The Next Bolt, conquest.  When asked what traits the next Bolt should have, this emerged: "You basically just defined the Equinox!"  I had been waiting for that.  It was an invitation to share more information enthusiasts of the past would have intensely fought me to stop.  Their counter-offensive was brutal at times.  I was amazed how willing they were to just outright lie and to attack the messenger.  It was a pointless endeavor.  Ultimately, people would learn what was really happening, what had actually been delivered.  They really weren't fooling anyone.  That is why I was so relentless repeatedly asking: "Who is the market for Volt?"  Scope was limited to their own echo-chamber.  That makes me quite curious how that same information will be responded to now.  So, I posted:  As a conquest vehicle, Bolt was safe.  No matter how many were sold, those sales would never cut into that of its closest competitor.  The same was true for Volt.  Neither vehicle targeted GM's own loyal customers.  Milking the tax-credits to score some green points wasn't all bad.  That did provide GM with some legitimate EV experience and it did expose buyers to the technology.  Nothing was achieved with regard to what actually happens on the showroom floor though.  That will be the role of Equinox EV.  Whatever future Bolt rolls out, expect that to be in the entry-level category to avoid competing from within GM's own product-line.

The Next Bolt, audience.  Lessons of the past are now becoming very easy to convey: "The did make a nice hybrid Malibu using the Voltec power system but they never promoted it, either."  So much history was a fight to conceal & distract.  Enthusiasts didn't want to face that reality.  They moved on... even though Bolt still retains the spotlight.  That leaves me with the opportunity to share that past.  I can provide information from the non-engineering perspective.  Identify the motivation for production from a business point-of-view is what those enthusiasts could not do and refused to try.  That's why so much of what they posted became rhetoric.  When you try to defend a narrative, those actions get revealed as weaknesses.  Neither Bolt nor Volt could compete on their own merit.  I knew.  They knew it.  Now this new audience will know it.  Ironically, key to the problem was the audience itself.  We'll see how it goes this time:  That was just a straight up hybrid, no plug.  GM had no interest in sedans anyway; they weren't profitable.  Offering Volt was just a conquest endeavor, leveraging Two-Mode legacy to explore new opportunity.  None of their own loyal customers were looking for a compact hatchback though.  That technology being both unprofitable & inefficient made moving on to Bolt sensible.  Same audience problem.  Existing Chevy owners looking to replace their aged Equinox, Blazer or Silverado still didn't have the choice of a plug-in model.  As Ultium takes hold, continuing to use Bolt for conquest wouldn't be so bad.  That could be an effective means of growing market share.

Self Defeating.  There is a defensive nature of interactions that takes when presented with change.  Instinct is to seek out opposition.  Whether it is there or not, you'll find something that resemble an opposing force.  Without that binary mindset, most people fell lost.  That's why they convince themselves there is something resisting their view.  It's quite counter-productive.  I first had to deal with it when showing support for the first Prius, shortly after purchase.  Having chosen Toyota meant I favored them and it was impossible to support any other automaker.  Some people had an extremely difficult time accepting the fact that it was not the case.  I was in favor of any automaker supporting change.  That didn't make sense.  To some... over 2 decades later... it still does not.  They fail to recognize the competition is from within.  It's what happens on the showroom floor that makes a difference.  This is why GM's proclaimed "game changer" was basically just greenwash.  Their dealerships continued with business as usual, selling lots of gas-guzzling vehicles.  Change didn't happen.  That's why posts like this are so disturbing: "Toyota continues to fuel anti-EV rhetoric, this time by putting out an half-baked product that's sure to stoke negative EV commentary, damage the reputation of EVs in general, and convince more folks to keep buying FFVs."  Talking about misplaced priorities.  What a waste.  Stirring controversy doesn't accomplish anything.  In fact, it is causes harm by creating a distraction.  In response to that obvious rhetoric, I fired back with:  Quite the opposite.  It is enthusiasts who shoot themselves in the foot.  Notice how most posts focused on outcome rather than contributing advice to improve the experience for better results?  The OP should have been advised to stop charging around 55% and been informed how to find the next charger with a route planner. New owners don't feel comfortable only charging to 55%. They don't have any idea what to look for or what to do. Using Toyota as a scapegoat won't actually fix the problem with other owners with other brands doing the same thing. We know that Toyota is working on a pre-condition enable. So, it's a waste of everyone's time pretending the issue at hand is unsolvable. Enthusiasts feeding an anti-EV narrative is self-defeating.

AI Conversation.  The level of sophistication coming from online "search results" is getting interesting.  Rather than just presenting content found elsewhere from your request, there is enough intelligence behind the software delivering it to generate reasonably useful material on the fly.  It adapts to provide feedback in the form of personal dialog.  I was intrigued to finally try it.  So, I asked: "tell me about toyota electric vehicles".  This is what I got in return:  "Toyota has a diverse lineup of electrified vehicles, including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cell electric vehicles, and all-electric vehicles.  You can find more information about Toyota's electrified lineup on their [official website (https://www.toyota.com/electrified-vehicles/)"

Concerns.  This came from someone starting to shop, looking to replace his Kona when the lease expires next year: "My concern here is that the BZ4X is the ONLY EV product that Toyota offers, while they have many Hybrid vehicles. Is that a sign of the times?"  Since that Kona is the gas model, there's interest in the EV model... but doesn't want to pay for an electrician or having to upgrade his service-panel.  I always find that a head-scratcher.  The expense of a new vehicle eclipses that of any vehicle purchase or lease.  It is permanent too.  Living in the short-term isn't my forte.  He is also considering a Corolla Cross hybrid.  So, there's an obvious interest in Toyota offerings.  So, I posted a bit of a provoke to see if I could stir an awakening of some sort:  CH-R and UX300e are available in other markets.  The joint-venture in China with FAW has resulted in bZ3.  We know Toyota is setting up production in Kentucky for bZ5X And we have already seen a few candidates for bZ3X, not to mention the electric pickup Toyota just revealed at the Tokyo Motor show.  It looks more and more like the impatience of enthusiasts with both Toyota and the market instead (many infrastructure shortcomings in United States) is really the problem.  It's a matter of batteries & chargers catching up.  Meanwhile, Toyota is refining their software and avoiding the supply/demand issues others now face.

Not Seeing It.  When I called out those exhibiting lack of patience for Toyota for tolerance for GM & Tesla, it was met with dead silence.  Down votes were my indication the message had been received and not at all liked.  After 2 days, still without a response from the original poster I replied to, someone else chimed in when that message was repeated with: "GM I understand.  Tesla?  GTFOH!  Tesla is practically the reason we have the EVs that are around now."  It was the invitation I had been patiently waiting for.  Not seeing it up to this point was no surprise.  Not seeing it afterward, I think this will be another who goes silent.  Remember Volt?  That is how its downfall was measured.  Outspoken troublemakers simply disappeared.  I'm curious what will happen with this:  Tesla falling into the Innovator's Dilemma trap was quite easy to predict. Know your audience.  When your product becomes highly specialized, catering to the wants of a very particular niche, breaking out beyond that becomes extremely difficult.  Tesla's effort for evolving Roadster into Model 3 Highland deserved is a major chapter in automotive history.  So many aspects of design & production did indeed move the industry forward.  That can also be said for Superchargers.  But all the effort expended upon CyberTruck when what the people actually needed was something for the early-level market shows a loss of priority... exactly what the trap that should have been avoided.  Ironically, that is what many here accuse Toyota of.  The catch is, you have to pretend plug-in hybrids don't share EV system components and that bZ3 isn't being already produced in China and that we haven't been shown candidates for bZ3X in other markets.  We also see production for bZ5X along with its associated batteries being setup in the United States.  In short, it comes down to absence of diversity on Tesla's part. Ironically again, is the fact that this thread is about Toyota's additional diversity pursuing solid-state offerings.

Missing The Point, focus.  That EV presentation today provided a great example of missing the point.  A question was asked about Bolt, the inquiry was aimed at finding out why it was discontinued.  That answer we got was beyond disappointing.  He explained engineering shortcomings, where the design was too expensive.  That was it.  Better technology was to replace it.  Nothing business-related was ever mentioned.  He completely missed the point of what Bolt was offered in the first place.  GM was supposedly using it to change their fleet from ICE to BEV.  Those of us paying attention knew that was never true.  It was never anything related to engineering.  The problem was audience.  GM never targeted their own loyal customers.  Notice who got upset when news of Bolt being discontinued emerged?  Upset only came from those who were conquest sales... outsiders drawn to the opportunity.  People who wanted to replace their own Equinox with a new Equinox did exactly that.  Bolt made no difference whatsoever.  GM shoppers weren't interested.  See how easy it is to miss the point like that?  Focus was on the wrong thing.  It was the same thing today with heaters.  Type was all that mattered, not how the tech was actually used.  Change was impeded, unknowingly restricted to a perspective of what came out of the vent.  Ugh.  I tried to get him to see the bigger picture.  Sadly, I don't think this will make any difference:  The point is, those heat-pump or resistive designs warm the air.  Blowing heated air everywhere in the cabin is wasteful.  Transmitting energy directly to the surface needing to be warmed is far more sensible of a configuration, regardless of what tech is used to achieve that.  Don't get hung up on the means.  Focus on the goal.  Opportunities like that are often overlooked when people argue semantics.

Missing The Point, choice.  It is rather bizarre that BEV are not associated with innovation.  The simple-minded nature of online discussion often prevents the opportunity for critical thought.  Participants strive to score a win as fast as possible.  That lack of patience related to overcoming business barriers has an unfortunate consequence of making technology a talking-point rather than something of substance.  Needless to say, I was quite annoyed with that "Nope!" response.  This is what I posted in reply to it:  Call it whatever you want.  It won't change the fact that there is an additional warming option available.  Far too often, enthusiast insist on lumping tech into categories and miss the point.  The heat-pump is primary.  When outside temperature drops below its useful threshold -10°C (14°F), a supplement resistance heater engages.  At any time or any temperature, you can choose to turn on an additional device for providing heat.  It's entirely separate, providing a radiant transfer of energy to you legs via an independent system.  Configured specifically as an ultra-low energy means of warming, the type is a moot point.  It is a unique choice offered, a feature other BEV lack.

Missing The Point, blindness.  I made a comment about having another option available.  It was easy to see this coming in return: "Nope!  You either have a heat pump, or resistive heating.  There is no third.  The delivery mechanism may be different (infrared) but it's still just resistive heating (i.e. toaster coils)."  He didn't care how they were used.  He only saw the situation as binary.  Sound familiar?  That's where all the anti-hybrid sentiment originates.  If it has a combustion engine, it was unacceptable.  Period.  No exception.  Regardless of having a plug and a large battery-pack, the existence of fossil-fuel meant it was in the unacceptable category.  Such a mindset is what prevents some BEV progress.  The idea of having a PHEV supplement household will not be tolerated.  It is a purist approach or nothing.  Seeing that blindness problem emerge again, it makes me sigh.  How are we ever going to reach a larger audience by feeding narratives?  Opening people's minds to new possibilities should be obvious... like recharging at places other than gas stations.  Why not at a park or library or theater or restaurant or school or church?  Not seeing beyond the basics forces a paradigm.  That's how we get stuck arguing amongst ourselves.  Ugh.

New Audience.  I had the opportunity to attend an EV presentation this morning.  It was put on by a long-time Tesla owner.  So, I had the opportunity to answer some questions related to new CCS vehicles.  What they asked was intriguing.  That audience is profoundly different from what I encounter online.  The look at ownership from a perspective entirely unknown to enthusiasts.  That advice of "know your audience" plays a major role in communication, especially that venue.  Online isn't always hostile long-time owners who feel threatened by change.  Some are newbies, owners who genuinely want to learn about their vehicle.  The most influence time & opportunity for that is now.  When the temperature drops, they notice the change but sometimes struggle to understand what they are seeing.  Today provided such an example: "I charged my car last night on my level 2 charger at home and after 100% it now reads with climate 0ff 209 mile range and climate on 198!!  WTH is that all about now?  Prior to my trip I was getting an average of 270/256.  Is this normal?  Will it get better again?"  This is what we could call the Toyota affect.  A consumer will purchase the vehicle based on trust of the automaker, with only a basic understanding of the new technology they just purchased.  I have witnessed this and helped new owners address that for over 2 decades now.  Going from hybrid, to plug-in hybrid, to electric-only makes no difference.  Winter impacts all vehicles.  I responded to his concern with:  That's normal as the temperature drop.  Watch the mi/kWh value.  That efficiency number is higher when it's warm.  You will routinely see 4 during the summer.  When calculated against the 65 kWh usable battery, you get a range expectation of 260 miles.  As winter approaches, the high value becomes 3, which calculates to 195 miles.  With more use of the heater, efficiency drops and range becomes even less.  Combustion engines have always experienced seasonal drop; most people don't notice it though.  It isn't until you have a dashboard value displaying those values that attention is given to what everyone experiences every year.  Spring will take on an entirely new delight for you, which efficiency finally returns as temperatures rise.

Kudos to you for giving it a try and thanks for sharing details of your experience.