Rivian’s CEO praised the Xiaomi EV’s design after a teardown.
RJ Scaringe said he’d buy the SU7 himself if he lived in China.
He called it a well-integrated, nicely executed technology platform.
Last year, Ford chief executive Jim Farley surprised many when he revealed that his daily driver was a Xiaomi SU7 quietly imported into the United States. Now, another American industry leader has joined the conversation about the Chinese electric sedan that’s been causing a stir both at home and abroad.
Rivian chief executive RJ Scaringe revealed his team recently tore down an SU7, and, likely Farley, he’s full of praise for it. However, he says that developing and building a vehicle like it in China is very different than doing the same in the US.
How Good Is It?
According to Scaringe, the SU7 is a “really well executed, heavily vertically-integrated technology platform” that is “nicely done.” He added that if he were living in China, it’s one of the cars that he’d personally consider buying.
One of the SU7’s most compelling advantages is its price. With a starting figure of 215,900 yuan, roughly $30,000, it undercuts much of the competition. After taking the car apart, Scaringe explained that Rivian “learned nothing from the teardown” about how Xiaomi keeps costs so low.
There was no hidden engineering trick or obscure cost-cutting secret waiting inside the panels. The real explanation, he said, is simple: China’s extensive government support.
China Plays By Other Rules
The distinction, according to Scaringe, comes down to the economic landscape in which Xiaomi operates. State backing shifts the financial balance from the ground up, creating an environment that’s nearly impossible to replicate in the US.
“The cost of capital is zero or negative, meaning they get paid to put up plants,” Scaringe told Business Insider. “It’s a very different opportunity.”
Government Grants Alter The Playing Field
While Rivian was provided a $6.6 billion loan for its new production facility in Georgia, Scaringe noted that automakers in the People’s Republic like Xiaomi receive outright grants from their own government, which is “just not something that exists in the US.”
He also noted that China’s lower labor costs further tip the scales.
“When you take the cost of capital down to zero or less than zero and you have a cost of labor that’s very low – you can do the math, you can build a spreadsheet that can arrive at exactly how they’re doing it,” he explained.
Scaringe added that the reality behind Xiaomi’s pricing isn’t mystical or secretive. “I think it’s like Wizard of Oz. I think when people think there’s a Wizard of Oz, it’s not helpful. It’s like there is no magic in the world. Everything could be analyzed and calculated.”
Xiaomi lost a lawsuit over a misleading carbon fiber hood design.
The owner found no cooling benefit, only minor weight reduction.
Approximately 300 SU7 Ultra owners have reported issues with the hood.
While it might seem like Xiaomi can do no wrong with its much-hyped SU7 and YU7 electric models, the company has been nursing a legal headache since mid-year over one particularly controversial feature: the carbon fiber hood offered for the SU7 Ultra.
What began as a flashy performance upgrade has now turned into a courtroom lesson in customer trust.
Originally touted as a functional component with sizable air ducts designed to improve cooling, the hood turned out to be all show and no substance. Owners soon discovered that the vents had no effect on airflow, and their disappointment quickly became public.
Shortly after news broke about customer concerns, an owner took the Chinese brand to court, alleging it had engaged in false advertising.
They paid 42,000 yuan or $5,800 for the carbon fiber hood, but after removing it and disassembling the front end of the EV, they found its internal structure was virtually identical to the standard aluminum hood.
The Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu Province has upheld the original judgment ruling in favor of the SU7 Ultra owner, while also dismissing Xiaomi’s appeal.
The consumer electronics giant will now need to refund the 20,000 yuan ($2,800) deposit the owner made for the hood, pay 126,000 yuan ($17,640) in compensation, and cover 10,000 yuan ($1,400) in legal fees.
Other Lawsuits Could Follow
While these figures are just a drop in the bucket for a company like Xiaomi, it’ll no doubt be sweating the prospect of future payouts.
The case in question wasn’t a class action and involved just a single owner. It’s likely that following this judgment, other owners who shelled out for the expensive carbon fiber hood will also sue Xiaomi.
When the dispute first came to light, Xiaomi issued an apology, insisting the hood’s purpose was aesthetic rather than functional, meant to mirror the design of the record-setting SU7 Ultra Prototype.
To placate upset customers, it offered 20,000 Xiaomi reward points to each owner who purchased the hood, worth about 2,000 yuan, or roughly $280. Whether that modest gesture will be enough to prevent more legal action remains to be seen.
Xiaomi SU7 crashed and caught fire in China, killing the 31-year-old driver.
Video footage shows one man repeatedly punching the driver’s side window.
Shares in the technology giant fell by as much as 8 percent after the crash.
It’s not just Tesla under fire for how its electronic door handles respond after a crash, fire, or even a total power loss. In the early hours of Monday morning, a Xiaomi SU7 in China crashed and erupted in flames, and despite frantic attempts by bystanders to open the door and free the driver, the 31-year-old at the wheel did not survive.
Chinese media reported that the black SU7 crashed at around 3:15 a.m. The driver of the Xiaomi is said to have lost control, spinning into a wide median strip lined with shrubs and plants before coming to rest on the opposite side of the road in Chengdu. Moments later, the vehicle burst into flames.
Video captured from the scene showed several men frantically attempting to smash the driver’s window while trying in vain to open the driver’s door. One of the men was repeatedly punching the window, while another can be seen trying to kick it out.
They were soon forced to retreat as the flames spread, waiting for firefighters to arrive. Although the crews managed to extinguish the blaze, they were unable to save the driver.
Early reports suggest the 31-year-old may have been driving under the influence of alcohol.
Questions Over Safety Systems
The Xiaomi SU7 features simpler pull-type exterior door handles compared to some other EVs. As with most modern vehicles, the doors are designed to automatically unlock when an accident is detected or airbags are deployed.
For reasons yet unclear, that system appears to have failed in this case. The car is equipped with a manual release inside the cabin.
News of the incident spread quickly, amplified by images and videos of the burning SU7 circulating on Chinese social media, sending Xiaomi’s stock tumbling by as much as 8.7 percent, its sharpest one-day drop since April. Shares eventually closed 5.24 percent lower, erasing billions from the company’s valuation.
In April, three individuals were killed after a Xiaomi SU7 crashed in China’s eastern Anhui province. It has been claimed that the two individuals in the front seats were unable to open the doors as they immediately locked after the crash. An individual was pulled from the rear after an eyewitness smashed out one of the windows, but they died from their injuries.
The incident adds to mounting scrutiny over electronic and semi-electronic door mechanisms in China. Regulators are considering restrictions on such designs amid broader safety concerns, while U.S. authorities continue to probe similar failures in Tesla models.
Xiaomi shares plunged nearly 9% after a fatal crash involving its SU7 electric car, Bloomberg reports
According to the outlet, a 31-year-old driver in China collided with another vehicle, crossed into the opposite lane, and the car caught fire. Witnesses tried to pull the man… pic.twitter.com/yPQ70FoKXN
Ferrari has revealed its first EV will have a quad-motor setup making over 986 hp/1,000 PS.
The product development boss said he wasn’t interested in winning an EV horsepower war.
Gianmaria Fulgenzi described EVs like China’s 1,526 hp Xiaomi SU7 Ultra as “elephants.”
Ferrari has dropped the first details about its maiden EV, next year’s Elettrica crossover, and some people might be wondering if, by doing so, it’s dropped the ball as well. Because while its peak output will be over 986 hp (1,000 PS / 735 kW), Ferrari has confirmed it will not make as much power as the new breed of rapid Chinese electric cars.
“You can see on the market some electric cars that already have 2,000 horsepower,” Ferrari product boss Gianmaria Fulgenzi told media.
“It’s very easy and simple to create that power with an electric engine. So you can see in the market a lot of companies that have never done cars, and now they’re able to produce a car with 1,000 horsepower.”
Fulgenzi didn’t mention smartphone firm turned automaker Xiaomi by name, or its 1,526 hp (1,547 PS / 1,138 kW) Xiaomi SU7 Ultra. But it’s the car that most obviously springs to mind, and we know that Ferrari recently had its hands on an SU7 at its Maranello HQ.
He could also have been thinking of the BYD’s 2,977 (3,018 PS / 2,220 kW) YangWang U9 Xtreme, which this month recorded 308 mph (491 km/h) at VW’s Ehra-Lessien test track, beating the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport 300+’s record.
“But what is the joke? What do you feel when you drive this kind of car?” he asked journalists, per Auto Express. “They are elephants because you need very big engines and a very big battery.”
Let’s leave aside the elephant in Fulgenzi’s room – the Elettrica’s huge 122 kWh battery dwarfs the ones in the SU7 and U9 – and look at the other figures.
A combination of a 282 hp (210 kW / 286 PS) front axle from the F80 supercar and 831 hp (620 kW / 843 PS) from the rear motors will give “more than” 986 hp, Ferrari says, enough for a 2.5-second zero to 62 mph (100 km/h) time and electronically limited 193 mph (310 km/h) top speed. Those are still impressive numbers in absolute terms, but won’t set the Elettrica apart from the crowd.
It’s kind of funny to hear a company like Ferrari, which for years pushed power outputs, acceleration and top speeds to new highs, talking about how pointless the fastest modern cars are. But Fulgenzi is right: we (and automakers) seem to have crossed a line here in terms of power and performance and don’t know how to stop.
Why? Because horsepower, top speed, and 0-60 times are the metrics by which we’ve judged performance cars for decades. Remove them and we’re kind of lost, unless we actually get a chance to jump behind the wheel and experience them ourselves.
It’d be difficult to explain to a potential customer why they should buy your car if it made less power and was slower than the one they already have (though Detroit had to do that during the emissions-strangled 1970s), so automakers keep pushing. And for years, that was fine.
When you traded in your naturally aspirated E46 330i that required 6.5 seconds to get to 60 mph for a turbocharged E90/92 335i that did the job in 5.5 seconds, you could feel the difference, and that could be fun.
But when even fairly ordinary electric cars like the $54,990 Tesla Model 3 Performance can get to 60 in 2.9 seconds, you have to wonder how much longer automakers can keep pushing in this direction. Beyond bragging rights, there’s little extra benefit in having a car that accelerates more quickly than that.
And definitely none to insurance companies, because an uptick in accident rates is surely inevitable if we keep going. Rarely mentioned today is that crippling insurance premiums had as much to do with the death of the original American muscle car in the early 1970s as tightening emissions regulations.
Anyone who lifts weights for recreation might recognise a parallel in all of this to men’s bodybuilding. From the mid 1990s, partly off the back of the use of new drugs like insulin and growth hormone, the guys competing in the top tier literally exploded in size, shifting the focus from aesthetics to freak-show levels of mass.
It was, and still is, fascinating to see what the body can achieve when pushed to the limit, in the same way that it’s impressive that a BYD can do 308 mph. But more recently we’ve seen a huge boom in the popularity of the Classic Physique division, whose shapes hark back to the “golden era” of bodybuilding, when men like Arnold Schwarzenegger still looked super, but also human.
Stepping Back From The Speed Wars
Andrea Canuri for SHProshots
Is Ferrari (of all people) leading a similar shift in the car world with its Elettrica (seen above, testing)? If it is, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s turned its back on the battle to have the biggest numbers.
Although the F40’s 202 mph (325 kmh) top speed broke new ground, for the past 25 years Ferrari has capped its fastest cars at 217 mph (350 kmh) and was content to let Bugatti build cars that ate up a drag strip in less time. That decision in no way diminished Ferrari’s credibility in the eyes of enthusiasts.
But letting other brands make everyday crossovers that are more powerful, accelerate more quickly, and cost less, while also still not publishing any other metrics like a Nurburgring lap time to show us how the sum of the car, including its chassis and brakes, is more important than the schoolyard stats? Now that’s a bold move.
And it’s one that’ll really test Ferrari’s brand strength, particularly among younger buyers who are less familiar with Maranello’s history – one built in large part on cars that were the fastest and most powerful of their time.
Can you see an end to the performance wars? Do you think legislators might eventually step in to curtail the madness? What is the sweet spot for power and acceleration anyway? And is Ferrari right to take its foot off the gas? Throw a comment down below and let us know your thoughts.
Ferrari hasn’t released any exterior images of the Elettrica yet, but it has given us a peek under the skin at the battery and motors, which you can see in the gallery below.
CCTV footage shows a Xiaomi sedan moving on its own as the owner chases it.
Xiaomi confirmed the EV received a valid remote parking command via phone.
The owner later verified that the company’s official explanation was accurate.
A video of a Xiaomi SU7 sedan seemingly taking itself for a spin went viral over the weekend in China, sparking safety concerns. The internet was quick to imagine hacked cars and rogue AI, but Xiaomi quickly shut down the drama, claiming that the mysterious drive was simply triggered by a remote command from the owner’s Apple iPhone.
The incident took place on September 30, when the owner, identified as Li Xiaoshuang, parked his light blue SU7 outside a store in the city of Weihai. Minutes later, while he was inside the shop with a woman, the car began to creep forward with no one behind the wheel. Realizing what was happening, Li rushed outside and sprinted after his runaway EV.
A Confusing Start
After sharing the surveillance footage, the owner contacted Xiaomi’s customer service to report the car’s strange behavior. The representative informed him that the EV had received a remote command from a device labeled “iPhone 16.2.” The owner, however, insisted he hadn’t touched his phone nor did he own an iPhone 16 and provided the video as proof.
The mix-up was later clarified when engineers confirmed that “16.2” wasn’t referring to a newer iPhone model at all, but to the internal identifier Apple assigns to the owner’s iPhone 15 Pro Max. Likewise, an iPhone 16 Pro also linked to the vehicle, belonging to the woman seen in the video, appeared under the code “17.1.”
Technical Verification
After reviewing the EV’s data logs and the smartphones’ activity records, Xiaomi engineers confirmed that the car had, in fact, received a valid remote parking command from the owner’s iPhone at that exact moment. The company also verified that every system operated correctly.
The company issued a formal apology for the misunderstanding and thanked the owner for cooperating in the investigation. They also emphasized that all vehicle systems operated as intended. The owner eventually acknowledged Xiaomi’s findings after witnessing the data verification himself, and urged others to stop spreading false claims about software bugs or hacks.
Accidental Commands, Real Consequences
So what could have triggered the remote parking command without the owner realizing it? The most likely explanation is that the feature was unintentionally activated through the iPhone app or its voice assistant.
Still, the idea that a simple tap or phrase can send a two-ton machine rolling on its own should give manufacturers pause. As cars become more like smartphones on wheels, it might be time for automakers to impose tighter safeguards on how these systems talk to each other, rather than assuming every “smart” feature is foolproof.
Below you’ll find the official statements from both Xiaomi and the owner.
Xiaomi’s Official Statement
Regarding the recent online video of a Xiaomi car suddenly driving away, we attach great importance to this incident and immediately established a special task force to investigate and collaborate with the user to verify the situation.
Both parties verified the user’s authorized mobile app operation logs and vehicle data, reaching a consensus: “The vehicle’s backend data matches the iPhone 15 Pro Max’s operation logs, response times, and vehicle exit commands, ruling out any vehicle quality issues.”
During the investigation, with the user’s consent, we obtained vehicle backend data and operation logs from two phones with vehicle control permissions: the female owner’s iPhone 16 Pro and the male owner’s iPhone 15 Pro Max, with corresponding device model identifiers of iPhone 17.1 and iPhone 16.2, respectively.
The vehicle’s backend data shows that during the time window described by the user, the vehicle received a parking assist command from the iPhone 15 Pro Max, which activated the parking assist feature (activation requires the vehicle to be within close range of the phone’s Bluetooth connection) and initiated the exit.
When contacting online customer service regarding the user’s feedback, they stated that the parking assist command originated from an iPhone 16. We have verified that our online customer service representative confused the device model identifier (iPhone 16,2) with the corresponding device model (iPhone 15 Pro Max) during communication with the user, leading to misunderstanding and miscommunication. We apologize for this and will continue to improve our service efforts.
Xiaomi Auto always prioritizes user safety and user experience. Thank you for your attention and support.
Owner’s Response:
I am the owner of the vehicle in question. The above information is true. The Xiaomi Auto team has verified the data with me in person and confirmed it is correct. Thank you for your professionalism and service. Please refrain from spreading rumors. Thank you.
Login
