Year-Over-Year.  Still no data for each year gets provided when a report is published for PHEV usage.  You know, those efforts to mislead about plugging in.  Just like anything related to BEV growth, we should be shown a trend.  Annual change is a common thing to report.  It's absence should be a red flag.  Why is the data always combined?  That answer to that question is easy.  It's used to misrepresent.  No one questions validity, even though cherry-picking is a common problem.  Why no one ever considers year, especially with such a rapidly evolving collection of technologies, is a mystery.  You'd think someone would ask for breakouts by year.  That doesn't happen.  Of course, we don't get requests for efficiency data either.  Ugh.  This is what I had to say about that nonsense this time, hoping someone at some point will realize the year-over-year perspective can provide much insight:  PHEV from 2012-2021 is a terrible sampling.  Think about how much the tech has improved since then... motor, inverter, battery.  Heck, the newest ones even charge a lot faster.  Not having anything representative of what's available now in 2025 is a great example of propaganda.  It's no different than drawing conclusions about BEV using old data.

• new inverter using SiC semiconductors
• enhanced gear precision
• reduced oil agitation
• improved aerodynamics

I have a VIN assigned for my 2026.  Delivery is expected mid-December.  With the high ground-clearance, AWD, manual pre-conditioning and a NACS port, I'm looking forward to some winter driving.  This year's forecast is calling for lots of snow!

Delivery Allocations.  I have been rather obsessively watching.  Initial allocation for here (100-mile radius from center of the Twin Cities) had 15 total listed, a nice variety of XLE and Limited models, both FWD and AWD.  That count just grew.  I rushed to post an update:  Toyota just listed a second allocation for Minnesota, another 10 builds are heading my way.  Delivery window for the first five 2026 got bumped to a week sooner.  They are now listed as 11/5 - 11/28.  One is showing a "sale pending" status.  Mine still has an estimate of 11/22 - 12/25.

Will It Suck?  This person thinks the transition from CCS to NACS will: "The author is correct about the adapters though.  Always having adapters is now a reality for probably the next decade for many drivers, and that will suck."  I begged to differ:  Realistically, there are only a small number of BEV on the road now in the US.  The overall tally is around 2%, which includes those that already have NACS.  The ones with CCS years from now will be upon as "legacy" plug-ins, great used purchases.  Knowing how the value of ICE vehicles will have plummeted at that point, needing an adapter for those rare times when you charge away from home will still be looked upon as an advantage over needing gas.  That won't suck.

Troll Attack.  This was an attempt to get someone to pay attention to his lost cause: "Wasn't long ago we heard the chants of "CCS is dead," and yes, NACS was hailed as the second coming of Christ.  Spoiler alert: it's not.  As long as every charging method and process continues to be compared to, and fails to measure up to, the petrol fueling process, the 98% of drivers will continue to choose petrol.  Petrol is king.  Long live the king!"  I was amused by the irony... petrol is dead.  Posts like that is an indication of a turning point.  In this case, it was based upon recognition of what moving to a standard plug will do for adoption.  All of North America shifting to NACS represents elimination of a barrier.  Status quo cannot compete with unification on that scale.  Keep in mind, by going to NACS it not only phase out support for CCS, it also declared CHAdeMO and J1772 as being destined for the history book too.  Troll confirmation makes it all the better.  But rather than fire back, I chose to be constructive:  Impatience is a common theme, exploited by those who have run out of arguments to retain the status quo.  We're at a tipping point now, where there are enough plug-in vehicles out there that everyone knows someone who owns one.  Those 98% will see chargers being installed.  Curiosity is a strong motivator and owner endorsement is powerful encouragement.  It's only a matter of time before watching a friend, coworker and family members results in that big step away from intimidation.  With regard to CCS or NACS, it won't matter.  New stations offering direct payment (no app, just swipe or tap) along with Plug & Charge will make use of public chargers inviting.

Vague References.  This was great example of undermining: "Installing a bigger battery for more electric-only miles had an even adverse affect on emissions."  That leads you to believe nothing can be done to improve PHEV acceptance.  There's a catch, of course.  That's why they say: "devil is in the detail".  If the plug-in hybrid already had great range, like the new RAV4 PHEV will deliver 52 miles of EV, more would indeed be counter-productive.  But from the 17.3 kWh battery in Jeep Rubicon, you only get 21-25 miles of EV.  More electric-only range would clearly benefit the Jeep, since commutes tend to be further.  I pointed out that subtle attempt to misrepresent PHEV potential with:  It not a matter of "more" miles.  It's having enough to cover daily driving.  Once you hit the level of only long trips needing the gas-engine, plugging in every night provides a major payoff.  Vague references only feed rhetoric.  How many miles?  Which PHEV still came up far short of the daily 40-mile commute distance?  How clean are the hybrid-only models of the same vehicle?

Year 0.  That description of the time we are in now came about from someone trying to provide some perspective on the plug change.  There has been concern about adapter need.  Here's what was posted: "Relax.  It's basically year 0 of the transition.  Switching to one standard is better in the long term, not the near term."  That was really nice to see.  Sadly, we don't get critical thinking like that too often.  In this case, it was so good I get a takeaway from it.  So, I commented:  With EV sales expectations so small (taking into account loss of tax-credits and "all in" automakers backpedaling), the description of "year 0" for 2025 is great way to put it. Rhetoric about "leadership" has played out. This is about focusing on long-term goals now. Those of us here (participants of this discussion) know kinks in NACS will be worked out, solidifying it as the new standard.  So what if existing DC locations need to hardware & software upgrades.  We expect that for direct-payment (CC or tap) and Plug & Charge support anyway.

Tesla Need.  Reveal of "standard" models was a media flop.  No one cared.  In fact, comments like this popped up everywhere: "I don't think it's enough cheaper to move the needle.  Tesla needs a car that they can sell for $30,000 or less..."  This is when I can reflect upon the past.  Remember the concern about "too little, too slowly" about Volt?  That situation provides great perspective for now, since Tesla did the same thing with Model 3/Y.  Just like with Volt, it became obvious anything else tried with it would be "too late".  Starting fresh is the only option at that point.  GM's effort to build an Equinox PHEV in its place reveals the consequence of such denial.  What's wanted is simply too different than what could be offered.  With the Volt comparison, there wasn't anything that could be done to make that compact car appeal to a SUV audience.  Same thing is true with trying to make an audience looking for basic transportation with a heavily stripped down Model Y.  Look at Corolla for perspective.  That isn't a RAV4 with all the amenities excluded.  Ugh.  You'd think such differences would be obvious.  Oh well, some are blind to stuff like that.  Here's how I tried to point out what the need from Tesla really is:  At this market state, the target of $35K others are pursuing is realistic if the vehicle offers a few perks beyond being stripped to essentials.  A few creature comforts and conveniences go a long way for making entry-level choices appealing.  Tesla's current thinking of retaining range at all costs, while giving the appearance occupant sacrifice, reveals an absence of understanding the basics.  With more DCFC locations and charging speed improvements, it simply makes no sense adding cost & weight for rarely needed capacity.

Environment Concern.  You know this is all rhetoric when detail is always missing: "Max profits from ICE is more important than the environment to Toyota."  These are the same people who never acknowledge the existence of emission ratings or carbon requirements.  They completely blow off any mention of efficiency too, avoiding any recognition of mi/kWh.  This is why the topic of range has become such a problem.  Greater efficiency from a vehicle with a smaller battery is true leadership, something we can see Toyota striving for.  Anywho, I kept my reply to that nonsense brief and simple:  Making 100% of Camry and 100% of RAV4 hybrid is a clear contradiction to that claim.  Those hybrids significantly reduce both carbon & smog emissions.  At the same time, eliminating ICE-only enables the hybrid base easy growth of PHEV sales... which enables the shift to electricity dependence.

New eAxle.  This description provided by Denso, the maker of Toyota components related to EV propulsion, summed up what to expect really well with: "The newly adopted eAxle, new inverter with a flat, double-sided cooling structure that incorporates advanced SiC (silicon carbide) power semiconductors and cooling technology, thereby enhancing output density and efficiency.  Furthermore, transmission efficiency has been improved by enhancing gear precision and reducing oil agitation resistance through casing shape optimization."  That information caught the attention of the active voices on that bZ forum I have been posting a lot to lately.  I chimed in with a heads up on that topic:  For those paying close attention, one version of Lexus already rolled out the new eAxle.  It's in the efficiency model, RZ300e.  Quietly real-world validating an advancement ahead of a high-visibility rollout is a common practice for Toyota.

Leadership.  I wondered if the discussion would take this turn: "Toyota is supposed to be an industry leader."  This is the double-standard enthusiasts implicitly agree upon.  Since Toyota broke so much new ground with hybrids at the turn of the century, they now think that should be Toyota's focus forever.  They don't understand the value of shifting focus on "ordinary" instead.  This is the same audience that doesn't see the difference between mainstream and obsolete.  In their mind, progress can only be measured in terms of faster or farther.  Finding ways of making more at a lower price is not leadership.  This is why Musk was praised for years about his plans to produce Cybertruck.  It was to be the ultimate truck, beating every aspect of strength & endurance with no regard for cost.  Ugh.  This is why hope for Tesla to every deliver a Model 2 was a fool's errand.  It wasn't going to happen because there was no motivation to do so.  Such an act would not be considered leadership... which is exactly why Toyota is looked down upon, because they will strive to deliver something to appeal to the entry-level shoppers.  I kept my reply to today's nonsense brief:  Not understanding what represents leadership has been a problem for EV enthusiasts here.  Look at how far Tesla missed the mark with entry-level offerings for some perspective.  Leadership is not range, power and speed.

Nothing.  It should be no surprise that the "bad position" post fell on deaf ears.  Rather than an acknowledgement, this was the reply: "Toyota has been talking a great game on EVs for a long time, with basically nothing to back it up."  I find it quite fascinating.  I was compelled years ago to really push back on the "all in" claims.  There was simply no evidence the status quo could so rapidly change.  Support simply wasn't there to build so much momentum so quickly and there wouldn't be any consequences for failing to meet the pledge.  Heck, there wasn't even any information provided on how progress would be measured, what milestones along the way would confirm the proposed timeline was still realistic.  Now rather annoyed, I responded with:  Distraction is the game.  Pretend other legacy automakers are "all in" and that they haven't stumbled with hardware or software issues.  Notice the backpedaling now?  The tell is simple at this point.  We all know what the boxes were... 300 miles... 150 kW... 300 horsepower... manual preconditioning... OTA updates... the hypocritical crowd will now attempt to move the goal posts.

Bad Position?  This claim about Toyota's approach got me very curious: "Because they think they can squeeze ICE for a few more years.  They're probably correct, but they are putting themselves in a bad position for after ICE dies."  How is phasing out traditional vehicles while introducing new PHEV and BEV choices setting up for failure.  There's no corner being backed into by moving the fleet forward.  I suspect this is just there results of years of propaganda, making you believe "if we build it, people will buy it" campaigning.  That has already been proven false with both legacy automakers and Tesla itself having to greatly reduce production on some of their offerings.  People won't stop popular models in non-EV form either.  Sales of the traditional Equinox are strong and GM is now working to deliver a PHEV model.  I get annoyed with the absence of critical thinking.  Fortunately, today's post like that was easy enough to reply to without upset for the not even trying:  What's the bad position?  By the end of 2026, expectation is there will be 6 models of BEV available in Europe.  Other legacy automakers are still investing in ICE while Toyota phases them out for hybrids (which makes an easy PHEV path) while expanding BEV offerings.  Heck, their 3-row BEV will be produced in the United States and some batteries are already.

In the meantime, it's interesting to observe the wide variety of reactions to GM's reveal with their Bolt comeback.  Just like in the past, messaging about how it fits into their overall plan is vague at best.

Missed Dates.  Gotta like when someone arguing loses track of purpose: "If Toyota hadn't blown through multiple promised SS battery dates, then you might have a point.  But Toyota's SS battery statements have been as accurate as Elon's FSD claims."  It ultimately reveals they are using a talking-point that isn't relevant to the situation anymore.  They don't recognize that innovation is a moving target when you are also trying to be competitive at the same time.  Feeling it is rather pointless to try to communicate with someone who already made up their mind and doesn't bother to verify facts over time, I posted this anyway:  That requires a disregard for the purpose of solid-state /batteries.  Remembering business goals is vital too, since automakers must juggle fleet priorities.  Turns out, some of the boxes were checked despite still using a liquid electrolyte.  The 2 biggest steps forward from NMC/NCA limitations were thermal-runaway and cycle-life.  LFP delivered significant improvements for both.  That readily available alternative meant other solid-state benefits should be focused on more, like energy-density.  There is nothing to gain from rushing solid-state.  Quite the opposite was the case for FSD, since it was already part of the current income stream.  In other words, that's a terrible comparison.