We saw the same type of disenchantment long ago when estimates published for EPA were also misleading.  So not only did those numbers on https://fueleconomy.gov go down (quite unlike WLTP), there was also a shift to emphasizing actual efficiency instead.  That is how the "kWh/100mi" ratings came about.

Obvious Scam.  A disenchanted 4X owners started a rant today: "330 km is the best this car can do.  Toyota, I call this obvious scam."  He was one of those poorly informed enthusiasts who did not bother to research what he was buying.  Those incorrect assumptions have turned into regret.  I'm quite curious how he'll reply to what I post, questioning what exactly does he feel he was mislead about:  Once the odometer reaches 0 km, you'll have about 20 km remaining before the 64 kWh usable capacity is depleted.  That's gives an effective range of 352 km (219 miles) at 17°C (63°F).  The result for your drive was 18.5 kWh/100km (3.4 mi/kWh).  What part of that is a scam?

Good Enough.  In the rather large & diverse county where I live, there is an effort to install DC fast-chargers at 16 of the county parks.  Choosing which to be first is a very real issue no one seems to want to address.  Some have had level-2 chargers for awhile.  Changing them from free to a small fee has upset some people.  I ask why, then pointed out how that usage... being willing to pay... could provide data to help decide upon install locations for DCFC.  That answer wasn't liked at all.  Read this post in its entirety to for some background: "Not sure why the fast chargers are a priority there.  Seems like there's more of a point to cover fueling the round trip trip to the park, adequately covered by existing level 2 chargers.  Great for my PHEV in a visit of a couple hours.  Not needed to fully fuel an EV with a 300 mile range.  Topping off or replenishing is good enough for everyone."  Here's my insight to that perspective:  Why faster chargers are a priority is obvious when you do the math.  Your own "Great for my PHEV in a visit of a couple hours." provides a big clue.  If you are using the charger for a couple hours, no one else can.  No sharing means the park would have to install significantly more chargers to serve the same number of visitors.  With a DC fast-charger, a short break is all that's needed to achieve the same charging results.

This is textbook stuff.  Tesla raced to the cliff, gambling that Innovator's Dilemma wouldn't come back to bite them.  The race to drop cost in ways competition could not match, while cranking out much higher volumes of their long-in-the-tooth product, has some believers losing faith.

False Equivalence.  This is what I got in reply to my convincing information response: "Trying to compare the Prius battery to a BEV battery is kind of a false equivalence.  The basic specs of the Gen 2 battery are below..."  Following that, he listed specifications for that particular pack.  Completely ignoring Toyota's plug-in hybrids is the antagonists only defense at this point.  They cannot argue about power anymore.  They cannot argue about range anymore.  They cannot argue about looks anymore.  The situation has become absolutely desperate.  Turning attention to hybrids, as if PHEV didn't exist, is the strategy those last purists can hold on to.  It makes sense.  Pushing BEV means ICE sales will begin to struggle.  When that domino falls, there's nothing that comes next.  It's a massive for most everyone else.  Without some type of alternative, what are they going to sell while we transition?  There's this hope that BEV production will somehow magically happy overnight and that there won't be any range anxiety or issues finding a place to recharge cheap overnight.  The absense of critical thinking is astounding.  Needless to say, I was flabbergasted by the opportunity to post something in return for such an absurd reaction to comment:  Why would you?  Gen 5 PHEV has a battery-pack capacity of 13.6 kWh, delivering around 40 miles of EV range.  It operates just like a BEV, often getting you from place to place without ever starting the gas engine.

Amount Consumed.  The discussion continued: "Wouldn't ignoring the charging loss on the car's display for the trip be like ignoring the portion of gasoline lost as heat out the exhaust?  The EPA ratings are based on an amount of electricity consumed at the wall outlet."  It was more opportunity to pass along some of that FAQ information, which has since become a treasure trove of intent & confirmation.  Normally, you don't have a source deriving from so much early-adopter feedback.  Geting that was awesome.  Anywho, this is what I had to say for the volley back:  Their statement saying... "it better corresponds to the industry's general practice" ...is what some were begging for.  Toyota tries to follow the path of sensible & logic, doing their best to ignore rhetoric.  This is far from the first time having to succumb to precedent others set.  Ironically, it tends to blow up in the face of those who posted countless "kicking & screaming" complaints because they fail to consider the bigger picture... like actually measuring the electricity consumed.  In an interesting twist though, that mi/kWh outcome can be misleading with a PHEV from the use of hold mode.  Saving EV for when you are driving through town, using HV while on the highway, results in a higher value.  What's shown is indeed genuine.  You're avoiding high-draw conditions to make the most out of limited capacity... which is exactly what an owner should do.  However, results would end up different from if you had just driven EV until depletion.  At this stage, it doesn't really matter though.  We're back to audience again.  Who is using that kWh value and for what purpose?

Put another way, focus on actions rather than words. Toyota is moving their entire fleet forward.

Charing Losses.  Someone finally as the question: "I wonder if the Toyota feature presumes energy lost coming in - and going out as well.  After all there is DC to AC conversion loss too."  It was asked in the contexgt of PHEV efficiency measure, but I took that as an opportunity to provide new information and a larger perspective:  Though for bZ4X, it's easy to see the same approach being applied to the upcoming new Prius Prime.  With regard to the 2017-2022 models, I never bothered to check.  Even BEV purists were blowing off kWh consumed as unimportant; all they seemed to care about was range.  So, it was pointless arguing.  Eventually, overall efficiency will come back to haunt those who didn't take it seriously.  Anywho, the following information (from a press release for the Toyota market in Finland a few days ago) seems quite relevant to the topic of accounting for energy loss: "The logic of the information displayed in the instrument panel is changed, e.g. in terms of energy consumption, to better match the consumption during the driving event.  The displayed energy consumption is reduced by about 10%.  Thus, it better corresponds to the industry's general practice, where the energy consumption shown in the car's instrument panel does not take charging losses (approx. 10%) into account.  The updates will be available starting in May 2023, both for the production of new cars and as software updates performed at a Toyota dealer for cars already manufactured."

In short, the "convincing information" probably won't include many of the talking-points this group has grown accustom to.

FAQ from Finland.  That certainly was interesting.  I took each of the pages of that FAQ (Frequently Asked Question) document published yesterday and translated all information.  It was great to read.  Much of what I had been saying all along was reconfirmed as Toyota's long-standing approach.  Their priorities are different from other automakers.  That has been a formula for their success.  Why change it for plug-in vehicles?  What makes them supposedly any different?  If a major draw to Toyota has been a reputation for reliability, who would expect that to change?  Well... of course... that would be enthusiasts.  That couldn't care less about that draw.  They obsess with range & speed instead.  The idea of throttling down DC fast-charging when the battery-pack gets excessively hot is unacceptable.  It's easy to confirm too.  Just ask them what temperature is too hot.  That FAQ did.  Peak charging speed is 100 kW, which is when the temperature is between 25 and 30°C.  That is exactly what I saw on a recent video, where the owner had just got access to that data (a new profile created for bZ4X on that OBD-II reader app I recently made 2 videos with).  At 40°C, charging speed is reduced to 75 kW.  This is exactly what pre-conditioning can be problematic.  If you use it during warmer months, it will be counter-productive... a clear waste of energy.  40°C is only 104°F.  Think about how hot the interior of your vehicle gets parked out in the hot sun.  Imagine pumps lots of electricity into a battery-pack already above that temperature.  Needless to say, reading the FAQ was quite enlightening.  I wonder what others will take away from reading it.

Spreading Hate.  He just plain did not care: "Need to move to the next manufacturer then, who hopefully is enviroment friendly and does not s**t in customers plate."  That is exactly why I endlessly state "know your audience".  It was evident early on that he was disenchanted and wanted to stick it to Toyota.  He decided they need to suffer as a result of making a decision he found wrong.  It's so hypocritical of some to claim virtues of being green, but then turn a blind-eye to consumption.  That's why I fought Volt enthusiasts all those years ago.  Some couldn't care less about wasting electricity.  As long as they were not using gas, it was ok.  Despite that, they were against BEV.  How is that not a contradiction?  More importantly, what was the purpose of using electricity instead of gas?  Simply switching to a green fuel really doesn't achieve the goal.  Guzzling is guzzling.  Anywho, I was growing annoyed with his blatant dismissal of waste avoidance.  He didn't care.  It's that old problem of want verses need.  Ugh.  Here's how I tried to wrap up the exchange:  Claiming that battery-warming at the DCFC, rather than pre-conditioning "suits maybe 10-20% of customers" is beyond meritless.  Well over 90% of BEV charging takes place at home.  According to AAA, most road trips take place between Memorial Day and Labor Day.  That's warm weather, when pre-conditioning is totally unnecessary.  The average daily drive is under 40 miles, making the need for DCFC quite limited.  What possible source of statistics support any assertion that Toyota is excluding anything more than a very limited audience?