Analysis Report on Sunwoda's Battery Safety Issues and Impacts on Automakers

Based on the latest market developments and industry reports, I will provide a detailed analysis of the current status of Sunwoda’s battery safety issues and their potential impacts on cooperating automakers.

marks a landmark dispute in the new energy vehicle supply chain sector. On December 26, 2025, Wrioe Electric Vehicle Technology Co., Ltd. (a subsidiary of Geely Holding with Zeekr holding 51% stake) officially sued Sunwoda Power Battery Co., Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sunwoda, for a staggering 2.314 billion yuan. The lawsuit alleges that Sunwoda supplied battery cells with serious quality defects to models including Zeekr vehicles between June 2021 and December 2023, forcing large-scale battery replacements for the affected models[1][2][3].

This claim amount equals the total net profit of Sunwoda over the past two years, posing a major challenge to its “A+H” dual listing plan. Affected by this, Sunwoda’s stock price plummeted by over 10% the next day, with its market value evaporating by more than 6 billion yuan[1].

The quality issues are mainly concentrated in battery packs produced during the previous cooperation period. The problems observed in the affected Zeekr 001 WE86 version include:

• Abnormal Charging Performance
  : Significantly slower charging speed
• Severe Battery Degradation
  : The 86kWh battery pack has a nominal range of 536 km, but the actual full-charge driving range is less than 300 km
• Abnormal Battery Health
  : Abnormal capacity degradation curve
• Thermal Runaway Risk
  : Risk of overheating and fire under specific conditions[1][2][3]

According to industry estimates, the number of vehicles requiring battery replacements may reach 40,000 to 50,000, with the comprehensive replacement cost per vehicle ranging from 50,000 to 60,000 yuan. Zeekr has borne direct economic losses of approximately 2 to 2.4 billion yuan as a result[3].

More alarmingly, the issue has spread from Geely Group brands to Volvo. According to reports from British automotive media, Volvo Cars has confirmed that 10,440 EX30 models in the UK market are affected by safety hazards in the high-voltage batteries supplied by Sunwoda. Volvo’s internal quality tracking system found that batteries used in the single-motor long-range and dual-motor high-performance versions may have potential defects, affecting models from the 2024 to 2026 model years[4].

Even more concerning is that in November 2025, a Volvo EX30 caught fire and was completely destroyed in a Brazilian dealership workshop, requiring 11 firefighters and 4 fire trucks to extinguish the blaze. Volvo has urgently sent warning emails to owners in markets including the UK, US, Australia, and South Africa, requiring them to limit charging to 70% capacity to reduce fire risk, and is preparing a large-scale recall plan. The South African National Consumer Commission has issued an official recall notice for 372 local Volvo EX30 models[4].

According to industry statistics, Sunwoda batteries are currently used in over 40 models from 16 brands, covering an extensive customer network[5][6]:

Automaker Category	Cooperating Models
Li Auto	L6, L7, L8, i6 (mixed supply from CATL/Sunwoda)
Leapmotor	B10 (510km range version with mixed supply), C01, C10
Dongfeng Group	eπ007, Nano 01/06, Aeolus E70, Voyah Passion/Dreamer
XPeng Motors	G9
NIO	Firefly
Dongfeng Nissan	N7
Geely Group	Geometry A, Galaxy E8
smart	#1, #3
Volvo/Polestar	EX30, Polestar 4
SAIC-GM-Wuling	Baojun Yep PLUS, Wuling Bingo, Hongguang MINI EV

Among all cooperating automakers, Li Auto is in the most severe situation. Sunwoda is its core supplier, and multiple Li Auto extended-range models (entry-level L6, L7, L8) as well as the entry-level version of the all-electric i6 use Sunwoda battery cells.

More controversially, when the Li Auto i6 launched in September 2025, it adopted a “dual supplier + differentiated benefits” strategy: the version with Sunwoda batteries had a delivery cycle of 6 weeks, plus an additional 2-year or 40,000-km battery extended warranty worth 3,999 yuan; while the version with CATL batteries required a waiting period of 19 to 22 weeks. This strategy already sparked consumer doubts, and now Geely’s lawsuit has provided “official validation” for market concerns. Reports indicate that some Li Auto owners have abandoned vehicle pickups and demanded deposit refunds after discovering their vehicles are equipped with Sunwoda batteries[3][5][6].

is another major client of Sunwoda. Models including Dongfeng eπ007, Nano 01, and Voyah Passion are all equipped with Sunwoda battery cells. Although no large-scale quality complaints have emerged so far, the Volvo EX30 incident indicates that overseas markets may expose potential problems more quickly.

also face a supply chain trust crisis. Notably, the 510km range version of the Leapmotor B10 uses a mixed supply scheme of Sunwoda and Jiangsu Zhengli batteries. While this strategy diversifies single-supplier risk, it also increases the complexity of quality traceability[6].

The substantive dispute in this lawsuit lies in the definition of technical boundaries. Wrioe claims that Sunwoda delivered battery cells with inherent defects, forcing it to “cover the costs” for the supplier by conducting large-scale battery replacements; while Sunwoda argues that the battery packs (PACK) were designed and assembled by Wrioe itself, and battery performance is affected by the vehicle’s BMS (Battery Management System) strategy, so the root cause of the problem may lie in the system integration link[2].

In its public response, Sunwoda emphasized: “As a battery cell supplier, we have conducted extensive tests on the same type of battery cells. Currently, we provide battery pack systems with our independent design to other customers, and no quality issues have been reported.” It also pointed out, “They did not fully communicate with us about the specific application scenarios and usage conditions of the battery cells in the subsequent stages”[6].

Legal professionals analyze that liability determination will take a long time. Such complex technical disputes involve multiple factors including battery cell design, BMS strategy, Pack integration, and usage environment, with complicated judicial identification procedures. Even if the lawsuit is ultimately ruled, the clarification of liability must be based on sufficient technical demonstration[1][2].

This lawsuit is not only a financial recovery action, but also a landmark event marking the new energy vehicle industry’s entry into a “quality liquidation period”. The unwritten rule of “peace at all costs” between automakers and suppliers has been completely broken. Through the operation of “compensating users first, then recovering costs from the supplier”, Wrioe has not only established a brand image of being responsible to users, but also sent a clear signal to upstream suppliers: when problems occur in the core three-electric system (battery, motor, electronic control), automakers are no longer willing to take the blame alone[2][3].

For Sunwoda, a more far-reaching impact lies in customer development. The company’s current key clients also include well-known automakers such as Li Auto, Xiaomi, XPeng, and Volkswagen. Zeekr’s public lawsuit has essentially labeled Sunwoda as “questionable in quality”, which may lead other automakers to demote or exclude it from future new model supplier designations[2].

This dispute reflects the survival dilemma of second-tier battery manufacturers under the oligopoly pattern. Against the backdrop of CATL and BYD dominating over 60% of the market share, players such as Sunwoda, EVE Energy, CALB, Gotion High-Tech, and SVOLT Energy are generally trapped in a situation of “losing more as they sell more”. While leading enterprises may use this opportunity to strengthen their “safety” label, second-tier manufacturers must answer a key question: besides cutting prices to win orders, what else can they rely on to maintain a position in the future market?[1][3].

Based on the above analysis, I believe other cooperating automakers should consider the following response strategies:

1. Short-Term Measures
   : Strengthen vehicle battery health monitoring, and closely monitor for similar issues such as abnormal charging and capacity degradation
2. Supplier Strategy
   : Reassess the depth of cooperation with Sunwoda, and consider introducing alternative suppliers or mixed supply schemes for key models
3. Risk Communication
   : Proactively communicate battery usage recommendations to owners, and provide software-based charging restriction measures if necessary
4. Long-Term Planning
   : Consider establishing stricter supplier quality traceability mechanisms and recall cost-sharing clauses

Sunwoda’s battery safety issues have clearly affected models including Zeekr and Volvo EX30, and the risks are spreading to a wider network of cooperating automakers. Although it will take time to determine legal liability, a supply chain trust crisis has already formed. For automakers that have adopted Sunwoda batteries such as Li Auto, Leapmotor, Dongfeng, XPeng, and NIO, this is an unavoidable trust test. It is recommended that relevant automakers closely monitor the development of the situation and prepare in advance for supply chain risk hedging.

---

[1] The Paper - “Second-Tier Battery Manufacturers: Living in the Shadow of Giants” (January 9, 2026)
[2] 21st Century Business Herald - “Behind the 2.3 Billion Yuan Sky-High Lawsuit: Who Should Pay for the Defects, Zeekr or Sunwoda?” (January 4, 2026)
[3] 36Kr - “Sunwoda Sued for 2.3 Billion Yuan: Exposing the ‘Quality Sore’ Amid Fierce Battery Industry Competition” (January 2026)
[4] Sina Finance - “More Serious Than 2.3 Billion Yuan: Sunwoda May Put Tens of Thousands of Overseas Owners at Safety Risk” (January 11, 2026)
[5] Guancha.cn - “Sunwoda’s 2.3 Billion Yuan Lawsuit Reaches the ‘Fatal Line’” (January 2026)
[6] Autohome - “Involved in Battery Cell Quality Issues, Sunwoda Sued by Zeekr’s Subsidiary; Clients Include Li Auto and Leapmotor” (January 2026)