EVs For Everyone.  That's the name of the new advertising campaign Chevrolet just launched.  It's hauntingly familiar.  We get more "over promise, under deliver".  The 1-minute commercial shows people driving in their EV from Chevrolet.  You get a very brief glimpse of a dashboard with showing an estimated range of 299 miles at 99% state-of-charge.  It also shows an average of 3.3 mi/kWh.  Based on those values, you would have to have a 91 kWh battery-pack... definitely not the affordable model.  Anywho, this is what I had to say after watching the video:  GM was the automaker who complained most about "halo" vehicles, asserting they were just for the sake of green image and not actually doing anything to change the status quo.  Ironically, that's exactly what this advertising campaign is doing.  You won't be able to purchase 3 of the 4 vehicles for awhile.  According the video though, Equinox EV has been moved forward 6 months from Fall 2023 to Spring.  Unfortunately, GM thrives on the attention without having to actually deliver much and enthusiasts are happy to abide.  It's all just more of the same until we see sales of EV reducing ICE production.

Market For Who?  It is happening again!  This is what I got in response to the Hummer reservations post: "Having 90k orders proves there are people that want it, it's displacing orders that otherwise would have gone to vehicles like the TRX."  That's not displacement, it is conquest.  Enthusiasts don't see the difference.  It's like trying to point out the difference between want & need.  They don't grasp the reasoning.  When fundamental distinction like audience isn't obvious, you have a sign of trouble on the way.  They will fight you endlessly for their flawed position.  It's absurd... and extremely well documented.  We've seen this history already.  Ugh.  Here's how I addressed it this time:  Stated another way, GM is up to the same old nonsense again... pursuing conquest instead of actually changing. We saw that with both Volt and Bolt. Neither targeted GM's own loyal customers. Offering a vehicle appealing to those who would otherwise purchase from a different automaker completely misses the point of disrupting the status quo. We get promises... like Equinox EV... that give an impression of drawing interest from showroom shoppers. But will its specs really make someone at the dealership wanting to replace their old Equinox ICE with an EV model?

Hummer Reservations.  No more will be taken.  Demand has significantly exceeded supply.  GM has already accepted 90,000 reservations, each with a $100 deposit.  This is the comment that stood out from reading the article about this: "HumEVs are likely displacing ICEv that gets 10 MPG."  It's a positive spin on an unfortunate & intentional situation.  Purpose was to prove GM could deliver something fast & powerful, but the outcome was a terrible EV choice.  The overall goal of reducing emissions & consumption isn't being achieved, as I stated:  Displacement isn't really happening.  True, it is much more efficient with a combined rating of 47 MPGe than ICE, but that's only 1.39 mi/kWh... making it an electricity guzzler compared to everything else with a plug.  Having a battery-pack with double the number of cells as atypical BEV, heck it could be triple that of Equinox EV, it is a poor business choice to deliver in high volume.  GM should avoid repeating their mistake of the past by focusing too much on promoting excess like that.

The approach we see is commitment to remaining a sustainable business while at the same time promoting change.  While others stating an "all in" position sounds reasonable, there's little substance to support how that will actually work.  What will be done to convince those disinterested in going electric to take that step?  There is no consequence or penalty for failing to fulfill that promise.

Run The Numbers.  When the base price of a vehicle (RAV4 Prime) is $40,000 and the point of it is to be primarily driven as an EV, comments like this make you wonder: "I was going to put in a level 2 charge until I ran the numbers, plus $2000 for power line and EVSE..."  The difference worked out to about 3.4 cents per mile.  Is that a big deal, even from a rate more than twice what I pay without the discount compared to cheap gas?  Worse case scenario is still a small fraction of what was paid for the vehicle (don't forget about tax).  I pointed out what should have been taken into account for his calculations:  Run the numbers with a $500 rebate from your provider and their rate billed with a time-of-use discount over a 10-year span.  That was the situation we were in 5.5 years ago.  Now, our plan is to replace the plug-in hybrid with a full-electric.  It was well worth that price paid all those years ago, especially since there's no expense now.  We have been able to benefit from faster charging as well as pre-conditioning draw, in addition the discount for the past 5.5 years.  Look at it this way, you could look back later and end up kicking yourself for not having installed the EVSE right away.

So What?  It is strange that such a question must be asked.  That problem with the hub-bolts is something new for Toyota antagonists to lack onto.  It's real, but so short-term there's really nothing to sustain arguments with.  There will be a fix.  Some people will be disenchanted about having to wait.  So what?  We're looking at a long-term strategy anyway.  VW had an absolutely terrible start with ID.4 and continues to struggle with the rollout of 3.0 updates.  What impact does it have on sales & reputation?  No one wants to address that topic.  Why?  There's the problem with GM stuck in the past with Bolt too.  The price is great, but supposedly the charging-speed is so anemic it is doomed to fail.  Really?  Seeing Toyota take the risk with the bZ platform so early in the race is exactly what enthusiasts have been begging for.  Having a rough rollout initially has no impact to customers by the time that second or third year comes along.  Issues worked out by then are in the past, exactly what ordinary consumers expect to be addressed for early-adopters.  Improvements along the way are even better... like addressing the overtighten problem.  Why is that so hard to accept?  Ugh.  This is the on-going type of perspective I have to provide in that regard:  Think about each automaker having to deal with the outcome of overtightening that takes place after purchase.  When you go to a third-party for tire rotation & replacement, who has to deal with long-term damage resulting from too much torque?  Seeing Toyota make the move from stud & nut to hub-bolt to address that exposure deserves recognition, not ridicule.  So what if the first attempt wasn't perfect.  How many other automakers have taken the same risk?  Remember, Toyota is quietly playing the long game.  They are not concerned about the noise coming from enthusiasts who won't ever purchase a vehicle from them anyway.  It's about taking the chance and if something goes wrong, taking the responsibility... which is exactly what has happened.

The End Result.  Enthusiasts have their own agenda and really don't have any interest in how it differs from mainstream shoppers. You have to keep reminding them of what really matters:  Loose hub-bolts were discovered on 3 vehicles elsewhere, none in the United States.  Each of which was subject to hard braking and sharp turns... activity we saw during reviewer tests... frequent demonstrations of extreme conditions.  The findings were reported just as first deliveries had begun.  That's why it was so easy to issue a stop-sale and to offer buybacks or compensation for the inconvenience... quite a different approach from what we have seen from other legacy automaker recalls.  Toyota took results of that intentional abuse seriously.  The end result is what counts, which we should begin to see in December.  Consider audience.  Many in Europe were waiting until year-end for the 11 kW option for AC charging. BEV from other automakers had long waits even without any recall delay.  Then of course, there's the ordinary consumers who naturally just expects first-year issues anyway.  It's interesting to watch "doom & gloom" posts each time there's a recall.  None of that ever really makes it to mainstream buyers, like this.  People online will spread rhetoric for awhile, but it never really makes any difference to those who showroom shop.  They'll see DCFC finally being built nearby and will go to a dealership out of curiosity.

Beyond Suspicious.  The article with this title really caught my attention: "Can pacemaker users charge EVs safely?"  It was shared by a cousin of mine.  I was taken aback by how this came out of nowhere.  How could such a question be raised after so much time has passed with never any concern?  Heck, I haven't ever even come across any type of mention on the topic.  This is just a walk new stir.  After quite awhile, I finally posted this as a comment in return of share:  Bizarre article.  It didn't make sense.  The device controlling electricity is that big structure behind where all the stations are, not what the cord attaches to.  That's where electromagnetic activity would take place.  The cord itself is not active until the session begins.  That doesn't require close interaction either; there will be plug & charge (ISO 15118) which is controlled within the vehicle and there is remote access from your phone.  Of course, this particular writer is well known for his bias.  With a decade of DC fast-charger usage worldwide already, this concern emerging now is beyond suspicious.

Still Avoiding Efficiency.  Recognize the pattern?  "Toyota's first EV is a noble effort, but it misses the mark in a few key areas.  Its mediocre driving range, uninspiring performance, and relatively high price for what you get make it less attractive when compared against its peers."  That is the same type of nonsense we saw over 2 decades ago.  Enthusiasts were placing judgment.  Those peers were superior because they deemed them to be.  Vehicles selling in high-volume from Toyota were of no interest.  So naturally the new technology following in those footsteps would not be of any interest either.  As Prius was to hybrid, bZ4X will be to electric.  Sharing traits of "uninspired" is just a polite way of repeating the "boring" rhetoric.  In other words, they continue to avoid efficiency being a priority.  In this case, it was a direct comparison to ID.4, the vehicle most similar in size, type and shape to bZ4X.  Only thing is, the measure of mi/kWh scares those who embrace electricity.  They know some BEV are guzzlers and knowledge of such waste will sours the appeal.  Even worse is it highlights how some PHEV can deliver well on that particular goal.  Think of it.  When even a vehicle with a small battery-pack can provide an all-electric commute, how much appeal does range & performance have?  Keep in mind how people will pay a higher price for reliability.  Prius Prime has been flawless, almost 6 years of trouble-free EV driving.  Based on that success, Toyota has already established reason for trust.  Whether that reputation gets recognized right away doesn't matter.  It's real-world experience already achieved.  Eventually, people will notice.  Watch for it.  Eventually, the tide will change.  Those other priorities will gain attention.  In this case, it will be interest stirred related to efficiency... the measure of miles per kilowatt-hour... mi/kWh.

Check it out... Prius Prime - 5.6 miles/kWh and 30 miles of EV

Kicking The Can.  An old friend of mine when silent when he posted a meme stating we could fix our problem with "Open the pipeline".  I replied by pointing out that only serves to kick the can down the road, leaving the problem for your children to deal with.  Whether or not he believes climate change or air pollution or political dependencies exposures are truly a problem doesn't matter.  It's the fact that he didn't try that he will be judged.  Think about that from the child's perspective.  Later as an adult, they'll ask why if there was a potential solution he didn't bother.  Excuses for not exploring opportunity is just being lazy.  It doesn't have to be a measure of risk either.  Since when is a plug-in hybrid risky?  There's no required infrastructure while you're away from home and the benefit is very easy to account for.  What possible reason could a child hold it against you for trying?  We can clearly see signs of climate change already and the potential for how much worse it could get.  There is nothing to argue when it comes to air pollution.  And for political dependencies, even if you see oil an abundant resource, it is not endless.  Your child will live beyond the years expected for that supply to last.  Then what?  You can't just dismiss responsibility and put it on them to deal with later... when the problem is bigger and more urgent.  Kicking the can is a terrible thing.  My old friend was unwilling to respond to my comment drawing attention to that reality.

Like a Glacier.  A popular & reputable publication provided a reminder in their article today, starting with: "Five years ago, General Motors Co. boss Mary Barra was the bold one.  She announced a plan to spend $20 billion developing a fleet of electric vehicles - 20 models by 2023, she promised - underpinned by a new battery pack the company now calls Ultium."  That was a direct result of the struggle with Bolt, which launched with a fizzle rather than the hyped boom.  The approach of smaller & cheaper didn't go over well.  The vehicle itself didn't appeal to GM's own loyal customers either.  It was an "over promise, under deliver" followed by what is shaping up to be more of the same.  Like it or not, we have seen this pattern before.  The article continued with: "Overnight, investors started to think of GM less as a 20th century relic and more like a heavyweight challenger to Tesla Inc."  That's exactly why GM is so vocal.  There's a lot of barking with very little bite, but that's what people want.  Actual change is expensive and risky, not to mention scary.  Hyping something gets attention and provides a sense of progress... hence the top-down approach.  You see what appears to be making a difference.  From a bottom-up approach, much of what happens goes unnoticed.  Change just occurs from that slow, subtle push.  Think of it like a glacier.  Movement is taking place.  No hype.  No promises.  It cannot be stopped.  Unlike GM where they kicked the can down the road, drawing attention away from promise for Bolt to something every more grand... which clearly is not going to happen.  There will be Hummer and Lyric, neither of which is targeted at GM's showroom shoppers, along with the rollout of Silverado, Blazer and Equinox.  That is barely 5, far from the 20 promised.  Imagine if that variety had been promoted instead... saying we'll have a choice for each category by the end of 2023.