Needing Adapters.  It is an interesting topic.  With so many Tesla Superchargers and so few CCS chargers, the idea of a Tesla fast-charging at a non-Tesla charger was a touchy subject.  Why would to prevent a non-Tesla from charging when there is a location exclusively for you nearby?  Of course, Tesla owners have been the worst for parking in level-2 spots without using the charger.  Why?  With such massive battery-packs and the terrible message that sends to the anti-EV crowd, it doesn't make sense to ever do that.  Quite a number of times, I was prevented from plugging due to a Tesla block.  Having a PHEV, that's a huge plenty.  Rather than driving home in EV as planned, my depleted pack remains depleted.  When it only takes 10 minutes of charging, that's especially bad.  Needless to say, it puts DC usage in a difficult position.  We have to start discussions somewhere though, to finally move on.  This was such an attempt: "Basic adapters no big deal. Tesla owners here in the USA have been using the opposite adapter for charging at CCS for some time now."  I joined in with:  Ironically, they shouldn't need them with the supposed benefit of so many more Superchargers.  Cold, hard reality though is the growth of Tesla vehicles pushes an imbalance of Supercharger availability.  There was a impeding need to expand the network; the cost of losing the format war was too great.  Offering usage, starting with Ford, was a hail-mary move.  The risk of having even fewer Superchargers available for Tesla vehicles at the gamble of a domino-effect acceptance from automakers pulling DCFC suppliers into the mix was a good one.  It will take many years for the transition to become evident.  There are currently so many unknowns, there is no guarantee NACS will have much of an impact to current CCS vehicles.  At the most, they'll need an adapter.

Why Now?  Seeing backlash against Ford is interesting.  Enthusiasts still expect automakers to drop plans to offer PHEV going forward.  In their mind, it is all BEV or die.  Ugh.  Why can't they see the need for on-going profit?  Do they really think the transition will be sudden switch?  What about all the pressure we have been seeing with union workers.  Enthusiasts seem to be completely oblivious to the compromises made from recovery efforts necessitated 15 years ago.  It's just like the fallout we saw in the early 90's.  Shifting to SUVs allowed a bypass of efficiency standards while at the same time returning greater profit.  Workarounds don't last forever.  Ironically, the timing of that fallout was also 15 years.  Anywho, this question was asked today on the topic of automaker motive: "Why now?  Why not 10 years ago?  Why not a Maverick PHEV 10 years ago?"  Ford sees the potential, recognizing the opportunity Kia/Hyundai has been exploring and what Toyota seems to investing heavily in.  I joined that discussion with:  Now is when the tech can compete directly with ICE without any BEV pushback from infrastructure shortcomings.  The weaker PHEV were discontinued, opening up this opportunity.  You can have your cake and eat it too!

No Warming.  It doesn't appear as though Hyundai provides a battery-warmer of any sort.  That was a bit of a surprise.  Watching a video someone shared, the ODB-II data seemed to confirm it.  This is a topic of great interest for me.  In a few months, I will have some solid data to leverage.  Last winter, we had basically nothing.  Reviewers didn't bother.  Owners with that type of knowledge were scarce.  So, there was basically only assumptions & speculation.  Now, we have people like me along with a major software update.  It's new territory to explore, especially with regard to overall efficiency.  Sadly, past BEV owners simply didn't care.  Consuming electricity for the say of faster charging or better on-the-road results was an acceptable tradeoff for lower returns when measured at-the-plug instead.  I highly expect Toyota to have sought a balance, optimizing for overall efficiency.  That means observations will likely be skewed in favor of immediate impression based on the moment.  After all, that's how most reviews are conducted... sadly.  This was my contribution to the upcoming topic, asking:  Now that it's getting colder, I have been watching battery-pack temperature in my Toyota.  Unplugged sitting the driveway, I can see (anecdotally, following the big software update) its being kept at room temperature (upper 60's to low 70's) all the time, for just ordinary driving.  I will learn more as we dip to freezing and below.  Room temperature isn't really pre-conditioning in the sense that we have seen from Tesla setting a target prior to DC fast-charging of roughly 120°F.  From the video, it appears Hyundai does not and there isn't even any operation warming ordinary driving either.  Anyone have detail on this?

Like Others.  Enthusiasts tend to believe there is only a single winning formula, that no one who tries to compete later will have an alternate idea could also succeed.  Anywhere of such close-mindedness, it felt really good to make that point clear in response to this reply about HOLD mode comment I had posted: "With other EVs, like Tesla, you have hold mode enabled and never have to touch the brake. It automatically holds the car when you lift your foot off the accelerator. Seems like an unnecessary annoying step in the Toyota."  It felt good to throw this sucker-punch, something he obviously never thought of:

In other words, those other EVs lack a max-regen mode.

Again, when you use hold mode in bZ4X, it will hold the vehicle in place when you tap the brake then release. When you lift your foot off the accelerator, the system will attempt to squeeze out the most from regen, taking into account driving conditions at the moment.  It is very well thought out... and doesn't require any unnecessary step to maximize like the other EVs by forcing you to keep your foot on the pedal.

Engineering is a series of tradeoff decisions.  Toyota saw an opportunity, taking advantage of the popular foot-off-the-accelerator behavior countless numbers of their own customers already engage in.  So what if other automakers did not. That's how competition works.

Hydrogen Troll-Bait.  I let him have it, tired of this nonsense: "Until proven otherwise, I'll consider this vaporware and just Toyota's attempt to remain in the discussion, despite dissing EV's for a VERY long time.  Enjoy your hydrogen vehicles, Toyota."  It felt good to unleash too:  How is that any different from what Tesla did with Cybertruck and 4680 cells?  Tesla knew Ford & GM were embarking on projects to draw a new EV audience, seeing the Model 3/Y approaching saturation.  Tesla also saw expiration for the patent on LFP chemistry approaching.  Tesla wanted to remain relevant, especially having exhausted the original tax-credits.  As for attempting a what-about by changing focus to hydrogen, that's a big tell.  Toyota is now on its third-generation of in-house production from plug-in, starting back in 2012.  We have since seen a variety of both PHEV and BEV offerings, each of which has worked to fortify reliability of their EV propulsion design.  As an owner of all three of those plug-in generations, you're not going to get me to stop pointing out their reliability and refuse to take the hydrogen troll-bait.  In fact, I could point out that your effort contributes to the very reason Toyota does things to remain in the discussion.

Cybertruck looks are polarizing, an extreme opposite of what Prius became.  In fact, side-by-side it resembles a more aerodynamic version of Model 3... a vehicle with highly praised appearance.  Cybertruck functionality is a complete mystery still, not tested by any reviewer.  What will Tesla draw upon for sales?

500 KM Range.  Over in Europe, there has been an fixation with estimated range... despite the reality of automaker measures based on the system being totally unrealistic.  Making matters worse, reviewers would equate those values to a "0 Miles Remaining" value on the dashboard rather than actual range.  You know, drive the vehicle until the batter is actually empty.  They didn't care about available capacity.  They didn't care about observed efficiency.  They only cared about those gross estimates.  So naturally, we get comments like this: "The funny thing isn't even their "prediction".  The funny thing is they THINK the BZ has 500km range :)))))) while it baaarely gets 300."  Thankfully, we are finally moving beyond only reviewers providing data.  Those reviews are only quick & dirty observations based upon generalizations.  Sharing of real-world experiences has always been better.  But with so few the initial year of rollout, there's a distortion of reality based on assumptions and being poorly informed.  Just think if all reviewers kept the vehicle long-term, than published a follow-up.  Imagine the discoveries they would make.  Unfortunately, most get paid based upon the quick & dirty.  Complicating matters is the distortion caused by European information.  There's more to numbers shared than simple conversion.  Measurement criteria & testing is different.  That's why estimates vary and different markets have different approaches.  Today, a reminder of that was necessary:  WLTP is very optimistic, heavily favoring slower driving speeds... which does indeed deliver greater range distances.  500 km is 310 miles.  To achieve a 310 range, you need an efficiency of 4.8 mi/kWh.  I have actually seen higher than that on my daily commute in the right conditions (on the warmer side with areas of slow traffic).  EPA is more realistic, a rating of 252 miles (406 km) for the FWD model.  Measured from charging-station readings, which includes charge-loss, I got 3.56 mi/kWh from a road-trip with my bZ4X.  Driving was mostly highway (60 to 70 mph) with A/C.  Calculated against the 65.5 kWh usable capacity, that's 239 miles... 385 km... from real-world driving with the AWD model.  In other words, that claim shows a misunderstanding of what "prediction" values represent.

Priority Reminder.  Some enthusiasts forget they are enthusiasts, making the assumption what they deem important is shared among the masses.  It's what I have observed as their biggest flaw.  Such a perspective interferes with fundamental goals.  They end up losing touch with process & opportunity.  As a result, we get comments like this: "It is probably the only effective way we can influence Toyota's priorities."  You don't even have to know what "it" was to recognize the disconnect.  Toyota's priorities are to deliver sustainable profit in a manner which is environmentally responsible through sales of vehicles to the masses that provide a balance.  Obsessing with fast-charge speed and road-trip distance isn't part of that.  With a comprehensive infrastructure, basically flooding the landscape with public charging, none of that is necessary.  In other words, faster & farther only serve to compensate for current shortcomings... the very thing which consumes the minds of enthusiasts.  It is why they need a reminder from time to time.  Today, focus was on what enthusiasts have deemed vital... one-pedal driving.  They believe the only way to provide an enhanced driving experienced is with the particular configuration other automakers delivered for the sake of standing out, to intentionally be different from Toyota.  Ugh.  Think of who.  I tried to draw attention to audience, hoping to get at least a few to recognize importance of diversity.  Again, what is the goal?  Toyota is trying to reach their own loyal customers, not to please enthusiasts.  I posted:  As for an effective way of influencing priorities, that shows a misunderstanding of audience.  Toyota doesn't focus on opinions of enthusiasts.  Know your audience.  Toyota shoppers are familiar with Toyota hybrids, which to take advantage of regen.  You glide as much as possible trying to avoid a full stop... exactly what bZ4X delivers... a feature no other BEV offers.  The HOLD feature enables what reviewer had assumed was missing from the ONE-PEDAL driving experience.  When you touch the brake, it indicates you want to remain at a full stop... allowing you to remove your foot.  From the driving I have done using that, it is very handy.  With over +22 million Toyota hybrids, it makes sense leveraging that same appeal for electric-only vehicles too.

Sensible Advice.  Spin online is that Toyota announcements are deception, a delay tactic to promote hybrid sales by giving the impression of BEV not being ready yet.  Of course, that's utter nonsense.  In the past, enthusiasts would accuse Toyota of ignoring the market entirely.  Now that there's acknowledge... rather than just not saying anything until shortly before rollout... it is looked upon as misdirection.  That is just more hypocrisy.  No matter what Toyota does, it is wrong.  Ugh.  Responses like that are actually a good sign.  It confirms enthusiasts rhetoric isn't given priority.  You know, obsessing with what happens right away.  I'm quite thankful Toyota focuses on long-term instead.  They don't neglect the present though.  In fact, what they do fortifies that future... as someone pointed out today: "The recommendation is not to wait for Toyota's electric car of the 2027-2028 model year.  Instead, buy an electric car now and drive it until Toyota's new cars become available."  I really appreciated seeing that and volleyed discussion back with:  Upgrade enticement has been a successful part of Toyota's business approach since way back when Prius first rolled out a mid-cycle upgrade (larger engine and the switch from cell to prismatic) in 2000.  It crossed models too, like making Camry hybrid the first to get the two-speed system.  That was a sucker-punch for all the anti-Prius troublemakers.  Toyota did the same with anti-Prime troublemakers, giving RAV4 big range & power first.  People here buying bZ4X and bZ5X (built in Kentucky) will be drawn to the newer offerings.  It's a win-win situation.  Reaching a larger audience means somehow creating a market with used vehicles to purchase.

Reality.  Nonsense surrounding the "behind" narrative may be fading, but the mindset itself is alive & well.  It's nothing but a look forward, complete disregard for the larger market and the past.  I find it quite ironic... which is better than calling out hypocrisy.  There is still an obvious perspective of enthusiast-blinders at play.  They don't notice the rest of the world.  They get frustrated & angry with you for pointing out challenges others face... to the point of attacking you personally for having some type of anti-EV agenda.  Since setting up a plug for them wasn't difficult, why should it be for anyone else?  Think about how often Toyota gets attacks for their PHEV only offering around 40 miles per charge.  Reason for that should be easy to see.  8 hours of delivering 120-volt charging (that's 1.44 kW/h, which comes to 11.52 kWh) equates to 40.3 miles at an efficiency of 3.5 mi/kWh.  More is a limitation of infrastructure, so it makes no sense offering any more.  That's what balance is all about.  Enthusiasts don't see that though.  It's why the past was packed with disappointment.  They didn't want to see reality.  I kept pointing it out, as I did yet again today:  Reality is the opposite.  GM thrived in conquest sales and lost a very large percentages of those customers later.  Remember Volt?  Remember Bolt?  GM's failure to target their own audience is was a terrible business decision, an obvious mistake right from the start.  Toyota being ridiculed for not doing the same is madness.

Original Goal.  At least we are talking about goals now.  That beats rhetoric of the past, but is still so vague the point is being missed.  This is all I got for a reply: "Can we have original goal batteries instead - right now?  Aren't they better than promises to introduce some kind of uberbattery in 3-4-5 years?"  It wasn't a surprise, of course.  Paying attention to detail isn't a common trait online.  All we usually get is just talking points.  That's why nothing beyond just "hydrogen" is presented when arguing against Toyota.  There's no look beyond the immediate time & audience scope.  Oh well.  At least posts like this give me an opportunity to provide information that was clearly missed:  That is exactly why Toyota took the risk of adding CATL to their initial rollout, rather than waiting for things to settle.  With them supplying tried & true NMC chemistry, success from that will enable LFP to join the mix, once those new higher-density cells become available.  It's an opportunity those pushing the "behind" narrative don't want you to discover.  CATL has a major initiative underway to increase marketshare.  Leveraging their partnership with Toyota is good business.