Tradeoff & Lazy.  Gotta love the keyboard warriors, those responding to what's posted online without bothering to research.  You can tell.  There's no substance or reference to the big picture.  It's all doom & gloom, drawing that conclusion for you rather than posts information for you to decide on your own.  Heck, even misleading facts aren't posted anymore.  They have become lazy: "These are cars that aim towards the AWD users, and then only the FWD get a battery with a useable charge curve. It is like they don't really want to sell the car in North America."  I find posts like that telling.  Back when there was fear, they would at least try.  Now, they don't even bother.  I'm curious what my reply will stir, if anything:  Some would say there's a tradeoff that's well worth it.  You get a lower cost, due to not needing nickel or cobalt, but it comes with a penalty of more weight and reduced energy density.  In return is a safer battery that lasts 2 to 3 times longer.  As you have seen though, different chemistries can present charging challenges.  With the case of LFP, it is very difficult to detect charge level.

Arguing Semantics.  It's rather remarkable how well reactions can be predicted.  This time, it is an argument about what "dedicated" means.  Rather than focus on outcome, it's all about meaningless definitions.  Who cares what the thing is called if it doesn't achieve its intended purpose.  Look at Hummer EV.  What exactly is it trying to deliver?  There isn't a resulting carbon reduction.  It guzzles electricity.  That's why rubbish like this is so annoying: "Makes sense for traditional car company to modify an ICE platform.  Calling such dedicated is marketing."  It's a waste of time replying.  But sometimes, the impact a troll has on discussion is worth it.  So, I replied with:  Creating a dedicated platform and calling it superior is marketing too.  Still to this day, we can see posts in the Volt forum claiming all PHEV are designed to be "gas first under heavy load" systems.  That is just plain not true.  We know with absolute certainty you can drop the pedal to the floor in both Prius Prime and RAV4 Prime without the gas-engine starting.  It is entirely electric in EV mode.  Yet, despite such overwhelming evidence debunking their rhetoric, the "EREV" marketing nonsense continues.  In other words, there's no substance behind vague design claims.  You don't actually need specialized engineering to compete. It obviously helps, but sometimes it can be a hindrance.  Toyota has a highly optimized system already and they don't have to retool much to compete.  As far as the marketing goes, the only real distinction "dedicated" seems to be is throwing the baby away with the bath water.  Unless you start from scratch, not levering anything you learned or developed from the past, it doesn't count.  Ugh.

What Is The Goal?  This seems a reasonable question: "If you need to build assembly-lines dedicated to EVs, why not use a true EV platform to compete with the others already making such EVs?" For me, the first thing I do is ask myself who the audience is.  In this case, I don't see evidence of ordinary consumers cross-shopping much.  If you are a Toyota owner content with your decision years ago, odds are quite good you will consider Toyota again.  That makes the "others" a bit of a red herring.  The potential repeat customer will got to the dealer to check out what's available.  This is why there is so much upset about not having enough BEV inventory.  If there are only hybrids (keep in mind, enthusiasts arguing this don't acknowledge PHEV existence... yes, we have "flat earth" people... deniers of reality), that's what people will purchase.  Notice how conquest isn't ever brought up, that GM or VW will end up getting the sale instead?  It's why I question purpose.  If we are really trying to reduce carbon-emissions as much as possible, large battery BEV don't make sense, nor does anything shaped like a SUV, nor anything with break-neck performance.  It's why the obsession with 0-60 acceleration completely misses the point.  I kept my reply short, since I was hoping to get something that's actually constructive in return:  That trap is a common one.  People start focusing on tit-for-tat competition, losing focus on what the goal actually was in the process.  Tell us, what is the goal.

What Mistake?  I get comments like this from time to time: "Why can't you admit when Toyota makes a mistake?"  It's an effort to divert attention away from the topic.  Supposedly, making the posts personal equates to a win.  I have no clue what I would be admitting.  What mistake?  So, I asked:  Evidence through price increases and back orders tell us otherwise.  This is that plateau, where growth levels off for awhile rather than continuing a rapid climb.  There is demand, but supply is a problem... made worse by the new tax-credit requirements.  It's very difficult to argue the opposite.  The situation will likely be exacerbated by challenges with DCFC usage.  There won't be anywhere near enough stations for a number of years still.  Etiquette for their usage is even further off; slower vehicles will tie up faster connections.  Overcoming the belief that it is essential to fast-charge beyond 60-65% (the point at which speed tends to significantly drop) will be very difficult.  In other words, what are the consequence of this supposed mistake?  Enthusiasts obsess with drawing conclusions as soon as the journey begins, even though they are well aware that early milestone status means very little in with regard to long-term success.  It's all just conjecture still.

Vehicle Comparisons.  The way history repeats is remarkable.  25 years ago, enthusiasts were obsessed with comparing Honda Insight to Toyota Prius.  Why?  It made no sense.  One was a 2-seat, aluminum body, manual transmission hatchback.  The other was a 4-seat, automatic transmission sedan.  The only thing they had in common was both were hybrids, but not even the same type.  Yet, article after article compared them.  When would anyone shop for 2 such very different vehicles?  The same is with the endless compares of Model 3 to bZ4X.  They have almost nothing relatable.  At least in the past, there were only 2 hybrids available.  So, there was a tiny bit of logic comparing them.  Now though, what does the Tesla have in common with the Toyota?  They are very different types of vehicle targeting very different shoppers.  Yet, there's a never-ending push to treat them the same way.  Thankfully, there are other choices now.  The closest is the upcoming BEV from Nissan.  I attempted to point that out, but I have a feeling these words will just end up falling on deaf ears:  Again, comparing a Sedan to a SUV doesn't make sense.  They need to be similar in type, size and shape to properly evaluate efficiency of the tech itself.  The new offering from Nissan is quite similar to Toyota. Both Ariya and bZ4X are SUVs of similar size & shape.  Nissan's most efficient model delivers 3.03 mi/kWh.  Toyota most efficient model delivers 3.53 mi/kWh.  That's quite a difference.

Non-USA Reviews.  The problem with American reviews is their obsession for speed & range.  That's what they deem important.  bZ4X charges slow... faster than Bolt & Leaf... but they conveniently omit that important fact.  The cold, hard reality that 62 kW and 150 kW fast-charging stations remain extremely popular is an important fact to exclude as well.  Acceleration is already well beyond what is necessary, but they don't want you to consider that reality either.  As for range, it is ironic to see BEV support pushing range-anxiety fear.  If there will be plenty of fast-charging stations in the future and you always leave home with a full battery, what's the problem?  Turns out, the problem is audience... not the vehicle.  Reviews for Solterra are starting to come in, from elsewhere.  They paint a very different picture than the nonsense we had here with the debut of bZ4X.  This comment summed it up well: "UK press reviews starting to come in.  Seems way more balanced than the USA ones.  It's about what the car does rather than a Top Trumps stats review.  Not the fastest, furthest or biggest but a credible competitor with the X-Mode USP."  Ever notice how the AWD abilities are never mentioned?  What about the 1,000,000 km warranty option?  And of course, everyone complains about the missing glovebox but never mentions what is there in its place.  In other words, we are about to hit that point where enthusiasts have to start dealing with information from owners.  Their time to exploit the absence of detail prior to deliver is coming to an end.  Yeah!  Getting a few balanced reviews to leverage prior to that is wonderful.

In other words, bZ4X is indeed efficient.

Playing Chess.  While Toyota is playing chess, the rest are playing checkers.  That's why we get comments like this: "12k per month in 2025 will be compliance car territory.  I suspect the numbers (for Toyota BEV's as a whole) will be much higher, as the motivation of fear and panic start to set in."  In other words, they want easy to see & understand results.  The idea of strategy for a benefit long-term is simply not there.  In other words, the underlying problem associated with obsession of quarterly results never went away.  For awhile there, focus was entirely on the "EV market" which blinded them from taking the bigger picture into account.  Absence of patience is their enemy.  Change in that larger perspective is much more difficult to measure and outcome is basically impossible to predict from individual moves... like chess.  They don't like that.  So, they claim it doesn't matter by slapping a "compliance" label on the move.  The hope is that will be interpreted as a waste of time.  The result from a move while playing checkers is often immediate and intent obvious.  It's much like the marathon analogy.  You run that race very differently than competing in a short sprint.  Oh well.  It's not like I don't point out what is really happening.  They just don't want to see it:  The smaller SUV (Corolla Cross variant), the sedan (Corolla variant), and the hatchback (Prius variant) are likely to be favored for volume.  This bigger SUV (bZ4x, RAV4 variant) and the even larger SUV (bZ5X, Highlander variant) not being produced in fewer numbers tends to make sense.  As for a BEV pickup, that might get more attention.  Don't forget, while that is happening Toyota is working on those new batteries that are planned to first be used in hybrids to prove they are robust, then be migrated to all-electric.  We also see Toyota's partnership with CATL being explored, trying out a different chemistry to see what opportunity that could offer. LFP will almost certainly be some part of that, especially since the BYD partnership is about to do the same.  In other words, the motivation looks more a matter of optimization... narrowing down what to pursue and adjusting time-tables.  This is a rapidly changing market anyway.  An automaker saying they need to re-evaluate plans is the kind of response we need.  Note how others don't have a clear path forward either; they just say "all in" without providing any substance.

Pushing Lies.  He doesn't give up.  That article writer keeps doing it.  In the comments, we got yet another lie: "Let's be clear, an ICE vehicle (includes hybrids) creates emissions with every mile traveled.  If you have a BEV and it gets charged from electricity generated by renewables (the shift from coal and gas is happening) there is a dramatic reduction in emissions.  Lots of obfuscation by the fossil fuel industry but the facts are simple."  That came after several days of on-going comments.  I think he gets frustrated from so much feedback pointing out his misleading.  I joined in on that:  Toyota has 2 plug-in hybrids already... Prius and RAV4. Toyota plans to add 2 more plug-in hybrids... Crown and Harrier/Venza.  For 5.5 years now, commutes in my Prius Prime have almost entirely been electric.  (Living in Minnesota, there are some days below -11°C (12°F) when the gas-engine cycles on & off for heat).  My errand running around town has been electric too.  Fact is, claiming "with every mile traveled" is simply wrong.

Beyond Desperate.  Toyota released a teaser photo today, some type of bZ hatchback.  It's mostly a shadowed image, almost just a silhouette.  That horrified antagonists.  More and more, it appears the lengthy delay of the bZ4x recall fix turned into a strategic opportunity.  The timing is great.  Rather than thinking Toyota out of options and basically just giving up, it looks like they were building a better hand to play.  I was quite amused.  After a day of comments, a rant was posted with this as the final sentence: "Anything with an Internal combustion engine is now obsolete."  It's the mark of desperation, refusing to acknowledge true market conditions.  That mindset of purity is blinding.  It's that same type of hate we've seen for 20 years now.  Anywho, I was delighted to reply to that nonsense with:  It is always intriguing to read such fiction.  The writer assumes readers are gullible enough to take claims at face value and to have never come across any information about any of the plug-in vehicles Toyota has been offering for years.  Prius Prime is now 6 years old, the second-generation Prius PHEV.  It has delivered flawless EV driving, up to 135 km/h (84 mph) along with a heat-pump.  That design was so successful, it branched off to become a larger more powerful plug-in hybrid... RAV4 Prime.  In the meantime, Toyota created EV models of CH-R and UX300e.  The latter continues to be refined too, getting an upgrade Q2 of next year.  Prius Prime will debut in third-generation form next year too.  While that history worked to evolve Toyota's knowledge & experience of motors, controllers, inverters, batteries and software, they worked on a BEV dedicated-platform to carry that production forward, as we see with bZ4X and the anticipated bZ5X.  As this article points out, there will be additional BEV offering.  Pretending none of that actually happened to feed the "behind" narrative is beyond desperate.  It simply makes no sense trying to ignore that history by spinning a tale of only investing in other technologies... because it is just plain not true.

Minimize Energy Use.  That is ultimately Toyota's purpose.  It is why hybrid production become the dominant effort.  A strategy with lowest carbon emissions was more important than simply just switching fuels.  After all, we know of several electricity guzzlers already.  How exactly are they helping?  Anywho, some are still constructive and try to contribute to useful discussion: "There is an update in the UK to cold weather charging speeds, being done as part of the wheel rectification work - it will be interesting to see what that does to the CATL battery cars."  That came from an ally who has been working to deal with the keyboard warriors, those fighting online battles to achieve hollow victories.  It's nice seeing a familiar name striving to keep the focus on what's really important.  The update is a good example.  I jumped in with some background:  Toyota's approach has been to minimize energy use, avoiding unnecessary consumption.  Prewarming the battery-pack just for the sake of faster charging would fall into that category.  Now, having a change of priorities isn't too far fetched of an idea.  When we saw those 2 videos with very slow charging, the pack was barely used... outside temperature... somewhere around 20°C (68°F). The desired temperature for DCFC is about 50°C (122°F).  Avoiding waste energy by only allowing the pack to warm on its own with heat as a by-product of charging, rather than using electricity directly, there's not going to much of an improvement.  A software update to take advantage of the pack-warmer for DCFC would make a world of difference.  It will be interesting to see how that plays out, especially when taking longevity into account.  There's no detail on how aggressive that pack-warmer can operate, which is intended for improving winter driving.  Also using it to improve charging is a logical next step, even if there is a tradeoff of overall consuming more energy.