Supposed SUV.  High ground-clearance has always been an important trait of a true SUV.  Notice how most lack that?  I noticed how Subaru Solterra and Toyota bZ4X, which both have over 8-inch ground-clearances, were missing from an article today specifically about SUV offerings for BEV.  This is what was listed: Nissan Ariya, Hyundai Kona, Ford Mach-E, Kia Niro, VW ID.4, Polestar 2, Lucid Air.  Most are glorified cars or so-called crossovers.  What exactly is the point?  Tesla Model Y is marketed as a SUV, but it obviously is not.  It's a Model 3 with a very roomy interior.  That's why qualifying for the tax-credit didn't make sense.  It's interesting to see people argue that, then dance away from anything you would actually use AWD with such a high ground-clearance for.  Of course, even with FWD you'll find the height handy.  Needless to say, labels & definitions have been preverted to the point of no longer being informative.

Tax Dollars.  How do you respond to claims like this: "Tax Dollars Wasted Building EV Charging Stations in Cold Climates"  Sometimes, you find out the person has no idea what it is actually like to live in a northern state.  Heck, I remember someone claiming tires should last longer since they don't touch pavement for several months of the year... as if our roads get covered with snow & ice and stay that way.  Reality is quite the opposite.  They wear out faster due to the random spin for traction when accelerating & decelerating.  When it comes to PHEV, the assumption is you never get to drive with only electricity the entire winter.  It makes you wonder how they perceive operation of a BEV works in the cold.  With all the spin related to pre-conditioning and the lack thereof, it's amazing we have as much support as we do for DC fast-charging.  Ugh.  This is how I jumped into the discussion on that topic:  Having attended several of the NEVI planning meetings for the state of Minnesota, importance of establishing EV travel corridors is quite obvious.  Having traveled through South Dakota to Wyoming to visit family, complete absence of DC fast-charging makes that trip impossible.  Complicating matters is the lack of connection & billing standards made worse by mixed reliability.  So... I don't see any waste making an effort to at least break ground on what will eventually be part of ordinary travel... lots of places to charge using renewable energy generated locally and stored on-site.  Gotta start somewhere.

Outrageous Claims.  A great source of misinformation is the internet.  Someone without credibilty or reference witll make an outrageous claim, then it will be passed along by others without validation.  Fortunately, the in-person exchange can overcome much of that.  A common example is when you get asked how much it costs to recharge.  Most people have absolutely no idea.  Heck, most don't even have any perspective from how much electricity their own house consumes.  It's an entirely new topic for them.  So, breaking things down by time or quantity is very difficult.  You have no idea what their experience is in that regard.  However, everyone has knowledge related to filling their cars with gas.  You can leverage that by providing a comparsion.  There's no need to address specifics anyway.  All most people want is a basic understanding, something they'll recognize... a familiar act base an assessment from.  I figured out a talking point in that regard and provided it to my peers today.  They thought the simplicity was great.  I knew it would be, since I had used it in-person before and got very positive feedback.  Consider this:  I tell people it cost roughly the same at a SC as it does to fill their gas tank.  From their perspective, that's a fair answer.  Then I go on to point out how much less it costs at home overnight, taking advantage of off-peak discounted electricity.

Renewed Propaganda.  That new so-called study is clearly renewed propaganda.  This title stated the situation well: "Plug-in Hybrids 2.0: A Dangerous Distraction, Not A Climate Solution"  It was followed by: "Two years ago T&E tested the BMW X5, Volvo XC60, and Mitsubishi Outlander PHEVs under a wide range of conditions, mostly on longer routes.  This year T&E tested three smaller PHEVs on shorter routes which can be reasonably done by those living in cities or commuting to see if PHEV performance has improved."  The supposed representatives of the market (BMW 3 Series, Peugeot 308, Renault Megane) were labeled as three new popular, average-sized plug-in hybrids.  This is the second time RAV4 Prime was excluded.  Why?  What about others?  What about real-world data?  If this was nothing but a "cities or commuting" measure, what does that include or not include?  How was the data collected?  There's so much mystery... in the articles published about the study.  As for the study itself, there was actually a PDF available with detail on how the tests were performed.  That helps, but doesn't really reflect the reality that BEV purists keep pushing... purpose built vehicles.  They continue to focus on dedicated-platform offerings.  Since when is Renault Megane, a vehicle that first rolled out in 1995, any type of representative of that?  Same goes for BMW 3 Series, which had its beginnings in 1975.  At least with Peugeot 308, it originated in 2007.  But unlike Prius, none started as a hybrid.  Heck, even the first Prius has EV ability.  42 mph wasn't much, but it was undeniably part of the design from a platform intended to deliver exactly that.  In fact, the second-generation increased the EV top-speed to 45 mph for consumer sales.  For owners who added more battery-capacity, they revealed the design was setup to deliver 100 km/h (62.4 mph) for electric-only drive.  The third-generation opened up that ability to everyone for the plug-in model.  Then the fourth-generation increased that to 135 km/h (84 mph).  Now, there is a fifth-generation on the way and it will only be available as a PHEV in Europe.  Yet, that 55-page study document made no mention whatsoever of Toyota or Prius despite such an extensive history on that very topic.  Why such a blatant omission?  Feeding you data... intentional exclusion... is a sure sign of propaganda.

Another Study.  Ugh.  This time, cherry-picking was even more obvious.  The study was in Europe again and it was done by the same group which had done the previous.  The hatred for PHEV is so blatant.  They measure emissions from these supposed popular models: BMW 3 series, Peugeot 308, and Renault Megane.  Since when are those vehicles representative of all plug-in hybrids?  Heck,  in Europe Prius will now only be available as a PHEV and Outlander PHEV remains a top-seller there.  Why the exclusion?  The answer is difficult to deny.  They are feeding a narrative, taking advantage of misconceptions.  It is very easy to mislead when people are poorly informed about the subject matter.  That's why the test-drive was always such a powerful means of getting the person to consider purchase.  When their butt in the drivers seat, that reality from interacting with the wheel & pedals is a powerful means of conveying the truth.  You experience Prius Prime driving in EV mode and are hooks on the possibilities.  Immediately, you begin to imagine what it would be like to commute back & forth to work without the gas-engine ever starting.  Then you come to realize there is no risk for long trips, no range-anxiety.  It's a remarkable awakening those publishing studies like this hope you never experience.

Nothing In Common.  It's the same old nonsense, again.  Because Toyota hybrids have a gas-engine, they cannot possibily contribute anything to a plug-in vehicle.  It is an absolute that has blinded countless enthusiasts for well over a decade.  This is all they see: "...for the battery management system.  New software.  New computer.  New wiring and power.  An electric motor.  Nothing in common with a combustion engine.  Different materials.  Different fabrictation.  Testing required.  Design time.  Tesla has had over a decade.  Toyota is waaaay behind.  Almost starting from scratch."  All that is confirmation of sincerely believing production of a BEV means is was a complete waste having worked on anything else prior to that.  It is truly bizarre to look back to February 2012 at the ownership of my first Toyota plug-in.  Now, I'm looking at its success which I got in April 2017 that I plan to replace with a bZ4X.  All those years of EV driving don't count.  Supposedly, nothing was learned from any of that experience and none of the components can be reused.  Ugh.  It's hard to believe some people are truly that clueless.  That's why I often reply to the nonsense with a question:  Who are you trying to convince?  The "behind" narrative won't match what ordinary consumers will see.  Toyota has been delivering all-electric from their plug-in Prius for over 6 years now, which it is about to be replaced with very compelling upgrade... delivering a significant increase to both EV range and power.  Toyota's first dedicated-platform BEV delivers impressive AWD ability.  It should prove to be very reliable based on prior PHEV success and experience their BEV converts (CH-R & UX300e) provided.  That claim of "almost starting from scratch" simply doesn't have any merit.

Friend or Foe?  All these years after the death of Volt and the "voltec" technology it brought to market making interpreting intent from this difficult: "Nice.  Needs a voltec-quinox version to go with it though."  That came about because GM is starting to get attention now that the spotlight is no longer on bZ4X.  Their premiere entry-level BEV offering is not exactly stirring excitement.  That magic Volt once had is gone.  It makes some what what would have happened it GM actually did what it had aimed to way back when Two-Mode was struggling... deliver a SUV plug-in hybrid.  I was more than happy to provide a refresher on that topic:  GM failed to deliver that 3 times.  Two-Mode plug-in, Volt gen-1 and Volt gen-2 all proved cost/efficiency of that design simply wasn't competitive.  GM abandoned the PHEV, allowing others to fill in that vital bridge gap.  And what we've seen from the PHEV model of RAV4 and the upcoming PHEV model of Prius, GM has no means of competing. Instead, the farm is being bet on Equinox EV... hoping it is a runaway hit.  That should be intriguing, especially with regard to timing.  Infrastructure investment from NEVI funding will start to become visible, with ordinary consumers noticing DC fast-charging stations getting built.  Those against plug-in vehicles will end up staging some type of final battle... which returns us to that aspect of need.  How will PHEV (the strong ones, with plenty of EV range & power) be treated by BEV purists?

Slower Charging.  There are a few who don't like the idea that Toyota may indeed have planned ahead, that they really aren't as far behind as the narrative portrays.  So, they struggle to accept the possibility: "The slower charging DOESN'T make sense.  All else being equal, LFPs can endure being whacked by a higher charge rate better than Li-ion. The battery is just more durable and heat-resistant."  All things are not equal though.  In China's reports from years ago were that owner's of vehilcles with LFP battery-packs were reporting struggle with SOC (State Of Charge).  Their vehicle wasn't reporting that value correctly, especially in cold temperatures.  Knowing that is vital.  You can compromise longevity by exceeding SOC greater than 100%, which can be very easy to do as it gets close to that level.  It's a good reason why DC charging should be slowed to a crawl as that threshold is approached.  Sound familiar?  Complaints about being painfully slow at that point... even to the extreme of being slower than ordinary level-2 charging... were all we heard about last Spring.  Could it be that LFP really was at play, that Toyota was taking into account the need to monitor progress very, very carefully for "full" detection?  Antagonists have taken pause by the chance of having overlooked such a behavioral clue.  Could it be a sign of different chemistry?  Needless to say, I am more than happy to get them to shut up by presenting something that requires critical thinking:  Determining SOC of LFP is onerous, not a standardized process like we see for the more familiar lithium chemistries.  To determine status, voltage variance must be carefully measured & compared.  Being more durable and heat-resistant is true, but racing to 100% and shooting past it has consequences.

Astoundingly Bad.  Attacks on Toyota have turned to Solterra and the AWD model of 4X in the North America.  When I point out the project Starbuck's is currently pursuing with installs of DC fast-charging at their stores along a path from Seattle to Denver, where those units would feature a top speed of 62 kW, it stirs antagonists... to the point of boil over.  They don't know how to respond with anyone endorsing slower charging.  It makes a lot of sense.  The power requirement and associated equipment is much less expensive.  It also fulfills the role of keeping the patron there for the duration of an ordinary stop for eat & drink.  You grab a coffee & pastry, they sit on location to consume them.  It's a sensible business model.  Their reaction is always a desperate effort to redirect focus: "It is astoundingly bad."  Rather than address what that business choice, why not attack the charging-curve on Toyota's vehicle?  Ugh.  Of course, that's starting to backfire.  As detail is repeatedly presented, it starts to sink in that Toyota may have more at play than simply needing a secondary battery supplier.  I pointed out:  Ask why the curve is low like that.  Without pre-conditioning (a pending software update, planned for this summer), the slower is understandable.  And since intent was to not consume energy simply for the sake of faster, that initial approach was rather predictable.  There's also the question of what that CATL supplied battery actually is.  Should it be LFP, the slower charging makes sense.  Voltage difference is difficult to monitor; faster would make SOC accuracy a very real problem.  As for missing the point, that would be understanding the intent of attracting people to the parks.  They want you to explore all it has to offer... in other words, stay for a duration where slower DC wouldn't matter.

So... No.  I read through all the comments on that video, where Tesla is their undisputed savior.  Ugh.  This is the one that jumped out at as worthwhile to reply to: "It [Toyota's new generation plug-in hybrid] is still a gas car, so... no."  That type of absolute is great.  I fired back at it with:  Say "no" all you want.  Since you're not the intended audience, what difference will it make?  Try convincing the typical consumer who sees the 40-mile EV range with a gas-engine backup only requiring a common 120-volt outlet that they should purchase a BEV instead.  That's a very tough sale, especially with so few DC fast-charging stations still.  Like it or not, Toyota has a great bridge technology with Prius PHEV... RAV4 PHEV... Crown PHEV... CH-R PHEV and Harrier/Venza PHEV.  This video's claim of "in 2027 over 50 percent of the world's car sales will be battery-powered electric vehicles" simply doesn't have merit.  That's around 40 Million vehicles!  Think about how long it will take to get condos & apartment locations to get wire with a minimum of one level-2 charger per unit.  Only taking 4 years overwhelmingly optimistic, totally out of touch with reality.  Heck, just getting 50% of the with households purchasing new vehicles setup with just a single level-2 EVSE in such a short amount of time would be a remarkable feat.  Saying "no" is just denying that we still have major barriers to overcome.

Too Late.  The base for Tesla is really turning up the rhetoric against Toyota.  With the growing pressure from new CCS support and challenges to profit, its no surprise to see a video published today with this title: "Toyota Has A Massive Problem and It's Too Late To Solve it."  The propaganda is really bad.  bZ4X has been declared an "embarrassing failure" and any effort from this point is "too little, too late".  The reasoning was based on something that clearly isn't true.  Supposedly, all Toyota did was cram batteries into an existing platform.  That was the case with CH-R and UX300e, but those were both predecessors to bZ4X with the purpose of gaining experience for it.  What we see now is a new dedicated platform.  It simply wasn't optimized for cost & efficiency.  It's goal was to leverage existing production.  How does that equate to this eminent doom: "Toyota doesn't expect to launch its EV range until 2027 to 2028 and at the rate that the global EV market share is growing Toyota will be lucky to retain even a tenth of its 10 million unit market share in that time frame."  The reasoning for that assessment is pretending Toyota hybrids are just like Prius was decades ago.  No mention of a plug.  Instead, it was: "It's just this stupid waste of energy when the car is in electric mode the range is wasted on drag lagging around a useless gasoline engine."   Really?  The plug-in Prius delivers an efficiency rating of 3.9 mi/kWh, better than many BEV.  Go figure.  And this: "In gasoline mode it actually less efficient than a regular combustion vehicle because it's dragging around the battery pack."  That is just plain not true.  The plug-in Prius delivers over 50 MPG when the battery-pack is depleted.  Could it be that this Tesla video channel with over 287,000 viewers is clueless, having no idea how Toyota hybrids actually work?  Or is this just another desperate attempt to misrepresent?

Too Old To Care.  Sometimes, the rhetoric really is that bad.  There are people who just plain don't care.  It's not even an effort to undermine.  They really don't feel it is necessary to participate.  For example: "I love the growl of my V-6 Tacoma and I don't intend on getting an EV as long as I live and I am 75 years old and can gas up anywhere I find a gas station."  Seeing that post of being too old to care makes me just shake my head in disbelief.  Their stubborn attitude only works for them.  Try projecting or explaining that to someone else.  It doesn't work.  Getting someone like that to go silent is remarkably easy too.  All you have to do is ask a question about what the younger people around them would think of their choice.  Or if you really what to lay into them with a little shame or guilt, state in with sarcasm instead.  That latter choice is what I decided to use with this encounter:  Your grandchildren will appreciate that.