investment target 2026 local sales increase 40%. Spain June 30th Madrid Gastrohub launch, over 200 guests, 80 top media, 25 dealers on site, announced continuous three years sponsorship of Spanish Basketball League ACB. Italy media event focused on "Chassis tuned for European roads + Hi2 Hybrid + High-end Interior".
Same car, three faces, each brilliant. European media first time seeing Chinese car not relying on low price, but relying on "Multi-Power Matrix" to knock on door.

4, Young People's First Car
From "More Loves Women" to "Global Fashion Boutique": Real Meaning of Positioning Dimension Upgrade
Behind Great Wall Ora 5 hot sales, the most key change is user portrait drastically expands. In the past Ora was stuck on "Female Exclusive" "Small Car" tags, now with Great Wall Ora 5 all-around model becoming popular, user pool has expanded to "Family First Purchase" and "Quality Trade-in" broad crowd.
"Young People's First Car" this question, in the past standard answer was "Good enough is fine"—limited budget must compromise repeatedly between appearance, space, power, quality. Great Wall Ora 5 logic is "Who says first car can't want it all": Natural Aesthetics Design Language (Dunhuang Green taken from Mogao Caves Mineral Green Pigment, Glacier Grey taken from Iceland Millennium Glacier), one car multiple power, one car multiple posture, one car multiple category, power versions different but design/intelligence/comfort/quality completely consistent.
Dense city users in China choose pure EV commute save worry save money; European old town streets narrow, private parking scarce, home pile installation threshold high, pure EV energy replenishment becomes pain point, hybrid version uses Three Motors Six Modes full speed range switching to save fuel smoothness; South America, South Africa, Indonesia infrastructure different, fuel version backup. Young people finally don't have to compromise for region or infrastructure difference—this is "Choose on Demand, Drive Freely" eight words truly landing appearance.

5, Go Global on Demand
These ten-plus years China car export, from early Chery Geely "Trade-style Export" to two years BYD NIO "Fleet-style Export", main line always "Use domestic blockbusters crush overseas". Great Wall Ora 5 gave new paradigm—not for each market develop separately, but for each market combine separately.
Guiyuan Platform modular concept lets localization adaptation from "Restart Project" downgrade to "Power Switch", R&D marginal cost spread to extremely low, response speed extremely fast. Ora internal calculation, Great Wall Ora 5 purchase cost 5% lower than same class opponent, maintenance cost 15% lower, global standard quality control brings higher resale value and more stable quality.

Financial view look is "New Quality Productivity Going Global", technical view look is "Platform Capability Realization", brand view look is Ora from "More Loves Women" to "Global Fashion Boutique Car Brand" dimension upgrade—Lu Wenbin set eight words "Global, Fashion, Boutique, Car", every one correcting past bias.
Great Wall Ora 5 Sports Version & GT official also published appeared, market future promising.
Final Words
When a company once welded "Female Exclusive" into brand gene car enterprise, dares to peel off label themselves, dares to admit "Pure EV Cult" is wrong, dares to use one car's three faces to knock on door of different continents—this self-revolution courage, more valuable than 10,806 numbers itself.
Xushui Proving Ground that cup of coffee not spilled, Brazil 24 hours cleared 2,000 units orders, Madrid Gym ACB logo and Ora 5 shining side by side, these scenes pieced together, is China car export from "Sell Cheap" to "Sell Right" turning point. Ora 5 may not be this model's end game, but it likely is China car "Go Global on Demand" narrative start.
