Mass-Appeal Feedback, go ahead.  I was rather surprised to see the same repost over and over again.  Rather than try any critical thinking, it was just a copy & paste of the same thing repeatedly.  Ugh.  I fired back with:  Watching the same "Delusional. Biased. Dishonest." comment get posted 4 times on thread is a sign of desperation, nothing constructive to respond with.  Meanwhile, I reset my efficiency meter 500 miles ago and have averaged 4.2 mi/kWh since.  That's random driving, several highway trips across the cities, along with some work commutes and random errand running.  That's with the 2023 bZ.  Avoiding discussion of the upgrades coming for 2026 is a clear sign of fear.  Go ahead.  Continue to shoot the messenger.  You're going to have a lot of work later trying to quiet all the other voices, new 2026 owners.

Toyota was well aware of those market realities, which gave them time to study & refine through a first-gen rollout like that.  Why not?  History shows us how effective it was for Prius.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, repost.  I was pleasantly amused.  His response to my reply was to just repost the same comment again.  That complete absence of substance is an awesome tell.  He's got nothing.  The effort to undermine by shifting focus back to 2023 didn't achieve anything.  Worry about what's coming in 2026 is undoubtedly growing.  Sweet!  Here's how I dealt with that:  "Looks like a great car." was what I posted a reply to.  Watching you do everything possible following that to avoid addressing that car or the other choices rolling out has been quite informative.  It's clear Toyota's effort to study the current market and adapt accordingly has struck a nerve.

Toyota was well aware of those market realities, which gave them time to study & refine through a first-gen rollout like that.   Why not? History shows us how effective it was for Prius.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, fear.  Evading discussion of the topic itself is a dead giveaway for fear.  It's an article about the first look at CH-R as a BEV, the upcoming 2026 model.  It has been one post after another forcing a look back at 2023 rollout of bZ4X.  Without context, that redirect is just trolling.  I see it as an opportunity to post another reminder of the past being repeated, to make it clear actions taken we carefully thought out and based upon an approach already proven successful.  I posted:  Doing everything possible to avoid acknowledgement of the 2026, by constantly referring back to 2023 instead, is a sign of fear.  Upgrades that will be rolling out later this year clearly scare those who pushed the "behind" narrative.  Toyota wasn't supposed to be able to react so quickly.  Another sign of fear is evading each mention of Prius history repeating again, not wanting detail of how Toyota is following the same pattern of success.  What rolled out in 2000, reaction to it, and the resulting upgrade is quite significant of a tie into what we see unfolding with bZ.  Memories are vivid for me still and well documented online for others.  Being afraid to address parallels to now is a big tell.

Ordinary consumers couldn't care less about whatever issues there were at launch... the pattern of history repeating you absolutely refuse to accept.  Know your audience.

This is why the mantra of know your audience has become a key component of Prius history.  After studying initial rollout of Prius, research rollout of the plug-in mode of Prius.  It repeated that same history, resulting in the same mass-appeal feedback.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, acceptance.  Shortly following my post, that troublemaker appeared.  It looked like he gave up on the cherry-picking.  Pushing that much detail countering his claims may have actually done the trick.  It simply made no sense to post data for multi-hour driving at 75 mph and actually expect people to accept that as anything beyond expectation.  That is an incredibly rare circumstance for most owners.  Heck, out maximum speed-limit here is 70 mph.  But driving on that highway is limited.  For me, it's from the corner of the metro (Twin Cities) to the first major city (St. Cloud).  That's only 42 miles.  Travel from there has a max of 65 mph.  I will do that trip with the bZ4X many times.  Efficiency is much better than the data he kept sighting, but slow isn't as demanding.  His attempt to mislead obviously failed as more became aware of the misrepresentation.  So, he moved on to insulting & belittling the launch of bZ4X.  That was quite telling.  None of his posts ever address the mid-cycle updates coming... no matter how much I mention them.  His willingness to accept is what I figured would be the weakness to be revealed.  It's a confirmation of knowing audience.  He recognizes the wisdom gained from that launch to determine what an ordinary consumer would be drawn to... what mainstream buyers will actually buy.  It's an effort to find mass-appeal in a sea of chaos, what Toyota appears to have navigated well.  I fired back at his nonsense with:  Refusing to acknowledge updates for 2026 is why you're not seeing the parallel.  Note how Toyota strives for balance and targets their own showroom shoppers.  They take the time to really understand audience.  And while enthusiasts were complaining, they failed to notice what else Toyota was working on for BEV.  Look at their technology roadmap.  Notice "bi-polar" packaging is coming up next and we won't have to wait long.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, trigger.  The new CH-R is getting attention.  There was a first-look article posted which stirred many positive comments.  I saw this and predicted it would be a trigger: "Looks like a great car.  Let's hope Toyota will actually get these on the lots throughout the US..."  That was great, as was the question about where it would be built.  The conclusion though, that could stir trouble: "Of course, Toyota already lost me as a customer by dragging their feet for so long but better late than never."  It never ceased to amaze me how many keyboard warriors expected Toyota to come out with guns blazing.  They wanted an instant industry leader, holding the bar higher for Toyota than any other automaker despite obvious barriers with infrastructure & cost and no compelling reason for such speed.  The expectations they set weren't realistic; yet, they felt let down.  That disappointment led to the "behind" narrative being created, portraying Toyota as the problem but really using them as a scapegoat.  Catch was, Toyota would remind in a catch up mode.  Delivering improvements and increasing choice so quickly wasn't supposed to happen.  Now those same people are stuck in a hypocritical spot, backed into a corner with their own words.  Trying to avoid too much confrontation, I attempted to focus on something to look forward to:  Early adopters upset with Toyota's approach is nothing new.  They are doing the same thing they did with bZ as they did with Prius.  Slower proved a wise choice playing the long game.  With their new battery production just starting up in North Carolina, a $13.9B investment, it looks as though that volume will become realistic.

Weight Argument.  There was a strangely ambiguous comment about "dragging around 500 extra pounds" today.  No other context was provided.  I couldn't tell if it was meant to be a help or a hinder.  So, I researched while waiting to see if there was any type of follow-up or reply.  VW seemed a good choice, since there was a variety of real-world examples to get specifications for.  This is what I found, formulated into a response if the need ever comes up:  ID.4 standard RWD comes with a 62 kWh battery (209-mile rating) and has a curb weight of 1,958 kg. ID.4 Pro RWD comes with an 82 kWh (275-mile rating) and has a curb weight of 2,067 kg.  With each kWh (NMC chemistry) weighing roughly 7 kg, that's a difference of 109 kg (240 pounds) for an extra 66 miles and still falls well short of the "300 mile" precedent many here have declared as a minimum required to be a worthy BEV.  Where is the 500 pounds and what is the supposed penalty?