Rush Timelines.  The theme of impatience is common.  At least there are some who recognize that: "Although I believe they have the ability to quickly change lanes and become an important BEV automotive company, they have yet to carve this path out. We are unlikely to see a serious BEV from Toyota at scale until 2025 or beyond."  It's no different then other timelines.  Enthusiasts don't seem them as a rush.  To them, it is a race to be leader regardless of long-term consequence.  You are judged based on how much you push into new territory... which means how well that progress is received by the masses makes no difference.  In their mind, adoption is a non-issue.  Simply producing more of that advanced technology will result in an unquestioned emerge... as if we are a herd that follows without resistance.  Ugh.  Why would anyone question the direction or approach.  Supposedly, leaders can do no wrong.  Their choices are always the best.  Ugh.  There is wisdom from taking time.  There are better ways available.  It's bizarre how that must be pointed out.  You'd think they would understand that is how competition works.  Anywho, they need those reminders, as was obvious today:  There was no point rushing to market with a loss-leader like others did.  In fact, selling something in low-volume at first was not only predictable, it was forecasted by Toyota itself.  Just like with the first Prius, their goal was to establish the technology.  Selling more would come later, either after a mid-cycle update or with the next-gen offering.

Effective Greenwashing.  Toyota playing the game masterfully is incredible to witness.  Many enthusiasts have absolutely no clue.  For example: "RAV4 Prime sales are down 55% YOY.  Pretty terrible results, but Toyota is managing to fool the press using the term "electrified".  It was already reported by marketplace that "EVs" represented 26% of Toyota sales.  Their greenwashing campaign is pretty effective."  They believe plug-in hybrids are a scam, that Toyota is fooling the market.  Reality is quite to opposite.  They don't want to see that though.  Viewing the world as an engineer provides rose-colored glasses, to portray the business as a simple "if you build it, they will buy it" situation.  That doesn't even work when you build something which clearly caters to a niche.  Volt was the ultimate example, since it not only appealed to a very small audience, it wasn't efficient with either EV or HV driving.  That vehicle was a mess, not worth spreading the technology to other vehicles... which is why GM abandoned it.  Making the excuse of Bolt... heck, even the name confusion was evidence of problems from day 1... that major audience mistakes had been made.  The decision to favor conquest was disastrous.  Bolt could buy GM time to come up with something viable, the outcome we now see as Ultium.  Anywho, this is how I responded to the latest round of nonsense:  Greenwashing has been a topic of great intrigue.  There are some building a narrative around Toyota to serve as a distraction.  They know other automakers don't have a viable transition plan.  By focusing on one or two premiere vehicles, they can keep anyone from noticing the rest of the fleet is in jeopardy.  Attention must not wander off the spotlight.  Attack Toyota's idea of offering plug-in choices, phasing out ICE for hybrid to see the stage for PHEV and BEV sales.  We have been through this several times in the past.  An automaker will stir hope from hype by appealing to enthusiasts.  That the true greenwash is essential to use Toyota as a decoy.  Just ignore what's happening with the ICE offerings from others.  You should be angry with Toyota for actually advancing their entire fleet forward.  Ugh.  It has been remarkable to see how effective that has been.  Think about it.  We see Ford & GM selling loss-leaders, losing money from each plug-in sale.  Toyota get ridiculed for not playing that game; their expensive BEV is actually profitable.  So what it the platform isn't optimized for cost or efficiency?  e-TNGA was designed to fit into current production without major disruption, part of their transition plan.

Mass Adoption.  Coming from a well-known antagonist, one who re-asks the same question continually to keep the discussion on the long-ago dead topic, asked yet again: "How do you define 'mass adoption' ?"  It would be entirely different if he contributed his views, sharing something constructive to advance the exchange.  That doesn't though.  It is a stuck-in-the-past perspective, seeking the opportunity to engage a new poster with the same old topic.  A dynamic market with both changing consumers and changing requirements doesn't work well for someone who is focused on supporting the best of the best.  Yes, he's a Tesla fanboy with the belief that niche is the way of the future.  He's the same individual who couldn't see beyond Prius.  Addressing the entire fleet should be prevented at all cost.  Avoid acknowledgement of the question of ever being answered.  Pretend there is no storm coming.  Ugh.  I pushed back by asking a different question:  What do you think should happen at this point for both Tesla and Toyota?  We have been through this too many times in the past to continue playing the cherry-pick game.  Selectively sighting Corolla, Camry or RAV4 to compare against Model Y only serves to feed a narrative at this point.  Tesla is showing signs of weakness from new pressure.  The effort to promote NACS was clearly a hail-mary attempt.  It will take years to find out if it pays off.  The "win" as a standard may not prove to be profitable.  Same goes for the price increases, then dramatic decreases.  There's big pressure growing to finally address the entry-level segment.  In other words, it's time to look at the whole picture.  We see BYD as a black horse in the race, that Tesla already feels their lead slipping away.  So what if Toyota isn't fast?  Toyota is well prepared. Hybrids and plug-in hybrids provide a means of staying in the race.  Don't think the other automakers are just going to give up either.  Cybertruck is about to face some serious pressure from Ford and GM, in what could become a niche.  There's no guarantee the high-price, high-profit BEV segment will be large.  Automakers could be scrambling to compete with low-price, razor-thin-profit vehicles.

Road Trip, coming home.  What at interesting coincidence.  At roughly the halfway point, where we turn from driving north to driving east, there is a city that just happened to come up on my feed this morning.  It was a short video promoting the new DC fast-chargers being installed there.  Being right in the middle and having several amenities right there, the convenience is awesome.  That will make the road trip far more convenient to take the bZ4X next time.  Though, we still might take the Prius Prime simply because it rarely gets an opportunity to run the gas-engine for long.  Being so many years away from handy locations being on routes we travel, that works out.  It's a good example where speed makes no difference.  Even a slow DC fast-charge is better than nothing or being trapped using AC.  There are slower DC chargers still being installed too.  They are far less expensive for both the equipment itself and the service for electricity.  Too bad enthusiasts cannot see beyond their niche, finally coming to grip with the inconvenient truth that ordinary consumers have different priorities.  Oh well.  I still get to travel to the lake for a nice weekend with my wife and friends.

Road Trip, going there.  We were driving from the Twin Cities in Minnesota to a rural part of Northern Wisconsin.  It was a simple visit with some friends at a lake.  Plugging in to recharge at our destination was an unknown.  140 miles was an easy drive if reliable charging was available along the way.  Unfortunately, it was not.  A few years from now, that probably won't be a big deal.  This weekend, it was.  So, we took the Prius Prime instead.  That's perfectly fine.  When you have a plug-in hybrid that can easily deliver a solid 55 MPG after the battery is depleted, why bother with the full electric?  When winter comes, we will be taking advantage of AWD with the bZ4X.  This summer weekend getaway was a nice tradeoff.  We had to stop at a grocery store along the way.  The one about 20 minutes from the cabin was new.  This was a new location that just opened up, on the other end of town and much larger.  It had some new construction taking place at the far end of the parking end.  There was a plot of cement with several parking posts protecting exposed wires.  That sure looked like charging-stations were being installed.  I will have to check later online to see if anything gets listed for that location.

Going In Circles.  Needless to say, my callout of that antagonists really hit the mark.  He was quite angry for having asked such a logical question: "Why does GM promote having a 426 city / 562 highway range?"  That distance is far beyond the supposed psychological win of 300 miles.  His response we filled with adjectives, which I was happy to point out and draw attention to the obvious attempt to avoid detail.  Troublemakers like that appeal to emotion.  They don't like fact.  He knew he made a mistake by using 300 as a reference to a winning formula.  That's why they say "the devil is in the detail".  Sure enough, it didn't take me long to come up with something to question is supposed logic.  Just like with the Volt antagonists constantly attacking Prius, posting something outside of the regular talking-points was dangerous.  Their narrative requires a specific script to follow.  Wandering off the path is dangerous.  People like me will notice a weakness and exploit it.  In this case, it was the attempt to recover.  He tried to circle back, to get back on the path.  I called that out:  Use of "moderate" and "abysmal" and "slowest" in your post was is dead giveaway that detail tells a different story.  This isn't engineering, it's business.  Avoiding acknowledgement of want verses need is how the market progresses beyond this current stage.

Psychological Win.  This was inevitable: "This bodes well for the upcoming Blazer EV that is rated just short of 300 miles of range.  It would be a psychological win if it also comes back with numbers beating the EPA rating and exceeding the magical 300 mile number."  I was actually surprised how long it took for the emotional appeal to take over the debate.  Arbitrary ceilings depend upon that.  There's no logical reason to deliver a range of 300 miles.  In fact, that is overkill.  Why build up DC fast-charging locations if the cost & weight of the battery for a distance people rarely travel is considered vital?  People think they need that much, but study after study shows otherwise.  In fact, those claiming "pathetic" for bZ4X's attempt to deliver balance do everything they can to avoid that data.  They pretend owners for Leaf & Bolt never traveled long distances, that slower speed & less capacity is impossible for survival.  Ugh.  I replied to that nonsense asking:  What makes 300 magical?  Keep in mind the history of how 200 miles had once been magical?  We will end up with people questioning scope, like having to achieve that distance in winter while driving 80 mph.  In other words, the goal will continue to be moved as it was in the past.  This audience refuses to acknowledge diminishing returns.  Look at the situation from entirely different perspective.  Ask why the traditional model of Blazer has a 19.4 gallon gas tank.  It makes no sense.  If you can refill it virtually anywhere quickly, why does GM promote having a 426 city / 562 highway range?  Both far exceed 300 miles.  What is the reasoning?  Know your audience.

Evading Questions.  I asked how the "incredibly far behind" claim was measured.  Instead of getting anything quantitative in measure, I got this: "I guess the "behind" narrative is not that obvious because you failed to grasp and understand Toyota's current dilemma in the EV revolution.  Toyota continues to try and influence Congress to slow the shift to electric vehicles by advocating against..."  In other words, he had nothing.  He simply doesn't like Toyota's approach, working from the bottom up instead of top down.  It's quite remarkable how some people absolutely refuse to accept three being other means to an end.  So, I asked again:  What is the dilemma?  Toyota already has well-proven EV components produced for their current PHEV and BEV offerings.  When the platform switch takes place in a few years, where optimization switches from taking advantage of current production facilities (e-TGNA) to using a chassis optimized for both efficiency & cost (that clean-sheet design), the benefit of having the rest in place will pay off.  Portrayal of Toyota resisting change lacks substance.

No Love?  I really liked reading this: "If Toyota really does love BEVs, it's not showing in their numbers."  Obviously, I had something to say about that.  Most reporters have little to no background and don't bother to do any research.  That's a sad but true reality.  So, I provided some:  Applying the recall fix took until mid-December for existing owners.  Applying the same to unsold inventory, then shipping those to dealers while restarting production cut into the first few months of this year.  Many sales prospects waited until the software update became available anyway, which started in late May for Europe and has not yet begun in the United States.  So, there is no good means of gauging demand until the next model year.  Fortunately, reports from those getting that first major update have been very positive.  Kudos to Toyota for delivering that software in just a matter of a few months... which could reflect unrecognized love.

Understanding Efficiency.  It's nice to see some critical thinking: "Over just the last 10 years and probably the last 4 years, BEVs seem to have gotten more efficient. The prospect of new switching transistors for inverters, the development of axial flux motors..."  That is what Toyota has been doing all along, only the technology was hidden with PHEV instead.  Taking that and putting it on a chassis built for BEV, but optimized to take advantage of current production facilities, has masked some of those efficiency improvements.  It is the very reason why Toyota feels so confident competing directly in a few years, when they rollout a BEV chassis optimized for efficiency instead.  Heck, that is the very reason I question those pushing the "behind" narrative.  They make assumptions based on anecdotal observation.  Ugh.  Here's how I added to the discussion:   The bigger takeaway is recognition of what efficiency actually represents. For years, we have all read & watched some reviews where "efficiency" was stated in terms of miles driven. It was absurd to witness so-called experts mix up range with the electricity consumption-rate.  When you own a BEV, knowing potential maximum distance doesn't mean squat for planning travel.  You have to take into account mi/kWh (or Wh/mile) to properly estimate when a recharge is needed.  That happens on-the-fly while you are driving.  You look at your gauge, get the current consumption-rate value and calculate distance using remaining kWh.  So whether you are dealing with extreme cold or towing a trailer, it's a proper means of accurately determining miles available.  It also reveals how misplaced some priorities have been for enthusiasts who focused only on range.  With a good understanding of efficiency and a well built infrastructure, there's simply no need to carry around dead weight from rarely ever needed capacity.

What-About Replies.  More comments than usual seem to be using a what-about as their reply.  Complete absence of any substance and an obvious effort to evade the topic at hand is a dead giveaway of having reached a turning point.  That's the very same thing I watched happen when Volt enthusiasts became desperate, when they came to realize Prius Prime was far more competitive than had been imagined.  On paper, they were able to insult & dismiss.  But when it came to real-world data, they struggled with arguments.  That's starting to happen now with bZ4X and Toyota's bZ models to follow.  Posts like this provide a hint of that: "Toyota has fallen incredibly far behind in their denial of EVs being a credible alternative to ICE."  To that, I am growing more and more curious how such claims of position will be defended.  There simply isn't substance to measure such a supposed fall.  So, I posted:  Using the "behind" narrative is a rather obvious what-about.  Provide something to actually quantify that supposed position.  Doing that reveals much about the market and those assessing status.  Try it.  Look at profitability.  Look at quality & reliability. Look at what the masses actually require verses what enthusiast praise.  It paints a very different picture for Toyota than what some claim.  Look at it another way.  This wouldn't be the first time a better-for-everyone approach was pushed that ended up being nothing but a widely accepted fallacy.  For decades we were told "trickle down economics" was a winning formula.  It turned out to be a scam for the rich.  Corporate greed is now pushing the illusion of "all in" for EVs the same way.  There's no substance to support such an approach.  There's no consequence for failing to deliver.  It's just a talking-point to win favor.  That is exactly why Toyota is endorsing diversity and looking at the race as a marathon rather than a sprint.  Being "ahead" so early on doesn't indicate who will do well in the long run.