0:00 The Huawei Stelato S9, a high-end vehicle priced around 400,000 R&B, took on established competitors like Mercedes, BMW, and Audi. However, it failed spectacularly during a moose test. In the video, the Stelato S9 was almost through the test when suddenly the rear of the car swung out. It executed a dramatic dragon tail flick and drifted off the track. A bystander, seemingly amused by the spectacle, commented, "The drift is amazing." This wasn't just a safety test. It looked more like a stunt performance. Slow motion replays revealed that the dramatic drift came at a cost. The left front wheel of the S9 appeared to twist, and there were concerns it might have broken the axle. In comparison, the new
0:46 Audi A6L, Mercedes E-Class, and BMW 5 Series tested on the same track, passed with ease. They handled the course smoothly with the BMW wobbling slightly but staying on the track. The internet quickly reacted. To pick the S9 with a twisted axle from all the domestic electric vehicles shows questionable taste. Any car that fails the moose test and twist an axle is clearly poorly made. Failing a test and breaking an axle are not the same thing. I don't care who conducted the test. I know the axle broke and the Huawei Stelato S9 is just industrial garbage. That's enough for me. The video originally posted by the automotive platform Auto Home quickly became a viral sensation. As the discussion about the axle break grew,
1:32 something more dramatic happened. On March 24th, many people noticed that Autoome's official accounts on major social platforms like Waybo, Doian, Quao, and Billy Billy were set to no follow. The Waybo account with nearly 10 million followers was marked with a warning. This account is banned from being followed due to violations of laws or Waybo's community guidelines. The silencing of a major automotive media platform triggered widespread speculation. The most popular theory was that Autoome had been banned because they exposed the axle break issue, angering a leading brand. The mysterious chat log suggested that the ban came after a complaint from the brand. This rumor heightened public outrage. Many believed that if a media outlet is silenced for publishing honest reviews
2:18 that hurt a brand, it not only violates media freedom, but also undermines consumers right to know. One user's comment summed it up. Autoome is such a big platform. They were silenced because of this test. I respect anyone who dares to buy this car. This comment quickly became the most liked, showing the public's strong disapproval of the silencing. With Auto Home, many content creators became wary. Huawei's legal team is known for its strict approach. One wrong comment could lead to a ban. As a result, people have been using subtle jokes to express their frustration. >> I saw something funny. Autom did a moose test on a certain brand. And someone commented, "I've never driven the AITO Stile or Maxro, but today is an eye
3:05 opener." One user commented, "The axle broke on the car and instead of fixing it, they just silenced Auto Home." Another Tik Tok user added, >> "Impossible. Absolutely impossible. A while ago, I posted a video saying the first electric car I ever liked was the Stel S9T. But after seeing this video the past couple of days, how did this S9 end up drifting like that? It's a 400,000 R&B car. How did it get this bad? I can't believe it. Let me watch it again." Oh, so the BMW 5 Series did poorly, too. Well, now I feel better. That's fine, right? Well, if that's the case, it's not the car's fault, right?
3:51 BMW has great handling, so it must be the track's fault. That scared me. Some online defenders of Huawei argued that the test was not a proper moose test, but rather a simple Salom test conducted by an unprofessional team. Others suggested that Audi's marketing team may have been behind the incident to damage Huawei's reputation. However, others countered by pointing out that if Saloming could break an axle, the moose test would likely have resulted in even more severe damage. On the evening of March 24th, Autoome issued a statement denying rumors. Our original content is clearly marked with production information. The circulated test content for a certain vehicle was not created by Autoome. However, Autoome did not address the issue of the account being banned from being followed. Despite
4:38 this, many online users were not convinced with some saying that the more Autoome tried to deny it, the worse it looked. Anyone who dares to test a Huawei car will be targeted. This has been the case for a while, so what's the point of defending it? The axle break controversy revealed not only potential mechanical issues, but also raised concerns about Huawei's public relations. Recently, real life accidents involving Huawei smart driving technology have shifted the focus from the vehicle itself to safety concerns. Smart driving has been a long key selling point for Huawei cars. But the technology has shown major flaws, especially in critical situations. On March 9th, in Chongqings Shenzhang district, a dash cam video recorded a heartbreaking scene on a busy street with mixed traffic. A Harmony
5:25 Intelligent Mobility Alliance, ITO M8, in NCA Smart Driving Mode, was traveling at about 30 kilometers per hour. Then, a two-year-old child suddenly ran into the street. Analysis of the video showed that for two full seconds after the child entered the lane, the car speed didn't change, and neither the brake nor the pedal showed signs of being pressed. The NCA Smart Driving icon remained lit the entire time, but the system, which had been promoted as capable of instantly responding to complex situations and avoiding over 3 million collisions, failed to detect the child. It did not sound any warning or apply the brakes. Only after hitting the child did the car jerk, and the driver intervened to stop it. The child lay in front of the car with their condition
6:11 unknown. What followed was even more disturbing. Huawei's customer service downplayed the incident, saying that the child was not seriously injured and quickly concluded that the incident was not caused by the vehicle. Without providing any detailed investigation, the company denied all responsibility. The authorities quickly intervened and the news about the incident was swiftly suppressed. A person who shared the video on social media was threatened by the police and forced to sign a statement promising not to share any negative information about Huawei. A toddler was struck under the watch of smart driving technology and instead of a full technical review and accountability, the first response was a powerful public relations and stability control effort. A comment from a user reflected the feelings of many. We can
6:58 see the NCA system was on the whole time and didn't even slow down. This shows the system didn't detect the child and without the driver's active braking, the car would have run over the child and kept going. This is the true performance of Huawei's so-called smart driving technology. Huawei electric cars have been involved in several accidents, including one in January where a Huawei high-end smart driving electric vehicle collided with a sanitation worker in Chang Sha, Hunan. Fortunately, the car was traveling at a low speed and the worker suffered only minor injuries. In November 2025, a Huawei Itto M7 in smart driving mode struck and killed an elderly pedestrian crossing the road. Previously, Huawei had boasted that smart driving allows you to sleep while driving and that no need for a
7:43 designated driver while drinking, even claiming that it's hard to crash. On March 27th, a video surfaced on X showing a Huawei car owner nearly colliding with a large truck while in autonomous driving mode. Despite the vehicle being almost side by side with the truck, the smart avoidance feature failed to activate. The owner expressed regret over purchasing the car. A user commented, "How does such a company known for silencing customers and even suing those who disagree still have any customers? Are people deaf and blind? It's unbelievable." Others added, "If this video was posted in China, your account would be banned immediately," followed by legal threats from Huawei's legal team. On March 25th, an automotive blogger shared a video showing a Huawei car's smart driving system crashing into
8:30 a guardrail. The video was stuck in review mode and was never cleared for publication. The vlogger then edited the text to replace NCA with Tesla's FSD and modified the caption to Tesla FSD crashed again. The video was then approved for posting. This is the state of online censorship in China. A party backed company cannot be criticized. Tesla as an outsider becomes the scapegoat. A user commented, "The technology may not be leading, but their PR and marketing are definitely ahead of the game." Even more outrageous marketing antics followed. A widely circulated video shows a car navigating a foggy mountain road. The car skillfully avoids an oncoming truck and a three- wheeled vehicle with two quick maneuvers. Several himtore accounts
9:17 edited the video, adding tags like Shia's extreme evasion and Huawei AE, please lift your foot, claiming that the impressive feat was due to the Stellato S9 or SIC H5's smart driving technology. The video even included the message, "Owner, thank you Xiaoi for saving my life." However, the truth emerged when the original car owner revealed that the video was filmed in November 2025 and that his car was a Gilly Shing Yuan, which had no driver assistance features. The evasive actions were entirely manual. Huawei's attempt to take credit was exposed. After the truth came out, public outrage grew. Many questioned the ethical boundaries of such actions. Amid heavy criticism, some involved stores removed the video. But by late March, at
10:04 least five HIMA customer accounts were still using these misleading promotional materials. Users mocked, "Hima, you really have the nerve to steal like this." Huawei can borrow, but when will Giley car owners get royalties? This type of blatant deception was not new. Earlier, two HIMA customer centers in Shanghai were caught using video acceleration and video reversal techniques and promotional videos to exaggerate vehicle performance. Chinese state media even criticized the issue. HIMA used accelerated and reversed video clips in several marketing videos. Lawyers say this constitutes fraud against consumers. A bottle of mineral water was placed at the front door of the Stelato S9T, and it didn't fall off, even after passing two speed bumps. The
10:51 video showed the car speed was no different from regular driving speeds. But when closely examined, the car's maximum speed didn't exceed 6 km per hour, which is about the speed of a walking adult. The video was sped up about five to seven times, and the turn signal was flashing so fast it looked nearly like smoke. Another video of the Mestro S800 crab mode parking enough space was found to be in reverse. In the video, pedestrians were walking backward and the electric car was moving in reverse. Although the involved stores issued apologies and Huawei imposed internal punishments, repeated fake marketing has severely damaged the brand's credibility. Beyond technical and marketing controversies, Huawei's unique car making model and sales rhetoric have sparked increasing scrutiny. Huawei's executive director
11:38 and CEO of the consumer business group Yuch Chong Dong is known for his over-the-top claims during product launches, earning him the nickname Big Mouth Yuru. Here are some of his famous quotes. Our AITO Luxed Stellato and Maxro all have this ability to detect bacteria and viruses. Today will actively disinfect our car's bacteria suppression rate exceeds 99% and it can suppress flu and corona viruses by over 99.9%. It also suppresses flu viruses, bacteria and so on. Such claims led to backlash. No one can put more focus into making
12:25 better cars. You've already captured part of the home market and now you want to take on the job of hospitals. Will you be taking over the aviation market next? In a product presentation, Yuchong boasted that the Huawei Maestro X800 had a claims volume surpassing that of Porsche, Maybach, and Mercedes S-Class combined. This claim immediately drew skepticism. Many pointed out that they rarely saw the Mi Extra S800 on the roads and wondered who was actually buying them. Soon a photo showed rows of brand new S800 cars. This sparked speculation that these were zero kometer used cars. This points to an industry unspoken rule. To create the illusion of strong sales, automakers or dealers may purchase their own cars and insure them,
13:12 inflating the claims volume data to boost sales rankings. This tactic mirrors the movie industry's box office manipulation. While it may create buzz in the short term, it ultimately misleads consumers and will likely backfire when the gap between actual market conditions and inflated numbers becomes clear. Alongside false advertising, Huawei's confusing brand affiliations have also been frequently criticized. >> Do you really think your car is what you think it is? I saw someone say, "I bought a 300,000 R&B car, but it's from some no-name brand, Hua Jang." I said, "How could that be?" Then I went to check the green registration book and the vehicle certificate, and it actually
13:58 says Hua Jang on them. The AITO brand is released by Huawei, but the badge says Bi, New Energy, and the brand is Hua Jang. Factory A is responsible for making brand B, but it gets labeled with brand C, then released by D and sold by E. This isn't just confusing, it's crazy. And every company involved is an independent entity. If the owner has an issue and wants to sue, they don't even know which company to go after. We used to know that A, B, C, D, and E referred to the car's wheelbase, size, positioning, and luxury level, but now it's something else entirely. Do you
14:45 think these brands are really about resource integration, or is there another reason? This is Huawei's so-called smart car selection model. Due to its complex partnership structure, when a vehicle has quality issues or accidents, it becomes difficult for the owner to seek compensation. One commenter noted, "When a car has five different names, it may not have any owner when something goes wrong." Some analysts argue that this is a carefully designed liability firewall by separating production, sales, funding, patents, and factory equipment into different legal entities. If a problem arises, the parent company and affiliates can avoid responsibility and shift the risk to consumers, suppliers, and dealers. This model focused on avoiding responsibility before even starting production has been adopted by
15:31 many of China's so-called new automakers. From the mechanical failure of breaking the axle during the moose test to the smart driving system causing a collision and the manipulation of public opinion by banning accounts over poor test results to the frequent use of guarantee letters to abuse administrative power. These incidents show Huawei's failures and technology safety, marketing, and accountability. While their slogan leading the way is often heard, what we actually see is poor mechanical quality and a smart system that fails to protect lives. While the sentiment of patriotism is used as a marketing tool, the company is silencing customers, suing them, and suppressing media and individuals who speak the truth. This is no longer just a technical flaw or public relations mistake. It reflects a complete collapse
16:16 of the company's values.
