Perverse Situation.  Discovering Toyota has a hatchback BEV in the works today really messed up antagonist efforts.  Toyota is supposed to have been caught off guard and is now scrambling to come up with a plan.  Finding out there was something in the works already and potentially be rolled out soon is a sign of change they weren't prepared to deal with.  It completely messes up their scapegoat diversion.  They keep trying though, attempting to keep the spotlight on Toyota with stuff like this: "...there's a perverse situation where the more expensive AWD variant charges dramatically slower than the fwd variant."  Knowing that came from a troublemaker looking for something to stoke the fire, I replied back with:  That supposed "perverse situation" is evidence of not understanding what's at play.  It is entirely realistic that the tradeoff of speed was for the benefit of cost, durability and longevity, from a chemistry advantage... especially curious when you consider the supplier.  CATL is pushing LFP and has had partnership with Toyota since 2019.  Toyota is already using LFP supplied by BYD for bZ3.  In other words, the assumption of the more expensive AWD model getting less could actually be the reverse.

Financial Penalty.  It is interesting to see a few constructive replies emerge from the latest stir.  This is one that caught my attention: "Toyota is locked into producing some ICEV models until 2030, and could take a financial penalty if they switch out those models for EVs sooner."  What does that actually mean?  Like the person from Norway, this person from Canada has a different perspective.  I was curious what "ICEV" meant to him.  Was that really just gas-only, was it hybrids too, and did that also include plug-in hybrids?  I had no idea, so I present information for him to ponder:  Since hybrid-only is extremely realistic, as we have already seen some ICE-only phased out, what does "ICEV" mean in this context?  Don't overlook how easy it would be for Corolla Cross hybrid to become a plug-in hybrid.  A smaller version of RAV4 Prime is something with a great deal of potential.  Prius Prime gets a next-gen update soon too.  There are plans in place for Crown and Harrier/Venza to be offered as plug-in hybrids as well.  In the meantime, we'll see bZ4X get updates as details for bZ5 and bZ2 get worked out.  That sounds like a path to leverage while investing in a platform beyond e-TNGA.  In fact, it makes you wonder how the supposed "all in" legacy automakers are actually planning to end production of their ICE-only models.

Norway.  The investment toward infrastructure build-up and financial incentives for BEV purchase has been enormous.  It's a place giving us a glimpse into what the future could hold.  It's also a place of lost perspective.  The rest of the world is not that fortunate.  Europe is trying to figure out how the flood of BEV imports from China changes plans & expectations.  Here in the United States, it's just a mess.  The response from the person I've been having exchanges with was: "Here in Norway, all the time.  In a market where 90% of cars sold are electric, Toyota is struggling to stay relevant.  They revert to the ridicule of actual EVs, making it seem like their hybrids are EVs with no range-anxiety".  Well, driving a Prius Prime, I can attest to them being EVs with no range-anxiety.  It's all about knowing audience.  From the perspective of those wanting an electric-only future, anything with a gas-engine is unacceptable.  Period.  There's no debate.  No exception.  So, it's not worth arguing.  However, you can give them something to think about.  So, that's how I formulated my reply:  Norway is the testbed for future markets, a venue to gauge decisions upon.  It is in no way representative of corporate stance.  Toyota is using it to measure investment choices.  That type of study is priceless.  The outcome won't be as you fear.  We have seen the same type of thing here in the United States.  Toyota is surprisingly quick to adjust & adapt.

Friendly Fire.  It is quite nice getting to see some play devil's advocate, wanting to get engaged in constructive exchanges.  For example: "But if Tesla is able to further improve its production efficiencies to the point that it can make a good EV for the same or less than Toyota and price it the same as Toyota's hybrids?  That would entirely change the game.  Tesla isn't there today, but tomorrow?  Maybe."  Much of that comes from not having enough background.  When you assemble history based on recent rumblings, that's the kind of perspective that makes sense.  You observe and make conjecture.  Absence of research is easy to spot.  Fortunately, when exchanges are in a venue looking for dialog to continue, individuals strive for an understanding.  Hopefully, what I provide contributes to such an outcome:  The underlying problem with Tesla is that a less expensive offering will just shift sales rather diversify.  We predictably watched it already.  When Models 3/X were rolled out, Models S/Y sales almost vanished.  That's an indication of struggling with Innovator's Dilemma rather than actually moving beyond the original niche.  Toyota has been able to navigate those waters, introducing a wide variety new hybrids and upgrading the old hybrids.  Meanwhile, we see VW and GM talking big but also approaching a barrier of their own.  How do you expand reach?

Panic.  When those who don't participate in blogs of a hostile nature hear about the "Toyota problem" and share the news on their friendly forum, how do you point out what is really happening.  I tried with:  It's just part of the narrative of those who don't like Toyota's approach.  For those who followed the online rhetoric long before bZ4X, you are well aware of the "behind" history.  That was the theme, until it was revealed that Toyota actually wasn't.  Silence followed, since the recall stirred new opportunity to mislead & undermine.  But now that bZ4X is getting a fix and the rubber is about to hit the road, antagonists are beginning to panic.  So, why not try feeding the narrative again but with a new twist?

The Problem?  When Toyota makes any kind of statement, it is immediately distorted by those who absolutely refuse to accept there is more than one means to an end.  Approaching the same problem a different way isn't possible in their mind.  That belief of "all in" is the type of blindness we saw in the past with engineering.  It never made any sense to them that alternatives were feasible.  That concept shouldn't be difficult to understand.  If you are attempting to make change long-lasting and wide-reaching, it wouldn't make sense to use the same tactic as you would to achieve a smaller change quickly.  Yet, we get this: "The narrative is that Toyota has a problem.  This looks like they're admitting they have a problem, doesn't it?"  Always a scapegoat.  Never anything worthy of consideration.  Our way or no way.  Ugh.  It's absurd to even argue.  So, I don't.  I just point out what should be obvious:  Looks like is key.  Reality is, Toyota has the flexibility to take advantage of the opportunity.  Unlike certain other automakers locked into a plan... how many times has premature lock-in been mentioned... Toyota's approach allows them to adapt.  It's quite amusing when people spin that as changing their mind.  They made fun of Toyota not following the crowd, then find themselves without alternatives.  Toyota has a choice still and they are in a position it exploit it.  Go ahead, narrate something else.  The tale of inevitable doom & gloom makes for great story telling later.  Their ability to follow a changing market is a strength, not a problem.

Not Unique.  The attack on Toyota really ramped up today.  It's the same old players, feeding efforts to play up the scapegoat.  Market change is obvious.  There's an unsettling shift.  Some of it comes from all the attention DCFC reliability... or lack there of... is getting.  The part is realization of how long it will actually take to install enough to truly make a difference.  Here in Minnesota with the funding now approved, we're looking at mid to late 2024 before that first phase is completed.  Blah.  That will seem like an eternity... long enough for Toyota to catch up in the narrative.  Oops!  Results from other automakers are needed immediately from other automakers.  That's not going to happen.  Sales allotments for next year are already being filled up.  The year-long waits will not be going away.  Not seeing progress from them either is an easy narrative trap they set for themselves.  I pointed that out with:  The narrative is falling apart.  Toyota is taking a different path to the same destination Tesla is aiming for.  Neither is there yet. Both must strive for a cost-reduction large enough to enable direct competition with ICE in the low-margin, high-volume market.  The key thing being overlooked is how well refined Toyota's EV system already is.  6 years ago their mass-produced all-electric drive was rolled out... up to 135 km/h (84 mph) with heat-pump... and has proven to be extremely reliable.  The next stage of achieving lower prices is in no way unique to Toyota.

13.2 Miles EV.  That was all.  It was a worst-case scenario.  I had 2 adult bikes on back, complete with packs.  They created a heck of a aerodynamic disruption.  I was driving at 60 mph straight into a 40 mph wind.  The A/C was running to keep us cool.  All that was quite a drain on energy.  I was intriguing to witness, especially since I routinely get 25 miles of EV in ordinary conditions and 30 miles in better situations.  This was a record.  Even in the winter when the heat-pump is working hard, I see better EV distance.  That's ok though.  We were on a biking trip, taking advantage of the unusually warm weather for this time of year here in Minnesota.

Uncertain History.  It is interesting how bits of information surface later, long afterward.  This nugget was buried in an article highlighting what is to come from GM: "Chevrolet started selling the Bolt in 2016 and lost a whopping $9,000 on every one of the $38,000 plug-in cars it sold.  Before that, GM sold the Volt plug-in hybrid, which uses a gasoline engine and an electric motor in tandem to get forty-two miles per gallon.  The Volt lost even more."  It is an interesting strategy, which can really pay off later... if cost-reduction is achieved on the schedule anticipated.  That didn't happen for Volt.  In fact, Volt was such a money-loser it wasn't even worth spreading the technology to increase volume for the sake of reaching economies-of-scale.  The systems wasn't efficient enough.  Both EV and HV were surprisingly bad, beat rather significantly by Prius... hence the hate.  Needless to say, there is much unknown about Equinox EV.  Will it start the same way, losing some money initially?  Toyota took that approach with Prius, but found a means of making profit prior to the second-generation.  With bZ4X, that doesn't appear to be the case.  It looks like profit will be made from the very first sale.  In this market, with high demand and dealership uncertainty, it makes sense not having play the squeeze game.  After all, there are a number of unknowns related to DCFC.  It's not just the installs.  It's how people will use them.  That's why history is so important.  Assumptions are made.  Some work out.  Some don't.

Close To Useless.  Knowing how many Volt and Bolt owners getting by with nothing but a level-1 charger, it is easy to see no reason to hold back.  It always made me wonder over the years why some never bought up charging, never a peep about level-2 experiences... nothing.  It was informative later to learn they hadn't bothered.  That "good enough" attitude ends up being quite an endorsement.  But in this case, to the person claiming a household outlet is close to useless, I didn't appeal to his emotional taunt.  He had made up his mind that a BEV could never benefit from having a level-1.  He was obviously defending the position of an automaker's choice to not include one with the vehicle purchase.  I didn't care.  I stuck to facts made my reply short & bittersweet:  120 volts * 12 amps = 1.44 kWh * 8 hours = 11.5 kWh * 3.0 mi/kWh = 34.5 miles.  In a pinch, that overnight charging is still useful.  It's enough to get you to a DCFC.

Opinions.  That exchange about the battery didn't go well.  It started with: "It's just sad that they [Toyota] don't help their cause and choosing the route of pushing the positive aspects of the CATL."  I sense his frustration.  He is aware of LFP benefits and wants clarity about what we will actually be getting.  Is that the chemistry?  I see where he is coming from to, but don't agree with his conclusion: "The customers always need to know what is all about before stepping in, not the other way in my opinion."  With Toyota customers, there is an inherent trust.  Knowing how the vehicle achieved the outcome was never part of the information conveyed, since it wasn't ever really requested.  All you ever got from Prius was a simplistic interface.  It was only the basics.  That worked fine.  Heck, with other Toyota hybrids you'd commonly get even less.  This is part of the "know your audience" wisdom.  At this early stage, most enthusiasts aren't aware of chemistries.  Thinking someone shopping the showroom floor would care is quite unrealistic.  Thinking Toyota would provide that detail for conquest is nuts.  I had to remind him how winning the game isn't as straight forward as releasing lots of obscure detail and hope for the best.  That's not how effective marketing works.  In fact, you have to ask how GM's heavy advertising campaign for their upcoming EVs is actually helping.  It seems like more of the same greenwashing nonsense.  It's about understanding opinions.  Anywho, this was the reminder:  History says otherwise.  When each new Prius was rolled out, those first owners were active participants in the discovery process.  What they found was compelling and drew them in even more.  It was engaging to share their findings.  Those stories made them advocates.  Toyota is well aware of how powerful owner endorsements are, far greater than anything they could push.  In other words, they are helping.

What We Know, So Far.  Ugh.  The person wanting "better" had absolutely no idea what I was asking for.  That didn't surprise me at all.  In reply, I ended up providing background instead having to reiterate what I had already provided:  2 things we know about Toyota... they needed more cells and LFP better supports their priority of longevity. 3 things we know about CATL... they want to want to grow, Toyota provides an effective means of reaching the North American market for them, and LFP is their favored chemistry.  A new clue recently emerged, adding a new piece to the puzzle.  UX300e, the Lexus EV convert offered in both China & Europe with that 1,000,000 km warranty, will be getting a capacity upgrade next year... to 72.8 kWh.  That very particular quantity seems more than just coincidence.  Knowing LFP chemistry is challenging to manage in the cold and how voltage variance is so minimal, especially when regulating input as state-of-charge approaches 100%, it looks like that is what we're getting.  Think about how little people understand or even recognize with those nuances.  Think about Toyota's targeted buyer.  It simply makes no sense diving into that detail yet.  They are far better off waiting until there's real-world data available from owners.  After all, that is what Tesla did with their LFP rollout.

Better?  Anyone who was curious about bZ4X ended up watching that hastily filmed DC fast-charging video.  It showed exactly what Toyota had eluded to, for the AWD model here.  Charging from empty to 80% would take about an hour.  That's quite a bit faster than Bolt.  It should be, since the Toyota's 100 kW rated speed is clearly faster than GM's 55 kW.  Not a big deal... or it shouldn't have been... since speed was rarely, if ever, brought up in discussion.  ID.4 started at 125 kW though and would be getting an upgrade to 135 kW.  The FWD model of bZ4X was already at 150 kW, the maximum for most of the established DCFC.  New stations will be getting 350 kW, but that speed isn't guaranteed and most vehicles can only handle that for a few minutes.  If the cable is already hot, charging speed won't be fast even to begin with.  In other words, it is a confusing & inconsistent experience.  That video didn't help the situation at all.  In fact, we got a post today asking if it would be "better" once sales resume?  I asked what that actually meant, this way:  What are your requirements?  What speed at what capacity?  For example, if speed drops below 100 kW at 40٪ then stays at 80 kW to 60%, is that acceptable?