Business Choices.  It wasn't just GM that had difficult choices to make.  Toyota had to look beyond engineering as well.  Remember the hope for a software update of some sort to enable faster DC charging?  Now that we are hearing snippets of what's to come, there's an acknowledgement of business having taken a much higher priority.  It has always been about the bigger picture, how to make things favorable for long-term outcome.  Some knew short-term would be presented with challenges, but few recognized how absurd some would be.  The fact that 3 years later, the "4X" would be getting so much attention is a great example of that.  No where else was that a problem.  Only here did we waste an enormous amount of attention on the name.  Same thing happened with the black cladding around the wheels.  Tesla vehicles, especially Cybertruck, were routinely wrapped an accepted that way as normal.  But doing the same for bZ4X was unheard of, to the point of some doubting it was even possible.  Like I said, absurd.  Then we've the range obsession.  Enthusiasts have pushed the idea of "more" being a necessity that they have absolutely no idea how to endorse an entry-level vehicle offering less.  Business choices make that a big problem.  Automakers ultimately don't care what enthusiasts have to say.  It comes down to sustainable sales for a profit.  That means recognizing what showroom shoppers will find appealing.  Whether or not a vehicle sold in the past got a software update for a want, not a need, is a perfect example of understanding priorities.  Not really wanting to get tangled up in that mess, I tried to explain:  Part of the problem came from a confirm that a software update had good potential of resulting in business harm.  Antagonists were looking to undermine Toyota's next offering.  A heater that took so long to run in a system designed to favor cooling, along with what that would do to shorten winter range even further, simply wasn't worth it.  Don't feed the narrative.  And since part of Toyota's early market success has leveraged early buyers feeding the used market by upgrading right away, the choice made sense.

Wrong!  I pointed out that Volt's powertrain and related IP wasn't owned by GM though.  That's why that tech continued on being spread in China, but we didn't get anything more here.  That is also why the next PHEV planned by GM will be built from the ground up.  The response was: "LOL what a horrendously wrong statement."  Following my reply, I got the same "wrong" claim again.  That's the kind of denial I have dealt with for well over a decade.  Certain Volt enthusiasts simply didn't want to accept reality.  GM supposedly deliver something "vastly superior", but none of them could ever explain why.  It's like this administration.  There's a complete disconnect between words & outcome.  Reality doesn't live up to their dreams, so they choose to exist in their own world instead.  In fact, that's the origin of the "EV Market" rhetoric.  Rather than acknowledge the entire fleet, they just cherry-picked what was liked and ignored the rest.  In this case, it was the business aspect of Volt that killed Volt.  The technology itself, though expensive & inefficient, could have continued to evolve into something better.  Catch is, they couldn't acknowledge better without admitting there was something that could benefit from an upgrade.  That's how business works though... unless you're GM, stuck due to not actually owning the technology.  Knowing there was such deep denial, I just used that opportunity to provide some background and moved on:  There are many who don't want to acknowledge the SAIC history.  Calling it wrong won't change it.

Good or Not?  That was the sentiment, what to decide about the article with this title: "Tesla Added More Superchargers In Q3 Than The Next Nine Networks Combined."  It's great how much ground Tesla breaks, since establishing infrastructure for sites is wonderful.  Everyone wins in that case.  Unfortunately, many locations are only leases.  Absence of ownership presents challenges and short-term gains can become a loss.  There's no reason for Tesla to upgrade chargers and no opportunity to improve unrelated services on-site.  Owners of the business who also take a stake in the chargers have a totally different outlook.  Continued investment provides a long-term benefit.  That's why I look at news like this with some bit of skepticism.  That's why I provided my reply in this manner:  V3 mostly would make it not.  How many were actually V4, so we don't have to struggle using a short cord?  Even with the NACS port on the passenger front so I can park in the proper stall, it's going to be a tight squeeze to actually reach.

Upset Too.  That attempt to try the fall-forward approach doing go well: "That's a busy location.  I would of been upset too if I showed up wanting to charge and saw you taking up 2 spots."  Why is this the problem of the user who was invited to use the chargers in that manner?  The app literally provides a diagram of parking exactly that way.  It's inappropriate to vent frustration of expectations not being meet on someone who had no control over that decision which created the circumstance.  That's called blaming the victim.  This situation was inevitable.  Musk has been well aware that if a truly affordable model of Tesla was ever offered, the dynamics of Supercharger use would profoundly change.  That's why allowing other automakers to use them became an easier decision.  They would get blamed for conflict.  2 stalls used by one vehicle being used now by competitors would be no different than 2 stalls being used by 2 vehicles from Tesla later in terms of how long you have to wait.  Full is full; however, improving cord length is an easy to predict benefit.  In other words, no effort was made on Tesla's part to address this foreseeable problem.  So, upset should be focused on Tesla.  Unfortunately, conveying all that online is difficult.  So, I kept my reply for this discussion short:  Be upset at the person made the poor decision to open up chargers without proper support, not the user.  Tesla has had a very, very long time to install longer cords.

Please Forgive.  Still seeing Tesla owners ICE charger stalls (parking without plugging in) on a regular basis makes this request especially problematic to accept: "Please forgive many Tesla owners.  When we bought our cars, part of the selling feature to buy Tesla was their charging infrastructure."  So, the expectation is what?  Sounds like there was expectation of always having a charger nearby to use because the Tesla network was already so well built out.  Why does that give some Tesla owners a right to block non-Tesla chargers?  This is an unfortunate stereotype.  There are a few owners who feel they are somehow entitled to park anywhere EVs are allowed to park, even if they aren't using the spot for its intended purpose.  Ugh.  There's simply no excuse for preventing others from charging.  I get quite annoyed when see that a spot shows available only to get there and discover a Tesla there not plugged in... because it sets a precedent.  How are we supposed to inform other Tesla owners of proper etiquette and the benefit of sharing when messaging from other owners suggest a very different attitude.  Again, enthusiasts can often be their own worst enemy.  I tried to point out the conundrum with the fall-forward approach:  That's forgivable, at first.  But at this point, they should be educated enough to recognize the problem.  They had a long time to learn, since NACS adoption was announced so long ago.  Think about when Musk offered to open the network.

First Try.  It's always a challenge to interpret intent of a message like this: "Keep in mind, the BZ4X was Toyota's first try at a mass market EV.  So there will almost inevitably be some failure point the current generation is "known for" in the future.  Any new car platform will have that at first."  Such downplay can be supportive or could serve to undermine.  The difference cannot be difficult to recognize if posts are few & random.  But when you confront the person, motive can be revealed.  In other words, present a fact.  If they dismiss or distract, you can feel confident that fact just messed up their narrative... some type of attempt to mislead.  I did exactly that:  Toyota rolled out full EV drive, complete with heat-pump, back in 2016.  They pretty much had reliability worked out already, due to having produced 9 millions hybrids... which each use motors, controllers, an inverters and batteries.  There was a low-volume predecessor to bZ4X, a model of Lexus called UX300e.  These recent 3 years have been figuring out how to refine the platform to make it profitable, while also responding to market feedback, while also addressing the few issues that surfaced.  It all seems to be coming together nicely at this point.

If you have 10 hours available overnight, range increases to 50 miles.  If you are short on time but need more miles, the benefit of having a gas-engine becomes obvious.  Ownership does not require any type of electrical upgrade.  Heck, you can even use a high-gauge extension cord.

Not Plugging In.  You can tell we're getting close to a reveal of the next-gen RAV4 PHEV.  A supposed recent study hit the news claiming the same old thing.  The RAV4 generation upgrade will almost certainly derail this particular narrative, which make me wonder how long comments like this will continue: "Not at all, just a sales gimmick.  How many would Toyota sell if they had no EV benefits?  PHEVs cannot stand on their own merits, they have to be included in BEV merits which is just wrong."  Already knowing support for DC charging will be added is likely the clue as to why BEV is now being used.  In the past, the EV benefits of Toyota's Prime models was ignored or dismissed.  This must have naysayers worried.  I happily pointed that out posting:  Denial runs deep.  Whether PHEV are plugged in or not, Toyota is beginning to leverage economies-of-scale cost reduction.  Camry & RAV4 became 100% hybrid from that benefit of high-volume production.  It's the type of momentum build naysayers fear.  They know the ramp-of of battery output from the new facility in North Carolina will become a force to be reckoned with.  This is why the "behind" narrative has collapsed and there's a struggle to find a new way of portraying Toyota as the EV antithesis.

First Delivery.  When is the question many are searching for an answer to.  In my region, there's a $5000 cash offer that expires November 3.  That got me really curious.  I did some searches and found the 2026 bZ with the lowest VIN (#146) and the soonest date (October 27).  There were many more with the same delivery-window start, so it's realistic to expect to hear about purchases by Halloween.  I suspect what we're witnessing is a delay.  For many reasons the first builds & shipments could have encountered a few hold ups.  That messes up the initial promotion to help compensate for loss of tax-credits and to stir interest.  Perhaps the offer will be extended or some variant will come about.  It's too early to tell.  None of my searches revealed any transit info.  When will that first delivery actually happen?  Patience.

New Standards.  New voices are starting to speak up, in a bit of a panic it seems: "Imagine having to find a curbside charger and then doing whatever is necessary to set up payment...and doing that every evening in order to get enough range for your commute the next day."  I get the impression these are lurkers who have noticed the status quo breaking.  That's a good sign, for plug-in owners anyway.  I was delighted to share this information in that regard:  Fortunately, the transition to NACS (SAE J3400) also ushers in Plug & Charge (SAE 15118).  Both are efforts to make public charging easier.  There will just be one type of plug and nothing will be needed beyond plugging in, after a one-time setup.  Look at how Europe has been striving to make exactly that happen.  CCS2 is ubiquitous there and many charger networks can be tied into your one account.  We'll see the same thing happen here.  Think of how unintimidating & convenient that will make the jump from PHEV to BEV later.  Of course, the problem with curbside charging when your port is on the side exposed to traffic may not go away.  A universal location from automakers isn't likely to happen.

Too bad if you see a BEV version of that coming from Toyota, thwarting your narrative.  That claim of "staying with ICE" is an obvious attempt to draw attention away from that fact.  In other words, you recognize the need for diversification... which is why I posted that list of those 12 vehicle categories.

Large SUV = Ford

Speculation.  That report without any year-over-year data reveals more and more clues about being propaganda rather than a proper study.  Comments like this is what to look for: "There is a huge reason Toyota does not release its PHEV information.  The number of miles driven on electric is much less than Toyota wants to represent.  Add in big oil..."  In other words, look toward audience for insight.  Who is using the report and how.  In this case, it's just a means of legitimizing claims.  They don't actually care about usage, because there is no basis for measure.  More miles is meaningless without context.  There's a big difference between having enough EV range to cover your entire commute and always falling short each time.  Knowing the next-gen RAV4 about to be revealed will increase EV range, there's obvious worry.  Remember how the mandates in Europe were pushing electric-only distance?  Wasn't the minimum increasing to something like 80 km in 2027?  That's mighty close to the magic "50 mile" threshold talked about here.  Any plug-in hybrid being able to deliver it would be considered a worthy contender.  So how are antagonists dealing that possibility?  They are raising doubt about Toyota's success.  Gotta like that.  Knowing we'll get that detail within the next month or so, I kept my rebuttal short:  Speculation like that is not supported by the evidence.  Toyota's decision to add DC charging to the next-gen RAV4 plug-in would suggest data showing so much EV use that it justified the faster connection.

Lexus = 2023: 5,386.  2024: 9,697.  2025: 5,253.