Kodak Moment.  Those BEV enthusiasts pushing for purity love to make the Kodak analogy.  They don't want to admit the real problem for Kodak was the transition from chemical to digital.  That's the equivalent of moving from car to airplane, not just from one type of car to another.  Kodak wasn't a camera manufacturer.  They produced film and the means for developing & printing it.  So, the analogy doesn't actually work.  It's a baseless talking point.  Nonetheless, we keep getting comments like this: "Toyota is facing a Kodak moment, where technological advances are overtaking them much faster than they ever expected.  All this whingeing will not help them at all."  It is difficult just ignoring that, since it is troll bait.  Taking it means fulfilling their purpose of distraction.  But allowing it to go unchallenged is worse, so I do from time to time:  For those who have been watching the market, that supposed whingeing is an obvious distraction.  Reality is, other automakers will hit a plateau and Toyota sees it coming.  Laughing to draw attention away from them is pretty easy to confirm.  Just ask what the next steps will be, what we should expect beyond the initial rollouts happening now.  The reply is crickets. Ramp up and technology spread is a lot more difficult than those others want to admit... hence using Toyota as a scapegoat, since hybrids serve as a means to bridge the gap while adaptation & optimization take place.

Reporting mi/kWh.  Speaking of showmanship, it's all about range... how far the vehicle can travel on a single charge and how accurate that distance was in contrast to estimated range.  A report published yesterday showed Toyota at the very bottom of that list.  bZ4X exhibited the greatest estimate/actual difference.  So, that's what everyone focused on.  But when you look at the data itself, it told a very different story.  Of the 29 vehicles listed, bZ4X was actually in position #14.  In the middle of all those vehicles tested certainly wasn't what everyone has been portraying as results.  The actual value was 20.12 kWh/100km (3.1 mi/kWh).  The best result was 15.77 kWh/100km (4.0 mi/kWh) and the worst 29.70 kWh/100km (2.1 mi/kWh).  I was obviously annoyed.  Fortunately, I wasn't alone.  Someone else sounded off about that messaging too.  Efforts to undermine Toyota by misleading like that is a very real problem we have seen building for years.  Even when I requested that data from a reviewer, all I got was an apology for not thinking of collecting those numbers.  Like most everyone else, he was completely focused on range.  How is that helpful to someone who will rarely ever drive that distance between charging?  If someone is simply trying to calculate their monthly electricity expenses, they need that value.  Efficiency matter.  We need to get more people reporting their mi/kWh data.  Those results from their own real-world experiences tell the true story.  Thankfully, I'm not completely alone on that stance.  In fact, I get to have critical-thinking exchanges with some, as I did today (he called me his "kindred spirit" for expressing the same sentiment):  That directly contradicts messaging we have been getting for the past few years though.  Noise online had been focused on range... to the point of obsessions.  Regardless of how much some of us begged for actual efficiency data, it was all about how many miles could be traveled.  Seeing attention shift to mi/kWh is long overdue... but will likely stir some upset among those who have frowned upon "electricity guzzler" references.  That also turns upside-down the mindset that a larger battery-pack is better.  Think about how many times that message has been drilled into our belief system.  Kudos to such a long overdue change in how EV performance is measured. Now it's a matter of getting a reporting standard to be agreed upon.

Blatant Misleading.  He did it again: "Toyota developing EV-Only platform same EXACT day CEO removed."  That's just plain not true.  They already have a dedicated platform that is EV-Only.  As for the announcement, confirmation was the day before the CEO stepping down.  It was not the same day, nor was he removed.  This type of spin is common among antagonists.  They know people don't pay close attention and it is especially effective if you wait a few days.  At that point, the number of reports is so great, followers seek a source to summarize what happened.  That provides those who want to undermine an opportunity to mislead.  A great example of that was this guy producing a video several days after the recall fix was announced and detail revealed, then claiming we were all still waiting for some type of resolution.  He portrayed the recall as a problem Toyota was still struggling with and there still an indefinite delay for owners waiting for their vehicle to get an update.  He clearly felt pressure from his big source of revenue disappearing.  Followers thrived on the hate he was supplying.  I was annoyed.  It happened again today.  We got the announcement of Toyota's plan to optimize their EV platform.  That was the confirmation we had been waiting for since November, when plans for e-TNGA were put on hold.  We all suspected that focus on leveraging the current production process would enable a wide variety of choices quickly would be expensive.  That's a great way to learn though.  You figure out what consumers truly wants & needs by rolling out a modest volume to every market.  Then you invest heavily in building what emerges as requirements.  Basically, you take advantage of early-adopters to find a means of out-competing the competition.  Trouble is, there was a lot of rebuild needed on Toyota's part to get to this position in the first place.  So much with economic & power challenges in Japan, followed by a series of industry shakeups, then of course the chip shortage.  It was one problem after another to achieve the current standing.  Excellent long-term planning would continue on with that momentum.  Seeing other automakers proclaim consequence-free promises, without any milestone requirement to measure progress, was putting a lot of pressure on Toyota.  Remember, the enthusiast definition of leadership is pushing limits of range & speed.  They don't care about what's actually needed for the masses.  In fact, they consider mainstream choice boring and not worth their time.  That audience is who Toyota's excels with.  It's a fundamental conflict of showmanship verses actually getting the hard work done.  Ugh.  Needless to say, that blatant misleading depends upon showmanship.

Things Would Be.  Gotta love how some people just disregard history and attempt to imagine something entirely different.  They forget about important influences, how we got to this point.  They don't care other successes.  They only see a world where everyone would have openly embraced that alternative path: "Things would be better off if Toyota +10 years ago made more of an effort to invest in hybrids and plugin hybrids and electric vehicles."  What things would have actually been better and for whom?  Think about how much pressure there was to just guzzle cheap gas.  Why bother with a hybrid?  It's so disingenuous to make such a claim without providing any substance to back it.  For that matter, how exactly would the other automakers have responded?  Knowing I wouldn't get anything constructive from asking questions, I pointed out some facts instead:  Toyota did that, here in this market we have had Camry, Highlander and RAV4 for ages.  More recently Corolla, Sienna, and Venza with Tacoma & Crown on the way.  In other markets, there are a number of other hybrids.  And of course, we saw Prius evolve from hybrid to PHEV then spread to other hybrids.  The overall result was over 2.5 Million hybrids sold in 2022.  At the same time, Toyota converted a few traditional vehicles into BEV, then used that knowledge to create their first dedicated-platform. Following that will be "clean sheet" optimization for lower production cost and higher efficiency.  As for wanting "more" investment, there has been a great deal of battery research.  The innovation & rollout of a bipolar design gets completely ignored. The work to advance solid-state tech gets outright dismissed.  It's a long story of not wanting to do anything but look at leadership in the from of pushing limits, rather than finding a means of reaches the masses.

Mainstream Purchase?  The propaganda is ramping up.  Absence of patience and avoidance of barriers is becoming obvious.  Struggle for Tesla, VW, GM and Ford are all starting to get attention.  For Tesla, its profit.  People being willing to pay their high prices provided leverage to investment.  That's great, but also hypocritical.  Toyota doing the same thing... leveraging funds from elsewhere... is somehow unacceptable.  Until we see something from Tesla targeting ordinary middle-market consumers, that automaker is just a niche.  For VW, the struggle with ID.3 and ID.4 is becoming easier to notice.  There are very long wait-lists and software updates continue to be challenging.  Their own CEO change reflects internal strife being addressed.  That's great, but still takes time.  With regard to GM, that problem with "over promise, under deliver" is playing out yet again.  How long will it be until we get an electrified Equinox?  We never got one with Two-Mode tech.  We never got one with Volt tech.  We never got one with Bolt tech.  We now wait for one leveraging Ultium.  Expectations from Ford are interesting though.  With such massive losses last year (around $2 Billion) and the rollout of F-150 Lightening being rather rough, who knows.  That's why I keep pushing for a focus on the middle.  What will the mainstream purchase?  Here's the reminder for today, a familiar message:  Gen-3 PHEV from Toyota is only a few months away now. Its 13.6 kWh capacity is enough to cover daily driving for most people, while only using one-fifth of the battery it would take for a typical EV.  From an emission perspective... 68 kWh = 1 BEV + 4 ICE  or  68 kWh = 5 PHEV ...we can see the bottom choice is a clear winner.  The propaganda to make you believe otherwise is a desperate effort from those who already see limited battery supply and skyrocketing material costs being a real problem on the horizon.

Dead Accurate.  More constructive posts: "Why do people expect GOM (guess-o-meter) to be dead accurate?"  We coined GOM all those years ago for that very reason... people were expecting it to be precise.  Why?  They certainly weren't holding traditional vehicles to such high levels of precision.  What difference does range make if you aren't driving long distances anyway?  With the 209-mile range from ID.4, what do you think VW is fulfilling for their customers?  If the owner is only driving the daily-driving average of 40 miles, even an unexpected trip to the other side of the metro area and back wouldn't use that entire capacity.  Heck, when we deliver cookies during the holidays, that round-trip to all those homes is less than 120 miles.  That means even in the worse of circumstances without recharging, we'd still be just fine.  Of course, with DC fast-chargers now being built.  What's the worry?  But if you don't want to guess, do the calculation.  It's simple math.  If you are getting really poor efficiency in the dead of winter... like 2.1 mi/kWh... you just multiply that times the usable capacity of 64 kWh to get an somewhat accurate expectation.  Keep in mind, that actual efficiency is taking energy from heating consumption into account.  So with regard to cookie delivery, that would squeeze out 134 miles.  In our case, the route takes us very near the only Electrify America location in the Twin Cities.  It wouldn't be much of a stray to stop at the only EVgo location in the Twin Cities either.  So even now, before any of the NEVI funded DC fast-charger install begin, we are already covered without having to use a public level-2 charger.  I don't get into that detail with online chat though.  Those replies to the supposed need for accuracy are kept simple:  This is why request MI/KWH data from owners. It's a good habit to get into using that instead... especially if you are planning for DCFC use on a trip.  That's what you enter into apps like ABRP so it can more accurately estimate charging needs.

Crazy Part.  Getting real-world reports from actual owners is so refreshing: "That's the crazy part, I got better efficiency than usual. Usually I average 2.7kwh per mile but today it said 3.3!"  We share observations and make discoveries that rise up above the noise.  That always requires patience though.  And this time, despite Toyota's best effort, we are again dealing with a winter rollout.  Those cold-temperature reports are killers, feeding rhetoric with misleading material.  Watch how warmer weather will bring about silence.  They climb of efficiency to competitive levels is not what they'll want to hear, especially from a vehicle with an obvious height tradeoff.  Thing about what the sedan will be able to deliver, without such a high ground-clearance and far better aerodynamics, it will undoubtedly be competitive.  Antagonists will do all they can to evade that reality.  They'll continue to post "wheels felling off" comments to avoid any type of constructive exchange.  It's the same old nonsense.  I look forward to finally getting my 4X.  In the meantime, all I can do is point out what's happening:  Keep in mind that Toyota has provided feedback on their Norway research.  They plan to recalibrate estimated range, essentially opening up some of the reserve to better reflect distance available.  You'll likely see a closer calculation related to heater settings as well.  They also plan to enhance battery warming.  You'll get the ability (via screen initially, a button eventually for later purchases) to better squeeze out efficiency by consuming energy for heating the pack.  That obviously can have a negative impact on overall consumption, which is why Toyota was hesitant about offering it.  But if used properly, you'll be able to speed up DC fast-charging.  It's the pre-condition ability some other BEV didn't have at first either.  As for getting 3.3 mi/kWh, that's a refreshing report.  I'll be quite pleased seeing that... someday when I finally take delivery. Here in Minnesota, cold temperatures will be routine.  An outcome like that will be nice.

Pathetic.  There is that absence of patience again: "Just pathetic!  Based purely on the fact that they lead the way with the Prius and never moved forward."  Overlooking the fact that Prius rolled out in late 1997 and wasn't a big success until late 2003 is quite an omission of history.  Of course, the not moving forward is a blatant lie.  How could anyone argue something so obviously false?  This newest Prius is the fifth generation and even the most technically challenged person can see how dramatically improved it is over what had first been delivered.  Ugh.  I kept my reply to this very close-minded individual brief:  Prius evolved into an impressive plug-in... 220 horsepower, giving about 40 miles of EV range, and still delivering about 50 MPG following depletion.  We also saw the tech spread to RAV4, with Crown and Harrier/Venza and CH-R to follow.  At the same time, we saw Toyota's slow pace of BEV offerings achieve over 24k sales last year.  So, claiming "never moved forward" is just plain not true.

Like Kodak.  The analogy never made any sense.  Toyota is not like Kodak.  Being the most recognizable big name to disappear due to technology advancement though, it's what gets sighted most for comparison.  However, no one can actually explain why.  Finally, this emerged as a counterpoint: "Kodak was chemicals company which needed to switch over to making electronics.  Toyota is a car company which needs to keep making cars."  That is such a simple way of stating the situation.  For Toyota, it's just an upgrade of what they already product.  There is no switch to an entirely new product, dissimilar in every regard.  Creating a plastic strip with an emulsion to capture light, producing chemicals to reveal that exposure, then manufacturing a medium to illustrate that result as a presentation you can physically hold in your hand is profoundly different from building a device to sense & store an image.  Again, it makes no sense to callout Kodak as a representative of Toyota's future.  Ugh.

Technology advances in unpredictable manners.  Just because Ultium & 4680 seem to be well thought out doesn't mean that's either will support high-volume sales.  Weaker alternatives sometimes exhibit a trait which swings the market in a different direction. LFP chemistry in old-school prismatic packaging could be that contender.  In all depends what various market influences emerge as most important.