Like Norway.  Imagine being able to just follow the example of another country.  That doesn't even happen here from state to state.  Yet, we get claims like this: "As example of Norway shows, PHEVs have a relatively short lived peak during the transition.  PHEVs are a dead-end."  Heck, even within the same vehicle type there is disagreement about how DC fast-chargers should be used by BEV.  We have people denying the complexity of these issues.  How exactly would we pay for essentially a forced transition and what about the jobs loss in that process?  It's a mess.  Pointing it out falls on deaf ears too.  I try though:  Norway is a terrible representation of what to expect from much larger & diverse population struggling to get support for anything climate/energy related that disrupts the status quo... like the United States.  Of course, no one ever expected PHEV to serve beyond being a bridge technology.  The catch is "deniers" didn't want to accept the reality of transition taking 20 years (from 2010 to 2030).  But now that we are beyond the halfway point, it's looks obvious that building infrastructure on travel corridors (main highways), at public locations (workplaces, foodplaces, entertainment, retail, etc.) and multiunit dwellings (apartments, condos, townhouses) will indeed take that long.  In the meantime, the strong PHEV contenders (those capable of daily driving entirely with electricity) will fulfill that bridge need.  The weak PHEV will be dropped, unable to compete.  No one is expecting any PHEV to continue on when it is finally convenient for the masses to charge their BEV.

Senseless Attacks.  The growing absurdity of posts is typically a good sign, indicating they have nothing constructive to work with: "I have an inside source who leaked to me the names of these new models.  They're going to be called the bzX$G9, the BZ3#ty, the BzQ%3, the bzF@6q!, and the zbL0L!  Toyota's brand and marketing teams are going to totally disrupt he EV market, while simultaneously launching a full scale war on common sense grammar and human-centric branding."  Focus on name is especially senseless.  Why in the world would you attack something as trivial as a name?  It doesn't even standout as a unique issue.  Sighting other examples of the same thing is really easy.  Clearly, no critical thinking took place.  I was happy to point that out too:  "4X" for bZ4X.  "3X "for bZ3X.  "M3" when referring to Model 3 is a problem too?  What about "ID.3" and "ID.4" naming?  Sounds like the disruption is much ado about nothing.

Harm.  The narrative claims Toyota is: "...actively harming their reputation.  I've seen the reactions on multiple EV websites to the bz4X."  That is indeed the point of spreading so much negative sentiment.  It's why data is missing.  A vague number attached to intense emotional upset gets repeated and repeated.  Watch for it.  I see that nonsense every time Toyota moves the bar... upsetting the status quo... hence the source of emotion.  I drew attention to that with:

I've seen a pattern.  They aren't the target consumer.  They place a great deal of importance on range & speed.  Enthusiasts do that.  It's fine, but in no way representative of mainstream priorities and wouldn't ever purchase a Toyota anyway.

Try reading reactions from someone who reviews vehicles in general.  Notice how they praise Toyota for having delivered an EV that drives in such a familiar way, it is a no-brainer for a consumer already driving a Toyota vehicle to consider the choice of electric.  Then read experiences shared online with actual owners.  You'll get a very different story from the narrative conveyed by EV websites.

btw, the enthusiast narrative just abruptly changed.  That's a dead giveaway of the prior undermining attempt having failed.  In this case, it was that Toyota had supposedly scrambled to deliver an EV.  But then when review started praising the quality of the drive experience, naysayers shifted focus to claims of reputation harm.

This is the same nonsense we see with every rollout.  There are claims that exclude vital detail and fail to answer key questions.  Toyota serves as a scapegoat to divert attention away from shortcomings elsewhere.

Desperation.  I pointed out the new attack, attempting to now make it about reputation, sounded rather desperate.  Response to that was: "Desperate for what?  Do you think I want Toyota to keep dragging EV reputation through the mud.  I'd much prefer that they stop."  Actually, I see where he's coming from.  Videos continue to be published claiming Toyota is working on a solution for the recall.  Knowing it has been nearly 6 weeks since the fix became available, that's way beyond acceptable.  It's bad enough when some exaggerate how long it took, but to outright lie about the problem still not being resolved will indeed harm EV reputation.  Taking that frustration out on Toyota isn't helpful though, nor is making it appear that Toyota is alone, which I was happy to point out:  EV reputation is an interesting topic, which each automaker has contributed... Tesla for delivering hit-or-miss quality... GM for required battery replacement... VW for software update uncertainty.  Those things happen, as did the recall for Toyota.  But when a fix is deployed, it is up to us to stop bringing up the past.  Enthusiasts are responsible for reputation.  Blaming the automaker doesn't change their failure to move on.  An obvious sign of that refusing to accept when the situation has become an exercise in diminishing returns.  Think about what reputation is built upon.

Reputation.  The attacks are growing: "Toyota cares so little about the Busyforks that the wheels were falling off.  I don't remember problems with the Prius's wheels falling off."  That's laughable.  Each service-campaign turned into a "we're all going to die" cover up.  No one seems to remember any of that though.  It was amazing how big those controversies became; yet, they are completely lost to history... unless you do an internet such.  Anywho, I find it quite informative when the person making such comments includes an insult and refuses to look forward.  It's always, draw a conclusion based on the here & now.  And of course, when you post a fact it just gets ignored and they spin some other fault instead:  Quite the opposite.  Caring little would have meant simply just sticking with stud & nut.  Switching to hub-bolt was a choice to invest in the new platform.  That has since been fixed too, so your comment comes off as sounding desperate.

Interior Heating.  More constructive discussion: "Not all heat pumps are created equal. My Nissan Leaf has a heat pump with a resistive heater assist..."  That was great timing, I just happen to have a recent experience with mine to share:  It was just 12°F yesterday; yet, the heat-pump in my Prius Prime cleared the window just fine.  I drove to the coffeeshop just 1.2 mile from the house and forgot to leave the door open for a little bit to allow natural dehumidifying to take place from heat escaping.  So, I got frost on the windshield interior.  Nonetheless, it still cleared using only electricity.  With the 4X, that will have resistive heating for below the heat-pump temperature threshold.  Those with the Limited model may not use that much though, since it includes radiant heating.  That new feature is specifically for what gets coldest as you drive, your legs & feet.  Needless to say, this is detail rarely included in reports that sets BEV apart.  Reviews end up misleading as a result.  There's simply too many unknowns for proper assessment of claimed outcome.  Hopefully, that gap in journalism won't continue for too much longer.

Fairness?  No one has asked that question until now.  Supposedly, all reviews performed the same way.  There was nothing to support that assumption with the range test performed in Norway.  It was just a drive until the impression of empty was met.  No measurement was taken.  No detail was shared.  The drive itself remains a mystery.  Heck, even setting in the vehicle continue to be unknown.  That certainly isn't the treatment we see from sources striving to avoid bias.  We get video with commentary along the way.  This was nothing but a summary with a few random photos.  That's it!  So, I glad to seem some sense from this being posted: "In fairness to Toyota (despite their BEV foot dragging) a "test" result nearly 50% of rated range is probably disingenuous..."  At a minimum, wouldn't you try the test again with basis of comparison?  Ugh.  Oh well, at least we are starting constructive discussion:  Testing without a control is always reason to question process & results.  There's no basis of comparison for perspective.  Absence of detail from the test vehicle itself, that alone should raise concern.  How do you perform a retest later without that information?  After all, we know for a fact there is a system update being rolled out along with the recall fix.  Was that part of this effort?

Real-World.  Understanding reviews is a challenge for any product.  With all the influencing factors related to a vehicle, they are even more complex.  That's why I had much to say in response to this: "These are real world, real consumer reports which are very disappointing for a world leader in car production.  Had I known I would never have purchased such a car at a premium."  Dealing with disenchantment is difficult.  I took quite awhile to think about this.  Brevity ended up being the choice for how to reply.  Basically, he needs to vent.  So, no matter what I say, it really won't matter.  Lots of assumptions were made back when hybrids were new too.  In general, people don't pay attention.  When it came to efficiency, they had no idea what the influences were or how much MPG could fluctuate.  The easiest confirm of that was simply asking what MPG they got with their previous vehicle.  Most didn't have a clue.  They just assumed the big number on the window-sticker was what they had been getting.  They didn't even notice the fine print stating there was a range and that big number was only an average.  When it comes to distance your EV can drive between charges, we have a similar problem.  What can you say to someone who discovers that after the fact, far too late to be able to do anything about it?  This was my attempt to show some empathy:  Test drives are not real-world.  Poor execution makes them even less reliable.  It happens with every rollout, as do disenchantment purchases.  I have been witnessing that same pattern for 2 decades now.  This is nothing new.  Sorry you made the jump without more information... which is exactly what some of us are now scrambling to share.

Projects must include a minimum of two charging station units.

Haters.  I was finally able to sell my gas snowblower, replacing it with an electric.  It's really nice.  In fact, I got 155 likes from posting a photo of it.  So, clearly I'm not the only one who has given such an upgrade some thought.  This was the most intriguing comments made about it: "I got one as well.  It felt weird to drive my Model 3 to the gas station to fill my gas can and I had this irrational fear that someone would take a picture of me doing that and make a facebook meme out of it."  After a great deal of consideration, this is how I decided to respond to that:  A generic meme is nothing. I personally get online attacked on a regular basis.  Supporting a PHEV delivering all-electric drive, with range soon to increase range to 38 miles, horsepower to 220 and looks that bring uncharacteristic praise, makes you a target from every direction.  Replacing one of the two we own with a mid-range BEV makes it considerably worse.  I will be labeled as both a hypocrite and a fanboy.  It's totally worth it though.  Haters are going to hate, regardless.

Long story short, without detail, not much will change.  You'll continue to be disappointed and we won't learn anything from the exchanges.  Look at how much we still don't know.  What were your expectations in the first place?

Temperature Difference.  It is nice to see comments like this: "Before charger my consumption was 26,2kWh/100km which is a good for me.  But after HPC (30min charging peaking 69kW) my consumption dropped to 18,9kWh/100km!  I think from there we can see that battery warming is not working correctly."  That report of how heat from HPC (High Power Charging) influences efficiency is great.  We will inevitably encounter owners who will have their vehicle for years before (if ever) they make that connection.  Knowing exactly what the temperature is, before and after, is what I seek.  That detail is priceless.  But in this case, simply knowing that there was the influence from 30 minutes DC fast-charging is enough.  That side-effect of warming the pack was clearly beneficial.  This was my reply to that:  Have you confirmed there is a pre-warm feature and ensured it was enabled?  The very reason I filmed a video 2 days ago using a new ODB-II reader app was to verify battery temperature.  Without that data, it's just speculation.  This is why the nonsense we have to deal with from supposed automotive experts is reason for such concern.  Some don't even realize the feature exists, so the benefit certainly wouldn't be acknowledged.

Fake Reviewers.  It is easy to understand why comments like this are made: "don't please speak on fake reviewers".  Aside from clarity of meaning from language barriers, we have a naive to be aware of.  There are some who don't recognize the danger of allowing articles to go unchecked.  I responded by pointing out why:  Trouble is, there are many who lie by passing along what the "fake" reviewers are claiming.  It comes down to an absence of integrity, something we have seen so many times in the past the behavior as become normalized.  A supposed journalistic will publish an article claiming poor efficiency.  Their failure to include a basis of comparison... another vehicle driving next to it, so biases of temperature, wind and traffic are reflected... should be a big red flag.  How can you declare a result "bad" when there is no "good" for reference?  It gets worse when there is no follow up.  Over and over again, we see a review conducted during the cold season... blowing up the internet with controversy about inflated efficiency promises... but then fails to revisit the topic during the warm season.  That original article then becomes a mouthpiece for others, forwarded & quoted countless times as a credible resource supporting their own claims of disappointing results.