Promised Growth.  The story of Tesla is starting a new chapter, one with wild promises and lots of uncertainty.  Supposedly, there will be a significant growth.  I don't see how:  For continued growth, from premium offerings to mainstream choice, Tesla needs to face reality of want verses need.  For many years, the argument in favor of BEV over PHEV was avoiding having to carry around the "dead weight" of a gas-engine that's rarely ever needed.  With offerings from Tesla, we also see a "dead weight" problem.  It simply makes no sense to be carrying capacity for driving range that is rarely ever needed.  So not only is that now a hypocritical argument to deal with, it is also ironic.  If SuperChargers are amazingly fast & convenient, what's the point of a larger battery?  Adding to that problem of unnecessary capacity is the "dead weight" penalty itself.  It reduces efficiency, causing a secondary expense situation for the owner.  Pay for the extra capacity, then pay for the extra kWh required to carry it.  Making that bad situation even worse, growth of a new choice closer to what mainstream consumers need will likely equate to diminished demand for old choice... which we have all seen already.  Model S sales plummeted when Model 3 became available and the same happened for Model X with Model Y.  Put succinctly, this is Innovator's Dilemma playing out right before our eyes.

Continued Attacks.  When participating on a venue which attracts a wide variety of people, many seeking click-bait for a feel-good return, be careful.  Expect to find posts just like this: "I have said so many times.  Rav4p is a blast.  The best Toyota ever.  Bz4x is a dud.  Shoot in void.  Useless.  Piece of sh..."  Rather than argue, I simply pointed out an overlook:  Learn from history.  The question "Who is the market for Volt?" was asked countless times for a reason.  Enthusiasts were failing to recognize audience.  In that case, it was a niche vehicle used to prove the technology... not a good choice for the masses.  4X could end up in the same situation, great for revealing what would work best for mainstream consumers.  3X and 3S are likely candidates, better sized for price & efficiency anyway.  Regardless, no amount of belittling or insults will make any difference for some owners.  If they don't take it on long trips or expect ultra-fast DC charging, proclamations of "useless" fall on deaf ears. It is also pointless if the household also owns a plug-in hybrid.  As for your assessment of RAV4 Prime, that "best Toyota ever" is about to be challenged by the new Prius Prime.

Pay Attention.  Automakers want you to only pay attention to what they tell you is important.  I want you to look behind the curtain, to see what is really happening.  That portrayal on stage is not the full story.  Yet, it is how we get nonsense like this posted: "To be fair, Toyota really put a lot into hybrids at a time when that was extremely important for many reasons.  Like hydrogen though, they're now trying to cling onto it at the expense of full BEV."  Toyota's use of a personal transport platform to evolve their fuel-cell technology still makes sense.  Why would you invest in the production of massive commercial transport vehicles knowing how much more expensive they were and how much less of an audience that would draw?  Leasing a vehicle to an ordinary consumer and providing them with a few years of hydrogen supply is brilliant.  They provide lots of real-world data that will be later used for commercial & industrial application, as well as some fleet applications.  The point is, those fuel-cell stacks can be... well, stacked.  You need more power, you add another to the mix.  So, it's not like the investment was a complete waste.  There is much opportunity on that side.  On the side of personal transport, we have to wonder how much further "ahead" the other automakers are truly are.  The technology may give that impression, but there's little with regard to transition.  Hitting barriers is inevitable.  You appeal to early-adopters, then what?  I keep trying to get people to notice the distraction efforts:  The same clinging can be said seen with some "all in" automakers.  Hype about their BEV plans is to ensure business as usual isn't actually impacted.  Notice how unchanged their status quo is?  At least with Toyota, you see hybrids and plug-in hybrids taking over ICE-only sales.  Watch what happens with 4X and the new Prius PHEV.  A slow start out of the gate doesn't mean the tortoise won't turn out to be a strong competitor in this long races with a bunch of smug hares.

Real Life.  It is always a good idea to assess the source of information before jumping into the nonsense, especially when it is a video.  Was this an owner simply sharing observations or was it someone who does reviews for money?  This was the latter.  Within credits of the video was a link to a spreadsheet providing a decent amount of detail covering the long list of EVs this guy had reviewed.  First thing I noticed was the 4X was his coldest temperature review, by quite a bit in some cases, and that it was the only vehicle with winter tires.  That immediately raised a red flag for me.  Seeing what comment associated gave reason for concern too: "Another bad result for the Bz4x".  Making that even worse was the continued theme of no context.  People post "bad" comments without stating what expectations should have been.  How is that helpful?  Not having any idea what "good" is in the first place means you're just going to confuse matters.  Perspective is required.  In fact, that is exactly why I felt validated when finding that spreadsheet.  It provides a basis of measurement, something to actually compared.  My post with regard to the share was a simple ask:  Without context, that's basically just click-bait.  Tell us why a result of 29.1 kWh/100km (2.1 mi/kWh) after 252.7 km (157 miles) of driving with the heater set at 22°C (71.6°F) and the temperature outside a little under freezing is disappointing.  What would your expectation be?

My Data.  I don't have my 4X yet, but I do have many years of Toyota plug-in experience driving in Minnesota.  Winters are harsh, but don't last forever.  In fact, most of my cold season driving is electric-only without the need for defrosting.  Just the window blower and warmth from the heat-pump are enough.  It makes me wonder what owners settings are on their trips.  Whatever the case, we know Toyota did not give in and just follow the leader. RAV4 is a top-seller.  Despite the terrible choice in terms of aerodynamics (shape & height), it became the decision for first bZ model.  With the style and impressive AWD, it was a risk few anticipated Toyota would take... especially with a large interior that would obviously be a challenge to warm.  How many people consider heat loss prevention by shutting the roof shades?  Anywho, I have lots of real-world data from my current Toyota plug-in.  It's a Prius Prime, which is nearly 1,000 pounds lighter, far better shape and closer to the ground for efficiency.  So naturally, it delivers better efficiency.  Nonetheless, it's a solid basis of comparison for my 4X later.  Here's my monthly EV driving summaries for the past 2 years.  2021 = 2.9, 3.4, 3.9, 4.0, 4.8, 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.7, 3.8, 3.4  2022 = 2.8, 3.1, 3.7, 3.9, 4.8, 5.0, 4.8, 4.7, 4.8, 4.4, 3.6, 3.2

Setting Expectations.  They are wildly inaccurate now.  People are taking the LE (Low Energy) rating from Europe expecting that to somehow reflect reality.  Even under the same driving conditions, that won't happen due to the significant temperature difference.  So even with knowledge of how optimistic the value is, inflated quite a bit over what you will actually get, they don't care.  Somehow, that estimate is supposedly a promise.  Sound familiar?  That's exactly what we went through 20 years ago with hybrids.  People didn't have a clue what influenced efficiency.  It was their first look into that subject matter.  They weren't well informed.  That contributed to a wide array of problems.  Now, we repeat that history with plug-in vehicles.  Ugh.  I'm trying to get in front of that though, showing people how to go about setting expectations.  Here's an example from today:  For some perspective... here in the US, our EPA rating is somewhat better than WLTP.  The AWD model (what I'm waiting to get) is rated for 222 miles.  Take that range estimate divided by gross capacity of 72.8 kWh, you get 3.05 mi/kWh.  That is what I would expect with nice driving conditions.  Unfortunately, that rating reflects the entire battery, not net value (the usable portion).  You likely won't be driving until the vehicle comes to a stop (well past empty) either.  So overall, that gives you roughly 60 kWh to work with, which calculates to roughly 183 miles.  Knowing you could easily drop to 2.1 mi/kWh in winter temperatures & conditions, that sets the expectation 126 miles.  In short, watch the mi/kWh (kWh/100km) value for some insight as to why the estimated value is all of the place.  Lastly, keep in mind that winter doesn't last forever.  The few owners living in ideal climate report efficiency much higher.  As with my Prime, I look forward to the upward recovery each year.  That's how you know spring has finally arrived.

Looking Backward.  A new report came out and it did nothing but draw conclusions based on vehicle data of the past.  There was no projections made, no calculations using generational improvement expectations, no change of behavior derived from lower prices or incentives.  It was looking backward only.  Purist gobbled it up.  You got it, this was yet another hit piece casting doubt on PHEV through misrepresentation showing favor for BEV.  Reports like that are so obvious.  People fall for that nonsense anyway.  Despite the inevitable attacks for pointing it out, that's exactly what I did:  Think about how many of those owners that nothing but a basic household outlet for charging.  That slow 1.44 kW rate means overnight dependency.  If owners all had EVSE providing at least 6.6 kW and new PHEV required that as a minimum rate, you can bet electricity usage will go up significantly.   Combined with incentive programs for EVSE purchase and off-peak discounts, it's not rocket-science getting people to take advantage of plugging in.  Also, it sets the stage nicely for that household to support a BEV.  It's a win-win situation.  In others words, not only do the better PHEV help bridge the gap until infrastructure catches up and battery cost/tech improves, it also gets people to embrace plugging in sooner.  Reports that look backward, studying the past, do a disservice in that regard.   Encouraging people to plug in more should be the focus.  Use a carrot, not a stick.

Fighting Toyota's many smaller steps forward is far more difficult, as the "switch" decision helps to reveal.  Evidence of that is how hybrid offerings across the fleet were achieved.

Continue to Defend?  It is easy when you recognize history repeating.  To my surprise though, that repetition is surprisingly basic.  I frequently get asked about my stance: "I'm really questioning on their capabilities and their willingness to assign proper resources on EV.  How do you defend them on this chapter?"  With so much effort being put toward reinforcing narratives beginning to fade, it is quite refreshing to see that... someone exhibiting critical thought!  I find it fascinating that obvious next steps are all but obvious.  Why wouldn't you focus on a best-selling vehicle for electrification?  Watching RAV4 take over Camry's top-seller position should have made the decision for a that vehicle type to be the focus of introduction for their new nameplate.  Customers flocking to the rugged crossover (really its a true SUV, but I don't want to get into semantics) is a sign that shouldn't be ignored.  Yet, that's what has happened.  Heck, even the uber expensive Model Y has dethroned the more affordable Model 3.  The short-sighted nature of enthusiast arguments is appalling.  Going after low-hanging fruit is a wise move, if you recognize that's what it is.  Toyota won't get stuck like Tesla, as I pointed out what should be an obvious strategy:  Why do you insist that Toyota's first bZ model have a heavy emphasis on efficiency?  Prius Prime already fills that spot with regard to EV drive and a bZ sedan is in the works.  4X stands out with ground clearance and Subaru AWD expertise, delivering something directly targeting their own loyal customers.  It simply makes no sense ignoring that opportunity to appeal to RAV4 shoppers.

Learned From Repetition.  Since most people aren't that observant and they don't bother even when a problem is pointed out, we don't learn from history.  When that repetition begins again and signs become obvious, they make excuses.  At best, you'll get misplaced blame.  It's a terrible cycle.  Taking the time to share that information is really just a validation exercise, to ensure you have identified & documented the elements at play... which includes the rare circumstance where actions were taken as a result of having learned:  Other automakers riding the short-term gain from conquest sales is risky business.  That's why feedback from enthusiasts doesn't carry much weight.  It's the same old story again of differing priorities.  To hell with what ordinary customers deem important.  As early-adopters, we can make demands with no concern for long-term sustainability.  Ugh.  Toyota will carefully watch their own audience and adapt accordingly.  That's why I ask here what expectations are.  For example, I find 2.5 mi/kWh perfectly fine during the bulk of winter here, where cold spells below -10°C don't last long.  So what if efficiency plummets when cost.  It is very easy to find others reporting of lower too.  I will tell those who want better efficiency to buy a vehicle designed for that.  There will be other choices.  Smaller, lighter, lower to the ground, and more aerodynamic is quite realistic.

Diversion Advertisement.  Someone shared an advertisement they thought was cute.  It made fun of Toyota for not committing to all-electric vehicles.  Memories of prior pledges rushed to my fingers for sharing.  I refrained though.  Remembering how Ford was going to go 25% hybrid.  But as their own self-imposed deadline approach, all executives grew silent.  As the time for Volt rollout approach, every single person involved with leadership of the program left the program.  It was an obvious abandon ship.  But instead of growing silent, there was diversion.  Pay attention to what we what you to focus on... not the long list of Volt shortcomings, quite a number of promises not kept.  Ugh.  Anywho, this advertisement was even better.  Instead of focusing on what still needs to be done for the masses to accept BEV, we want you to get angry at Toyota for their sustainability approach (long-term survival) rather than our conquest approach (short-term gain).  Again, ugh.  Newbies won't see that underlying message.  They'll just have a good laugh at the diversion.  I tried to point out what was really happening, with the knowledge that recognition of being misled is highly unlikely:  That isn't an advertisement.  It's a propaganda piece.  People are so gullible, they flock to stuff like this.  We've seen it many times in the past... willing victims of diversion.  We don't learn.  History repeats.  In this case, we are being played for suckers.  We are accepting "all in" pledges without any true commitment.  Notice how there is no means of measuring progress and no penalty for failing to deliver?  It's a message without consequence for the sake of appearing to play along.  GM pulled that nonsense so many times, the "over promise, under deliver" message became their mantra. BEV purists want "all in" to be true so bad, they are willing to turn a blind eye big challenges still remaining.  Watch for diversion... exactly like this.  It is the tell-tale sign of barriers failing to be addressed.