Sending Feedback.  I was intrigued by this today, following a decent amount of ownership context: "Is there a way we can start a list of issues?  Perhaps starting a post of concerns about one specific thing at a time, and having people share their experiences, then developing that into a concise report that we can all view.  If you're having the same issue, go to the app and submit it as feedback.  If Toyota gets enough complaints, I suspect they'll start doing something to fix things."  That's what we have been doing all along, no report necessary.  The pattern of complaints is obvious.  Some of what's needed as a result of that feedback isn't though.  That's where the real problem comes.  Sometimes, it's a matter of educating new owners to understand what they need to do or have failed to recognize.  A little frustrated by the belief the "fix" will come from Toyota or will even be necessary is to be expected.  Newbies often struggle with the learning curve.  Some of the best feedback comes as a result.  So, it is very much a pay-attention situation.  Of those 99% who simply just need more information, there's that magic 1% which stumbles across an opportunity to improve.  Of course, figuring out how is usually the problem.  A report is just complaints.  We need suggestions, what should actually be done from what was learned.  Constructive feedback is difficult.  Not sure how to convey that message, I provided some context of my own:  We have been successfully providing suggestions for 25 years... as a founder, I know.  That's how Prius evolved.  Toyota very actively researches online exchanges.  If there's an influence targeting interests of their own showroom shoppers, they'll take notice.  In short, use whatever means & resources you have at your disposal.  They'll find it.

Electric Future.  There was an article about GM question its electric future, pointing out: "Around $7.9 billion in EV-related costs in 2025 alone, $6 billion writedown after cutting back EV plans,
EV sales dropped hard with a 43% decline in Q4".  That naturally resulted in attention shifting to Toyota, claiming Toyota's focus on hybrids means they will now lag on EV as a next step.  That was followed by asking: "The more salient question is why do car companies do such a bad job of anticipating where the market is going?"  I was amused by the framing.  Since GM was experiencing so much pain now from their own "over promise, under deliver" problem, it was an obvious attempt to portray Toyota as having an equal struggle.  Years ago when those absurd "all in" pledges were being made, I pointed out the very real possibility of this as an outcome.  They were far too optimistic.  How could the status quo be broken so quickly with infrastructure to rapidly fill in the support gaps?  GM had survived on conquest sales, not actual change within its own customer base.  Ugh.  Anywho, this was my saw-it-coming reply:  Quite the opposite.  Toyota anticipated correctly and planned accordingly.  They took the hybrid step first and avoided the trap GM got caught in.  So rather than massive writedowns, they are now rolling update EV upgrades and new models.  By year-end in the United States, there will be the new CH-R EV, new bZ Woodland EV, new Highlander EV, and new Lexus ES EV.  That's in in addition to rolling out gen-2 of bZ and RZ.

Depreciation.  The claim of "highest depreciating" about Toyota's bZ4X was a blatant attempt to mislead.  First, it's not true.  Mirai losses value much faster, being a vehicle dependent upon hydrogen.  But that was conveniently excluded, as were other limited production vehicles... including an older EV.  Second, you have to turn a blind-eye to the rest of the industry to avoid noticing the pattern.  Third, what's going to happen to traditional vehicles as the price of gas continues to rise without any infrastructure repairs to restore lower value?  The oil industry has suffered so much damage resulting from the war with Iran, there's no point of rebuilding.  Ways of sustaining what remains will be the focus.  Investing at this point is far too much of a gamble with China pushing so hard for electric vehicles & electricity support.  I tried to provide some perspective with regard to the automotive industry:  High depreciation is a sign of rapid evolution and continued investment.  Not only is that a confidence-builder for potential customers, it is also an opportunity to score a heavily discounted not-so-old used vehicle.

State of Health?  Finally, a constructive question: "How do I interpret this information?  Distance traveled?"  Since only a single report of that new screen updating has been reported (99.6% after 7,500 miles), it's difficult to postulate.  I speculate it will happen on mine at 6,213 miles... 10,000 km.  So, we still have a few weeks to find out.  However, with everyone already knowing the maximum value, there won't be much for panic when it stops updating distance but percentage continues to drop.  That seems inevitable though.  Paying close attention is not a virtue.  But with this attempt to make state-of-health a required standard, we'll be hearing about how other automakers approached the situation will be interesting.  For now, we have to wait.  In the meantime, this is what I suggested:  Enjoy the discovery until it finally updates.  For now, that's just informing you of the maximum measure State of Health will represent.

New Attacks.  We're well beyond the narrative stage.  At this point, lots of real-world data is becoming available.  That means playing offense is getting fun.  Today, we got a review confirming was owners have been sharing.  They are observing great efficiency, which not only highlights Toyota's next-gen improvements, it also exceeds range expectations.  A double-win like that for Toyota is not what antagonists had prepared for.  That means new attacks... hence me jumping out in front to prevent opportunity to mislead & undermine.  This was my response to the new review just posted that would inevitably stir new attack attempts:  Edmunds just posted their real-world range test results.  The 2026 XLE FWD Plus, rated for 314 miles, delivered 331 miles.  That's remarkable efficiency from a 74.7 kWh battery, an observed 23.3 kWh per 100 miles.  Think about what that means in terms of cost-reduction efforts, not to mention cost-of-ownership appeal.  Calling Toyota customers "sheeple" is a reveal of not sharing the same priorities.  What are yours?

The 95.8-kWh battery for Highlander EV is rating for 320 miles. 60% of that from 20-80 is 192 miles.  With an expectation of 10-80 charging in 30 minutes.  Even as the vehicle ages, your criteria is still fulfilled.  In short, there is no "if" anymore.

Vague Recommendations.  There's a moderator on a Facebook group who has made many people question his motive.  Every post about DC fast-charging includes the same boiler-plate recommendation to use the Tesla app with a monthly membership for discounted rates.  A few times now, I have requested detail and was ignored.  I personally think he just likes Tesla and hasn't bothered to give other providers a chance.  Some think there's more to it than that.  Whatever the case, I finally fired back with a push for him to share something... anything.  Not even a monthly summary makes me wonder if he actually bothered to do the math.  We'll see.  Here's what I posted:  I keep seeing references to the Tesla discount, but no one actually provides any detail.  The V4 Tesla Supercharger that just opened here has a discounted rate of $0.37/kWh over the standard $0.51/kWh.  Up the highway is a CircleK with a $0.46/kWh rate.  To cover the cost of the $12.99 monthly Tesla membership, that $0.09/kWh difference would require 144 kWh of charge.  144 kWh at the typical efficiency of 3.5 mi/kWh comes to 504 miles.  "500 miles to break even" is a lot easier message to convey than just vague recommendations.  If we want to be serious about promoting, we have to include detail.

Problem Propaganda.  I wondered when conflict would stir among various EVs aimed at a new audience, mainstream shoppers.  In the past, it was just enthusiasts arguing with each other.  Now, that's changed.  We're starting to see content created to draw attention from ordinary consumers who haven't until now paid any attention.  Today, it was a video showing a Ford F-150 Lightning parked at a Tesla Supercharger straddling 2 parking spots.  That's what Tesla instructed non-Tesla vehicles to do when an end spot wasn't available.  Taking up multiple stalls means a Tesla potentially won't be able to plug in.  The caption is what got me: "The PROBLEM with Tesla opening the supercharger network."  I was rather amused.  That comes from having firsthand exposure to what Tesla deemed their solution, the V4 station.  Turns out, it didn't actually live up to the hype.  The station design stressed form over function.  To avoid having any cosmetic appeal sacrificed by unpredictably hanging cords, tangled or twisted in an unpleasant manner, the new length was minimized.  As a result, I still had to make an effort to plug in.  That discovery of still having to pull up closely was a surprise.  There's no more struggle if you do, but it's not at all a shared experience as with others.  Whether I go to CircleK, EVgo, Electrify America or Ionna, there's always enough cord.  You have to pull hard to get it to move, but it always reaches.  Having that practical knowledge, I posted this in the comments for that video:  Tesla falling behind on station upgrades is the problem.  Notice how other providers offer much longer cords.

Long Term.  It's interesting to see recognition of having moved forward, acknowledging the upgrade was indeed a full generation: "I always thought there was insanely amazing cars for a bad price.  The people buying 2023's and 2024's today (assuming they don't need fast charging) are getting a freaking steal."  There was so much obsessing with the slow DC charging, it was maddening.  Who was making trips back then anyway?  Infrastructure was pitiful.  But acknowledging that meant admitting our market wasn't actually ready... and worse, giving credit to Toyota for other important ownership traits... like efficiency & reliability.  A narrative of "too slow" enforced the seemingly uncompetitive range.  But looking at those same first-gen vehicles a few years from now, when DC fast-charging locations are common, that value is a freaking steal.  You don't need lots of miles readily available if you can just charge up along the way and not worry about it behind slow since so many stalls are available for plugging in.  That's a long-term benefit for older vehicles.  Those owners can squeeze more out of the bargain they acquired as a steal of a deal used.  Of course, there weren't many sold.  So, the opportunity will be limited for consumers.  For the business, I pointed out the benefit of such an approach:  That bad price was Toyota seeing no reason to sell loss-leader vehicles.  It turned out to be a wise choice too.  They didn't have to take write-downs like the others.  Their focus on long-term tends to be the better strategy.