One Month Ago, they had to.  Assuming there was some mandate of some type, forcing Toyota to build EVs, is a common belief.  There are indeed emission regulations, but I'm not aware of anything requiring EV sales yet.  Those are coming.  Currently though, required emission reductions can be met with hybrids.  Since Toyota strives in that arena, it is easy for them to fulfill.  In fact, that's why there isn't a big push for plug-in hybrids yet.  Other automakers don't have that option.  They don't have the ability to make lots of profitable hybrids capable of that level of clean.  So, they depend upon EV sales instead.  In fact, that's why taking a loss on each sale is acceptable.  They would have to pay a fine for not meeting regulations anyway.  Anywho, that state-of-market is how comments like this from that video come about: "Toyota is all in on the plug in hybrids. I think they just made this because they had to or something."  When I see something like that posted, I take it as an invitation to provide some foresight:  Setting the stage for high-volume EV sales later is the approach. bZ4X is getting a mid-cycle upgrade with the 2024 model.  That confirms Toyota's long-term plans to expand.  This year, Europe will be getting a smaller model (which some have been referring to as "3X") specifically for that market.  In the United States, battery & vehicle production is getting setup in Tennessee & Kentucky to produce the bZ5X (basically, the EV equivalent to Highlander).  Targeted for 2026 is the battery upgrade for bZ4X, where the goal is to increase range by 20% and reduce battery cell cost by 40%.

One Month Ago, every day.  We got a video review titled "The Most Disappointing Modern Toyota".  It came from a mechanic who is looked upon as an industry expert, but clearly has a few knowledge gaps.  That's to be expected.  Keeping up to date, heck even just knowing what to look for, is quite a challenge.  Unfortunately, people assume he's well informed.  That's where I jump in.  I try to follow up with what ends up being misinformation spread by replying to comments.  That actually seems to be fairly effective.  So a month later, I checked in to see what had emerged since the original publish.  This was posted just yesterday: "Hello, I am writing to Toyota company with a request. It is a very good car, but the charging is very slow.  I spend 3 hours on the charger every day.  Can you speed up the charging?  And the distance is also less."  That was rather bizarre.  Was the owner really using DC daily?  A full recharge (from almost empty to 100%) would take about 3 hours.  I went with that supposition, replying:  Stop charging at 80% when on a DC fast-charger.  Speed reduces significantly when you get past about 65% and slows down even more when beyond 80%.  That's the "charge curve" you will often hear about.  Lower % is faster.  Of course, if you are using DC every day, the expense should be a bigger concern.  AC charging is how you save lots of money over gas.

Worthwhile Feedback, part 2.  I continued on to say:  Notice how hard I have been working to create videos detailing the current state of our vehicle software related to battery heating?  I have posted many times about current 95°F (35°F) threshold and pointed out how other EVs heat to much higher for faster charging, like Tesla at 122°F (50°F).  I also stated how the existing hardware could support an increase.  In fact, I am now on record as predicting the "cold weather" update will bump it to 104°F (40°F) and try to get it there sooner and keep it there longer.  Ideally, we'll get a software update enabling the ability to engage the battery-heater using battery-power rather than only input from a plug.  Unfortunately, when you look at what other EV owners post, they rarely ever refer to detail like that... especially when it comes to the amount of electricity required to achieve battery heating.

Worthwhile Feedback, part 1.  This full post desired a bit of time to properly address: "I think what pissed off owners of the earlier bz4's is the lack of reliable information from the dealers or Toyota.  And the salespeople were downright ignorant of anything about the bz.  Had we known about the charging issues, we would have waited until a newer model came out with the bugs already worked out.  Be that as it may, it's a good vehicle, but it has its limitations. If you can deal with those, then it's just fine."  I hope I did a good job:  That's looking back at an industry wide problem.  There were some of us who were quite pissed off by the rest of the automakers for setting such poor precedent.  Salespeople were pretty much clueless everywhere (and sadly, most still are).  Enthusiasts made it worse by obsessing with range, to the point where "efficiency" was looked upon as how big the battery was.  We couldn't have a constructive discussion about design factors like heater type or battery chemistry.  There was so much noise, you couldn't get answers from many sources.  VW is a great example. ID.4 owners waited over 2 years for a mysterious software update that would hopefully solve their woes.  The fact that Toyota's response has been significantly faster gets totally overlooked.  Not only are we getting software updates, there is now a mid-cycle upgrade being rolled out.  As for the slow DC charging, there is no possible way that could have been missed by anyone searching for "bZ4X" online.  It's only going to get worse as NACS rolls out, since the situation becomes more complex.  Most people have no idea how stations are limited by capacity & balancing challenges, not to mention adapted legacy equipment.  There's also the complication of pre-conditioning.  It's up to us as owners to help clean up the mess.  Fortunately, some of us have been through this already... twice!  Both hybrids and plug-in hybrids had challenges breaking out beyond early-adopters.

Rushed To Market.  It is a common claim.  It is also easily called out as hypocritical.  At what point do you draw the line or just let the market have an opportunity to react?  I give Toyota credit for providing test-vehicles without any special treatment.  Reviewers get the chance to drive without restriction and speak their mind afterward.  That enables antagonists, but real-world data always squashes those attempts.  It also provides free publicity.  There are a number of competitors who never get any attention at all.  People have no idea certain vehicles even exists.  So, it's not all bad getting a "rushed" label... ironically, from enthusiasts who never have any patience anyway.  We get so much hype from others.  It's just point out some facts and move on.  In this case:  With bZ4X, we see Toyota rapidly responding to feedback.  The mantra of continuous improvement is alive & well.  The upgraded battery-heater is a great example of that, one which will make data presented in that video outdated & misleading.  But at least it is with regard to a vehicle the masses will purchase in high-volume following the next-gen rollout... 20% increase to range with a 40% battery cost reduction.  CyberTruck is a niche, targeting enthusiasts rather than serving as something to take on work pickups.  It was obviously rushed to market hearing that 4680 cell transition from NCM811 to NMC955 is already underway.  Older chemistry combined with such slow charging is a mess Tesla will have to sort out while the hope for a Model 2 continues to disappoint.

Friend or Foe?  That's really, really difficult to determine sometimes... especially on Facebook where a group can have thousands of members which you know little to nothing about.  This is what I faced today: "They advertise Toyota as the most ‘electrified’ vehicle company in the world, a total lie.  They have one mediocre EV model I am aware of."  He obviously knew nothing of the Lexus model that's been available in Europe for a few years or the Lexus bZ4X variant with more power here, which sold really well last year.  I could tell pointing out his oversight wouldn't make any difference.  The impression I got was only vehicles without a gas-engine matter, hence the quotes around the word electrified.  It's possible he was clueless about the plug-hybrids.  It didn't seem to matter though.  The vibe was hybrids of any kind don't count.  So, I took a gamble posting this hoping for the best (turns out, he liked it too):  Turning a blind-eye to the rest of the fleet is what antagonists want you to do.  You end up legitimizing the "all in" automakers who don't actually have a transition plan.  It's a con that has been very effective.

Efficiency Package.  Tesla will be rolling an "efficiency package" out soon.  It will address range shortcomings, brought attention to by EPA range over-estimations.  Those values weren't realistic.  Their followers are so obsessed with range, any type of discussion related to actual efficiency fails to get any attention.  In fact, the article published 5 days ago didn't even have a mention of "Wh/mi" measurement... the odd way Tesla depicts efficiency.  One a single comment out of the 182 comment had a reference: "I own a 2020 Tesla Model Y and have a lifetime (45,600 miles) watt-hour per mile average of 274, giving me 3.70 miles per kWh, and assuming a useful 68 kWh battery pack."  It was indeed constructive, but no one cared.  Ugh.  At least Tesla has had the benefit of a propriety network & software: "The advertised 330 mile Tesla model 3 will not make a 250 mile highway trip without stopping to charge according to the Tesla trip planner."  It knows & understands real-world efficiency and doesn't misrepresent like the EPA value.  Catch is, that ends up being a double-standard.  For other EVs, they aren't judged against a planner (like ABRP).  It's always just anecdotal range being compared to inflated range.  Again, ugh.  Not using an efficiency reference contributes heavily to the problem.  Heck, that's why CyberTruck is getting so much praise.  Basing assessment on estimated range rather than actual efficiency distorts reality.  It won't get better any time soon either, seeing the "efficiency package" being promoted in terms of range improvement without any reference to "Wh/mi" or "mi/kWh".

Winter Advice.  A new owner asked.  We had dug into detail related to monitoring temperatures when daytime highs drop well below freezing.  I took advantage of the opportunity by leaving my bZ4X outside all day, then late in the evening collecting some data following that cold soak.  Here's what I shared:  I was able to confirm the battery-heater will only engage when the vehicle is plugged in.  Since lithium chemistry allows draw even with its temperature is far below freezing, the system works fine when parked and not plugged.  You can drive and stay warm without concern.  The catch is, efficiency is lower due to internal resistance being higher when the battery is below freezing.  When you plug in, the battery-heater will initially consume the entire AC input load to warm the pack, though you will see a minor battery draw for the sake of stimulating it with a little activity for added warming.  The catch is, if you turn on Room-Mode that electricity gets used to warm the cabin instead of the battery.  The point of all that information is to provide useful advice: "Set the battery-pack to a charging-limit, then leave the vehicle plugged in when temperatures are below freezing".  That will enable better efficiency while you drive.

Taking into account battery overhead (heating/cooling), cabin comfort, and charging losses... the system would be pulling about 100 kW from the charger.

Why Solid-State?  It is reasonable to ask that question now, especially when info like this is shared: "A triumph of stating the obvious.  With LFP batteries promising 200wh/kg and rapidly reducing cost why would solid-state actually be needed?  But these normal price reduction curves have been known since about 2018 and adequate EV ranges even longer.  So in what world was solid-state actually *needed*, certainly desirable if they can fulfill the promise of even higher energy density and lower cost, but definitely not needed for cars."  That's a very easy trap to fall into.  Engineering is packed with tradeoffs.  How much room batteries consume is a really big deal.  Just because LFP is overcoming its original shortcoming doesn't make up for the fact that squeezing enough capacity into an entry-level vehicle is suddenly possible.  In fact, it is likely that current problem will still persist.  We need size improvement too.  Weight isn't the only challenge.  I pointed that out with:  An advantage omitted from that is physical size.  As important as weight is, not having a liquid electrolyte fulfills an overlooked objective of needing less space for the battery.

Shifting Narrative.  Those not happy with Toyota's approach are really struggling to keep the antithesis portraying alive.  Their narrative is shifting, but direction & outlook is a mystery.  Since no new messaging has emerged, I could see attempts to simply just confuse becoming the theme.  Here's why: "The same recycled story from Toyota.  A year ago they were telling us there wasn't enough lithium for full EVs and people should stick with their hybrids.  But now they say we should go for EV cars with 750 miles of range. It's clearly just promising red meat..."  That was the lead into a solid-state battery article on the group for all EV enthusiasts... who many their push the purist mantra.  I asked them why:  Sounds like a double-standard at play.  Tesla was praised for 4680, the hype leading up to their reveal and the years that followed prior to rollout.  GM got similar extended admiration for Ultium.  The fact that Toyota is actively pursuing BEV offerings... increasing range on a Lexus BEV model... upgrading bZ4X this month... rolling out "3X" in Europe this year... setting up to produce bZ5X in the US next year... while at the same time expanding hybrid and PHEV offering is looked upon as problematic since they are also promoting next-gen tech.  Why is that?

Lease Replacement Question.  There is an owner with just a 2-year lease making plans on what to do with it expires.  I purchased, so my focus is on upgrade opportunity... faster charging (the upgrade 2024 gets), a port for NACS (the upgrade 2025 will likely get), and that 20% increase to range (expected for the 2026).  I did that twice in the past, upgrading from the 2001 to 2004 and the 2010 to 2012.  In the meantime, I enjoy being part of history... writing it as I go along.  Trying to help others along the way is part of that.  Providing some insight to the ever-evolving market is helpful:  That is precisely why I pushed those complaining to set expectations.  Being able to warm the pack for faster charging by enabling the heater prior to DC fast-charger arrival (pre-conditioning) will definitely make a difference, but it wouldn't be significant.  Software alone wouldn't likely be enough for what they had in mind. I even pointed out the current 95°F (35°F) threshold for context, sighting 122°F (50°F) others target for faster speeds.  When you scour the internet for detail on what Toyota's update involves, it turns out the European market will be getting hardware (exchanger & valve) to more aggressively heat the pack.  Since both are probably external components, that would make it a fairly easy upgrade for the next model year.  Whether or not that upgrade is an option for current models might be more of a business decision than engineering... which may be why we haven't heard anything with regard to North American availability.  (At one point, I thought I had stumbled across a tech-specs of a heating device specifically for battery coolant in bZ4X.  This new exchanger could simply be a larger model to deliver higher/hotter output.)  My guess is Toyota wants to deal with our market following 2024 rollout for everyone else.  That means yet another test of character for us... patience.