The Suspension Debate Between NIO and Li Auto: Evaluating the Merits of 48V vs. 800V

NIO vs. Li Auto:

A Clash Over Suspension Technology

In May 2026, a heated technical debate erupted between two of China’s leading emerging EV manufacturers over “active suspension,” a technology critical to driving performance and ride comfort. The contention centers on the 48V integrated active suspension employed by NIO’s NIO ES9 and the 800V separated active suspension installed in Li Auto’s Li Auto L9 Livis. Which technology is superior? This question has sparked intense disagreement between the two brands and their respective fan communities.

NIO’s founder, William Li, directly addressed the controversy during the May 27 launch event of the NIO ES9, asserting, “The 48V integrated system represents a more advanced generation of active suspension technology compared to the 400/800V separated system.” His statement escalated the ongoing debate, making it clear that the question of “48V vs. 800V” would not be resolved anytime soon.

Third-Party Comparison Tests Add Fuel to the Fire

The debate reached new heights after one of China’s largest automotive media platforms, “Dongchedi,” conducted a live-streamed comparative test of the two suspension systems on May 31. The event drew significant public attention.

The tests included the following evaluations:

• Long-wave and short-wave undulating road tests
• Emergency lane-change tests at a speed of 110 km/h
• Static single-wheel lift tests

In addition to the NIO ES9 and Li Auto L9 Livis, the tests also featured the Mercedes-Maybach GLS, BYD Yangwang U7 EV, and a Range Rover. However, the spotlight remained firmly on the two main contenders—NIO and Li Auto.

Divergent Test Results

The test results appeared to present a mixed picture.

The Li Auto L9 Livis, equipped with its 800V separated active suspension, excelled in the 110 km/h emergency lane-change test and the static single-wheel lift test. The vehicle demonstrated minimal body roll during quick lane changes, with the wheels maintaining consistent contact with the ground.

On the other hand, the NIO ES9 with its 48V integrated active suspension outperformed in the long-wave undulating road test, maintaining a more stable body posture with almost no noticeable bouncing.

In essence, the tests revealed a split verdict: Li Auto led in certain metrics, while NIO had the upper hand in others. This provided both camps with ammunition to bolster their respective claims.

Questioning the Test’s “Fairness”

The methodology of the tests sparked significant debate regarding their fairness. The most prominent issue raised involved the selection of driving modes during the evaluations.

Critics pointed out that the Li Auto L9 Livis was tested in its softer comfort suspension mode, while the NIO ES9 was tested in its balanced standard mode. Given that softer suspension modes generally result in slower response times and increased bouncing on uneven roads, some argued that this condition was unfair to the Li Auto L9 Livis.

The emergency lane-change test at 110 km/h also drew criticism, with detractors raising the following points:

First, the NIO ES9 is noticeably longer than the Li Auto L9 Livis, and its longer body combined with a higher center of gravity naturally makes it more prone to body roll.

Second, lane changes at 110 km/h are rare in real-world driving scenarios, leading some to question the practical relevance of this test.

Lastly, a separate moose test conducted by another major automotive media outlet, “Autohome,” using ISO standards, found that the NIO ES9 achieved a speed of 77.1 km/h, while the Li Auto L9 Livis reached 77.3 km/h—indicating that the two vehicles performed almost identically in terms of their limits. This conflicting result further complicated the discussion.

The Invisible Battle of “Tuning”

This debate has highlighted a fundamental challenge in modern automotive development: the difficulty of distinguishing performance based solely on hardware specifications.

Both vehicles boast advanced hardware, such as dual-chamber air suspension, CDC (Continuous Damping Control), rear-wheel steering, and active stabilizer bars. However, the noticeable differences in driving performance and comfort arise from the “tuning”—the engineers’ experience and the brands’ design philosophies.

Some automotive bloggers speculated that NIO’s development team prioritized high-frequency vibration filtering, potentially at the expense of body posture control. This design choice hints at the overarching philosophy driving NIO’s 48V integrated architecture.

However, the art of “tuning” is not as easily quantifiable as metrics like processing power or horsepower. It is a skill honed through data analysis, engineering expertise, and extensive trial and error—something that cannot be easily communicated through PowerPoint slides or marketing campaigns.

What the Auto Industry’s “War of Words” Reveals

This latest dispute is just one of many “wars of words” among China’s emerging EV brands. Similar debates over specifications and benchmarks have been common in industries like smartphones and consumer electronics.

However, automobiles are fundamentally different from smartphones. They require significant financial investment, often costing hundreds of thousands of yuan, and directly impact daily life in terms of safety and comfort. This creates a significant gap between the test footage shown in live streams and the actual driving experiences of car owners.

“Do you trust the live footage, or do you trust your own experience?” This question underscores the universal challenge faced by consumers in an era of increasingly complex technology and sophisticated marketing.

Ultimately, the only certainty is the personal experience of each car owner—how the vehicle feels every time they drive over a speed bump or take a turn. When it comes to deciding between 48V and 800V systems, the best answer might simply be: “Test it yourself and choose the one that feels right.”