Reckless Smart Car Upgrades: Locking at Will, Freezing to Death | "315" Special Feature

Recently, in an underground parking garage in Xuzhou, Mr. Feng’s new energy SUV from a joint venture brand suddenly lit up on the car’s display screen, with a pop-up message saying, “System upgrade is estimated to take 30 minutes, during which the vehicle cannot be used.” Mr. Feng didn’t pay much attention at first, but the next morning, he found that the original range of over 400 kilometers quietly dropped to 380 kilometers, due to the battery capacity being limited.

This is not science fiction; it’s another side of the “software-defined vehicle” under the halo of smart cars. When OTA (over-the-air) technology allows automakers to remotely “optimize” products like smartphone manufacturers, a new controversy arises: is OTA, which car owners cannot fully control, a blessing for technological iteration or a “hidden hand” used by some manufacturers to evade responsibility?

Replacing recalls with “lock battery” and “limit power”

On March 12, a owner of a domestic B-class new energy sedan filed a complaint on a platform, stating that their vehicle’s generator power was 145kW, but after an OTA upgrade, it only displayed 74kW, affecting driving performance.

Similarly, in February, another owner of a domestic A-class new energy SUV complained that after an OTA upgrade, the motor power was only about 85kW, while the vehicle’s dual motors originally had a combined power of 158kW (before power locking, the power could reach about 130kW). The power was effectively halved, leading to insufficient performance and potential safety hazards at high speeds.

The actual value of the vehicle has been compromised due to “lock battery” and “limit power” measures, which amounts to real financial loss for owners. The explanations from automakers are generally lofty: “for driving safety” and “to optimize performance.” But many owners are confused: “Why should we bear the cost?”

In fact, behaviors like “lock battery” and “limit power” are not accidental. Wang Peng, deputy researcher at Beijing Academy of Social Sciences, told the Economic Observer that some automakers see OTA as a “replacement for recalls,” silently locking batteries or limiting power in the background under the guise of technical optimization, to cover hardware design flaws (such as battery thermal runaway risks), thus avoiding costly physical recalls and damage to brand reputation.

In September 2025, a well-known crossover new car company announced a recall of 116,000 pure electric C-class sedans. Unlike traditional recalls, this one does not require owners to bring their cars back to the dealership, wait in line for parts, or spend half a day; instead, a remote OTA update is performed, and with a simple confirmation on the phone, it’s “done.”

On the surface, this appears to be a “high-tech” convenient service. However, some analysts point out that the defect category in the recall code is “S” (safety defect), and the recall type is “I.” This indicates that it is not an active recall initiated by the manufacturer but a “recall affected by investigation.”

For automakers, traditional recalls involve logistics, labor, and parts replacement, costing hundreds of millions or even billions of yuan. OTA software updates are much cheaper. But the problem is, some obvious physical hazards are also classified as software issues. For example, in a recall incident involving a multinational electric brand, the trunk lid could not be locked but was fixed via OTA.

But can OTA truly fix serious defects that require recalls? The State Administration for Market Regulation’s Defective Product Recall Technology Center clearly states: “A defect is defined as a situation caused by design, manufacturing, labeling, etc., that does not meet national or industry standards for ensuring personal and property safety.”

Wang Peng said hardware defects are physical issues, and software patches can only “treat the symptoms.” In extreme cases, hidden dangers may remain, such as insufficient torque in brake system assembly, which cannot be fixed by software adjustments.

A former official from the Defective Product Management Center of the State Administration for Market Regulation pointed out publicly: “While we encourage companies to use OTA for recalls, OTA cannot be used to evade or replace recalls. OTA is just a technical service method for recalls, not equivalent to a recall, and cannot substitute for one.”

“Consumers’ lack of understanding of OTA upgrades also provides opportunities for some companies to exploit complex user agreements and obscure clauses to evade responsibility,” economist Yu Fenghui told the Economic Observer.

Abandoned old owners

Besides owners troubled by OTA updates, some owners are frustrated because their vehicles cannot be upgraded via OTA. On a complaint platform this year, hundreds of complaints about a domestic B-class new energy sedan have emerged, making it one of the most complained-about models.

Over 80% of these complaints relate to the vehicle’s system not receiving OTA updates for a long time. One owner reported that after two years of purchase, they had never received any OTA update notifications, and the system was outdated with poor user experience.

What most frustrates owners is the official attitude. “I have repeatedly reported this to the manufacturer, but I was brushed off. Other models using the same chip and system have already received updates, proving the hardware fully supports these features. The manufacturer is artificially restricting or treating owners differently, neglecting after-sales responsibility,” said another owner with a similar experience.

Amid widespread complaints, the automaker recently “compromised,” promising to update the OTA system for these vehicles, adding Carlink and Hicar functions, with a scheduled rollout by the third quarter of this year, citing the need for “compatibility development and multiple tests to ensure system stability and smooth experience, as well as compliance with MIIT filing requirements.”

These cases reflect a common contradiction in the smart car industry: why do automakers prefer to let old vehicles’ systems “lag and die” rather than continue providing OTA services? Behind this are multiple unavoidable realities.

Recently, the official guide price of the Exeed ET5 was increased, with the high-end version, the 210 Laser Radar Zhizun, raised by 5,000 yuan. Exeed became the first car brand to announce a price increase this year. This indicates that the auto industry is facing new cost pressures. Before this, several new energy automakers, including NIO, had warned about rising costs due to parts price hikes. HSBC reports show that recent surges in raw materials like metals and storage chips will impose significant short-term cost pressures on automakers.

In stark contrast to rising costs, the average price reduction of passenger cars nationwide in January was 14.9%. Luxury and joint venture brands still offered substantial discounts. By the end of January, the national passenger car inventory reached 3.57 million units, and the market still faces intense competition.

On one hand, costs are rising; on the other, the existing stock is competing fiercely. In this environment of extreme cost-cutting, OTA services have become an area for “optimization.” For some automakers, rather than investing limited R&D budgets in maintaining older vehicles’ “emotional value,” they prefer to focus resources on developing new models and capturing new users.

In the early stages of the smart electric vehicle industry, automakers often promoted the idea that a vehicle could become “more and more new” through continuous OTA updates—industry insiders call this “hardware pre-embedding, software iteration.” But over time, people have realized that OTA is not万能. Especially in the core areas of smart cabins and autonomous driving, the “computing power gap” has become a formidable obstacle.

Early automotive cabins had few screens, low resolution, and simple functions—mainly navigation and music—requiring low chip computing power. Now, the situation is vastly different: the number of screens has increased from one to multiple, resolution from 480p to 4K, supporting 3D animations and millisecond-level voice responses, with ecological applications demanding higher chip performance.

The latest flagship cabin chip is the Qualcomm 8295P, with AI computing power reaching 60 TOPS—7.5 times that of the previous 8155—and supporting up to six 4K screens simultaneously. Such a huge hardware performance gap cannot be bridged by software OTA updates; simply put, old chips cannot run new systems.

Assisted driving systems are similar. The Mobileye EyeQ4 chip, mass-produced in 2018, has only 2.5 TOPS and can only support high-speed NOA. The latest 2024 mass-produced Nvidia Thor-U chip has 700 TOPS—over a hundred times more powerful. For older smart cars equipped with low-performance chips and closed system architectures, OTA cannot achieve cross-generational upgrades of assisted driving capabilities.

In November 2025, Zeekr launched a crowdfunding plan to replace the “H7” assisted driving hardware and software system in the old Zeekr 001 and 009 models. The 2024 Zeekr 001 and 009 have limited computing power, and this upgrade will replace the original vehicle’s intelligent driving domain controller with the Thor-U chip—currently a leading high-performance autonomous driving computing platform. This means that for owners of older vehicles to enjoy new smart features, substantial hardware upgrades are necessary.

Taming the “wild horse”

Since 2025, a series of regulatory policies on product access and recall management for smart vehicles have been implemented, beginning to standardize OTA practices.

In February 2025, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly issued the “Notice on Further Strengthening the Management of Product Access, Recall, and Software Online Upgrades for Intelligent Connected Vehicles” (the “Notice”). It clearly defines the boundaries of OTA regulation.

The “Notice” states that if companies use OTA to eliminate vehicle defects or carry out recalls, they must do so according to the “Measures for the Implementation of the Recall of Defective Automobile Products,” and must immediately stop production and sales of defective vehicles. If defect elimination involves major technical parameter changes, companies must obtain product change approval before resuming production.

The core of this regulation is: OTA is just a technical service method for recalls, not a recall itself, and cannot replace a recall. For companies that previously used OTA for “silent repairs,” the “Notice” requires filing with MIIT and SAMR, establishing a shared information mechanism, and supervising OTA activities jointly.

Regarding concerns like “lock battery” and “limit power,” the “Notice” explicitly states that when applying for product access for intelligent connected vehicles, the additional technical parameters related to driver assistance systems and OTA updates must be included in the MIIT product access and manufacturing consistency management, and filed with SAMR. Changes affecting power, range, or driving assistance levels can only be implemented after obtaining product change approval.

Since January 1, 2024, the mandatory national standard GB 44496-2024 “General Technical Requirements for Automotive Software Upgrades” has been implemented. Vehicles that do not meet this standard cannot obtain type approval (“announcement”) in China and cannot be sold legally. This is a strict mandatory threshold.

This standard clearly requires that before an upgrade, the upgrade package must undergo comprehensive testing and risk assessment, inform users of the content, duration, and precautions; ensure process reliability during the upgrade, and allow rollback if interrupted (e.g., power failure).

While regulations are accelerating, practical implementation still requires further exploration of operational boundaries. Gao Chengyuan, director of the Vision Impact Research Institute, suggested establishing a “software recall” special system, including hidden changes like battery downgrade and power limits into defect product management, and requiring clear notification and secondary confirmation from owners before OTA updates.

Wang Peng believes that automakers providing OTA services should ensure users’ right to know and refuse, prohibit “silent updates,” clearly mark the purpose and potential impacts (such as reduced range), and allow users to choose whether to upgrade or keep the original system.

Currently, laws and regulations do not specify mandatory limits on the frequency or cycle of OTA updates. Whether a vehicle is “monthly updated” or “never updated” after sale depends entirely on the automaker’s conscience.

According to the China Association of Automobile Circulation, the average replacement cycle for new energy vehicles has shortened from 6-8 years for fuel vehicles to 3-5 years. With the rise of AI large models and the gradual implementation of L3 autonomous driving, whether consumers are willing to use a smart car for the long term like traditional fuel vehicles is uncertain.

Yu Fenghui said that automakers should fulfill promises, especially regarding “lifetime free OTA updates,” and honestly reflect any paid unlocks afterward to avoid false advertising. For older models, they should develop reasonable update strategies to ensure all users can fairly enjoy the benefits and improvements brought by OTA.

In any case, if “lifetime upgrade” is just a slogan in brochures and not a contractual obligation, the question of “who will handle the system lag of old cars” will remain unresolved.