Xiaomi’s high-end car model SU7 Ultra has recently sparked wide controversy due to promotional issues, with more than 300 prospective car owners forming a rights protection group demanding a full refund without losses. Consumers accuse Xiaomi of false and misleading behavior in the promotion of a selected component, claiming that its actual functionality does not align with the advertisements. The marketing deception of “high-spec demonstrations, low-spec shrinkage” has reportedly become a common occurrence in the entire Chinese automotive industry.
SU7 Ultra was unveiled on February 27 this year with a price of 529,000 RMB, positioning itself as the “fastest four-door production car on the earth.” Among its features, the carbon fiber double-channel front hood, valued at 42,000 RMB, was touted as a replica of prototype car design with aerodynamic functionality and wheel hub cooling effects.
Xiaomi’s official statement and Chairman Lei Jun had emphasized multiple times that the component not only had a unique appearance but had also undergone internal structural adjustments. However, upon receiving their cars, owners discovered that the component was merely a decorative cover with only two holes and plastic supports inside, almost identical to the standard version’s structure, and far from the functionality as advertised.
On the evening of May 7, Xiaomi publicly apologized, acknowledging the lack of clarity in the promotional information and proposing a solution: customers who had not yet received their orders could opt for an aluminum front hood instead, while those who had chosen the carbon fiber option would receive 20,000 points (worth about 2,000 RMB).
However, consumers widely perceive this solution as lacking sincerity. Opting for the aluminum front hood means having to rejoin the queue, with waiting times potentially extending to 30-40 weeks, and the deadline for making the change only until May 10. Failure to accept the solution would lead to the confiscation of the 20,000 RMB deposit.
One prospective SU7 Ultra owner, who goes by the pseudonym Liu Heng, told First Financial Daily, “We paid a high price for just a decorative piece, the advertising was clearly deceptive, and we demand a cancellation without penalties or more reasonable compensation.”
It is noteworthy that this dispute follows less than two months after the Xiaomi SU7 high-speed combustion incident. On March 29, an SU7 caught fire after crashing into a guardrail while driving on the highway, and a netizen claiming to be a passenger’s family member stated, “On the night of March 29, the vehicle collided with the guardrail, the doors got locked, the battery exploded, and three people inside burned alive.”
Xiaomi Group Chairman Lei Jun had previously highlighted Xiaomi’s self-developed AEB Pro function at a press conference, with “construction site avoidance” listed as one of the highlights. However, it was only after the accident that Xiaomi officially acknowledged for the first time that the AEB system was ineffective against common obstacles like traffic cones and water barrels.
Phoenix Net’s commentary pointed out that there are significant differences in the intelligent driving configurations between Xiaomi’s SU7 standard version and the Max version, yet the presentation during the launch event demonstrated features of the high-spec version, confusing the versions’ distinctions and misguiding consumers.
What’s even more concerning is that the marketing deception of “high-spec demonstrations, low-spec shrinkage” has become a prevalent phenomenon in the entire industry. Chinese media reports mention car companies like Huawei, XPENG, NIO exaggerating the actual effects of their “intelligent driving” marketing strategies.
On May 10, Lei Jun shared on his personal social media platform, stating, “The past month has been the most difficult period since the founding of Xiaomi.” At the same time, the total order volume of Xiaomi SU7 Ultra has exceeded 10,000 units, but the crisis of consumer trust is gradually becoming evident.