Saving Millions.  I got a kick out of this statement about Over-The-Air updates: "Toyota could've saved millions of dollars if they joined the 21st century & had a good OTA update system."  It's a claim that fails to recognize the problem.  An analogy would be providing a better bandage rather than prevent injuries from ever happening.  You don't want to ever have to do updates.  Of course, that's the problem I have dealt with my entire career.  Some like to skip the requirement & design stages, diving directly into coding right away.  They give their best guess and figure hands on testing will shake out anything overlooked.  Turns out, that isn't effective.  Things get missed.  Enthusiasts still think faster is better though.  Ugh.  I replied to that belief with:  Toyota saved millions by not needing software updates in the first place.  Cost of updates is expensive.  I'm a software engineer, I know this topic well.  Toyota leveraged benefit from their EV propulsion experience with PHEV and FCEV history.

Safety Recall (25TA07).  Progress can be measured in terms of addressing issues discovered along the way.  It's mostly subjective assessment; nonetheless, it is a clear effort to make things better.  This was asked about the recall notice owners are now getting (including myself): "I will judge them by how quickly there is a fix, and if it's truly a software problem as they are claiming or whether they are trying to cover up a design/part issue with a software update."  This was my contribution to that discussion:  That was a painful lesson for Toyota to learn with their launch of Lexus.  It's debut was a disaster, but that taught them how they address the problem is an important (and sometimes more so) than the problem itself.  The variety of options offered to early bZ4X owners while a remedy was being developed is proof of Toyota's contrast to others.  For example, GM fumbled repeatedly dealing with Bolt battery issues, losing loyalty along the way.   The safety recall (25TA07) appears to be thorough and well communicated.   I don't have an expectation of perfection, so there's no sense of letdown from my perspective.  It's a proactive move with regard to my ownership experience.

Toyota taking their continuous improvement approach seemed a better choice and now appears to be confirmed.  Rather than scaling back, having to eliminate production shifts like other automakers, Toyota is ramping up.  That's not a catching up, it's a better position.

Kentucky Production.  Toyota is finalizing plans to move Lexus production to Japan, freeing up the Kentucky plant for BEV production.  Supposedly, that would be for RAV4 and Land Cruiser, neither of which make any sense... hence this comment: "??? The RAV4 and Land Cruiser are two-row vehicles. Three-rows would almost certainly be based on the Highlander and Sequoia."  That made sense.  Since bZ is already a RAV4 equivalent and rollout of its next-gen hasn't even begun, starting 2027 model production late next year for another SUV with nearly identical proportions is a reveal of critical thinking absence.  Huh?  Delighted someone saw the light and spoke up, I sounded off with:  Correct.  In fact, we have seen other reports in the past where Highlander could be positioned to become EV-only, leaving Grand Highlander hybrid as the remaining gas choice.  That would require having well established production here in the US.

Charge Mode.  I like when questions such as this get asked: "What's the real practical purpose of charge mode?  Wouldn't you burn up more gas charging than the benefit in battery power you get in return?"  Hope from BEV enthusiasts was that PHEV interest had faded.  Since all they focus on is low-hanging-fruit (easy sales to those with a strong interest in not every using gas again), the audience of mainstream shoppers has been abandoned.  They don't understand the ordinary consumer mindset of showroom shopping.  So questions weighing the value of something like charge-mode is outright dismissed.  That type of attitude is the divide they created, walling off interest as "EV Market" and those who will have no choice but to buy a BEV later.  That's why the "EV" label stirs so much emotion.  They don't want to acknowledge EV miles from a PHEV, where some owners will drive an entire commute never using a drop of gas.  In their mind, that's not possible.  Ugh.  It's sad, since plug-in hybrids thrive in certain situations.  Limited their gas consumption to just trips is a nice benefit.  There's more though, which that posted question stirring.  Asking why such a mode is available shows an effort to critically think.  I was thrilled to provide an answer:  It can be handy when traveling, where you can benefit from avoiding engine warm-up for short distance drives. We encountered that when going out for dinner and staying at a location where we couldn't plug in.

Reason 11.  A list of 10 advantages for PHEV was provided today.  It was a great example of critical thinking, well thought out and detailed.  I jumped in adding an eleventh reason:  Also, by having a PHEV in the household, all other vehicles can be a BEV with a small battery.  It's the "dead weight" argument in reverse now.  The PHEV becomes an enabler for replacing the other vehicles with affordable BEV.  The rare long-distance trip can be accommodated by either relying on DCFC as locations become more common for the BEV or simply using the PHEV.

Delivery Timing.  Speaking of patience, I'm doing my best to show some.  Someone today asked if anyone had heard anything related to delivery expectations for the 2026.  I chimed in with:  Nope.  I have only heard a single report of an East Coast allocation so far.  November was the target.  3 years ago, they got inventory before any dealer here in the Midwest.  Being in Minnesota... the only California rule state in the region... my hope is something will get allocated before the end of this year.  My dealer will try to jump on a 2026 for me.

In short, patience.

Multiple Vehicle.  Unwillingness to consider the bigger picture or unable to critically think is how comments like this come about: "No overall diss per se on the plugin Prius, as it's not a bad vehicle.  But if someone can already afford to drive one and can take advantage of regularly charging them, moving to a full EV is a lot easier then they think."  That seems sensible, until you take a moment to consider multiple vehicles.  Early-Adopters never did.  Their focus was on proving the technology was viable, not taking into consideration how practical it would be when more than one vehicle needed to plug in overnight.  That was the irony of "future proofing".  The recommendation was to install an EVSE with the most amps available from your service-panel... which is detrimental if you want to install another EVSE later.  Each home only has so much capacity available.  A balance of PHEV and BEV can address that.  I replied with:  Big picture overlook... The multi-vehicle household can benefit.  Having a PHEV available enables the purchase of a BEV with the smaller battery.  There's simply no reason to own a BEV with capacity you'll rarely ever need if the PHEV is electric-only most of the time and can handle long-distance effortlessly.   Also, the issue of needing multiple level-2 fades, since the PHEV can fallback on hybrid driving in a pinch.  This becomes an especially big deal if the household has 3 or more vehicles.  BEV with small battery-packs will become much more important as market penetration continues.

Understanding Efficiency (document).  Another idea came to mind.  I'm always surprised how few actually understand how efficiency is depicted & measured with an EV.  Heck, some don't ever realize the importance.  It can be quite frustrating at time when an electric guzzler is praised.  Logic is, if you're using electricity instead of gas, no wrong can come of that.  There's no recognition of waste.  Unnecessary consumption is simply missed.   Ugh.  Included in the document is a section addressing electricity sources and points out the opportunity to gain from what otherwise wouldn't even be thought of.  In other words, I found use for these documents in a new manner.  They provide more of a reach than I had expected by enabling new subject matter that's indirectly associated with EVs.  Check it out here... Plug-In Vehicle: Understanding Efficiency

Sign of Desperation.  Same old rhetoric.  I ask about audience and instead get a repeat comment.  Just like with Prius, a cherry-picked article is posted over and over and over again.  That unwillingness to consider anything else, or even acknowledge anything else, is a dead giveaway.  He has nothing and he knows it.  So, I went on the offense:  What I get a kick out of is how disconnected your claims are from ordinary consumers, attempting to portray enthusiasts priorities as the same.  From the article you keep reposting: "With the battery down to 5 percent, we added 115 miles of range in 15 minutes and 187 miles in 30 minutes."  Having the opportunity to routinely display my EV at public events, I get to talk to a lot of ordinary consumers.  There simply aren't any who find such charging results as a purchase deterrent. In fact, those numbers are fulfillment of expectations for many.  Ordinary consumers aren't looking for the best of the best; they simply want an EV that can reasonably deliver something similar to their gas vehicle.  Trying to convince us that showroom shoppers will be any different is a sign of desperation, a blatant disregard of what gen-1 EV offerings revealed as important for mainstream sales.

Being blind to that difference of purpose is your bias.

Failed To Stand Out.  This is what a long comparison article stated as their verdict for the bZ4X upgrade: "The refreshed '26 Toyota bZ's bigger battery, longer range, and standard NACS port are major upgrades, but they don't surpass the segment's best, so it still fails to stand out."  Sadly, that's what antagonist focus on.  They don't seek detail.  They don't provide references.  They only want talking points, just like that.  I expected such an approach.  Their efforts to feed the narrative gobble up misleading claims like that.  It's all about cherry-picking.  They only present information helpful to their bias.  I was all too happy to provide something that did stand out:  That's from the article.  How can it be unbiased when bZ has an obvious stand out it neglected to mention?  GROUND-CLEARANCE clearly higher than all the others was ignored.  That is a trait important to Subaru owners.  It stands out!

Extreme Cold.  There's an advantage of the new upcoming sodium batteries that is now getting attention: "On the plus side, that sodium-ion (or Na-ion) chemistry allows the power station to be used in extreme cold — albeit with slightly diminished performance, Bluetti warns. But you'll still be able to charge it in temperatures down to -15 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), and power your devices as temps plummet to -25°C (-13 °F). By comparison, the lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries found in newer power stations shouldn't be charged below 0 °C (32°F) and have an operating limit of -20°C (-4 °F)."  I could easily see that as the focus of advertisements for battery-banks.  Since the tradeoff is a big weight increase and big energy decrease, it's a natural advantage to exploit right away.  Cost being much lower will become a major benefit later too.  But at first, limited production will result in a high price tag.  At some point, there may be some attention given to even more cycles being available than with LFP.  But since most people don't have a grasp of how a cycle translates to usage, it's not important.  Use in cold is.  Having power even in when winter throws you a surprise is that mindset change we need for EV growth.

Dead Weight.  Funny how situations turn around over time: "That's a lot of weight to carry around for no reason!"  That had been (and was again today) used as an argument against PHEV.  Antagonists would claim that about the gas-engine, saying something used so infrequently made no sense to have.  Now with packs so much larger in vehicles without a gas-engine, that weight carrying is a problem.  What possible justification can be used when ordinary consumers start to see DC fast-charging locations all over the place?  BEV supporters are promoting the rapid, convenient stops for charging on road trips.  If that's the case, what's the point of having so many miles available that will basically never be used otherwise.  How often to spontaneous drives covering hundreds of miles happen?  Ugh.  I posted my reversal argument on the "dead weight" argument:  You're talking about large battery BEVs.  It simply makes no sense carrying around 300 miles of range capacity when much less will easily cover your daily needs.