Abstract: Under the background of lack of "neck-stuck" key core technologies in China, General Secretary Xi has repeatedly pointed out the correct path for breaking through key core technologies through Industry-University-Research (IUR) deep integration. Consequently, research on the evolution mechanism of this process has become an urgent practical and theoretical problem. However, since IUR deep integration and breakthroughs in key core technologies are both recent research hotspots, rigorous academic research just started, only focusing on speeches, news reports, and policy documents. Although some articles have mentioned the important role of IUR deep integration in breaking through key core technologies, there are almost no serious academic discussions on the specific path for breaking through key core technologies through IUR deep integration. In addition, research on the evolution of key core technologies also follows the general research paradigm of technology evolution, and has not yet cut into the internal structure of key core technologies. Therefore, this paper raises the following research questions: What are the dynamic evolution path and mechanism of private manufacturing leaders’ breaking through key core technologies through IUR deep integration? Given the research gaps and important practical significance, this paper takes Sany Group as an example, adopts exploratory single-case research design to deeply explore the evolution path of private manufacturing leaders’ breaking through key core technologies through IUR deep integration, and constructs a dynamic evolution model following core logic of “IUR deep integration — key core technology innovation capability enhancement — key core technology breakthrough”. Results show that: in the process of private manufacturing leaders’ breaking through key core technologies through IUR deep integration, IUR deep integration strategy undergoes a process of “loose → exploratory → exploitory → deep integration”; key core technology innovation capabilities follow path of “R&D and manufacturing capabilities of key core components → integrated innovation capabilities of key core technologies and process → self-developed and manufacturing capabilities of key core products → comprehensive digital innovation capabilities of key core products”; key core technology breakthroughs follow the path of “function breakthroughs → performance breakthroughs → reliability breakthroughs → frontier breakthroughs”. The main theoretical contributions of this paper are as follows: First, few studies deeply analyze the organizational strategy and evolution path of IUR deep integration. This paper identifies four evolution stages and four strategies of IUR deep integration, and constructs a dynamic evolution model for breaking through key core technologies through IUR deep integration, enriching research related to IUR deep integration. Second, existing research has not decomposed key core technology innovation capabilities. This paper concludes four key core technology innovation capabilities from the Sany case and identifies the interaction effects of step-by-step improvement and reverse promotion among four key core technology innovation capabilities, enriching research related to key core technology innovation capabilities. Third, existing research does not focus on the evolution mechanism of breaking through key core technologies through IUR deep integration. This paper explores the concrete evolution path of private manufacturing leaders’ breaking through key core technologies through IUR deep integration, and constructs a dynamic evolution model, enriching research related to evolution path of key core technologies.