The Dual Game of Automakers: How Battery Choices Determine Vehicle Safety and Performance

The “double game” played by automotive companies determines the fate of the cockpit. As we approach 2025, it raises a critical question: why do car manufacturers tout the safety of their batteries while incidents of electric vehicles catching fire continue to occur on our streets? Public data indicates that in 2025, 72% of electric vehicle fire incidents are directly linked to battery thermal runaway, with nearly half of the involved vehicles claiming to have passed national safety tests.

This contradiction may stem from the cleverly designed “special supply battery” trap set by these companies. In controlled laboratory settings, top-tier battery cells undergo extreme tests like puncture and impact, leading consumers to believe their batteries are “safe.” However, mass-produced vehicles often include cells from lesser-known or lower-tier brands, significantly compromising safety.

Battery cells are crucial components of batteries but do not equate to a complete battery. To clarify, a battery cell consists of positive and negative electrodes, electrolyte, and separators, serving as the core unit for the conversion of chemical energy to electrical energy. Conversely, a battery comprises the cell, a battery management system (BMS), and an exterior casing; it is the complete product that gets installed in vehicles. If we liken a battery to a bottle of wine, then the cell is akin to the wine itself. While we naturally focus on the taste and quality of the wine, a beautiful bottle is meaningless if the wine is poor. Only when both the wine and packaging are excellent can we consider it a premium product.

In reality, many automotive manufacturers excessively emphasize the “packaging” of the battery while neglecting to mention the crucial battery cells. This deliberate obfuscation can lead consumers unknowingly into safety pitfalls, laying the groundwork for potential future hazards. Thus, in this safety game, consumers must see through the industry’s rhetoric and focus on the vital issue of battery cells.

1. Battery Cells: The “Genetic Code” Intentionally Hidden by Manufacturers

Within the microscopic world of power batteries, battery cells represent the “DNA chain” that determines life or death. A report from 2025 indicates that CATL has reduced the failure rate of individual battery cells using atomic layer deposition (ALD) technology to one in a billion (PPB level), while some manufacturers remain at the one in a million (PPM level), presenting a risk disparity of up to one thousand times.

Faced with technical hurdles, some battery companies choose to penetrate car manufacturers’ supply chains by becoming secondary or even tertiary cell suppliers. These manufacturers, using high-quality cells to package their batteries and assert overall safety, secretly employ cells from other brands, thereby decoupling cell safety from packaging technology. A revealing case from 2024 involves a new brand that advertised its battery packs passing puncture tests with CATL’s “super stable” cells but used budget-oriented cells from a lesser-known brand in mass-produced vehicles. Tests revealed that the latter’s thermal runaway temperature was 42°C lower than that of CATL’s, a key factor in multiple fire incidents during charging.

More covert operations occur at the module level: a German brand was found to have inserted “downgraded cells” into standard modules. These cells had a cycle life only 60% that of the main cells but concealed performance differences through the BMS’s “peak shaving” strategy.

2. From Laboratory Myths to Road Realities: The “Double Game” of Automotive Companies

Among the most dramatic spectacles in the “safety theater” crafted by manufacturers is the puncture test: as a steel needle penetrates the battery, monitoring instruments show stable temperature curves. However, this may be a meticulously controlled “magic act.” A third-party agency dissected a tested battery and found it not only contained CATL’s special cells but also included expensive phase change materials, costing five times that of standard production solutions. The “production version” battery packs available to consumers lack these specialized cells and have had the phase change materials reduced by 80%.

This “special supply strategy” has formed a complete industrial chain. Battery engineers reveal that manufacturers customize “certification modules”: based on CATL’s standard cells, they increase the positive electrode material by 20% and wrap the tabs in gold foil, raising cell costs by 40%. However, these enhancements never appear in mass-produced products. Mixing battery cells not only introduces safety risks but also creates hidden performance losses. Many car owners have experienced discrepancies between advertised and actual ranges; for instance, a vehicle claiming a 600 km range may only achieve 380 km in winter. Dissection revealed that its battery pack included three types of cells: CATL’s NCM811 cells (energy density 280 Wh/kg), a second-tier brand’s cells (b 250 Wh/kg), and recycled cells (b 180 Wh/kg).

This “cocktail-style” mixing forces the BMS to manage the entire system based on the lowest-performing cells, leading to a 35% loss in range. Even more concerning, mixed cell configurations exacerbate aging disparities; a testing agency found that in a mixed battery pack used for two years, 30% of the cells had degraded to below 80% capacity, while others still maintained 90% health. This imbalance significantly increases the likelihood of thermal runaway.

3. Breaking the Deadlock: Piercing Through Manufacturer Rhetoric to Identify Battery Cells

Safety anxiety looms large for consumers, while automotive companies bombard the market with “battery safety” claims that seem to offer solutions but may conceal ulterior motives. When sales representatives emphasize “self-developed battery packs” and “military-grade protective structures,” most consumers fail to realize that these meticulously crafted marketing phrases divert attention from the core safety elements—the battery cells within the pack, which truly determine safety performance.

Some manufacturers focus their marketing on the battery pack’s outer protective casing and cooling systems while remaining tight-lipped about the cell brands. Even worse, some engage in “mixing” games, where higher-end versions of the same model use first-tier cells, while lower-end versions incorporate products from other suppliers, creating a “blind box” supply system that leaves consumers vulnerable. The solution is straightforward: when purchasing a vehicle, consumers should prioritize the “cell identification” as a core term: demand that sales clearly state the full name of the cell manufacturer and specify the exact model code in the purchase contract under the “major components list.” During vehicle delivery, consumers should check the production codes on the battery pack’s nameplate and verify their authenticity through the manufacturer’s app or by contacting official customer service.

This traceability mechanism can help avoid misleading language and compel manufacturers to establish transparent supply chains. When every cell can be traced back to its specific production line, any substandard practices will be exposed. The safety revolution in new energy vehicles should not be a grand marketing spectacle, but rather a quality journey beginning at the production source of each cell. As consumers learn to scrutinize the “genetic sequence” of battery cells, the carefully constructed rhetoric of automotive companies will ultimately crumble. Only by returning to a “cell-centric” era can we truly establish a solid safety foundation for new energy travel.

4. In Conclusion

When an executive from a car company candidly admits, “We save 2000 yuan on battery cell costs per vehicle; for 100,000 vehicles, that’s 200 million yuan in profit,” it reveals not only a distortion of business logic but also a lack of reverence for human life. As we approach July of next year, when the new national standard GB38031-2025 for power batteries in electric vehicles comes into effect, compliance costs may rise by 15%-20%, but this is a reasonable premium for safety. At this moment, consumers must arm themselves with laws and technology, remembering that the “genes” of each cell dictate the fate within the cockpit. Next time you step into a dealership, look the sales staff in the eye and ask, “Does every cell in my battery carry CATL’s identification?” Only by transforming this inquiry into a force for industry change can we ensure that new energy vehicles truly drive toward a safer future.