Along with rolling out 3 more BEV choices (smaller SUV, larger SUV, pickup) prior to that, how can the claim be made that concern isn't for advancing their tech?

Tesla Pivots.  This is a great example of narrative change: "Tesla pivots into energy, arbitrage and superchargers as EV growth slows."  It was the subtitle of a video titled "TESLA PIVOTS..." from that guy profiting on hype & slander.  He's still at it.  Publishing several new videos a day, based on the number of views & subscriptions, he's clearly making a good income from selling content without moral conscience.  It took 4 years to deliver CyberTruck, which is plagued with problems.  Remember all the hype last year of how Tesla was targeting 20 million vehicles annually by 2030.  That never made any sense.  What in the world would Tesla sell to achieve such volume?  Without anything entry-level priced and BYD forcing price slashes of Model 3 and Model Y, there's nothing to leverage profit in terms of vehicle sales.  The rest of the business... storage... solar... charging... is required.  Narrow-minded enthusiasts have a very difficult time accepting that.  After all, they are dead set against Toyota selling fuel-cells for commercial & industrial uses.  They only want vehicles to be the focus.  Ugh.  Needless to say, anything posted to draw attention to the need for diversification falls on deaf ears for that audience.  Nonetheless, I posted the following comment anyway:  Keep in mind, topics like this have attention-getting titles for a reason.  Look at Tesla's mission-statement from long ago. It was always an energy-solution business.   EVs were a consumer of that product, as well as a great promoter.  In short, there has not been a pivot.

Thanks.  Getting positive feedback is refreshing especially when it strives to invoke critical thinking: "Thanks for the reply.  I would be interested in any studies that you can point me toward, posts not so much."  Whenever PHEV is brought up, that study to undermine their growth comes up.  Sound familiar?  That same thing has happened all throughout hybrid history.  Think about how many times I had to fight outcome of a supposed study putting diesel against hybrid.  Data was always cherry-picked to show favor for diesel.  Anything that would cast doubt on hybrids was fair game.  That's why the claim of Hummer being more environmentally friendly got so much traction.  People don't think.  They just take whatever nonsense is provided, accepting it as it.  Ugh.  That's why I suggest other means of getting information.  Today's was:  By far, the best feedback is in person.  We had a panel discussion at the MPCA on Tuesday (2 days ago), a mix of EV owners getting asked questions from a room of about 50 people.  What they wanted to know about and what the other owners had to share puts those posting here to shame.  That true perspective of the markets is quite different from the narratives here.  We will see a strong mix of plug-in choices for many years to come.  Priorities of enthusiasts are nothing like what ordinary consumers deem important.  Topics like how to squeeze out the most electric miles from a PHEV are popular at public events... a stark contrast to the never-plug-in claims here.  As supports grows for DC infrastructure, we'll see PHEV growth accelerate the phaseout of ICE and hybrids.

Toyota EV?  Turns out, this is a common question: "Does Toyota even make an ev?"  More and more, the rollout of bZ4X reminds me of Prius.  That first-generation captured attention if you were in some type of enthusiast venue; otherwise, it would just be a lucky circumstance to even just hear about its existence.  That meant purpose & operation were assumed by most.  Since Toyota's primary purpose was emission reduction, many of the assumptions were incorrect.  The belief was using the electric-motor as possible would yield best results.  That's not true.  It's a balance effort, seeking out opportunity then exploiting it.  Sound familiar?  That's the same thing with bZ4X.  Highest efficiency from other BEV comes at the expense of pre-conditioning, data conveniently omitted from reports.  Measure always starts when driving begins.  That tally of kilowatts doesn't include energy consumption for the sake of ensuring the battery is warmed entirely before leaving.  Toyota doesn't do that.  Toyota has figured out how to squeeze the most out of a cold battery.  Not only is that better for consumption reduction, it also promotes longevity.  This fundamental approach difference is what contributes to Toyota going unnoticed.  It doesn't stir attention from enthusiasts.  Many place no priority whatsoever on electricity use.  They are obsessed with speed & range.  Ugh.  Oh well.  Toyota quietly evolving their EV design to be more efficient is something owners will appreciate in the years to come.  Meanwhile, I share information like this to answer questions:  Toyota had a Lexus predecessor to bZ4X, a Lexus called UX300e which is still available and got a battery-pack upgrade last year.  Toyota also has a joint-venture with BYD producing the equivalent of a Corolla EV called bZ3.  Coming up within the next year in Europe is a new smaller SUV which will likely be called bZ3X and in the United States similar to Highlander called bZ5X.

Kodak Compares.  They don't work.  Neither circumstance nor intent match.  Yet, despite so many differences, the compare is made.  It has become a talking-point without substance.  People compare Kodak's demise to Toyota.  The implication is Toyota has simply dismissed EVs as relevant in the future, like Kodak did with digital cameras.  That doesn't make any sense with the spread of PHEV models throughout the fleet and so much investment into new BEV production.  We continuously get comments like this despite that: "Whatever you say KODAK."  That's just outright dismissal. Antagonists deny evidence presented to that for the sake of ensuring their narrative holds.  I'm more than happy to draw attention to that unwillingness to acknowledge change too:  Talking points like that work will to appeal to enthusiasts, but achieve nothing with regard to what happens with the status quo.  While others are struggling with loss-leaders, Toyota is very successfully phasing out traditional vehicles while at the same time setting the stage for high-volume in the next step.  Notice how Camry is becoming 100% hybrid and how Prius in Europe is now only a plug-in?

Very Poor.  Finally having real-world data from my own experiences has made nonsense like this easier to deal with: "VERY POOR IN COLD WEATHER".  It is quite clearly a rhetoric post with all caps like that.  Of course, when it comes to undermining, that's a rather sad effort.  Talking about lazy.  Ugh.  Oh well.  I can now point out what I observed, no longer having to put up with poorly informed reviewers who only have a short time with the vehicle to do their review:  Living in Minnesota and associating with a large number of other EV owners, that's easy to debunk.  True, range is less than average.  Efficiency is quite good though.  Watching the mi/kWh all throughout my driving this winter, that was a simple confirm. 2.8 is what I averaged.

Seeking An Antithesis.  Enthusiasts need an enemy.  A common cause isn't enough.  It is unfulfilling to simply see more BEV being sold.  That just means progress, the transition taking place.  There's no drama in that.  Someone must suffer.  Someone must pay.  They have chose Toyota for that.  Keeping that idea alive is becoming increasingly more difficult though, as I pointed out:  It's interesting how quickly the narrative has changed.  Claiming Toyota was "behind" failed to gain traction following how quickly they were able to update the 2023 model of bZ4X and how the 2024 model got a significant battery heater & circulation upgrade.  2025 model is slatted for an additional upgrade.  Knowing that and seeing the bZ3X being readied for rollout in Europe and bZ5X for the United States, along with the next-gen bZ4X battery pack planned with 2 distinct types to be offered, shifting attention to debt makes sense.  There's no rest for enthusiasts seeking an antithesis.

Superficial Article.  The attention plug-in hybrids are getting has increased significantly.  It's awesome.  That balance of technology is exactly what mainstream shoppers find compelling.  Risk is low and trust is high.  Reliability of hybrids has become well established and understanding the benefit of the plug obvious.  Long ago, misconception that once the battery is depleted you're stuck has vanished.  It is hard to believe some didn't grasp the concept.  Absence of critical thinking is still a problem, but at least we can see progress.  This was encouraging in that regard too: "Superficial article.  PHEVs are also not a mature product as yet.  EV range needs to exceed 40 miles to minimize gasoline usage."  That's just blatant rhetoric.  Researching tells us the opposite... over a decade of real-world proven and daily average less than 40 miles.  In other words, there are some who see the rise of PHEV as a growing threat to the status quo... which is exactly what some of us hope will happen.  Barriers those BEV purists continue to create are their effort to retain the status quo.  Anywho, I fired back to that nonsense with:  Downplay and arbitrary limits are par for course.  Average daily miles driven is 37. RAV4 Prime delivers 42 and Prius Prime delivers 44.  Both also provide significant efficiency improvement over ICE when depleted.  They are a viable option now.  They are mature already.

That Narrative.  It has been exhausted.  Absence of substance is how you can tell: "They lag behind the EV curve, but they like to talk a lot with nothing more than bZX4 to show for it.  Keep yapping, man!"  It's the same old pattern I have seen countless times over the years.  They start by attacking a trait seen by enthusiasts as a weakness, then repeat their talking-point over and over and over again.  At some point though, audience is lost.  Even enthusiasts grow tired of what is clearly not having any effect.  If bZ4X was nothing, how come it is selling so well in Norway?  Wasn't that country the source of future expectations, the model of what's to come for the rest of us?  The more they try to mislead, the more they discover their greenwash is not working.  Ironically, they are the ones that "like to talk a lot with nothing".  I was happy to point that out too:  That's the canned response when a narrative falls apart.  It's becoming increasingly more difficult portray Toyota as an antithesis.  There are some who swear by the top-down approach, unwilling to accept bottom-up as being an economic success opportunity.  In this case, seeing the technology being refined as a result of harsh market feedback has revealed Toyota to be listening & responsive... revealing the "behind" narrative as having lost relevance.  Dismissing that won't change anything.

Equinox Plus.   A week ago, there was a reveal in China of a PHEV model coming for Equinox.  That next-step in the obvious path GM must take had me quite curious.  Would antagonists do their usual greenwash or would we actually get something constructive were the questions I could have pondered.  The third option is what I figured would happen... that same outcome we had with Volt itself... they would remain silent.  Disenchantment is a powerful weapon.  Sure enough, that's is indeed what I saw play out too.  Several individuals popped up to set the record straight about design.  Nonsense of the past didn't stand a chance of resurfacing.  Heck, even the "EREV" propaganda itself remained absent.  I was quite relieved.  This is what I ended up posting a reply to: "I loved my Chevy Volt, and if GM had made a Voltec-powered Equinox a few years back, I would've bought one of them in a heartbeat.  Sadly, they decided to abandon their awesome plug-in hybrid technology and then only offered the Bolt EV..."  It was the perfect invite to me providing detail about he past without having to get into the "Who is the market for Volt?" trap enthusiasts created for themselves.  I posted this comment:  Way back in the days of Two-Mode, we were shown a prototype plug-in variant.  That technology was to debut as a 2009 Saturn Vue. That never happened; instead, the Volt project was to be a premiere offering.  After that rollout happened... and the "over promise, under deliver" problem became apparent... talk of an Equinox using Voltec emerged.  It fell on deaf ears.  Just like with Two-Mode, the design was expensive, inflexible and inefficient.  GM doubled down on Volt shortcomings rather than shifting to a body type their customers would actually be interested in.  It was a choice to make Volt a conquest vehicle rather than risking the Osborne Effect.  Knowing Bolt EV would not jeopardize their status quo, Volt was discontinued.  Now all these years later, those who were attacked for being objective can raise awareness of that history of hype and absence of commitment to actual change.

EV Outpace PHEV.  There's lot of potential.  Others don't see that though.  It's the short-sigthenedness problem still: "Considering that PHEVs make up less than 2% of Toyota’s sales numbers, I can't see Toyota reconfiguring its manufacturing logistics to court such a small amount of sales."  Without even bringing up the category of plug-in hybrid pickups, which will likely become a very popular topic of discussion, we already have this to consider:  It simply doesn't make sense to ramp up production while it is still happening in Japan.  But when batteries coming from North Carolina become a reality, building RAV4 in Kentucky as Primes makes a lot of sense.  Don't overlook the priority of diversification either.  Establishing variety prior to ramp-up is a win-win.  In this case, we're seeing rollout of PHEV version of Crown and CH-R.  There is an expectation of Harrier too.  That sets the stage for Corolla Cross and Sienna to follow.  For a hint of the potential, look at what happened to Prius in Europe.  PHEV is the only model available there now.

Desperate Profaned.  Gotta love how desperate certain individuals have become: "REAL REASON TOYOTA HATES EVS..."  That was the label on the thumbnail of his latest video.  When you click on the obvious bait, this was the tittle: "Legacy Automakers lose $6,000 USD on every Electric Car they sell."  His hate for Toyota comes from not liking the bottom-up approach... that philosophy of focusing on need rather than want.  Enthusiasts absolutely cannot stand a method of problem-solving that requires patience and great attention to minimums.  They want impressive results quickly.  In their minds, cost is secondary and will somehow be addressed with little effort... as if simply scaling up production will achieve enough reduction to reach the masses.  That has never really worked.  In fact, that's how Innovator's Dilemma came about.  Spending a tremendous amount of resources on a niche with the intention of mainstream availability later doesn't work.  Ordinary consumers have been duped by that top-down approach for decades.  The highly popularized label for that was "trickle down economics"... which was later revealed to be just propaganda.  You choose an enemy as a meaning of getting endorsement for your idea.  In this case, that's Toyota.  Efforts to divert attention elsewhere fail as a result.  If ideas don't fit the narrative, they get dismissed or ignored.  In my case today, it was deleted.  I had to go through YouTube history to trace the post to verify it really wasn't visible anymore.  Owners of the video cannot actually delete.  When they remove, what really happens is it gets hidden.  The comment is still accessible to the person who posted it.  My reply was to this: "The US needs to pull its finger out of its rear end and get on with upgrading its grid the same way that other western countries are."  Within an attack video on Toyota, what could possibly be wrong with my comment?  Since I had posted a second one elsewhere, I knew I hadn't been banned.  It really was something about this that derailed his narrative: "358% growth for electricity storage last year in the United States."  I wonder why.  Perhaps the poster was liked by the owner.  My data revealed he wasn't being objective or had overlooked vital data.  Whatever the case, it supported what Toyota has been saying all along.