Default or Bug?  There's more on the new battery health screen, when you notice the message detail.  Some still claim it's a bug though.  I say otherwise:  That value appears to indicate the maximum distance it will track (FFFF in hex or 2 to the 16th power in decimal).  The number itself is 65535 in kilometers and 40727 roughly converted to miles.  It's a default no one can mistake for a real value.  Beyond that maximum may not be useful in terms accuracy.   Averaging 104 cells can contribute to margin-of-error problems with too much collected data.  So having a maximum makes sense, as does a default.

Subaru Trailseeker.  Attacks on Toyota/Subaru are endless.  What I find most surprising though is the blatant effort to mislead about rebranding.  It doesn't even make sense.  If Toyota was using BYD tech, which is looked upon as industry best, why is it the opposite when a Toyota emblem is placed on the vehicle?  Here's an attempt to spin their own messaging: "Well, they're accepting minor flaws and using second tier BYD tech.  At least the wheels stopped falling off."  Since when is there second-tier tech, especially from BYD?  The entire reason for their success is the ability to advance to new generations quickly... the opposite of claiming some upgrades are not taking place.  That would be abandoning a competitive edge.  In other words, there are flaws in the antagonist spin.  I didn't even bother to quibble.  These are the facts:  Spreading misinformation by claiming this is using tech from China tells the real story.  There is no BYD in the North American model.  Toyota's new eAxle has indeed delivered increased power & efficiency.  This is their own hardware, upgraded to use SiC.  Getting 262 miles from 67 kWh (usable capacity from 74.7 kWh) works out to 3.9 mi/kWh, which is very good from an EV that size and 8.5" ground clearance.

Depreciation Rate.  This particular tidbit of information was a great stumble upon: "The company's newest Depreciation Study found that the average EV loses a brutal 57.2% of its value over its first five years of ownership, far worse than either the overall average (41.8%) or the figure for hybrids (35.4%)."  There so much talk of accelerated depreciation, but never any context provided.  Basically, every new vehicle takes a substantial hit when it comes to loss value from being used.  That's completely normal and has been for decades.  41.8% is horrible no matter how you spin it.  The fact that EV is even higher is a problem of context.  The older a traditional vehicle gets, the greater the depreciation.  It continues to lose value.  That isn't actually the case for EVs.  Given a context of rising gas prices and continued growth of DC fast-charger locations, a very old EV will basically hit a price plateau where value is retained as years pass.  In other words, the rate flatlines.  Think about convenient an EV with an aged battery-pack will matter.  You can still use it for daily commuting and even longer trips (think weekend escape to the cabin) with enough convenient charger locations.

Way Ahead.  Absence of objectivity still persists.  Notice how "more" is the assessment of ahead, rather than what really makes a difference for achieving sustainable high-volume sales at a profit: "I'm a long time Toyota and Lexus boring car buyer.  Even the new version is middling by EV and Toyota standards.  Somehow the Koreans are way ahead of them in this area.  More range.  Faster charging.  More interesting design..."  That brainless look at the world is maddening.  We have people will no idea how the economy operates making judgment calls about progress.  Of course, there's an aspect of laziness too.  It's just some online content providers who don't research.  Commenters tend to be even worse.  I gladly pointed that out too:  Wow!  Ioniq 5 delivers 318 miles compared to bZ with only 314 miles.  Faster charging is somewhat of a gimmick.  It only matters when you are on a long road trip and rush away the moment charging is done.  It also means never using a Tesla Supercharger or any DC charger that's rated at 150 kW.

Journalist Oops!  I liked reading this: "Kia is claiming 320 miles of range with the larger 81.4 kilowatt-hour battery.  The automaker also said the EV3 achieves a drag-coefficient of 0.275."  It was a failed attempt at journalism from a content provider.  I could see the effort to portray Kia's upcoming new smaller EV offering as a step in the right direction.  It's exactly what our market needs.  Only problem was, we already have it from Toyota.  Presenting the solution as an innovative solution from Kia was blatant misrepresentation.  My guess is there wasn't an effort to mislead; instead, it was a poor attempt to provide useful content as a result of not researching... good intention... failed execution.  I was all too happy to provide that vital missing information in a constructive manner:  2026 Toyota bZ has a claimed range of 314 miles from its 74.7 kilowatt-hour battery and a drag-coefficient of 0.27.  Adding mi/kWh to the article would be a worthwhile update for better context.

Less Computer.  This is as brainless as our president: "Here's the problem Ford, not everyone wants a EV!  Give us a option like less computer crap from over size radios, less computer crap the better we are."  People don't pay attention and they don't bother to research.  I suspect the poster simply has never actually driven a vehicle with a large screen.  Having a map readily available and 360-view cameras for parking is a bizarre feature to argue against.  They provide convenience & safety that's easy to understand.  How is not offering that better?  Of course, applying that association to EVs only is evidence of a disconnect with any modern vehicle.  Regardless of propulsion system, you'll find "computer crap" in the vehicle.  It's an expectation from new vehicle purchases.  This was my reply to that absence of status-quo recognition:  This is a wake-up call for people making that comment.  Ordinary gas vehicles haven't been ordinary for a very long time.  They are complex computer systems.  The only difference between them and EVs is their systems aren't interconnected.  In other words, EVs are striving to bring simplicity by connecting, eliminating unnecessary redundancy.

Toyota Attacks.  It's rather amusing when a Tesla fanboy gets called out for scapegoating Toyota.  It was only a matter of time before others noticed that pattern.  Today, I saw may opportunity to let him have it when he attempted to downplay Toyota's 2026 Q1 sales success with a link to an article from May 2024 followed by: "I live in CA, Toyota has repeatedly lobbied the wrong direction.
Notice my followers will say it is because I think Tesla is a good company.  I think that due to what Tesla does."  Wrong?  Followers?  Ugh.  I replied to that nonsense with:

Reposting vague information from 2 years is now just fodder for propaganda.  Of course, thinking Tesla is a good company is vague too.  Tesla has shown no interest whatsoever to deliver something for the entry-level market.  Offering nothing to actually compete with high-volume low-cost choices is what?

This is why in 2026, the tables have turned.  Tesla failed miserably with Cybertruck and still hasn't stated any path forward.  Meanwhile, Toyota upgraded their original EV to a second generation and is now spreading that technology to both a smaller (CH-R) & larger (bZ Woodland) choice.  That will be followed by a BEV model of a very popular vehicle (Highlander EV).

Combined with battery-production in North Carolina, it would seem whatever lobbying that took place in the past was to help establish the path Toyota is now on.  Next will be lobbying to solidify that position.  Using hybrids to ensure profitability during these difficult transition times is clearly paying off.

Raising Doubt.  Subaru revealed their "Getaway" yesterday.  It's their 3-row Toyota rebrand.  It will initially be offered with a 95.8 kWh battery-pack, delivering a 300-mile range.  Almost immediately, enthusiast launched at attack.  This one raised doubt about the stated 30-minute recharge time: "150 kW charge rate is not acceptable for a nearly 100 kWh pack.  To hit a 30 min 10-80% charge, it will have to charge at 150kW from start to finish, something that I doubt will be the case."  He concluded his lengthy rant with: "I really hope the next generation of Toyota/Subaru EVs will finally be competitive in the charging space.  They so far have lagged behind nearly everyone else."  It was a desperate effort to reinforce the fading "behind" narrative.  It was with great pleasure that I got to point out his mistake:  Toyota uses roughly 90% of total capacity.  That means 10-80% is about 60 kWh.  To achieve that in 30 minutes at a constant rate, 120 kW is required.  Based on curve data we've seen so far from bZ owners, that seems reasonable.  In one review, the 74.7 kWh pack was recharged from 10-80% in 26 minutes.  Charging climbed to the 140's and stayed there for a bit.  With a larger pack, it could potentially hold at peak longer.

Fortunately, ordinary consumers will who are only now considering an EV purchase will have plenty of route planning options available by the time they actually need one.  Reading the forums, there are lots of reports already where new owners venture out without much (or any) prep.  That's a sign that the concern here is inflated, not as much of an issue as portrayed.

Solid-State Batteries.  It's nice getting a reply showing critical thinking.  He was baffled by Toyota's apparent change of approach with solid-state batteries.  He swore they had planned hybrid rollout first, then electric-only options would follow.  Dismissal of EV drive from PHEV will do that.  Many believe the vehicle isn't an EV if it has a gas-engine, even if some driving is exclusively without gas.  That absolute blinds them to seeing the bigger picture.  That's why so many never understood why a transition would be necessary.  In their minds, the single step from ICE (gas-engine only) to BEV was all that would ever be necessary.  It is why the idea of sharing components never registered.  They literally could not conceive such a possibility.  That mindset boxes up individual concepts, keeping each mutually exclusive to retain simplicity of understanding.  Too complex results in dismissal.  Anywho, I tried to provide some clarity for the close-minded.  Not sure if this helped or made any difference at all:  Starting with a plug-in hybrid was mentioned, but that wasn't expected until next-gen rollout.  That potential looks to be the RAV4 PHEV, which will debut this summer.  A model of that with solid-state could indeed follow.  Think about goals.  For a PHEV to be competitive in the future, it would need to offer more range and faster charging.  There will be a model of RAV4 PHEV with DC, making it a great candidate for solid-state introduction.

When those loyal customers wander into a Toyota dealer looking for something to replace their aged Toyota, how do you think they will react upon seeing bZ, CH-R, bZ Woodland and Highland EV on display?

Top Seller.  Someone did the math: "If you add Toyota bz+Subaru Solterra+Lexus RZ it amounts to 17,526 for Q1 2026 which outsell the entire Hyundai Group portfolio of Ioniq 5+Ioniq 6+Ioniq 9+EV6+EV9 (17,372).  And Toyota/Subaru/Lexus still has CHR/Uncharted, bz Woodland/Trailseeker Highlander/Getaway (and a Lexus 3 row EV) coming."  That's bittersweet news, even without this posted reply: "I guess, ICCU does its thing and even huge incentives can't help it."  With all the slander & undermining attempts related to wheels-fall-off, that ICCU problem is terrible to consider long term impact of.  No wheels ever actually feel off.  Hyundai/Kia facing transistor overheating (which leads to a blown fuse, 12-volt failure, and sudden loss of drive power) is very difficult to spin.  Reports of it happening are all too real.  That's really unfortunate... especially how long the resolution is taking.  Anywho, I had much to say about Toyota's approach:  That was a hidden advantage of rolling out full electric-only propulsion quietly way back in 2016. EV enthusiasts made fun of the PHEV, pretending that 84 mph (135 km/h) driving with only electrons (including heat-pump) wasn't important... as if that experienced gained wouldn't be beneficial later.  Huh?  Look at their newest generation of eAxle just rolled out with the 2026 bZ.  It's improved efficiency & power enables Toyota to provide more range with less battery.  While others use around 85 kWh to deliver a little over 300 miles, Toyota achieved the same thing with 10 kWh less.  That type of cost-reduction is a demonstration of true leadership.   So even when others get beyond their own technical challenges, Toyota still has a profit advantage.

Route Planner Included.  Records sales has predictably brought increased criticism with decreased critical thought.  Why must Toyota include a their own built-in route-planner when better third-party ones are available?  Remember how much outrage there was from GM not supporting AndroidAuto and CarPlay?  Such contradictory arguments don't make sense.  Here's detail of the conflict I pointed out:

It was always bizarre that some claimed it was essential for automakers to provide built-in route planning.  How could any of them provide everything you want while on a road trip... like live traffic data, road closures & detours, along with station status?  Heck, even ABRP falls short. So why expect that much from an automaker?

Lots of people use Google for other essentials anyway.  After all, Maps is already a common tool.  Many people already know how to use it.  The add of route planning keeps adoption simple?

And before you bellyache about not having the ability to turn on preconditioning (yet), think about the simplicity of popping up a message on the screen telling the driver it is time to turn it on.  What's the big deal?

Sometimes, enthusiasts are their own worst enemy.  Think about the audience we want buying EVs now.  Sales growth comes from appealing to those who are intimidated or simply are not tech savvy.