Flawed Test Quotes.  The source I was aware of was written in Norwegian.  That meant using translation software to get an English equivalent, or so.  Certain things don't translate well and it is very difficult to recognize when there is an issue.  Understanding complex situations can make that a big problem.  Turns out in the circumstance of that flawed test, there was actually an English version published too.  So rather than a third-party attempting to interpret meaning, we had the real thing available... the author convey their actions & observations directly.  That was awesome to find, but annoying its existence wasn't shared in the first place.  This first find within the English version was enlightening: "The section that indicated how far we had driven stated that we had travelled 307 kilometres from where we started, while the consumption gauge showed that we'd used 19.1 kWh/100 km."  That's what I had noticed from the original, but many others had overlooked or not understood.  After all, we use "mi/kWh" as a measure instead.  That means you want the first number to be larger.  With the "kWh/100 km" value, smaller is better.  Then of course, there's the convert itself.  For that matter, many BEV purists really didn't care about efficiency anyway.  It was really sad.  The topic was rarely mentioned.  Emphasis has always been on range instead.  Anywho, that sentence alone provide great confirmation of what actually happened.  To my delight, there was a second to reinforce that same outcome: "On our second try, the range increased to 318 kilometres, a natural increase considering the change to the terrain. Despite this, the car's instruments showed the same consumption as earlier in the week, 19.1 kWh per 100 km."  Sadly, I doubt others will have a revelation from such information.  Propaganda speaks louder than facts.  Ugh.

Guess-O-Meter.   It is interesting how the basics of hybrid ownership apply to electric vehicles too.  You have a fuel supply and the computer guesses how far you will be able to travel with it.  That approximation is very difficult to come up with.  Many factors influence outcome.  New owners are often confused by the inaccuracy.  Seasoned drivers end up calling it a guess-o-meter.  In other words, you likely know what will impact your drive better than the computer... which means your guess will probably end up being closer to reality.  It's still a guess though.  All you can do is convey that message:  Welcome to the same world hybrid owners have been living in for decades... dealing with the guessometer, just a rough estimate based on prior driving history rather than using current conditions.  You'll quickly switch to efficiency measure instead, your active mi/kWh (kWh/100km) value.  That's what tells you the true story of efficiency.  It's an essential when traveling, since that estimated distance has no idea what the driving circumstances will be.

Flawed Test.  That report with the mistakes... obvious to some of us... is making the rounds, again.  It's one of those misinformation campaigns where you can't really tell if the original source was confused or just milking the exposure opportunity.  Spread of false information comes from all types.  Those latching onto this particular one clearly should know better.  How does a publication proud of their many years of EV support pass along such dribble?  Seeing how many advertisements are included on each article and how the controversial topics generate a lot of participation, it doesn't take much imagination.  It's just like that guy milking negative publicity.  The more attention he gets, the more money he makes.  Ugh.  Needless to say, there's not much I can do about it other than counter the supposed mistakes with proper follow up.  In this case, I was well prepared.  The vital information not included in the original article became available later.  I saved it for just such a chance to share it.  The report claimed bZ4X fell short of expectations for range, but mysteriously had a massive battery buffer.  Ugh.  That's not a mystery.  It's just a matter of recognizing Toyota's approach and how the test was flawed because it didn't.  I posted:  Stopping when the display indicated 0 miles remaining, rather than just driving until the vehicle could no longer continue, invalidated this test.  All other EVs are tested by simply driving until they stop moving.  When that process was actually tried, they found an additional 40 km was possible before hitting a speed reduction then drove additional 2 km.  That's 26 miles not accounted for.

In other words, you will continue to be frustrated for quite a while.  Change is painfully slow, but at least plug-in hybrids can help significantly reduce gas consumption right away.

What Was Being Asked?  I suspect Toyota is much further along with their BEV plans than anyone had realized.  Anecdotal observation has been the means at which most have been assessing status.  They don't study business mission or even the means for prior success.  It's all about the cards showing on the table, not what Toyota could still be holding in their hand.  Knowing Toyota well, I have a keen awareness of how there's a preference to remain silent... even when it gives the appearance of non-compliance or resistance.  Toyota simply doesn't care about rhetoric coming from enthusiasts.  Their focus is on their own loyal customers.  That audience is what matters.  How much do you think nonsense coming from antagonists really influences those who have no interest in purchasing a Toyota anyway?  It's pointless.  They get a good laugh and move on... allowing Toyota to continue with business as usual, which focuses on long-term gain.  So much emphasis is placed on short-term, it's really disappointing.  We've become obsessed with assumed merit rather than actual change to the status quo.  That's why the "all in" chanting is a waste of time.  What does it achieve?  Toyota is revealing a concept that could easily be a gauge for an upcoming rollout, in the not-so-distant future.  No promises were made, so there is no status gaming.  Understanding what was being asked is key.  Did that body & layout style appeal to that audience?  I didn't want to get into that yet, especially since our local EV owners group is very constructive.  Their feedback from their discussion is very informative.  So, I started on that venue with a post of 2 photos from what was assumed to be a bZ3X reveal and included the following comment:  As some like to follow the "behind" narrative for Toyota, others see the plan from years ago taking shape.  bZ4X rollout is underway and Prius Prime gets a major upgrade.  That covers both BEV and PHEV in the short-term.  The next-step appears to be a BEV that's intended to be higher volume than the current, a compact SUV.  This is the concept just revealed.  It looks like it could do well in our market.  You agree?

Compact SUV.  Media previews of what Toyota will be showing at the LA Auto Show to the public tomorrow were abundant today.  Lots of videos all showed the same thing, there was a BEV concept of a compact SUV on display.  It was quite exciting to see.  It is likely quite a sucker-punch for antagonists, who will now be scrambling to spin negative commentary.  This is what I had to say about the situation:  That type of offering was always the hope.  When people got excited about bZ3 in China, it seemed at odds with expectations of this market (United States) being so SUV centric... hence a bZ3X being the better choice.  Anywho, we knew bZ4X wasn't going to be the high-volume seller, that something smaller would fulfill that role instead.  This certainly looks like that vehicle.

Wrong Question.  When attacks on Toyota dwindle down to just the well-known antagonists and all they do is compare to Volt, you know things are going well.  I got this: "Did you think that the Volt wasn't a good car?"  And I replied to it with:  It was an enthusiast dream, a niche.  The car never appealed to dealers or GM's own loyal customers.  Targeting conquest sales was a terrible plan. There was only a focus on that single finish line, not a long-term strategy for competing in multiple races.  Basically, it was a real-world example of "The tortoise and the hare."  Some would refer to that as Innovator's Dilemma.  GM couldn't figure out how to use the technology widely.  So yes, the car was good, but that is the wrong question to be asked.

Misinformation Spin.  This was especially confusing: "I recently bought a new Tesla with an LFP battery, it's now recommended that you charge to 100% versus the 80-90% that was recommended prior.  Battery tech is changing fast and misinformation is being spewed every based on old tech."  There was no prior recommendation.  I was watching the rollout carefully, quite curious how the messaging would be handled.  Poor would be an understatement.  There really wasn't anything.  People just starting to learn about the difference and did what was required.  That's not a bad thing.  It is when you try to guess why though, as that owner had.  Realistically, it doesn't matter.  Going forward, we won't be dealing with early-adopters.  Since they won't know the history anyway, advice is easier to convey.  I pointed out:  Misinformation is not on people's radar.  Many are completely unaware of recommendations becoming outdated.  The old advice doesn't always apply and LFP is a great example.  We knew that when Tesla began using those cells, the necessity to charge to 100% from time to time would be recommended.  How that message was conveyed could have been better.  Oh well.  When the final patent expired this year in April, the understanding of how that chemistry differed finally starting getting proper attention.  The reason is voltage varies very little between full-charge and depleted.  So if you don't fully recharge, the system will eventually lose track of SOC level.  By going to 100%, calibration will take place.  The nice part about charging to 100% is there's little worry about longevity.  That chemistry handles it just fine.  That chemistry also has a shortcoming of lower energy-density.  So not having to stop at 80-90% makes up for what would otherwise be a range loss.

Actively Hostile.  This was an interesting post from someone active in the same EV owners group I'm part of: "I can't wait to not buy it!  And to remind people Toyota actively lobbies against pure EVs and climate change initiatives.  I recommend voting (with your dollars) for companies that are at least not actively hostile to addressing climate change."  With so much propaganda over the years portraying Toyota as a laggard, it's no surprise the new Prius has stirred misunderstandings.  I'm quite interested to see what kind of feedback I get in return to this:  Much of that supposed lobbying was really rhetoric, people spinning Toyota's push for better terms as an act of resistance.  A great comparison is how Hyundai suddenly finds itself in a bad position due to IRA bill restrictions.  Toyota foresees those barriers being built.  Addressing them does indeed fit the narrative, but isn't the reality.  This new PHEV is a huge step forward for reaching those lacking the ability to go BEV.  Keep in mind Toyota is actively rolling on bZ4X now with plans for bZ3 to follow.  It's about offering a variety of choices.  Also, keep in mind that declaring "all in" without accountability is a false idle.  Look at the new Hummer EV.  How is that not actively hostile?  It consumes 3 times the resources of an ordinary BEV.  Climate change remains a problem when that much lithium & electricity is being consumed.

Default Mode.  It is EV.  Many were asking about that today.  Interest has been stirred.  Yeah!  I like seeing posts like this in article comments: "Honest question here: with the plug-in hybrids, do you have the option to stay in electric-only mode and avoid burning gas at all?"  The reply is simple too.  You don't need to refer to the owner's manual or share any complex detail.  Stick to the basics.  After all, the videos I create have very few words.  All you need is a reference of some sort.  In this case, it is a temperature, a speed, and a setting:  Toyota delivered that 6 years ago.  That is the way my 2017 Prius Prime works. EV mode is default.  So unless the temperature is less than 12°F, you drive faster than 84 mph, or switch defrost to MAX, the gas-engine doesn't start.

7 Hours.  We got the reminder: "You forgot all the people that live in rentals in big cities who street park and have no access to charging infrastructure (I am one), this car is perfect."  With so many EV purists, it's easy to look forward to BEV everywhere and abandon those stuck along the way.  When the goal is already in sight, thinking about what it will take to reach it isn't appealing.  That is what slows things down.  Toyota is well aware of that.  Focusing on delivery of something capable of surviving on nothing but a standard household outlet was essential.  They know how much of a challenge getting just one level-2 charger setup for overnight charging will take time & money.  When that isn't a priority for you household, what do you do?  That is very difficult for those who have the power to makes such a decision.  For those at the mercy of a landlord or association, forget it.  That isn't going to happen for years.  What do you do in the meantime?  By a plug-in hybrid.  Here's the reason why I shared:  A full recharge will take about 10 kWh of electricity. Even at the pitiful rate of 1.44 kW (120 volts drawing 12 amps) you can still recharge completely overnight.  Heck, that's only 7 hours.

Trust.  I have encountered several RAV4 Prime owners who ask the same thing, should they switch to a bZ4X.  That is an especially interesting question now that we have some detail on Toyota's next move, Prius Prime.  Here's what I shared in that regard:  I have owned the first model-year of each of the 5 generations of Prius... 3 hybrid, 2 phev... and I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to upgrade yet again, if there wasn't bZ4X.  Since my wife also has a Prius Prime, I may still get to experience the newest generation through her.  However, there is a possibility she will want a bZ3... especially with the building of DC fast-charging stations around here (Twin Cities) about to take off.  Sorry, that background of my history and trust in Toyota may be helpful to you.  But looking forward, it's easy to see how well the new Prius Prime will hold its value.  My dealer managed to get 3 slightly used 2022's and expects to easily sell them at a new price.  He likely will too, especially with today's endorsement from Toyota toward investment in their plug-in hybrids.

Enough?  Finally, a sensible question: "Is the 13.6 kWh the usable capacity though?"  Finding out some detail when the reveal for Europe took place, a half-day after the Japan reveal was interesting.  Capacity was the focus.  These were my thoughts:  Yup, that's enough.  My 2017 Prius Prime delivers 30 miles still, despite the many years of use and it only having a 25-mile rating.  It uses 70% of that capacity for EV driving.  That would be 9.52 kWh from the new larger pack.  At 4.0 mi/kWh (which should be quite realistic since I routinely see over that with mine), that easily achieves the projected 50% increase to deliver 38 miles.