Let China Come In.  That is what our auto industry was told by Trump while recently in Detroit.  This is a complete reversal of policy, out of the blue.  All along, there have been great pains taken to keep business from China out.  Heck, the administration even went after Ford's effort to establish a partnership with CATL to produce LFP batteries here in the United States.  Now all of a sudden, it's ok to have Chinese vehicles being sold here.  That must have been quite a sucker-punch to the autoworkers in Detroit he was talking to at the time.  Ultimately, the anti-competitive efforts tend to do more harm than good.  But to announce such a change so abruptly likely made every there sick & concerned.  Why?  What suddenly changed to wipe out the status quo.  It sure looks like a free-for-all could happen.  Even with modifications to make those China designed vehicles comply with safety requirements and power expectations, there is a real possibility of much lower prices.  Our industry here got trapped within labor & sales struggle.  In fact, that's how Tesla was able to make such gains in this market.  It didn't have legacy burdens.  Those automakers from China won't either.  This is why Toyota's moves appeared so weak & timid.  They weren't.  They were subtle, as to not upset the delicate balance here.  It worked too.  Phaseout of ICE offerings has gone exceptionally well.  Anywho, with our president exhibiting irrational behavior likely amplified by dementia, this year is going to be a wild ride.

New Attacks, denial.  This was a very strange reply: "EVs are reducing demand for oil.  Really.  Where do ev's get there electricity from?  The Fairy?  Wow.  Lmao."  Electricity comes from coal, natural gas, nuke, solar, hydro and wind... not oil.  He also stated he worked in Texas in the oil industry for 40 years, proclaiming I had no idea what he was talking about.  That was my confirmation of his denial.  Watching the fight against demand decline always win has made him believe the industry was invincible, that nothing could ever break the status quo.  That's what made my rebuttal so sweet.  I didn't even need to mention plug-in vehicles.  Heck, I didn't even need to point out hybrid gains.  The automotive industry has also demonstrated resilience over the decades.  A reminder of their ability to adapt was all that was necessary.  I suspect after posting this, this particular attack will end.  His battle didn't go well.  I concluded with:  High efficiency gas vehicles are becoming the norm. Denying that isn't helpful.

New Attacks, stupid.  I expected attitude in return from having called out such a blatant attempt to mislead: "What past?  The oil industry adapts.  It use to be fracking needed 70 a barrel.  Now they can make money at 50 a barrel.  Your question is a stupid question.  The free market will adapt.  It always does."  This market is long past the optimized maturity stage.  We hit peak oil years ago, clearly indicated by price instability.  When the dependable nature was lost, that should have been an obvious sign of struggle to come.  After all, that was when hybrids were starting to gain serious attention and long before plug-ins.  Now, we are to the stage where plug-ins will begin to exhibit maturity.  Anywho, I responded with a callout as to why his answer lacked substance:  It does adapt.  That's why you drawing a conclusion already is too soon.  High efficiency gas vehicles and plug-in vehicles are reducing demand, which makes oil investments unprofitable.  Price stability is the goal, not reduction.

New Attacks, financially sound.  Now that entry-level offerings are about to become a reality, posts like this were inevitable: "So it cost 10 grand more than a gas car. 10000 / 2.19 = 4566 gallons of gas.  A gas car that size probably gets 30 miles to the gallon, so 136980 miles.  No, not financially sound either."  I wondered where the heck a gas price that low came from.  The holiday drop we saw here certainly didn't get that low.  It's gone now anyway.  I replied to that with:  Average national (US) gas price is currently $2.82.  Thinking it will remain that low with oil providers losing so much money with cost under $60 per barrel is madness.  The price of gas will inevitably rise.  How is this any different from the past?  Also, a new Chevy Trax starts at $23,495 and a new Chevy Bolt starts at $28,995.  So, that math really falls apart.  The $5,500 difference at $3.50 per gallon only comes to 1,571 gallons of gas... which would be roughly 47,000 miles.

Being Lazy.  This was the attack launched on someone who got an EV for awhile to review from a perspective of learning what to inform those researching a purchase: "There is an easy solution to his charging problem, it's called a dual port charger.  One plug for each vehicle and the charger can split the energy if both are charging.  If the guy can't help but plugging the car in after driving 120 miles per day, there's no fix for being lazy."  Brand didn't matter.  Speed didn't matter.  Range didn't matter.  Heck, price wasn't even part of it.  It was all about discrediting the person who faced charging challenges.  He asked the difficult question of how you'd manage owning 2 EVs.  I find it incredibly hypocritical for anyone downplaying the need to plan who parks where and then having to move vehicles accordingly  I can't even imagine the inconvenience of having to start both vehicles to swap positions, especially in the middle of the night.  I'm also quite aware of cord length.  You can't just split a line or have a charging with two cords, expected both to perfectly reach.  It's absurd to think capacity & location would be exactly as needed.  Ugh.  That's why I push for numbers.  When they don't bother to provide them, I question whether that is their own laziness or if they realize that would debunk the claim.  Fortunately, I don't need to know either... since our household addressed the problem and implemented the solution long ago:  Having 2 EVSE at home for 8.5 years now and 2 vehicles plugging in every night, it's easy to point out the problems with timing and cord length.  The benefit of mindlessly plugging in when you get home is priceless.

Charging Options.  Outlooks for 2026 are becoming plentiful.  With Stellantis killing their PHEV production and Tesla struggling to survive in Europe, the write-downs for Ford and GM got more context about where the market is.  Hope is not lost, but plans are definitely in need of revision.  So, we can say the business side is getting proper attention.  Turns out, the enthusiast side is too: "The use case for PHEVs will persist until the third of Americans stuck in apartment/condo complexes have convenient overnight charging options in the parking lot.  EVs just don't make much sense without home charging."  I was very happy to see that.  For years, advocates would just push the perspective that since everyone had 120-volt outlets at home, that's all they needed to support an EV.  That annoyed me to no end.  Even if that level-1 charging was enough for daily use, it could only support a single vehicle.  What are households with multiple vehicles supposed to do?  Heck, we still have that problem to this day with level-2 installs.  People fail to consider more than a single vehicle.  Grrr!  Needless to say, I climbed up on the soapbox today to add to that comment about charging options:  Actually, the exposure is worse than many care to admit.  Take a look at post-WWII neighborhoods.  They may be beautiful & iconic, but many residents park on the street in front.  Their garages in the alley are typically single-car.  Complicating EV adoption is that garage tends to only have a basic 120-volt line.  The high-end 2026 PHEV model of RAV4 will feature DC fast-charging.  With a 50-mile range, being able to quickly replenish EV when level-1 isn't enough could be worthwhile.  DC becoming easier to find now at grocery & retail locations makes that a practical solution.

So even ignoring the shortage of DCFC and how long it's taking to adopt NACS, the EVs on the road simply aren't old enough to have satisfied the essential requirement of matching ICE longevity.  Ordinary consumer acceptance is a test of patience we are forced to endure.

Sales Category.  There was a big article today detail 30 new EVs to expect this year.  They were simply listed by automaker in alphabetical order.  This suggestion was provided: "It might be good to list by category...SUV, sedan, performance, practical... something."  That made me wonder if anyone else would make a comment on that.  Why would it make any difference now, especially with over a decade of EREV confusion?  When the technology itself is misunderstood, which is vital when you are discussing electric propulsion, what difference would a label make for arbitrary grouping?  Think about the size variance between a small SUV and a really large one.  What's the point of having them together?  Going back to "compact" verses "midsize" makes more sense.  Anywho, I attempted to stir the point with:  That won't work.  Just about anything not a sedan or pickup is given a "SUV" label and "performance" is a relative term.  The most practical list is simply grouping by sales.  After all, the goal with some is to become high-volume sellers while others will intentionally be kept low-volume as luxury or exotic.  That leaves a category for those that are new or struggling to survive easy to find.

Patience.  Some people get it: "It's going to take longer in the (not) USA, because we have to wait for us to be Great Again."  Sadly, it's the same old story.  This was all quite predictable.  Enthusiasts aren't critical thinkers though; they let emotion & engineering prevent consideration of business.  Unfortunately, they contribute to slower progress as a result.  I shared the reasoning why:  We fell into that trap years ago.  Obsession with range made that obvious.  Had we focused on support of public & private charging instead, we could have been part of the EV leadership they are showing us now.  Think about how our market would be if pull-thru DCFC stations were already common.  There would be no need for an EREV pickup.

In short, the "dead weight" argument has reversed.  It makes no sense paying for rarely needed capacity and taking an efficiency penalty as a result when public charging can solve the problem instead.  We don't have to depend upon gas stations anymore either.  Grocery, retail, malls, restaurants, parks, etc. can now all provide fuel for our vehicles.

2025 Sales.  With so much craziness related to tax-credits ending and financial consequence from tariffs, actual sales aren't really a big concern.  As some say, there's bigger fish to fry.  Nonetheless, sales still happen.  Highlighting other automakers is pointless.  Everyone is adjusting plans... except Tesla, who needs to make new plans.  Cybertruck is no officially the biggest automotive failure ever, taking the crown from Edsel.  It was interesting to watch a project doomed from the start.  Disregarding the terribly impractical body, there was the problem of relying upon a new battery packaging to deliver significant cost & performance improvement.  That puts Toyota's incremental approach into perspective.  Tesla bet the farm on a single offering.  Toyota's approach is continuous improvement, spreading technological gains across platforms & vehicles.  That has served Toyota well too.  North American sales for 2025 was a total of 2,518,071 vehicles.  That's a decent gain of 8.0% over the previous year.  The number I'm more interesting in though is their electrified growth.  That increased by 17.6% from 2024.  That comes to 1,183,248 hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric-only vehicles.  In other words, ICE phaseout is now at 47% with no slowdown expected.  RAV4 and Camry both being entirely hybrid sets the stage for Corolla to follow.  That production plant in Mississippi should be able to take that on in a year or two.  The 2027 model is expected to be a next-gen upgrade.  That works out great for ending the ICE model.

In short, I challenge anyone pushing faster to show how many minutes are saved, charging verses how long their stop for to stretch, restroom and food actually took.

Setting Expectations.  Some enthusiasts are beginning to realize they are along.  All the early-adopters that had been along side, discussing the future of EVs, have moved on.  The ones still participating online have become advocates supporting something well defined, rather than just following opportunity hoping for the best.  That's where setting expectations becomes a big deal.  It's not theoretical for later.  It's what they'll inform their family, friends and neighbors as a good buy now, today.  The reason may or may not be obvious.  It's because their 3-year lease is expiring.  That first wave of non-Tesla choices are now being replaced.  Toyota is already becoming a solid suggestion.  Considering for purchase, rather than outright dismissal, is huge.  I find the substance behind that amusing.  Enthusiasts declared Toyota dead, impossible for it to ever catch up.  Did they not understand the very technology they supposedly supported?  The topic of fast-charging reveals how shallow their rhetoric really was.  They never set any type of expectation beyond looking toward much faster kW rates.  That was completely pointless.  It achieved nothing.  Ordinary consumers have no idea what any of those numbers are.  They do understand time though.  They can figure out how long it takes to use the restroom, grab something quick to eat, then actually eat it.  That time, along with whatever other brief stretching & navigation planning is needed, can be derived by just about anyone.  No expertise required.  That's why I keep posting reminders of how 30 minutes is becoming a standard reference when promoting EVs.  This was today's:  Notice how automakers are universally promoting "30 minute" fast-charge times with the charge-level from 10% to 80% being the range targeted, regardless of pack size or charging speed.  That's the safe zone for DC charging.  It makes a lot of sense in that regard to start showing warnings and reducing power just prior to that.  As for using Leaf exclusively as the example to follow, a system we know had minimal battery management, that's obvious cherry picking.  To be objective, how other automakers treat their newest offering... including Nissan with this next-gen Leaf about to be rolled out... must be taken in account.