Gasgoo Munich- Audi AG announced on Oct 22 that Jeff Zhang will become President of Audi China starting Nov 1, 2026, marking the first time a Chinese national has led the automaker's operations in the country. Johannes Roscheck, the current president, will step down at that time and return to the Ingolstadt headquarters in Germany in early 2027.

Image Source: Audi China

According to Audi, Zhang brings over two decades of international automotive management experience. Before joining the company, he served as Vice President of Chery International and CEO of the Chery brand, having previously overseen Chery's European operations and served as Managing Director for Alfa Romeo and DS in China at Stellantis. Notably, Zhang held a senior management role at Audi China from 2018 to 2020, where he spearheaded the formation of the SAIC Audi sales team and participated in strategic projects for FAW-Audi.

In a concurrent adjustment, Rolf Michl, former Managing Director of Audi Sport GmbH, has been named COO of Audi China, joining Zhang in a streamlined dual-leadership board. Rouven Mohr, Audi AG's Board Member for Technical Development, will temporarily assume responsibility for Audi Sport to ensure a smooth transition for the high-performance business.

Audi CEO Gernot Döllner stated in the announcement that the move aims to "combine international expertise with a deep understanding of the Chinese market to respond more quickly to customer needs." Industry data shows Audi brand deliveries in China slipped to roughly 232,000 units in the first half of 2026, down from 288,000 during the same period last year.

Gasgoo Munich- The Xiaomi YU7 retains 82.5% of its value after one year, while the Tesla Model 3 holds 61.4% after three. In the same market and segment, the dominant players on the one-year and three-year lists have almost completely swapped places. This stark contrast is far from an isolated case in the "September 2026 China Automotive Residual Value Research Report," jointly released by the China Automobile Dealers Association (CADA) and Jingzhengu on October 9, 2026.

While overall residual values stabilized in September, the one-year and three-year rankings show a widespread misalignment across brands and powertrains. Popular new-energy models that topped the one-year list see a marked decline by year three, while traditional models that were less impressive initially gain the upper hand. The hierarchy among pure electric, plug-in hybrid, and internal combustion engine vehicles also shifts as the holding period lengthens.

This divergence between one-year and three-year data suggests residual value can no longer be judged by short-term hype alone. The real question worth asking is: Behind these contrasts, how is the anchor of automotive value being reconstructed?

Who's Gaining Value, Who's Losing It

Brand segmentation first reveals a pattern of "stability at the top, pressure at the bottom." Luxury brands saw a mild rebound in September, with Porsche taking the lead and Lexus remaining near the front. Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Audi also improved, though Lincoln, Volvo, and Jaguar still trail the leaders. Among joint ventures, Japanese brands held the top three spots, with Toyota remaining first, while Honda and Mazda slipped slightly and Buick and Nissan rebounded. Domestic brands continued to decline, though GAC Trumpchi and Tank stayed near the top, while Li Auto, BYD, and NIO saw only modest dips.

But when the observation window is extended, the gap within the luxury sector proves far more drastic than monthly data suggests.

Image Source: China Automobile Dealers Association

According to the "September 2026 China Automotive Residual Value Research Report" (three-year vehicle age standard) jointly released by CADA and Jingzhengu, Porsche leads the luxury sector with a 57.0% retention rate, followed closely by Tesla at 56.3%. Meanwhile, Mercedes-Benz has fallen to 49.3%, BMW to 43.8%, and Audi to 42.3% — all three German luxury giants have dropped below the 50% threshold. At the tail end, Lincoln sits at 43.5%, Volvo at 36.0%, and Jaguar at just 28.9%. The chasm between leader Porsche and laggard Jaguar has widened to 23.2 percentage points. The gap in residual values among luxury brands is evolving from a "subtle difference" into a "fault-line divergence."

The story is similar for domestic brands. GAC Trumpchi and Tank secured the top two spots with three-year retention rates of 54.7% and 54.2%, respectively. In the three-year ranking for new-energy brands, Tesla claimed the top spot at 56.3%, with Tank following at 54.1% — the highest among Chinese brands. The Tank 500 New Energy and Tank 400 New Energy continued their dominance, taking the first two positions on the plug-in hybrid list with 62.9% and 58.0%. However, most domestic brands have yet to establish a similar consensus on brand credit. As competitive pressure from new car sales bleeds into the used market, pricing for existing inventory continues to adjust.

The divergence between pure electric and plug-in hybrid models reveals distinctly different patterns of value decay. In September, the three-year residual value of pure electric vehicles rose to 45.7%, marking a second consecutive month of gains. Although plug-in hybrids halted their sharp decline from the previous month, the gap between the two categories continues to widen.

On the surface, this is a numerical gap; at its core, it reflects a divergence in valuation logic. Consumers of pure electric models judge core value primarily around range and battery condition — a relatively clear anchor. Plug-in hybrids face a more complex scenario: rapid iteration in the new car market quickly amplifies the technological obsolescence of older models in terms of pure electric range and performance when the battery is low, expanding the room for depreciation.

Industry analysts point out that early waves of new-energy vehicles are entering the second-hand market in concentration. The average age of used new-energy transactions is about 3.4 years, with the share of "nearly new" cars aged one to three years rising significantly. With low residual values for older models and the difficulty of assessing battery health, dealers generally adopt a "fast in, fast out" strategy, making price suppression a common practice.

Another undeniable differentiation stems from the time dimension. In September, the one-year pure electric ranking was dominated by domestic brands, while Tesla swept the three-year list. One-year retention rates are often swayed by brand hype and new-car pricing strategies, whereas three-year rates serve as the true touchstone for brand credit, product reliability, and market liquidity.

What Anchors the Value of a Used Car?

To understand these divergences, we must return to a more fundamental question: What exactly anchors a car's second-hand value?

Image Source: Lexus

The reason Porsche and Lexus consistently lead in residual value lies not in standout product specs, but in their relatively stable terminal pricing systems — consumers have a clear expectation of "how much this car will be worth three years from now." By contrast, brands seeing accelerated declines in residual value share a common trait: frequent loosening of terminal prices. In the first five months of 2026, more than 30 internal combustion models saw price cuts. Take the BMW 3 Series as an example: the 2026 330Li M Sport Shadow Edition has an official guide price of 308,000 yuan, but with terminal discounts of roughly 95,500 yuan, the naked price drops to just over 200,000 yuan.

According to previous data from the China Automobile Dealers Association, the average three-year residual value of domestic joint-venture internal combustion vehicles has fallen to 43.12%. In 2020, that figure generally sat between 50% and 70%. Every time new car prices dip lower, the pricing benchmark for the used car market is dragged down with it.

Analysts note that under the new-car price war, some models are experiencing an inversion where acquisition costs exceed selling prices. The average inventory cycle for used cars has stretched from the normal 20 days to 45–60 days, squeezing both dealers' pricing power and profit margins.

Image Source: Tank SUV

In terms of price stability, the Tank brand serves as a positive case study for Chinese domestic automakers. Tank's product iteration rhythm is relatively restrained, its terminal pricing system is stable, and the hard-core off-road category fosters high user loyalty and relatively rigid demand in the used market. Wei Jianjun, chairman of Great Wall Motor, previously remarked that a vehicle's residual value and long-term reliability do far more to determine user experience and brand reputation than marketing rhetoric ever could.

Another underestimated variable is the transparency of valuation information. The divergence between pure electric and plug-in hybrids exists not only due to differences in technology but also because of a deeper layer of information asymmetry. As the core determinant of new-energy vehicle residual value, the power battery has long lacked a unified, verifiable method for assessing health status. There is no reliable ruler for measuring how much range has faded or how much value remains in the battery. When buyers cannot verify the true condition of a used new-energy car's most critical asset — the battery — they can only lower their offer to create a safety margin for that uncertainty.

The transparency of valuation information thus directly determines a car's pricing potential in the second-hand market. "Battery residual value has become the core of used new-energy vehicle pricing, forcing the market to establish stricter standards for battery health detection and evaluation systems," analysts conclude.

Image Source: Tesla

Tesla's lead in three-year residual value is largely because the brand itself has become a symbol of credit, reducing buyer concerns about battery decay and technological iteration. However, the effectiveness of this alternative anchor is limited — when brand credit is insufficient to cover battery uncertainty, valuation loses its mooring.

Among joint venture brands, the stability and predictability of valuation information are equally critical variables. Models like the Toyota Camry and Volkswagen Passat, which have stable iteration rhythms and deep reputations, show significantly better residual value performance than brands that frequently adjust their product lines. In the joint-venture mid-size sedan rankings, Passat took the top spot, followed closely by Magotan and Camry. To some extent, the stability and predictability of valuation information are more decisive for second-hand value than the product specifications themselves.

Rebuilding the Value Anchor: A Joint Effort from Institutions, Automakers, and the Market

Facing these divergences, the industry is building a response system across three levels — institutions, automakers, and the market — all moving in the same direction: rebuilding a predictable value anchor.

At the institutional level, the core task is improving valuation transparency. On September 15, 2026, the China Automobile Dealers Association held a seminar in Hangzhou to revise the "Technical Specification for Used Car Appraisal" national standard, incorporating the appraisal of new-energy vehicle three-electric systems into the national framework for the first time. Regarding new-energy appraisal, the revision adopts a structure of "general items + powertrain-specific items." Battery health indicators prioritize existing national standards for new-energy batteries, while battery safety status and health status are disclosed separately. The draft is expected to be completed by the end of this year and officially implemented next year.

At the data infrastructure level, the framework for a power battery "digital ID" is beginning to take shape. Using a 24-digit code as a carrier, it links 54 basic information items, 24 operation items, and 18 recycling items — totaling 96 data points that cover the full lifecycle of the battery from production to retirement.

Automakers' strategies reflect differing responses to the same problem.

Among luxury brands, Cadillac launched a "three-year, 80% buyback" program for its entire internal combustion lineup in June. Between the 12th and 36th months from the invoice date, consumers can sell their vehicles back to a manufacturer-partnered agency at up to 80% of the original invoice price and trade it in for a new vehicle of the same brand.

The policy writes details such as an annual mileage cap of 20,000 kilometers and deductions for bodywork repairs directly into the contract, using official brand underwriting to replace the uncertain valuation of the used car market.

Image Source: FAW-Volkswagen

Among joint venture brands, FAW-Volkswagen introduced a "one-year original-value buyback" policy for the Tayron L. Within 12 months of purchase, consumers can offset the cost of a new vehicle by the full invoice price of the original car. This policy has since been extended to the Tayron L PHEV.

Beyond these scattered attempts by automakers, the industry is calling for a more systematic official buyback framework. Ouyang Minggao, an academician at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a professor at Tsinghua University, stated at a high-level forum on smart electric vehicles that the new-energy industry has reached a moment to prioritize asset value. He suggested establishing a strict official system for used vehicle buybacks, refurbishment, and sales to stabilize brand used-car prices, thereby supporting new-car prices.

At the market level, battery swapping offers an alternative solution that bypasses the difficulty of battery assessment. By physically separating the battery from the transaction, buyers need not assess battery degradation, and dealers do not need to reserve room for price cuts due to battery depreciation. The evaluation of the vehicle body's residual value thus returns to a logical framework similar to that of internal combustion vehicles.

Conclusion:

One-year residual values largely reflect current market heat, while three-year values test the long-term stability of brand credit and pricing systems. The former can be built in the short term through product strength and marketing; the latter can only be accumulated over time.

The divergence in September's residual value data is essentially a reconstruction of value anchors as the automotive market shifts from incremental expansion to stock competition. The new-car price war has weakened the effectiveness of brand credit as a valuation anchor, and the industry needs to find new support. Whether it is institutional progress in battery assessment standards and digital IDs, or automakers attempting buyback guarantees and maintaining pricing resolve, all are efforts to establish this new anchor.

Gasgoo Munich- Robotaxi has yet to produce a standalone profit-and-loss statement, but Elon Musk is already discussing how much money it will make next year.

On a third-quarter earnings call held October 22, Beijing time, Musk forecast that the Robotaxi business would start contributing meaningful revenue in the second quarter of 2027. By the third and fourth quarters, it stands to become a significant source of both revenue and profit for the company.

That optimism stands in sharp contrast to Tesla's current financial picture.

In the third quarter, revenue hovered around $28.05 billion, roughly flat year-over-year. Net income attributable to shareholders fell to $787 million, a drop of roughly 43%. The company is juggling operations for its automotive and energy storage businesses while pouring capital into AI, robotics, and autonomous driving.

Robotaxi is indeed gaining traction. Unsupervised driving miles neared 2 million in the third quarter—eight times the total at the end of the previous quarter. The Cybercab, designed specifically for driverless operation, has already begun ferrying passengers in Austin, Texas.

Image source: Tesla

Yet until Tesla discloses standalone operating data, the outside world remains in the dark about how much money the service is actually making.

Elsewhere, Pony.ai has validated the unit economics of Robotaxi in Shenzhen, and Waymo completes hundreds of thousands of paid trips weekly. Still, neither has proven that a Robotaxi business can easily become a profit pillar for a company.

Musk wants to clear that hurdle in about a year.

What advantages does Tesla actually possess to justify such optimism for 2027?

Profits are falling, but spending won't stop

Tesla currently isn't short of funds to invest in Robotaxi.

In the third quarter, operating cash flow reached about $6.26 billion, while free cash flow stood at $1.53 billion. Cash and short-term investments topped $45 billion.

But the income statement is under strain.

Operating income for the quarter slumped 56% year-over-year to $718 million, dragging the operating margin down to just 2.6%.

Automotive gross margins, excluding regulatory credits, rebounded to 18.1% quarter-over-quarter, suggesting existing operations aren't deteriorating across the board. The more visible pressure is coming from expenses.

Operating expenses swelled 39% year-over-year to roughly $4.78 billion in the third quarter, with R&D spending jumping 69% to about $2.76 billion.

AI compute power, chip development, and production readiness for new products are all driving costs higher. CFO Vaibhav Taneja expects operating expenses to keep rising until these new products are commercialized.

The capital outlay isn't over yet.

Capital expenditure came in at roughly $4.73 billion in the third quarter. Although Tesla cut its full-year 2026 capex guidance from over $25 billion to around $20 billion, management still plans to expand spending on the Robotaxi fleet, Optimus production capacity, AI compute, and chip manufacturing in the coming years.

Tesla is adjusting the pace of capital allocation, not ending the investment cycle.

For Robotaxi, this involves a critical financial distinction: buying vehicles and building operational infrastructure burns cash upfront, while those assets subsequently hit profits through depreciation. Even if the service achieves operating profitability, it doesn't mean the initial outlay has been recovered.

Currently, Robotaxi revenue is booked under "services and other," and Tesla has yet to release a standalone P&L for the unit.

Consequently, Musk's 2027 forecast carries two layers of expectation: Robotaxi must not only start generating revenue but also deliver meaningful operating returns as Tesla continues to pour money into new ventures.

To gauge the difficulty of that target, it's worth looking at the companies already leading in commercialization.

How hard is it to make a single Robotaxi profitable?

This March, Pony.ai announced that its seventh-generation Robotaxi achieved monthly unit economics (UE) break-even in Shenzhen.

Image source: Pony.ai

According to the company's disclosures, the calculation includes costs for vehicle and autonomous suite depreciation, charging, maintenance, remote assistance, insurance, and ground operations.

The corresponding operational metrics were: 23 orders per vehicle per day, with daily net revenue of 338 yuan.

The greatest significance of this data set is that it moves Robotaxi commercialization beyond the theoretical argument of "saving on driver wages."

Vehicles must secure a steady stream of orders to cover depreciation and ongoing operational costs.

However, Pony.ai achieved unit economics break-even for a specific model in a specific city—not overall corporate profitability.

WeRide's financial data highlights the distance remaining.

WeRide accelerates overseas Robotaxi commercialization; Image source: WeRide

In the second quarter, its Robotaxi fleet in China averaged over 21 daily orders per vehicle, up roughly 24% quarter-over-quarter. Yet for the first half, the company reported revenue of about 346 million yuan and a loss of roughly 790 million yuan.

These are aggregate financial figures and can't be attributed solely to Robotaxi. Still, the coexistence of improving orders and corporate losses reflects the need for sustained investment in R&D, management, and business expansion.

Making the unit economics work for Robotaxi in one city doesn't guarantee replication in another.

New markets require rebuilding service coverage, order networks, maintenance facilities, and operational teams. Vehicle utilization rates in mature regions may not be immediately replicable elsewhere.

Even Waymo, with its clear lead in operational scale, hasn't publicly proven that the entire business is profitable.

Image source: Waymo

By the end of March, Waymo's cumulative driverless miles exceeded 220 million. By September, it covered 15 U.S. cities with a fleet of roughly 4,000 vehicles, completing weekly paid trips in the hundreds of thousands.

This comparison isn't meant to show how many vehicles Tesla is lagging behind.

What truly matters is that Waymo's years of accumulated operational networks, safety records, and regulatory experience are difficult to replicate in the short term simply by adding production lines.

Robotaxi technology can iterate, and vehicle production can scale, but operational efficiency in a city must be built order by order.

Tesla, however, intends to drastically shorten that process.

Can cheaper cars make Robotaxi profitable faster?

Tesla has reason to be confident.

Unlike autonomous driving companies reliant on external automakers for production, Tesla possesses a complete vehicle manufacturing system.

The Cybercab was designed for driverless operation from the outset, lacking a traditional steering wheel and pedals. Management revealed that its parts count is roughly 50% lower than previous models, and the manufacturing team believes the vehicle is well-positioned for mass production.

Image source: Tesla

At the same time, the Cybercab shares the same autonomous driving software as the Model Y, allowing it to leverage the technology and data accumulated from existing passenger vehicles.

These advantages can lower certain R&D and manufacturing costs, potentially helping Tesla scale its fleet faster.

The problem is, the hardest costs to control in Robotaxi may not come from manufacturing.

On the earnings call, when asked about cost per paid mile, Taneja cited a target of 30 cents. He admitted this hasn't been achieved yet but believes a path forward is emerging as operational scale expands.

Taneja did not detail the full cost structure behind this target.

The real operational challenge for Robotaxi lies in the fact that not every mile driven is a paid mile.

Driving to pickup points, deadhead repositioning, and returning to charging facilities all cost money. Even if the vehicle is cheap to build, insufficient orders and high empty-mile rates will erode profitability.

And removing the driver doesn't mean eliminating manual operations entirely.

Vehicle cleaning, charging maintenance, remote assistance, incident handling, and ground dispatching still require ongoing investment.

These expenses share a characteristic: economies of scale are closely tied to the concentration of operational areas.

In Austin, vehicles can share maintenance facilities, dispatch systems, and ground service resources. If orders rise, the cost allocated per vehicle has room to fall.

But if Tesla expands into multiple cities simultaneously, new road environments, weather conditions, and regulatory requirements will generate new operational burdens.

This means there is no simple correlation between fleet size growth and unit cost reduction.

Tesla can build a Cybercab more cheaply, but it cannot secure more orders per vehicle per day simply by lowering the build cost.

More importantly, Tesla has chosen a relatively asset-heavy business model.

Musk has made it clear that the vast majority of Cybercabs will be owned by Tesla and operated primarily as a ride-hailing service.

Building, owning, and operating the vehicles itself allows Tesla to retain a larger share of revenue, but it also means bearing vehicle depreciation, operational infrastructure, and daily service costs.

A different approach is emerging in the Chinese market.

DiDi is partnering with GAC Aion to develop Robotaxis, leveraging existing platforms for orders. SAIC Mobility is combining with SAIC's manufacturing system to advance custom models. XPENG began expanding internal Robotaxi testing in October, attempting to drive operations through partnerships. Pony.ai and WeRide are also collaborating with automakers, ride-hailing platforms, and local operators.

Partnership models require sharing revenue, but they allow for the sharing of vehicle assets and market expansion costs.

The potential advantage of Tesla's proprietary model becomes clearer when order density is high enough: vehicles run continuously, the operational system matures, and profits that might otherwise be shared with partners can be retained in-house.

The problem is, these conditions take time to establish.

If vehicles roll off the line faster than Tesla can secure operating permits, build city service networks, and grow orders, new Cybercabs will initially add to asset investment rather than profit.

Therefore, the biggest commercial variable for Tesla in 2027 is not whether Cybercab can be mass-produced quickly, but whether new capacity can be absorbed fast enough.

What numbers are missing from Musk's 2027 outlook?

Returning to the earnings report.

Tesla hopes Robotaxi will become a significant contributor to revenue and profit in the second half of 2027, but it provided no specific figures and made no explicit promise that the business would achieve overall net profitability by then.

For a company with quarterly net income of about $787 million, a "significant contribution" must be measured by actual operational results, not just the speed of business growth.

Moreover, that profit baseline itself is shifting.

If profits from existing businesses like automotive continue to decline, Robotaxi could command a higher share of total profits even with a limited absolute contribution.

But a change in share is no substitute for the business's inherent profitability.

What really matters is whether Robotaxi can sustainably increase operating profit—and whether those profits are sufficient to support subsequent expansion.

For now, however, the outside world is missing the most critical data points.

Tesla has released driverless mileage figures but hasn't fully disclosed daily paid orders per vehicle. It set a 30-cent cost target but hasn't published current unit costs or their composition. It plans to expand the fleet but has yet to provide a standalone Robotaxi P&L.

This makes Musk's 2027 forecast difficult to verify financially.

From a manufacturing standpoint, Tesla is positioned to lower vehicle costs. Technologically, software reuse offers a chance to reduce incremental R&D spending. Cash reserves and existing businesses also provide a foundation for fleet expansion.

What remains truly unproven is whether these advantages can translate into stable orders and sustained profits across more cities.

Chinese Robotaxi companies have started answering the question of whether a single vehicle can break even, while Waymo has demonstrated the long-term accumulation required to build a scaled service network.

Tesla has chosen a path that emphasizes the integration of manufacturing, technology, and operations—and has set a tighter timeline for itself.

In our previous "Tesla's Moment of Truth" series, we discussed the challenges of moving Optimus from manufacturing to actual work in "What's Holding Back Tesla's 10,000 Humanoid Robots?," as well as the commercialization test FSD faces entering the Chinese market in "Tesla FSD: How Much Longer Must Chinese Drivers Wait?."

With Robotaxi, the test is even more pragmatic.

Musk wants it to become a profit source for Tesla as soon as possible, but building a driverless car and successfully running a driverless taxi service are, ultimately, two different things.

In 2027, what Tesla truly needs to prove is not how many Cybercabs it can put on the road, but whether it can keep those cars busy with orders and turn that revenue into real profit.

Image source: Gasgoo

Zhou pointed out that scale growth and value creation in the auto industry are currently diverging, signaling the sector has entered a period of structural adjustment.

With 2026 marking the start of the 15th Five-Year Plan, domestic auto sales fell more than 20% in the first nine months, and the traditional "Golden September, Silver October" peak failed to materialize. Yet passenger-car exports have already topped 7 million units — surpassing full-year totals of previous years.

The divergence between sluggish domestic demand and robust exports is deepening. The industry faces an evident problem: rising volumes without revenue growth, and higher revenue without profit gains. Export earnings can barely plug the domestic profit gap. The price war, Zhou noted, has persisted for four years. While it accelerates the redistribution of market share, it fails to create industrial value — and remains unsustainable.

Data from the Gasgoo Research Institute shows that domestic new-energy penetration now exceeds 56%, with domestic brands holding a 72% market share. Yet the concentration ratio of the top five players stands at just 47.1% — compared with 87.9% in Japan, 66.1% in the US, and 60.7% in Europe. This suggests that industry consolidation in China is only just beginning, and the market has yet to reach a sustainable equilibrium.

Zhou pointed out that the 15th Five-Year Plan period will likely bring significant industry consolidation and turbulence. On the policy front, governance is expanding from price regulation to capacity control and sector restructuring. On the consumer side, the buyer demographic has fundamentally shifted: replacement and additional purchases are now the dominant demand, with most buyers leaning toward new brands when they return to the market. "Every purchase is a chance for a new brand to gain traction," Zhou said — a core reason why China hosts so many brands and constant new-model launches. On the export front, a growing number of companies realize that global competition must shift from product trade to localized manufacturing and operations. Multi-regional coordination capability is gradually becoming the core differentiator in Chinese automakers' global expansion.

Looking ahead to the 15th Five-Year Plan, Zhou argued that Chinese brands must not only focus inward on core models to build popular models, but also accelerate localized manufacturing abroad to meet overseas market demands. They must leverage smart technology to reshape production efficiency and workflows, return to business fundamentals, and drive profitability through efficiency.

Gasgoo Munich- On October 23, the 14th Automobile & Environment Innovation Forum themed "Moving Forward Together," and the 8th Gasgoo Awards ceremony "China Solutions, Global Value" took place in Shanghai. SAIC Motor Vice President and Chief Engineer Zu Sijie delivered a keynote speech titled "The Next Round of Competition: Not Just Products, But Systems."

Zu Sijie argues that the battle in China's auto industry is moving beyond isolated skirmishes over products or technology into a comprehensive competition of systemic capability. Vehicles are evolving from simple transport tools into "intelligent automotive service entities." However, as product cycles accelerate and technology windows narrow, the hit rate for new models has slipped to roughly 10% to 12%. Relying on a single successful model or one standout technology is no longer enough to sustain a lead; companies must hold the line on quality and safety. On the industry front, the sheer length of the supply chain demands systemic coordination. The contest has shifted from individual technologies to entire tech ecosystems, while overseas expansion is transitioning from a trade-driven focus to a "Systemic 2.0" era.

Zu Sijie outlined a strategy centered on the customer: creating an end-to-end closed loop across the entire value chain. He urged the use of "AI+" to overhaul corporate systems, fortify regulatory standards and full-lifecycle safeguards, and build a globally collaborative ecosystem.

Gasgoo Munich- "The battle for platforms has begun, but platform dominance remains undecided," Wang Chao, a professor at Beijing University of Technology, told Gasgoo and other outlets at the 2026 China Automotive Supply Chain Conference.

China now accounts for roughly 36% of the global cockpit market. It holds clear advantages in displays, head-up units, voice interaction, and domain controller integration, topping multiple domestic segments—a formidable foundation.

The colder reality: overseas giants still control over 70% of China's cockpit domain controller chip market, while base-layer software—real-time operating systems and virtualization—remains heavily reliant on foreign suppliers.

Wang sees 2026 and 2027 as the critical window to shore up the base layer. "A few years ago, conditions weren't ripe; a few years from now, the seats will be taken."

Why are these two years so pivotal? Where exactly are the weak links, and how can they be fixed?

Image source: Huaban

Why 2026–2027?

Why these two years in particular? Wang believes three forces are converging at exactly this moment.

Consider architecture first. Standard front-install deliveries of cockpit domain controllers hit 9.85 million units in 2025—a 42.9% fitment rate, according to the Gasgoo Auto Research Institute. That same year, single-chip cockpit-driving integration platforms entered mass production. The domain controller is evolving from a box that merely links screens into a computing node fusing cockpit and driving functions.

Wang stresses a temporal logic: platforms specified today must support the next two or three generations of vehicles. "Once the interfaces are chosen, the room for reuse is locked in." Every architectural decision made today draws the boundary for the platform's future ecosystem.

Driving this is a shift in the logic of market growth.

The global smart cockpit solution market for passenger vehicles reached 366.8 billion yuan in 2024 and is projected to hit 762.8 billion yuan by 2029, a compound annual growth rate of 15.8%, according to CIC. China is outpacing the world, with a CAGR of 18.4% over the same period.

The pie keeps growing, but regional roles are hardening: Asia-Pacific sets the scale, while Europe and the US define the high end. China dictates the mass-production cadence and the cost curve; Japan and South Korea bring deep expertise in instrument clusters and HUDs; Europe and the US control the premium entry points and the critical nodes of regulatory evolution.

The shift is most visible on screens. Global automotive display panel shipments reached 232 million units in 2024, but growth slowed to 5.1% in the first half of 2025. As the expansion in screen counts eases, the center of gravity shifts from hardware to software-defined platforms—a key reason architectural upgrades are accelerating now.

AI is the second force. Mass-production vehicles featuring cockpit-driving integration reached roughly 1.67 million units in 2025, a 43% annual jump, while the front-install AI cockpit rate hit 12%. Dubbed a breakout year for automotive AI agents, 2025 marks the shift from conversational AI to executive AI.

When agents move beyond chatting and answering questions—when they can call tools, orchestrate vehicle controls, and string together services—they fundamentally rewrite the demands on base-layer computing, operating systems, and data architecture. This leap in AI capability is forcing a rebuild of the interaction base, and the window for that rebuild is right now.

The hardest constraint is regulatory. The logic of oversight has shifted from encouraging feature adoption to banning non-compliant sales. Starting July 1, 2026, two mandatory national standards—on vehicle cybersecurity and software updates—will apply to all newly approved models. From January 1, 2027, GB 47955–2026 will impose strict human-machine interaction safety rules for combined driving assistance, mandating hands-off and eyes-off detection, tiered warnings, and ultimately system disablement—hardwired into product definitions.

Between January 2026 and July 2027, a dense wave of regulations will land—covering cybersecurity, software updates, cross-border data, and cockpit intelligence grading. Compliance is no longer the exclusive domain of premium models: since 2026, L2 combined driving assistance penetration has hit 70.5%, and navigate-on-autopilot (NOA) has reached 34.2%. Compliance is now a mass-production prerequisite for mainstream vehicles.

Overseas, the regulatory timeline is just as stark. The EU's Advanced Driver Distraction Warning (ADDW) requirement applies to new vehicles in scope from July 7, 2026, while the Data Act's design obligations kick in for newly placed connected products on September 12. With China exporting 7.1 million vehicles in 2025, domestic cockpit suppliers must clear these hurdles before they ship out.

Maturing architectures, an AI leap, and a regulatory countdown—three forces converging in 2026 and 2027. A few years earlier, domain controller penetration was too low, AI hadn't moved beyond chat, and mandatory standards were not yet in force. A few years later, this round of platform specifications will be set in stone, and the cost of changing interfaces and ecosystems will be prohibitive.

That is the weight of this window. It belongs to no single company; it is the industry's chance to reposition itself within the global value chain.

Strong Endpoints, Shaky Foundations

To grasp what must be fixed in these two years, the line between strengths and weak spots must first be drawn.

The strongest hand lies in endpoints and integration. The China Automotive Parts Industry Development Report (2026), for which Wang serves as executive editor, reveals that Chinese panel makers captured 56.6% of the global automotive display market in 2025—up from 28.1% in 2019, doubling in just six years. In HUDs, leading Chinese firms hold the top domestic spot with a 25.6% share. In voice interaction, domestic leaders command 41.9%.

Integration is equally formidable. Mainland Chinese companies hold seven of the top ten spots in domestic cockpit domain controller assemblies, claiming a combined majority; the leader sits first with 16.1%. This is the "strong endpoints, strong integration" dynamic the report highlights.

Moving up the stack, domestic platforms are gaining speed. A cadre of Chinese in-vehicle operating systems and cockpit solutions is transitioning from single-model deliveries to reusable platforms; one local cockpit solution has already reached a deployment base of 9.4 million units.

The true vulnerability lies at the base layer. In China's cockpit domain controller chip market, Qualcomm still commanded a 71.4% share in the first half of 2026. Real-time operating systems and virtualization layers remain QNX-dominated, with cumulative global deployments exceeding 275 million vehicles (measured across multiple in-vehicle systems, not just cockpit OS share). Automotive-grade EDA/IP and certification toolchains represent the deepest waters for domestic substitution.

Image source: Qualcomm

Above the base layer, the battle for four control points is just as fierce. Beyond sheer computing power, interface control is being contested by mobile ecosystems and international Tier 1s; next-generation phone connectivity can now span all driver displays, including instrument clusters. Update control is locked by chip platforms and mobile ecosystems—some international systems already span 16 brands and over 100 models, and are beginning to push large language models directly to vehicles. Data and security control is the most concentrated, with security foundation and AI middleware firms deeply entrenched after years of work.

Wang distills this into a rule: the more implicit the control point, and the closer it sits to the base layer, the higher the concentration—and the harder it is to displace.

Most troubling, the substitution curve at the base layer is flattening. Gasgoo data shows Qualcomm's share of China's cockpit domain controller chip market slipped from 72.7% in 2025 to 72.1% in the first quarter of 2026 and 71.4% in the first half—barely a 1.3-percentage-point drop over 18 months. The combined share of three domestic players—Huawei, SemiDrive, and AutoChips—edged from 14.8% to 14.7%, essentially flat.

Wang sees two thresholds here. The first—"can it be built, and can it go into production?"—has been crossed. The next is how to keep winning orders in a market defined by crowded entry, falling prices, and faster model cycles. "This is no longer just a technology problem," he notes. "It's a commercial problem, a continuous delivery problem, a customer relationship problem."

The numbers also conceal a seductive illusion: domestic assembly rates do not equal platform capability.

Wang offers an example: a cockpit domain controller delivered by a Chinese Tier 1 might register as 100% domestic by assembly rate, yet its chips, real-time operating system, and functional safety assessments could all be foreign. Measured by platform capability, the true depth of substitution might be less than 30%.

The blue book offers another yardstick, he notes: can the same software stack pass certification and sustain long-term maintenance across at least two chip platforms and two regional markets? "By this metric, fewer than five domestic companies currently measure up."

The base-layer challenge is about ecosystems, not just silicon. A single automotive-grade chip carries with it toolchains, virtualization, driver adaptations, and an entire certification regime. It must clear four gates—performance viability, ecosystem usability, certification credibility, and long-term maintainability—each measured in years.

As Wang succinctly puts it: "Scale can compress a software adaptation cycle from 12 months to six, but it cannot shrink an 18-month automotive chip validation cycle to nine."

Meanwhile, base software fragmentation is the biggest efficiency black hole. In functional safety, Wang stresses that "what is being fused is the computing platform, not the safety liability." Data compliance is shifting from policing outcomes to governing at the source. Cross-border data rules, for instance, dictate that exporting sensitive personal information of more than 10,000 individuals in a year generally triggers a security assessment—and the collection end must limit scope at the source.

And if these gaps aren't closed? Wang is unequivocal: "We'll be stuck with 'installations without platform power.' No matter how large the market share, profits and influence will flow to those who control the base layer."

Shoring Up the Foundation: Where to Start?

The window is tight, and it demands concrete action. For suppliers, automakers, and regulators, Wang prescribes the single most important move each must make right now.

For suppliers, the keyword is "dual-chip platforms." Wang argues that companies need not choose between short-term supply stability and long-term autonomy. Instead, they should build a "dual base": the same software stack running on both an international mainstream chip and a domestic alternative, compressing migration work to below a quarter of the initial development effort—a target to be calibrated per project. This secures supply in the near term while keeping a long-term fallback.

A more realistic entry point for domestic platforms lies not in flagship launches, but in the replacement cycles of mid-range, high-volume models—build scale first, then move upmarket. Functional safety and cybersecurity evidence must be ready before the platform is even specified, not patched on after an order is won.

Automakers, for their part, must "lock down their next-generation cockpit platforms this year." They should consolidate to two hardware sets and one software stack, write compliance into supplier qualification criteria, and avoid scrambling to pass tests right before mass production. Software architecture, user touchpoints, data loops, and service operations must stay in-house; everything else should be opened up boldly.

He captures the division of labor with a vivid analogy: "The upper layer can have personality; the middle layer must speak a common language." Interfaces must be standardized, and test results mutually recognized. Otherwise, applications will require one-by-one adaptation, validations will be rerun endlessly, and the root cause of fragmentation will never be cured.

In this platform rebuild, suppliers need not fear being sidelined by automakers' in-house efforts. Wang argues that what automakers truly want to control are the software stack, the HMI framework, and user touchpoints. Chips set the cost ceiling, base software dictates reuse efficiency, and engineering validation defines the barrier to entry—precisely the areas automakers are least equipped to handle alone, and exactly where parts suppliers find their footing.

For regulators, the lever is "building public infrastructure." Common base software and toolchains, shared validation and certification facilities, interface and data format standards—these are tasks no single company can shoulder, nor would it make economic sense to try. Policy focus should shift from subsidizing the localization of individual chips or projects to supporting the construction of platform capabilities.

Wang also stresses the need to first baseline the state of automotive-grade EDA and IP—"there aren't even public statistics right now." This aligns with the 15th Five-Year Plan for Smart Connected New Energy Vehicle Industry Development recently issued by nine ministries, which lists operating systems and automotive chips as critical weak links to overcome.

Shoring up the foundation also means building global delivery capabilities. "Overseas, you don't compete on price; you compete on systems." Wang notes that winning premium projects in Europe and the US requires a complete evidence chain for software process capability, functional safety, and cybersecurity, plus a commitment to maintain the product for over a decade. Preparing these materials typically takes 1.5 to 2.5 years—"if you start after winning the contract, it's too late." The real threshold is providing overseas clients with third-party verifiable evidence, not a mere letter of commitment.

There is more than one path overseas. Wang's research identifies three: some push products directly into global platforms, securing international automaker approvals along the way; some follow automakers abroad, build local plants, and then chase global contracts; others use joint ventures as conduits to export their system capabilities. The paths diverge, but the prerequisite is singular: having deliverable system evidence in hand before the contract is won.

This systemic capability is already paying off: leading cockpit suppliers report a 27.3% gross margin overseas, compared with 18.4% at home.

The reality of this foundation-building effort cannot be ignored. The auto industry's average sales margin was just 3.2% in the first quarter of 2026. In the first half of the year, contract prices for several storage chips common in cockpits more than doubled—and domain controllers are the most storage-intensive components in the vehicle.

Under such financial strain, Wang recommends a "7-2-1" resource allocation: 70% for mature projects with clear customers and production timelines, 20% for growth hotspots, and no more than 10% for frontier exploration. He also warns that alternative supply sources must be pre-validated. When a batch of low-value components ran short last fourth quarter, it still forced automakers to cut production—a cautionary tale.

As the industry shifts from competing on features to competing on platforms, the answer distills into three keys: the power to define, the rate of reuse, and the evidence chain. Automakers, parts suppliers, chipmakers, software vendors, and standards and testing bodies—each must hold their layer and collaborate to close the gaps.

Smart cockpits offer the most realistic entry point for China's auto industry to break into the mid-to-high end of the global value chain. The window of the next two years will determine whether domestic players remain stuck at "share substitution"—or truly graduate to "platform dominance."

Gasgoo Munich- On October 23, the 14th Automobile & Environment Innovation Forum—themed "Innovating Together"—and the 8th Gasgoo Awards ceremony "China Solutions, Global Value" were held in Shanghai.

Zhao Fuquan—honorary president of FISITA, a professor at Tsinghua University, and head of the Institute of Automotive Industry and Technology Strategy (TASRI)—delivered a keynote titled "Analysis of Key Issues in the Application and Implementation of AI in Manufacturing Enterprises." In his view, AI serves as technology, tool, and infrastructure, but above all, it is a paradigm shift. The way companies supply capabilities, execute business, and run their underlying systems will all change. The fundamental logic of value creation is shifting from delivering functions to completing tasks. He illustrated this with an example: car buyers aren't looking for functional satisfaction; they want the task of getting from point A to point B completed.

Zhao stated that for an enterprise to transform through AI, it must AI-enable its products, business operations, and management. In execution, the strategy starts by embedding AI into specific tasks. From there, these AI elements must be connected into a cohesive whole, evolving into true AI agents, until the enterprise is ultimately reconstructed by AI. He also proposed a "1+N+X" framework: "1" represents the foundational large model, "N" stands for industry-specific vertical models, and "X" denotes enterprise-exclusive models. Manufacturing enterprises, he argued, do not need to develop large models from scratch; the critical task is leveraging existing ones effectively, co-building industry models, and developing proprietary models tailored to their specific needs.

He stressed the importance of establishing data standards to guarantee quality and compliance. Investment in computing power, he added, should be rational and lean on external support. Crucially, Zhao noted that AI transformation is a project that must be led from the very top.

Gasgoo Munich- Over the past year, AI agents have rushed into new vehicles at an unprecedented pace. "They can chat, write poetry, and understand emotions" — these capabilities have become recurring talking points at countless launch events.

Yet the buzz at launch events hasn't translated into high-frequency usage. Driven by reliability and safety concerns, many drivers are actively scaling back their use of AI controls. The focal point of complaints has shifted from "not understanding" to "not executing correctly." As supply heats up and usage cools down, a rift is emerging.

Where exactly is this experience bubble coming from? And as the capabilities of large language models converge, where will the next competitive gap open up?

Hot Launches, Cold Usage

Amid a flurry of launches, a broader inflection point in penetration rates is approaching. The installation rate of pre-installed smart cockpits has already topped three-quarters, meaning the penetration dividend is peaking. With nearly every vehicle now sporting large screens and internet connectivity, and large models accelerating their integration, the question of "whether it exists" is largely settled. The issue of "whether it's actually useful" is now taking center stage.

Image Source: Volkswagen

The cockpit is where users perceive intelligence most directly. Wang Chao, a professor at the Beijing University of Technology, noted at the 2026 China Automotive Supply Chain Conference that it is the closest point to the user and the first frontier where software-defined vehicles take shape. Operating systems, over-the-air updates, and large models typically run here first. It also acts as the "translator" for autonomous driving, conveying what the car is thinking and when a human needs to take over. Precisely because of this, when the cockpit starts to "speak inaccurately and perform poorly," trust in the vehicle's overall intelligence suffers.

Yet real-world data paints a different picture. J.D. Power's 2026 study reveals that among user issues with advanced features, "instability and inaccuracy" account for 48% — the highest category. Its 2025 research also found that 56.5% of users have actively reduced their use of AI controls due to reliability and safety concerns. Meanwhile, a quarter of users view the lack of dedicated physical buttons for common functions as a design flaw.

A longer view makes the shift in pain points even clearer. Data from the "Report on the Development of China's Auto Parts Industry (2026)" shows that in 2025, the top user complaint regarding smart cockpit features was "hard to understand," at 36%. By 2026, across all advanced features, "inaccurate execution" had risen to 48%. While the statistical scopes differ, making direct comparison difficult, the trend is unmistakable: interface friendliness has improved significantly, but the reliability of execution has now been pushed to the forefront.

J.D. Power's 2025 study also broke down user evaluations of specific functions. AI-generated art and poetry — features heavily hyped in marketing — received an importance score of just 3.87 out of 5. In contrast, smart traffic-avoidance navigation, a function that "helps when it matters most," scored 4.27.

"Low usage rates are, in effect, users voting with their feet," Wang Chao said bluntly in an interview.

Underlying this is a broader shift in user criteria: moving from "usable" to "useful, reliable, and frequently used." Reliability and trust are becoming the primary demands.

Notably, the ability to "chat" will soon become standard — likely faster than multi-screen setups or voice commands did in the past. Wang Chao anticipates that large models will increasingly be treated as an off-the-shelf capability. It is already becoming common for a single brand to integrate two different models across various markets, or even within the same vehicle.

When conversational ability can be integrated cheaply, merely "having a large model" no longer constitutes a competitive moat. Selling points hyped at launch events today may soon become ubiquitous features that nobody notices.

Cracks in the bubble are appearing in the stark contrast between "hot supply and cold usage." Functions are piling up, yet few are used frequently. Debut numbers keep hitting new highs, but user trust isn't building at the same pace. Now that "having an AI agent" is no longer novel, the industry is forced to answer a more fundamental question: who actually defines the value of the smart cockpit?

Where Are the Roots?

Where does this experience bubble originate? Wang Chao ranks the root causes, putting engineering and product definition at the top.

The first culprit is engineering. "The speed at which features are loaded into cars is outpacing the speed at which stability is improved." Large models can iterate daily, but automotive-grade validation progresses monthly — the entire verification system hasn't kept pace with the rush of new technology.

This is a mismatch of rhythms. The consumer electronics era accustomed us to "launch first, iterate later," but cars are products that carry lives on public roads. Safety-related functions require rigorous automotive-grade validation. When the release cycle far outstrips the validation cycle, "inaccurate execution" becomes almost inevitable.

Another root lies in the starting point of product definition. "Everyone starts from the spec sheet: you have three screens, so I'll put in three. You integrate a large model, so I'll integrate one. Naturally, the results look increasingly alike." Wang Chao argues that the true starting point should be the tasks users need to complete, not a checklist of components.

In his view, marketing and launch cadence are merely "amplifiers," not the root cause. They magnify homogeneity and exacerbate the gap between user expectations and actual experience.

The fundamental difference between automobiles and consumer electronics means the smartphone model cannot be simply copied. Cars have life cycles of 5 to 10 years and rigid boundaries of liability. While experience from consumer electronics interaction layers can be migrated — such as intent-first, edge-first, and open standards — the "fast iteration, weak safety" boundary cannot. Wang Chao's principle is "strong verification for high risk, fast iteration for low risk."

This distinction is particularly critical as AI shifts from "dialogue-based" to "action-based." A chatty error is merely awkward. But once AI can directly control the vehicle body or driving-related functions, the cost of a misjudgment is entirely different. As capabilities extend toward "taking action," the demand for certainty rises — which is why "inaccurate execution" is being magnified.

A popular saying holds that "autonomous driving will converge, but the cockpit will define personalization." Wang Chao only agrees with half of that. The safety baseline for autonomous driving is indeed converging; L2 combined driving assistance penetration has exceeded 70% this year, a mandatory national standard for combined assistance will take effect in January 2027, and many brands are even offering assisted driving for free. However, the cockpit and driving systems are fusing. Explaining the car's judgment to the driver and requesting a takeover is the cockpit's job — the two cannot be separated. This means cockpit personalization cannot detach from the baseline of "accuracy"; no matter how distinct the persona, it must be built on certainty.

A deeper mismatch lies in the industry's habit of defining products based on an "average user" persona, while real users have long since diverged.

The report categorizes users into four scenario types. The "commuter efficiency" type wants low interference and high certainty, treating the cockpit as a reliable driving partner. The "family companion" type seeks to upgrade the cockpit into a mobile family space. The "self-pleasing" type values emotional resonance, personalization, and immersive content. The "business and silver" composite type prioritizes privacy, reliability, and ease of use.

The definition of a "good cockpit" varies almost entirely among these four groups. Starting from a single spec sheet, it is difficult to hit the actual needs of any one group.

The disconnect in business models is also indirectly fueling the bubble. Wang Chao points out that software subscriptions currently serve more as an "entry ticket" to premium projects rather than a profit source. After comparing three listed cockpit companies, he found that none saw an increase in service revenue share in 2025. The sequence of the business loop cannot be reversed: retention and OTA frequency must come first, followed by service revenue.

When subscriptions struggle to monetize and R&D investment must continue, feature launches and marketing buzz often gain visibility faster than actual experience. This creates fertile ground for the bubble to grow quietly.

Shifting Barriers

When the ability to "chat" no longer serves as a barrier, where will the competitive gap emerge? Wang Chao believes this round won't simply replay the old paths of multi-screen setups or voice control, because the real barriers have shifted elsewhere.

The first barrier stands at the execution layer. The real gap isn't in understanding a sentence, but in calling tools and orchestrating vehicle controls and services within controlled permissions to see a task through from start to finish. Moving from "can converse" to "can execute" may seem like a short step, but it tests an entire system of capabilities.

Image Source: Bosch

Equally critical is trustworthiness. "The AI in the car must learn to stay silent when appropriate, speak accurately and clearly when it matters, and ask for confirmation when unsure." It is precisely this hurdle that has caused 56.5% of users to scale back their use of AI controls.

Determining whether a car gets "smarter with use" is long-term operations. The ability to continuously loop back scenario data and safely upgrade versions is what separates continuous evolution from stagnation at the point of delivery.

To rebuild this capability, the industry must first change its metrics. "Stop comparing who has an extra screen; compare function completion rates and interaction success rates." Wang Chao argues that the industry should replace spec sheets with metrics like function completion rates, interaction success rates, and reuse rates. In an era of converging AI capabilities, "doing it right" is the ultimate differentiator.

Differentiation sometimes means subtraction. Keep physical buttons for common functions and return the driver's attention to the road. This aligns perfectly with the shift in HMI primary principle from "showcasing technology" to "reducing distraction."

The adoption of standards is establishing a quantifiable common language for "usability." The "Artificial Intelligence Terminal Intelligence Classification Part 7: Automotive Cockpit" (GB/Z 177.7—2026), released in 2026, divides cockpit intelligence into four levels: L1 Response, L2 Tool, L3 Assist, and L4 Collaborative. This is a promising start, making "usability" measurable and comparable.

Wang Chao cautions that every prompt and status display in the cockpit carries compliance implications; personalization cannot come at the cost of certainty. "Personality must be built on the foundation of accuracy." When an evaluation system allows consumers to understand and buy based on these metrics, while enabling enterprises to escape the spec race, the experience bubble will truly lose its soil.

The business loop also requires a pragmatic path. For the next three years, the bulk of per-vehicle value will remain in hardware and platforms, but growth will come from structural upgrades. High-compute domain controllers and cabin-driving fusion platforms, regulation-driven driver monitoring systems, and evaluation-system-driven HUDs and forward displays represent three areas of high certainty.

Wang Chao also advises that when calculating the economics of the cockpit, one shouldn't fixate solely on feature payments. The value of cockpit definition is currently realized first in scale and retention, not directly in pricing premiums. A more complete ledger must account for how much customer acquisition costs are lowered, how much repurchase rates are lifted, and how much service revenue is generated.

With subscriptions still immature, companies have three realistic paths to support investment. First, rely on platform reuse — reuse rates are the only real economies of scale for parts suppliers. Second, rely on overseas projects, where gross margins for leading companies are nearly 9 percentage points higher than domestically. Third, bundle long-term maintenance and OTA services into the platform price rather than hoping to sell subscriptions separately. In terms of product strategy, "standardizing basic features and charging tiered rates for value-added services" is the safer choice.

"User trust is slow to build and quick to lose."

Solving the experience bubble won't be found in the specs of the next launch event, but in the daily routine of "getting it right the first time." When the industry stops using screens and slogans to generate hype and instead treats function completion rates, user trust, and long-term operations as true competitive advantages, the smart cockpit can finally move from "launch-event intelligence" to "everyday intelligence."

That is the only path forward for the smart cockpit in its next chapter.

Gasgoo Munich- Speaking at the 14th Automobile & Environment Innovation Forum and the 8th Gasgoo Awards ceremony "China Solutions, Global Value" on October 23, Valeo China CTO Gu Jianmin addressed the industry's shrinking development timelines — and the growing controversy over "fast-tracked" vehicles.

Gu argued that while compressing timelines is inevitable, it shouldn't be conflated with quality issues. "Shortening the cycle isn't the problem; a lack of sufficient verification — and the resulting product failures — is the real issue."

He revealed that nearly two-thirds of Valeo's product development cycles have been slashed from dozens of months to just a few in recent years. Headlight development, for instance, has fallen from 18 months to just seven or eight.

With development windows tightening so drastically, how is sufficient verification guaranteed?

Gu explained that accelerating development isn't about simply compressing existing workflows. Instead, it's about boosting efficiency through front-loaded R&D, platform-based development, and digital tools.

Early co-creation with automakers is particularly critical. Suppliers engage in pre-research and development of product functions and performance targets well before receiving a formal order. In some cases, prototypes are already at the B-sample stage by the time the contract lands.

This means that while the industry sees a drastically shortened timeline from order to mass production, the extensive pre-research work that preceded it remains unaccounted for.

Meanwhile, platform-based and modular development cuts down on repetitive design, while virtual simulation, CAE, and AI tools further streamline both development and verification.

Gu emphasized that the true measure of development quality isn't the length of the cycle, but whether sufficient verification and market feedback have been achieved. Automakers and suppliers must also shift from a traditional client-vendor dynamic to one of joint innovation — sharing verification costs and scenario data to accelerate technical validation and mass production.

The Best Overseas Practice Award recognizes automotive supply chain companies with proven experience in overseas expansion and localization. It evaluates international strategy, product and technology adaptation, brand building, operational management, and industry collaboration, with a focus on turning competitive strengths into solutions suited to different markets and building reliable, sustainable delivery capabilities.

These companies demonstrate diverse paths to global growth, from entering overseas markets to establishing local operations and collaborating with international partners. Their experience is helping China's automotive supply chain evolve beyond product and cost advantages toward stronger technological capabilities, integrated systems, and global service networks—bringing proven Chinese technologies and solutions to markets worldwide.

Following a rigorous evaluation process, the organizing committee selected 9 companies and their solutions for recognition in the Best Overseas Practice category. The awards were presented at the closing ceremony of the 8th Gasgoo Awards, held in Shanghai on October 23, 2026.

The honorees (listed in no particular order) include:

Valeo Comfort Driving Assistance Systems (Guangzhou) Co.,Ltd.

APTIV (China) Technical Center Co.,Ltd.

Gotion High-Tech

Shanghai Baolong Automotive Corporation

Ningbo Sunny Automotive Optech Co.,Ltd.

BWI Group

Desay SV

Neusoft

Nippon Paint China Holdings Co., Ltd.

We extend our warmest congratulations to all the winners.

Embracing change and driving innovation, Gasgoo remains committed to its mission: "Discover great companies. Promote great technologies. Empower automotive professionals." As an information services platform dedicated to the automotive industry, Gasgoo launched the 2026 Gasgoo Awards Top 100 Players of China's New Automotive Supply Chain. The program spans key sectors including ADAS/AD, smart cockpits, intelligent chassis, automotive-grade chips, automotive software and AI, powertrain electrification and EV charging & battery swapping, vehicle body and interior & exterior, new materials and advanced manufacturing, and embodied intelligence and cross-industry technologies. Through the awards, we aim to identify outstanding companies and cutting-edge technologies, set industry benchmarks, and support the high-quality development of China's automotive industry. 

To continue recognizing companies and individuals demonstrating outstanding leadership and lasting impact in supply chain innovation, technological breakthroughs and sustainable development, preliminary applications for the 2027 Gasgoo Awards are now open. More than a competition for recognition, the awards bring together the forces shaping innovation and the future of the automotive industry. We welcome innovators from across the global automotive industry to apply.

Growth is measured not only by innovation, but also by the ability to turn ideas into products and real-world applications. The Most Promising Growth Award recognizes companies with strong product competitiveness, capable teams, and significant growth potential, assessing their technological strengths, market prospects, and ability to address industry needs. Under the theme "China Solutions, Global Value," it also considers their potential to bring market-tested innovations to global markets.

Through continued R&D, product deployment, and industry collaboration, these companies are turning new ideas into practical solutions and strengthening China's automotive innovation ecosystem, bringing fresh momentum to the industry's global competitiveness.

On October 23, 2026, the ceremony for the 8th Gasgoo Awards, organized by Gasgoo, successfully concluded in Shanghai.

The judging panel selected 30 standout companies to receive the Most Growth Value Award, recognizing their achievements and potential in advancing the intelligent mobility revolution.

The list of recipients is as follows (in no particular order).

First Batch:

Ignite by FORVIA HELLA

LindenBot

Anhui zhongkemidian sensor Co., Ltd.

BXI Robotics

Beijing IAT TAI Artificial Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd.

Ecordia

SynapX

BeingBeyond

North37

Chengdu KNOWNO Technology Co., Ltd.               

Sunrising AI

HANGZHOU KNEWBOTS TECHNOLOGY Co., Ltd.          

Jiangsu Novatech Automation Technology Co., Ltd.        

Jiangsu Zhiyu Automotive Technology Co., Ltd.

Dexforce Technology Co., Ltd.

Second Batch:

Parallel Vision Group

Xense Robotics

OYMotion Technologies Co.,Ltd.

Shanghai Watson Rally Automotive Technology Co., Ltd.      

Psibot

Shanghai Future Longer Smart Sensing Technology Co., Ltd.

Maniformer

Sdrive

Sixing Intelligent Robot (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.

Suzhou CHIP-TEST Technology Co., Ltd.

Suzhou Youkong Zhixing Technology Co., Ltd.

BinarySemi

ChipDisplay

Dexmal

EZION

We extend our warmest congratulations to all the winners.

Embracing change and driving innovation, Gasgoo remains committed to its mission: "Discover great companies. Promote great technologies. Empower automotive professionals." As an information services platform dedicated to the automotive industry, Gasgoo launched the 2026 Gasgoo Awards Top 100 Players of China's New Automotive Supply Chain. The program spans key sectors including ADAS/AD, smart cockpits, intelligent chassis, automotive-grade chips, automotive software and AI, powertrain electrification and EV charging & battery swapping, vehicle body and interior & exterior, new materials and advanced manufacturing, and embodied intelligence and cross-industry technologies. Through the awards, we aim to identify outstanding companies and cutting-edge technologies, set industry benchmarks, and support the high-quality development of China's automotive industry. 

To continue recognizing companies and individuals demonstrating outstanding leadership and lasting impact in supply chain innovation, technological breakthroughs and sustainable development, preliminary applications for the 2027 Gasgoo Awards are now open. More than a competition for recognition, the awards bring together the forces shaping innovation and the future of the automotive industry. We welcome innovators from across the global automotive industry to apply.

Progress depends not only on advances in technology and products, but also on the vision and long-term commitment of the people behind them. These leaders push boundaries, turn innovation into real-world applications, explore new paths for business growth and global expansion, and foster collaboration across the automotive value chain. The Gasgoo Awards' China Automotive Industry Influential Figure Award recognizes their contributions to technological innovation, business development and industrial progress.

Under this year's theme, "CHINA SOLUTIONS, GLOBAL VALUE," these leaders are helping shape the future of China's automotive industry and strengthen its global competitiveness. From technological breakthroughs to industrial applications, and from domestic growth to global collaboration, they are expanding the reach of China's automotive innovation and contributing to the transformation of the global industry.

Hosted by Gasgoo, the ceremony of the 8th Gasgoo Awards concluded successfully in Shanghai on October 23, 2026.

The honorees of "the 8th Gasgoo Awards for Influential Figures in China's Automotive Industry" are as follows (in no particular order):

• Mr. Shawn Li | Global Vice President and President of China, BorgWarner (China) Investment Co., Ltd.

• Mr. Heiko Lässig | Managing Director of HELLA Corporate Center Asia and Executive Vice President of Finance & Controlling China, FORVIA HELLA

• Ms. Juan Ai | President of Asia Pacific, Antolin

• Mr. Field Sun | Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Automotive and Industrial & Commercial Transportation Businesses in China, TE

• Mr. Wang Chenglong | Vice President and Managing Director of Asia, Gentherm

• Mr. Kaishun Li | CEO, ASIMCO

• Mr. Li Linfeng | Founder and CEO, HIWAY

We extend our warmest congratulations to all the winners.

Embracing change and driving innovation, Gasgoo remains committed to its mission: "Discover great companies. Promote great technologies. Empower automotive professionals." As an information services platform dedicated to the automotive industry, Gasgoo launched the 2026 Gasgoo Awards Top 100 Players of China's New Automotive Supply Chain. The program spans key sectors including ADAS/AD, smart cockpits, intelligent chassis, automotive-grade chips, automotive software and AI, powertrain electrification and EV charging & battery swapping, vehicle body and interior & exterior, new materials and advanced manufacturing, and embodied intelligence and cross-industry technologies. Through the awards, we aim to identify outstanding companies and cutting-edge technologies, set industry benchmarks, and support the high-quality development of China's automotive industry. 

To continue recognizing companies and individuals demonstrating outstanding leadership and lasting impact in supply chain innovation, technological breakthroughs and sustainable development, preliminary applications for the 2027 Gasgoo Awards are now open. More than a competition for recognition, the awards bring together the forces shaping innovation and the future of the automotive industry. We welcome innovators from across the global automotive industry to apply.

Gasgoo Munich-The value of technological innovation lies not only in pushing technical boundaries, but also in moving beyond the lab to real-world applications and standing up to market and user scrutiny. Turning advanced technologies into reliable products and solutions that deliver tangible benefits has become a key measure of innovation.

The Best Technical Practice Award recognizes technologies and solutions that have progressed from R&D to practical application. It evaluates technological advancement, engineering maturity, mass production and delivery capabilities, and market performance, highlighting innovations that address real-world challenges, meet user needs, and earn market recognition. Under the theme "China Solutions, Global Value," the award also considers the ability to perform reliably across diverse scenarios, adapt to different markets, and offer valuable insights for the global automotive industry.

Meaningful innovation requires both the courage to overcome technical challenges and the ability to turn breakthroughs into lasting value. From validation to product deployment and broader market adoption, these exemplary practices demonstrate how China's automotive industry is translating innovation into competitiveness and paving the way for wider application and long-term impact.

On October 23, 2026, the award ceremony for the 2026 Gasgoo Awards, hosted by Gasgoo, came to a successful conclusion in Shanghai.

The list of recipients for the 2026 Gasgoo Awards: Best Technical Practice Award is as follows (in no particular order).

First Batch:

WeRide

DeepRoute.Ai

neueHCT

Yihang Intellitech

UISEE TECHNOLOGIES(BEIJING) Co.,Ltd.

Giga.AI

Shenzhen Cheng-Tech Co.,Ltd.

Raytron

Wuhan Xuanyuan Idrive Technology Co., Ltd.

muniutech

Union Automobile Technology Co., Ltd

Lenovo (Shanghai) Information Technology Co., Ltd.

Shenzhen Soling Industrial Co.,Ltd.

BYNAV

Second Batch:

Tenneco (China) Co. Ltd.

SKF Automotive

GKN Danyang Industries Co., Ltd

MANN+HUMMEL

BWI Group

CHENZHI SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Co.,Ltd.             

Tongyu Automotive

Jiong Yi Electronic Technology (Suzhou)Co., Ltd.

BIBO Automotive Electronics Co.,Ltd.

Zhejiang Trugo Automotive Technology Co.,Ltd.             

Beijing Trinova Auto Tech Co.,Ltd

Suzhou Orient-motion Technology Co., Ltd.

YANGZHOU DONGSHENG AUTOMOTIVE Co.,Ltd.

Global Technology

Zhejiang Agile Automotive technology Co.,Ltd.

Allegro MicroSystems

Highly Marelli

Taifang Technology

Melexis

Hirschmann (Nantong) Automotive Co. Ltd.

Third Batch:

Autolink

PATEO

Rivotek Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd

Neusoft

Yinwang Intelligent Technologies Co., Ltd.

Hardstone

LannRay

Shanghai HIUV New Materials Co., Ltd.

Saint-Gobain Sekurit (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Zhejiang Huaruijie Technology Co., Ltd.

AEW Technology Group Co.,Ltd.

Brisonus

SineTac Auto (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

The Qt Company Oy

Shanghai Puchuang Auto Technology Co.,Ltd.

Linksci

Suzhou Greentech Co., Ltd.

Leggett Dynamics

VIIYONG

ShenzhenLowpower Semiconductor Co.,Ltd.

Fourth Batch:

Banma Intelligence

DiDi Autonomous Driving

QCraft

TINNOVE

Wuhan KOTEI Informatics Co.,Ltd.

Elektrobit

ETAS Automotive Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

INGEEK

Guangzhou Zhiyuan Electronics Co., Ltd.

Suzhou Calmcar Electronics Technology Co., Ltd.

CAROTA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

Hangzhou Carlinx Multi Tech Co., Ltd.

Beijing 51 Sim Technology Co. Ltd

Sonatus (Shanghai) Software Co., Ltd.

Inceptio Technology

TOSUN

Fifth Batch:

Shanghai ChipON Microelectronics Technology Co.，Ltd

SemiDrive

C*Core

Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd.

Sanechips Technology Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Visinex Technology Co., Ltd.

SmartSens Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Calterah Semiconductor Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Geehy Semiconductor Co., Ltd.

Biwin Storage Technology Co., Ltd.

YEESTOR Microelectronics Co., Ltd.

HIKSEMI

Dosilicon Co.,Ltd.

Sixth Batch:

Norelsys

Rsemi

AI Micron Ltd.

MCT

Yangzhou Yangjie Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Belling Co., Ltd.

SG Micro Corp

Nexperia Semiconductors (China) Ltd.

3PEAK

CrossChip Microsystems Inc.

Shenzhen Oritek Semiconductor Co., Ltd.

Alkaidsemi（Shanghai）Technologies Corporation

Beijing Flagchip Semiconductor Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Immorta Inc.

Seventh Batch:

Magna Powertrain

BENTELER

Hilite international

United Automotive Electronic Systems Co., Ltd.

PHINIA Delphi

Shanghai Electric Drive Co., Ltd.

InfiMotion Technology

Yuxin Automotive Thermal Management Technologies Co., Ltd.

HULANE ASSOCIATE INC.

Shanghai G-Pulse Electronics Technology Co., Ltd.

Intedrive

Sanan Semiconductor

E-Quality Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Eagtop Electronic Technology Co.,Ltd.

C&B Electronics (Shenzhen) Co.,Ltd.

GLB Intelligent Power Technologies Co., Ltd.

Nanjing Kangni New Energy Auto Parts Co.,Ltd.

Eighth Batch:

Mind Electronics Appliance Company Limited, Baoding Optoelectronics Division

Avnet(ShangHai) Limited

Covestro(Shanghai)Investment Co.,Ltd.

Xingyu Auto Parts Inc

Dongguan SESO Technology Co., Ltd.

Dongguan Hirosawa Automotive Trim Co., Ltd.

Shanghai INGIN Auto Technology Co., Ltd.

IDTE

Ambilight

Shanghai Safepeak Industry Co., Ltd.

Pilotm New Materials (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.

Benecke Changshun Auto Trim (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd.

Cybrid Technologies

Comau (Shanghai) Engineering Co., Ltd

ORIDA

Shenzhen Xinxinteng Technology Co., Ltd

UPTEC Intelligent Manufacturing (Wuxi) Co., Ltd.

Ninth Batch:

Lejoin Intelligence (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

EngineAI

Wuba Intelligent Technology (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Kepler Robotics Co., Ltd.

Vbot

REALMAN

Suzhou Zhito Technology Co.,Ltd.

Linkerbot

Link-touch (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.

RoboSense

EYOU

StepFun

Guanglun Zhineng (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Flexiv Robotics Technology Co., Ltd.

Changzhou Microintelligence Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Baolong Automotive Corporation

Huixi

Anhui Zhongding Sealing

We extend our warmest congratulations to all the winners.

Embracing change and driving innovation, Gasgoo remains committed to its mission: "Discover great companies. Promote great technologies. Empower automotive professionals." As an information services platform dedicated to the automotive industry, Gasgoo launched the 2026 Gasgoo Awards Top 100 Players of China's New Automotive Supply Chain. The program spans key sectors including ADAS/AD, smart cockpits, intelligent chassis, automotive-grade chips, automotive software and AI, powertrain electrification and EV charging & battery swapping, vehicle body and interior & exterior, new materials and advanced manufacturing, and embodied intelligence and cross-industry technologies. Through the awards, we aim to identify outstanding companies and cutting-edge technologies, set industry benchmarks, and support the high-quality development of China's automotive industry. 

To continue recognizing companies and individuals demonstrating outstanding leadership and lasting impact in supply chain innovation, technological breakthroughs and sustainable development, preliminary applications for the 2027 Gasgoo Awards are now open. More than a competition for recognition, the awards bring together the forces shaping innovation and the future of the automotive industry. We welcome innovators from across the global automotive industry to apply.

The value of the new supply chain lies in translating innovation into practical applications and creating value through close collaboration with automakers and industry partners. The 2026 Gasgoo Awards Top 100 Players of China's New Automotive Supply Chain recognizes companies and technological achievements demonstrating strengths in key technologies, engineering implementation, market validation, and industry collaboration. Under the theme "China Solutions, Global Value," the selection also considers the ability to adapt technologies to diverse markets and deliver scalable solutions worldwide.

These companies are helping advance China's automotive supply chain from individual breakthroughs to system-level capabilities. Their achievements strengthen the industry's global competitiveness and create new opportunities for international collaboration, enabling more Chinese technologies and solutions to serve markets worldwide.

On October 23, 2026, the 8th Gasgoo Awards concluded successfully in Shanghai, honoring the companies at the forefront of reshaping the country's automotive supply ecosystem.

The 2026 selection committee evaluated nominees across five dimensions—innovation, technological feasibility, cost-effectiveness, market recognition, and user experience—ultimately recognizing 100 outstanding enterprises and technologies.

The winners of the Top 100 Players of China's New Automotive Supply Chain for Gasgoo Awards 2026 have been officially announced (in no particular order).

First batch:

Bosch Cross-Domain Computing Solutions division (Bosch XC)

Momenta

Chongqing Afari Technology Co., Ltd.

Freetech Intelligent Systems Co., Ltd.

Aptiv (Changshu) Technology Company Limited

Beijing Jingwei Hirain Technologies Co., Inc.

Motovis Intelligent Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Ningbo Sunny Automotive Optech Co., Ltd.

Aumovio Autonomous Mobility (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Hesai Technology Co., Ltd.

Seyond

FORVIA HELLA

Guangdong Asensing Technology Co., Ltd.

Second batch

SeeWay.ai Co., Ltd.

NVIDIA

Mobileye

Renesas Electronics (China) Co., Ltd.

Axera Semiconductor Co., Ltd.

QNX

Bethel Automotive Safety Systems Co., Ltd.

Brembo (Nanjing) Brake Systems Co., Ltd.

Shanghai Huizhong Automotive Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Gestamp (China) Holding Co., Ltd.

Exquisite Automotive Systems Co., Ltd.

ASIMCO

NSK (China) Investment Co., Ltd.

Third batch

Adient (China) Investment Co., Ltd.

iFLYTEK Co., Ltd.

Lear (China) Holding Limited

Toyota Boshoku (China) Co., Ltd.

Faurecia (China) Holding Co., Ltd.

Yanfeng International Automotive Technology Co., Ltd.

Autoliv (Shanghai) Management Co., Ltd.

Huizhou Desay SV Automotive Co., Ltd.

HARMAN International

Shenzhen Hangsheng Electronics Co., Ltd.

BICV Technology Co., Ltd.

Fulscience Automotive Electronics Co., Ltd.

Foryou Multimedia Electronics Co., Ltd.

Jiangsu New Vision Automotive Electronics Co., Ltd.

Fourth batch

Goertek Optical Technology Co., Ltd.

Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd.

AUO Corporation

YFORE Technology Co., Ltd.

ams OSRAM

Quectel Wireless Solutions Co., Ltd.

AI Speech Co., Ltd.

AAC Technologies

Visteon Asia Pacific Inc.

Webasto China

TE Connectivity (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Antolin

Fifth batch

Beijing Horizon Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Horizon Robotics)

iSOFT Infrastructure Software Co., Ltd.

Thunder Software Technology Co., Ltd.

Neusoft Reach Automotive Technology (Shanghai) Ltd.

Shenzhen Zhuoyu Technology Co., Ltd. (ZYT)

Shanghai ABUP Technology Co., Ltd.

Infineon Technologies (China) Co., Ltd.

NXP Semiconductors

onsemi

ROHM Semiconductor

Black Sesame Technologies Inc.

SiEngine Technology Co., Ltd.

Shenzhen Longsys Electronics Co., Ltd.

Suzhou Novosense Microelectronics Co., Ltd.

Tongxin Microelectronics Co., Ltd.

WuXi Indie Microelectronics Ltd.

Sixth batch

ZF

BorgWarner (China) Investment Co., Ltd.

MAHLE Holding (China) Co., Ltd.

Garrett Motion Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Horse Powertrain

Zhuhai Enpower Electric Co., Ltd.

REPT BATTERO Energy Co., Ltd.

Sensata Technologies

Eaton's Mobility Group

Rosenberger Asia Pacific Electronic Co., Ltd.

Seventh batch

Plastic Omnium Holding (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd.

Luxshare Precision Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.

Brose China Co., Ltd.

Nobo Auto Systems Co., Ltd.

Foshan Ichikoh Valeo Auto Lighting Systems Co., Ltd.

Yanfeng Plastic Omnium Automotive Exterior Systems Co., Ltd.

Shanghai SHB Automotive Appliance Co., Ltd.

PPG Industries

Eastman

HBIS Group

Valin ArcelorMittal Automotive Steel Co., Ltd.

L.K. Group

Ningbo PIA Automation Holding Corp.

Surventis (Shanghai) Coatings Co., Ltd.

HRC

Eighth batch

AGIBOT Innovation (Shanghai) Technology Co., Ltd.

Galbot

Qualcomm Technologies, Inc

Ningbo Joyson Electronic Corp.

Minieye Technology Co., Ltd.

We extend our warmest congratulations to all the winners.

Embracing change and driving innovation, Gasgoo remains committed to its mission: "Discover great companies. Promote great technologies. Empower automotive professionals." As an information services platform dedicated to the automotive industry, Gasgoo launched the 2026 Gasgoo Awards Top 100 Players of China's New Automotive Supply Chain. The program spans key sectors including ADAS/AD, smart cockpits, intelligent chassis, automotive-grade chips, automotive software and AI, powertrain electrification and EV charging & battery swapping, vehicle body and interior & exterior, new materials and advanced manufacturing, and embodied intelligence and cross-industry technologies. Through the awards, we aim to identify outstanding companies and cutting-edge technologies, set industry benchmarks, and support the high-quality development of China's automotive industry.

To continue recognizing companies and individuals demonstrating outstanding leadership and lasting impact in supply chain innovation, technological breakthroughs and sustainable development, preliminary applications for the 2027 Gasgoo Awards are now open. More than a competition for recognition, the awards bring together the forces shaping innovation and the future of the automotive industry. We welcome innovators from across the global automotive industry to apply.

Gasgoo Munich-  The 14th Automobile & Environment Innovation Forum convened in Shanghai on October 23.

Fu Yuwu, Honorary Chairman of the Society of Automotive Engineers of China (SAE-China) and 

Chairman of Beijing Huaqi Automotive Culture Foundation, delivered a virtual address. Centering on the "15th Five-Year Plan for the Development of the Intelligent Connected New Energy Vehicle Industry" — recently issued by nine departments including the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology — he outlined the path for strengthening "soft power" in building an automotive powerhouse.

Fu Yuwu noted that the plan sets a clear target: joining the ranks of the world's automotive powerhouses by 2030. This ambition has driven generations of industry professionals for half a century. Beyond fortifying supply chain resilience and breaking through core technologies, he argued, the industry must foster collaboration across government, academia, and the private sector to accelerate the enhancement of industrial soft power — building a new ecosystem and a new set of values.

Fu Yuwu believes that boosting soft power requires creating an environment conducive to "zero-to-one" original innovation. The industry must move toward rule-based management to address issues such as cutthroat internal competition, disorderly rivalry, and low efficiency. Furthermore, companies must accelerate their ESG efforts and fulfill social responsibilities. Fu Yuwu emphasized that as economic pressure mounts, the commitment to talent as the primary resource must remain unwavering. It is crucial to drive synergistic success across the supply chain and its partners.

Brand Landscape

Electrification

Chinese Automaker Dynamics

Strategic Outlook

Gasgoo Munich- "Standing at the new starting point of the 15th Five-Year Plan, 'securing volume and improving quality' has become the main theme of development." Recently, at the 2026 China Auto Supply Chain Conference, Fu Bingfeng, vice president and secretary-general of the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM), outlined a core vision for the direction of the automotive industry and supply chain during the opening phase of the 15th Five-Year Plan.

Fu Bingfeng, Vice President and Secretary-General of CAAM

He noted that looking back at the 14th Five-Year Plan, a new wave of technological and industrial transformation has taken deep root. Electrification, intelligence, and connectivity have accelerated, profoundly reshaping the global competitive landscape. Despite complex geopolitical shifts and the severe impact of regional trade protectionism on supply chain stability, the industry forged ahead against the pressure. China's auto sector achieved a phased leap from sheer scale to strength.

Turning to the 15th Five-Year Plan, Fu emphasized that the planning recommendations explicitly call for "vigorously developing new quality productive forces," "elevating the autonomy and controllability of industrial chains," and "strengthening quality and technological foundations." These directives have anchored the strategic direction for the auto industry over the next five years.

Recently, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and eight other departments jointly issued the "15th Five-Year Plan for the Development of the Intelligent Connected New Energy Vehicle Industry." The plan prioritizes tackling core technologies, enhancing industrial chain resilience and security, and fostering collaboration between automakers and suppliers. It also outlines initiatives to build ecosystems for key components and cultivate leading enterprises, significantly elevating the strategic importance of the auto supply chain and parts sector.

To implement the strategy of "securing volume and improving quality," Fu outlined three key requirements.

First, persist in technological innovation and focus on strengthening and supplementing industrial chains. Tackling core technologies must be the top priority. The industry needs to continue addressing bottlenecks in automotive-grade chips, in-vehicle operating systems, solid-state batteries, new electronic-electrical architectures, and basic industrial software to solidify the security foundation of the supply chain.

Second, deepen the integration of electrification, intelligence, and green development, while strengthening collaboration between automakers and suppliers across sectors. "We must drive automakers and core domestic and foreign parts suppliers to build collaborative co-creation systems, using ecological collaboration to boost the overall resilience and innovation efficiency of the industrial chain," he said.

Third, steadily advance high-quality global expansion. Fu stated that the industry must upgrade its export model from shipping complete vehicles alone to a systematized output of vehicles, parts, and services. "Automakers and supply chain enterprises should band together to build ecosystems and collaboratively construct a global industrial layout."