The Dual Game of Automakers: How Battery Choices Impact Safety in Electric Vehicles

Many people may wonder why automotive companies tout the safety of their batteries, yet incidents of electric vehicles catching fire or spontaneously combusting are still prevalent. Public data reveals that by 2025, 72% of electric vehicle fire incidents will be directly linked to battery thermal runaway, with nearly half of the involved vehicles claiming to have passed national safety tests. This inconsistency raises concerns about a carefully crafted “exclusive battery” trap set by automakers. In laboratory tests, top-tier battery cells undergo extreme assessments such as puncture and impact tests, leading consumers to believe their batteries are “safe.” However, mass-produced vehicles often use battery cells from other brands, or even lesser-known brands, significantly compromising safety.

Battery cells are a critical component of batteries, but they do not equate to a complete battery. To clarify, a battery cell consists of components like the anode, cathode, electrolyte, and separator, forming the core unit that converts chemical energy into electrical energy. On the other hand, a battery includes the cell, battery management system (BMS), and casing, making it a complete product ready for installation in a vehicle. If we liken a battery to a fine wine, the cell is akin to the wine itself. When purchasing wine, one naturally focuses on the flavor and quality; a poorly made wine, regardless of its fancy packaging, is undesirable. Only when both the wine and packaging are of high quality do you have a premium product. In reality, many automakers overly emphasize the “packaging” of the battery while rarely discussing the critical battery cells, leading consumers into potential safety pitfalls and creating future risks in vehicle usage. Therefore, in this safety debate, consumers need to see through the rhetoric of automakers and focus on the core element: the battery cells.

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

In the microcosm of power batteries, the battery cell serves as the “DNA strand” that can determine life and death. A 2025 industry report shows that CATL (Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited) has reduced the failure rate of individual battery cells to one in a billion (PPB level) using atomic layer deposition (ALD) technology, while some manufacturers still operate at a failure rate of one in a million (PPM level), presenting a risk gap as high as 1,000 times.

Perhaps due to insurmountable technical gaps, some battery companies opt to enter automakers’ supplier lists by offering lower prices, becoming secondary or even tertiary battery cell suppliers. Automakers then use batteries packaged with high-quality cells to claim overall battery safety, while secretly employing a “bait-and-switch” strategy with other brand cells, essentially decoupling cell safety from packaging technology. A notable case from 2024 involved a new energy brand whose promotional video showcased a puncture test using CATL’s “super stable” cells, while the mass-produced vehicles contained budget cells from a lesser-known brand. Testing revealed that the latter’s thermal runaway temperature threshold was 42°C lower than that of CATL, a key factor in several charging fire incidents.

Even more covert actions occur at the module level: a German brand was exposed for inserting “downgraded cells” into standard modules. These cells had a cycle life of only 60% of the primary cells but masked performance differences through a BMS strategy known as “peak shaving.” Consumers must remain vigilant, as automakers are building “pseudo-technical barriers.” A popular model’s claimed “nine layers of safety protection” are merely remedial measures for low-quality cells: increasing insulation materials by 50% and doubling the coolant lines, which should be reserved for extreme scenarios, serve as a “cover-up” for mixed battery cells. Industry experts note that 30% of the battery pack’s cost for these models is spent on safety patches that could have been avoided by using high-quality cells.

2. From Laboratory Myths to Real-World Reality: The “Double Game” of Automakers

In the meticulously staged “safety theater” crafted by automakers, the most shocking act is the puncture test: when a steel needle pierces a battery, monitoring devices show stable temperature curves. However, this may be a precisely controlled “magic show”—a third-party testing organization discovered that the tested battery not only used CATL’s specialized cells but also incorporated expensive phase change materials, which cost five times more than standard production solutions. The “mass production version” of the battery pack available to consumers lacks special cells, and the amount of phase change material used is reduced by 80%.

This “special supply strategy” has evolved into a complete industrial chain. Battery engineers reveal that automakers often customize “certification modules”: based on CATL’s standard cells, they increase the positive material by 20% and wrap the terminals in gold foil, raising the cell’s cost by 40%, yet these enhancements never make it to mass-produced products. The use of mixed battery cells not only poses safety risks but also creates hidden performance exploitation. Many vehicle owners have experienced this firsthand, where a car advertised with a range of 600 kilometers may only achieve 380 kilometers in winter. Disassembly shows that the battery pack contains three types of cells: CATL’s NCM811 cells (energy density of 280Wh/kg), a secondary brand’s cells (b 250Wh/kg), and repurposed cells (180Wh/kg). This “cocktail-style” mix forces the BMS to manage the entire system based on the lowest-performing cells, causing up to 35% loss in range. More alarmingly, mixed cells exacerbate battery aging differences—one testing organization found that, after two years, 30% of the mixed cells had degraded to below 80% capacity, while others maintained 90% health, significantly increasing the likelihood of thermal runaway.

3. Path to Resolution: Cutting Through Automaker Rhetoric to Identify Battery Cell “IDs”

Consumer anxiety about safety remains high, while the avalanche of “battery safety” promotions from automakers seems to offer a solution, yet hidden intricacies lie beneath. When sales representatives repeatedly emphasize “independently developed battery packs” and “military-grade protective structures,” most consumers fail to realize that these meticulously crafted marketing messages distract them from the true core of safety—the battery cells within the pack, which are the real “heart” determining safety performance.

Some automakers prioritize the protective casing and cooling systems of the battery pack in their marketing while remaining tight-lipped about the cell brands. Others even engage in the “mixed supply” game, using first-tier brand cells for high-end models and mixing products from other suppliers in lower-end versions, creating a “blind box” supply system that leaves consumers unprepared. In fact, the solution is simple: when purchasing a vehicle, it is crucial to make the “battery cell ID” a core clause. Consumers should demand that sales clearly state the full name of the battery cell manufacturer, specifying the exact model code, and include it in the purchase contract’s “major component list.” During vehicle delivery inspection, the battery pack’s nameplate should be compared with the production code of the battery cells, which can be verified through the automaker’s app or by contacting official customer service.

This traceability mechanism not only avoids deceptive language but also pressures automakers to establish a transparent supply chain—after all, when each cell can be traced back to a specific production line, any substandard practices will be exposed. The safety revolution for new energy vehicles should not be a glamorous marketing performance but rather a quality expedition beginning with each cell’s production source. Once consumers learn to scrutinize the “genetic sequences” of battery cells, the carefully constructed rhetoric of automakers will inevitably crumble. Only by returning to a “cell-centric” era for power batteries can we truly fortify the safety foundation for new energy transportation.

4. Final Thoughts

When an executive from a certain automaker privately admits, “each car saves 2000 yuan on battery cell costs, which adds up to 200 million yuan in profits for 100,000 cars,” it reveals not just a distortion of business logic but a lack of respect for life. When the new national standard for electric vehicle power batteries, GB38031-2025, takes effect in July next year, compliant battery costs may rise by 15%-20%, but this is a reasonable premium for safety.

At this moment, consumers must also arm themselves with laws and technology, remembering that the genetic makeup of every battery cell determines the safety of the driving experience. The next time you enter a dealership, look the sales personnel in the eye and ask, “Does every battery cell in my battery carry the ID of CATL?” Only by transforming this inquiry into a force for industry change can we steer new energy vehicles toward a genuinely safe future.