Examining the Viability of Technological Paths Through the Diversification of Joint-Venture New-Energy Ventures

On April 8, following a brief pre-launch promotional period, Dongfeng Nissan unveiled the NX8 (specs | price inquiry), with the all-electric version available for immediate delivery (the range-extender version will be delivered in late May). Post-launch order volumes have been remarkably strong. Of course, as everyone knows, with the exception of a few models that can sell out a year’s production capacity within 24 hours, the ultimate sales performance of most models hinges on early customer feedback after the initial batch is delivered. At the very least, Dongfeng Nissan appears well prepared, as the official launch price is lower than the “around RMB 200,000” range that had been widely anticipated.

It’s not just Dongfeng Nissan: SAIC Volkswagen has just launched the ID.ERA 9X (range-extended), SAIC GM introduced the Buick Electra series last year (both all-electric and range-extended), and GAC Toyota is set to roll out the Highlander and Sienna (specifications | price inquiry) in both fuel-powered and range-extended variants. Meanwhile, Hyundai and Ford are also planning to introduce range-extended models in China. The long-standing situation in which multinational automakers operating in China were largely limited to all-electric offerings has now been broken. Today, new-vehicle SKUs tend to fall into one of two camps: one favors extreme simplicity—such as the MEGA, which offers only a single SKU with optional extras—while the other continues to feature a complex SKU matrix. The NX8 undoubtedly belongs to the latter, offering two powertrains and six trim levels.
The diversification of new-energy vehicle offerings likely stems from the recognition that competition in the NEV market has grown increasingly complex; otherwise, automakers would not be offering two powertrain variants simultaneously. Some brands have long adhered to a pure-electric strategy before introducing range-extender models, while others have taken the opposite approach. In the domestic market today, only NIO and Tesla continue to focus exclusively on pure-electric vehicles. With a quarter of 2026 already behind us, the past three months have seen a series of headwinds: reductions and eventual elimination of national subsidies and purchase-tax incentives, rising fuel prices, and subdued market sentiment—overall mirroring the trends observed in Q4 2025. In January–February 2026, all NEV segments posted negative growth, with battery-electric vehicles down 3.7% compared with plug-in hybrids, which fell 11.9% (according to CAAM’s reporting, this figure includes range-extended models). Notably, as early as December 2025, plug-in hybrids—including range extenders—had already recorded negative growth of 3.7%. Meanwhile, in 2024, plug-in hybrids achieved robust year-on-year growth of 83%, while battery-electric vehicles expanded by 15% over the same period.

The new-energy vehicle market has evolved from an initial focus on all-electric vehicles to a diversified landscape that now includes plug-in hybrids and range-extended models—and today, all-electric vehicles are making a strong comeback, while hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) also appear poised to gain mainstream traction. Among the factors shaping this market, some are clearly long-term, structural forces, while others exert only short-term effects. Only by clarifying the temporal characteristics of these influencing factors can we more effectively assess which strategic path to pursue. There is no doubt that technological advancement is a structural driver and the most powerful force propelling change. Over the past few years, charging speeds have surged—from 3C and 4C at the outset, to 5C in 2023, and now up to 8C; some battery suppliers even claim to have 12C technology in the pipeline. Historically, the two main technical challenges facing fast charging have been thermal management and, crucially, how to suppress the formation of lithium dendrites around the negative electrode—ideally, making this process reversible.
As many have noticed, brands that offer both all-electric and range-extended models typically equip the all-electric variants with high-voltage systems (above 800 V), while the range-extended versions stick to 400 V. The rationale is simple: the latter approach minimizes structural redundancy and cuts costs. From a charging-demand perspective, however, the need for fast charging in range-extended vehicles is far less urgent than in all-electric models. This year, BYD unveiled its Flash Charge technology, which will be rolled out across its entire model lineup. Some argue that if charging times can be compressed to under five minutes, the conventional charging infrastructure—particularly battery-swap networks—will face a severe challenge. But let’s set that debate aside for now: for all-electric vehicles, the race to improve charging efficiency has always been the central theme. So, is there a way to quantify “efficiency”?

We can fully “powerize” energy replenishment: even for gasoline-powered vehicles, the fuel-delivery rate of the fuel nozzle—40 liters per minute—can be converted into an equivalent power value based on gasoline’s calorific value. For plug-in hybrids, we assume a 7:3 split—70% of the range is driven on pure electric power and 30% on gasoline—and for range-extended models, we assume a 6:4 split. Importantly, only peak power is considered here; even during refueling, once the tank is nearly full, the flow rate is reduced to a low setting. One of the key values of BYD’s Flash Charge lies in its ability to break through the “sweet spot” of energy replenishment between 30% and 80% state-of-charge. Within the broader range of 10% to 97%, high-power charging remains feasible. When we compare these approaches, the results are quite clear:
Gasoline’s energy density (9.25 kWh/L) remains unmatched, and its 22 MW refueling power is beyond the reach of any electrochemical technology. Because HEVs do not require charging, their refueling power is equivalent to that of conventional gasoline vehicles, while delivering superior fuel efficiency—translated into longer driving range—dependent solely on the frequency of refueling rather than the refueling power itself. For plug-in hybrids and range-extended EVs, the balance between gasoline and electric power usage is key. Under our assumptions, although their daily charging power is only around 100 kW, the occasional high-power refueling during long-distance trips boosts the overall weighted refueling power to 6,000–9,000 kW. This underscores the pragmatic logic of the hybrid approach: the “refueling speed” perceived by users is determined by extreme scenarios—such as long-distance travel—and hybrids anchor this experience at the level of conventional gasoline vehicles.
Battery swapping, calculated on the basis of 75 kWh of energy replenishment in 3 minutes, delivers an equivalent power of 1.5 MW—higher than the average power of flash charging (0.8–1 MW) and roughly on par with BYD’s megawatt-level flash-charging peak power (1.5 MW). Consequently, there is limited room for further optimizing battery-swapping times; moreover, because battery-pack dimensions are standardized to ensure compatibility with legacy models, it is difficult to increase the total energy capacity of the packs. By contrast, although flash charging also faces performance bottlenecks, current trends suggest that surpassing battery-swapping power is only a matter of time. However, the key constraint on flash-charging power lies not in the charging infrastructure itself but in the battery’s ability to accept charge and in the grid’s capacity. Even if charging-station power could be made virtually unlimited, the inherent limits on lithium-battery charging rates set the lower bound on charging time. Thus, flash charging is ultimately governed by fundamental electrochemical principles, whereas battery-swapping time is constrained by physical laws.
Such horizontal comparisons, however, reveal blind spots. When the rate of range replenishment exceeds 100 km per minute—meaning 100 kilometers of range added every minute—users’ sensitivity to higher charging power diminishes. Both flash charging and battery-swap services have now entered a “saturation zone” in terms of user experience. By contrast, the 666 km per minute claimed by gasoline and plug-in hybrid vehicles represents excessive redundancy. Therefore, energy-replenishment efficiency depends not only on charging power but also on network density and accessibility. Ultimately, it comes down to the density and convenience of infrastructure. Excluding private chargers, plug-in hybrids and range-extended EVs are relatively tolerant of public charging stations, whereas both flash charging and battery swapping rely on purpose-built infrastructure. At present, several companies are pursuing battery-swap initiatives, with NIO remaining the only brand operating a commercially scaled battery-swap network. BYD claims a target of 20,000 flash-charging stations, and construction is progressing rapidly; NIO, meanwhile, currently operates more than 3,700 battery-swap stations and plans to expand that to over 4,700 by the end of 2026. Assuming all parties proceed as announced, BYD’s infrastructure would appear denser on paper. However, given BYD’s larger sales base and deeper penetration into lower-tier markets compared with NIO, the actual user experience may end up being quite similar. In the long run, though, the operating costs of flash-charging stations are far lower than those of battery-swap stations. Moreover, the likelihood that other battery suppliers will introduce comparable flash-charging technologies and deploy the corresponding infrastructure is greater than the likelihood of widespread adoption of battery swapping. This gives flash-charging infrastructure greater growth potential than battery swapping. As for the current user experience, while battery swapping is slightly faster than flash charging, this difference is not decisive. Consumers often perceive battery swapping as more convenient, partly because of several implicit benefits offered by certain brands: advanced battery-health management, protection against calendar-life degradation, and the BaaS model’s lower upfront purchase barrier.

However, this also means that the battery-swap business—characterized by heavy capital investment on the brand side—is currently struggling to turn a profit. There has been extensive discussion about viable monetization models for battery swapping; NIO’s battery-swap stations have now evolved to their fifth generation, with construction costs starting at no less than RMB 3 million per site. Even if each station generates a daily gross margin of RMB 1,000, the annual revenue would only amount to roughly RMB 1.4 billion (with net profit likely even lower), while the total capital expenditure for building these stations easily exceeds RMB 10 billion. Thus, NIO has built its competitive moat in battery swapping through substantial capital investment. Although this segment has been spun off as a standalone business, the losses will ultimately still be borne by NIO. Overall, fast charging has indeed posed a challenge to the battery-swap model by narrowing the gap in user experience; however, the impact may not be as significant as some had anticipated. The commercial value of battery swapping remains undiminished, but the key question is still whether it can achieve profitability. As long as brands are left to shoulder the losses, the sustainability of this approach remains highly questionable.
As a result, it is easy to see that the rise of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) is primarily driven by recent technological breakthroughs. The competition between fast-charging and battery-swapping solutions can also be viewed as a form of “coopetition,” which has collectively enhanced the competitiveness of BEVs. At its core, BEV represents the most thorough path toward electrification: its key advantage lies in its complete decoupling from the internal-combustion-engine (ICE) ecosystem, while its main drawback—energy-recharging infrastructure—is steadily improving. By contrast, plug-in hybrids strike a middle ground between BEVs and ICE vehicles, but at the cost of greater system complexity and higher long-term maintenance expenses. Range-extended EVs also represent a compromise, leaning more toward BEVs; their architecture is relatively simpler than that of plug-in hybrids, yet under conditions of grid-supplied power, their efficiency at high speeds is lower than that of plug-in hybrids (since direct engine drive is more efficient at high speeds). Meanwhile, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are even closer to traditional ICE cars, representing an incremental improvement on conventional fuel-powered designs. Their advantage is that they do not rely on any charging infrastructure—and precisely for this reason, they cannot fully break free from the ICE ecosystem.
In this light, it becomes clear why Dongfeng Nissan has chosen to pursue both all-electric and range-extender technologies in parallel. Not only does Nissan already have a solid R&D foundation in range extension, but more importantly, the company has concluded that, for mid-size and larger vehicles, the range-extender architecture delivers a superior user experience across a broader range of driving scenarios compared with plug-in hybrids. Market preferences are ultimately shaping Dongfeng Nissan’s powertrain strategy. The company appears to view range extension as a transitional solution—but one with a transition period that could stretch over a decade or more, thereby endowing it with long-term commercial value. A similar assessment can be found among other joint ventures, including SAIC Volkswagen, SAIC GM, and GAC Toyota, all of which have now launched range-extender models, breaking the longstanding industry convention that multinational automakers would never develop such systems. While the ultimate goal for new-energy vehicles is undoubtedly all-electric propulsion, an “ultimate” solution without any time frame holds little practical significance. To assess the market viability of a given technological pathway, there are three key metrics:
First, the question is whether the chosen powertrain architecture is moving toward all-electric. In this regard, range extension clearly outperforms plug-in hybrid. Second, is the unit-power-cost curve continuing to trend downward? This explains the current upward trajectory of HEVs. Third, how easily this solution can be displaced by alternatives? From this perspective, range extension, plug-in hybrids, and HEVs all face relatively low technological barriers, meaning that early entrants are vulnerable to profit erosion by latercomers. This helps account for the fact that competition among plug-in hybrids and range-extended vehicles is now fiercer than that among pure-electric models. However, large vehicles—those with a wheelbase exceeding 3 meters—are an exception: in this segment, pure electric simply cannot compete with range extension, and little is likely to change unless there are breakthroughs in battery energy density. These are endogenous market factors. Meanwhile, policy guidance, the national energy-security strategy, and the deteriorating global supply situation for oil and gas constitute three exogenous forces shaping the landscape of the new-energy industry. These three factors are interrelated. Even if the overseas oil-and-gas supply crunch were to ease in the short term—which currently seems highly unlikely—it would nonetheless reinforce the direction set by policy and national strategy, underscoring that the government’s long-standing new-energy policy was both forward-looking and strategically resilient. Therefore, regardless of how the various new-energy technology pathways compete, the overarching goals of reducing fuel consumption and increasing energy self-sufficiency will remain unchanged. As for purchase taxes, government subsidies, and market volatility, these are merely temporary, cyclical factors. As long as the underlying economic fundamentals stay stable, the domestic market will rebound from its current period of stagnation. All brands betting on new energy must recognize this outlook.

Most joint ventures have adopted a multi-path approach to new-energy vehicles, which admittedly puts them a few steps behind. However, this gives them the opportunity to closely monitor the evolution of each pathway. Their observations suggest that, aside from pure electric, range extension has its own distinct advantages and a strong foothold in certain segments. Consumers can then choose products that best align with their most frequent usage scenarios. For a considerable period, pure electric will neither dominate unilaterally nor see multiple technological routes develop in parallel; rather, there will inevitably be shifts in relative market share. Over time, pure electric will gradually secure a substantial share advantage, while other approaches will also carve out temporary niches for survival during this transition.

Reposted from Sina Auto

Email:
info@adtfm.com

Phone:
021-20532053

Address:
2nd Floor, No. 150 Jindian Road, Pudong New Area, Shanghai