Absurdly High, false advertising.  Another sounded off, one who is attempting the equivalent of a lemon-law claim.  I'm quite curious how his situation will play out.  In the meantime, we got this from him: "I have given dealer option to give discount or take car back.  It is good that in Finland we have consumer rights for false advertising."  I volleyed that back with:  Look at EPA history for perspective. In the past, it was flawed like WLTP is now.  With an outcry, stirred in large part by Toyota with Prius, that measurement system ended being reworked.  Testing criteria simply was not a reflection of real-world driving.  That major shortcoming was exposed by hybrids.  People either hadn't noticed or hadn't cared until then.  The fact that WLTP tests are conducted at 23°C (73.4°F) is doing the same now. They aren't the slightest bit realistic for setting expectations related to winter driving; yet, people are treating them that way.  This is why systems with aggressive battery-conditioning deliver skewed results.  I remember hearing about how much electricity the "vampire" draw from Tesla vehicles was problematic, in the early years.  Recently though, that topic is avoided entirely... even though that electricity consumption still exists.  Toyota wanted to account for it.  Others in the industry did not.  So when it comes to "false advertising", many are looking at Toyota as the messenger to shoot rather than actually fixing the problem with WTLP.  Notice how EPA rating doesn't have the same problem for bZ4X.

Absurdly High, something wrong.  This is one of those replies I saw that was worth taking the time to address: "The two cars are both tested in the same condition.  Can't get a better comparison.  There is no surprise in these results.  There is something wrong"  This was my post:  The comparison is flawed.  When would any ICE compare be acceptable based on just what the gauge states?  Outcome was only considered accurate if you measured results at the pump. How much gas did it take to restore the tank to its starting point.  Why isn't that same approach being used for BEV efficiency?  It's quite hypocritical from a stance of those who have been watching the industry for years.  That's why Toyota attempted to take external usage factors into account, in this case, losses during the charge process.  Those not aware of this are spreading false information.  Taking measurement from the charger would obviously be better.  But based upon recent outcry, there will be a software update to remove that adjustment calculation.  The result will be a higher efficiency reported, consistent with what the rest of the industry reports.  The reality that most reviews base their assessment of efficiency upon comparison between standardized testing results and actual real-world observation of RANGE alone.  That is seriously flawed.  Unfortunately, many BEV early-adopters were not concerned about EFFICIENCY results.  Put another way, results from bZ4X comparisons are exaggerated by having a good handle on the data itself.  Recognition of what really matters how that will change. Thanks for asking questions to stir discussion.

Absurdly High, consumption.  Here we go again.  The same disenchanted owner is complaining again.  It's somewhat intriguing, since he is in Romania.  But then again, a new market means the same problems have potential to emerge again.  In this case, he also owns a Tesla Model 3 and uses that to cherry-pick data.  His intentional evade of including other vehicles in his complaints is quite clear.  I found it telling that he claimed displayed value 20.8 kWh/100km from bZ4X of was "HALF the figure" of that of his Tesla's 117 Wh/km on the same drive.  That math doesn't work.  To be half the efficiency, bZ4X would have had to delivered 23.4 kW/100km.  Exaggeration is a dead giveaway of not being objective.  I kept my reply brief, figuring there will be a flurry of posts to reply to following that anyway:  3.0 mi/kWh (20.8 kWh/100 km) for SUV with 8-inch ground clearance is not "absurdly high consumption" for ordinary consumers.  Keep in mind you're an enthusiasts, someone who has very different priorities from a mainstream shopper.  Knowing audience is vital.

Basics, like misconceptions and status quo pushback, aren't taken seriously.  This repeat of history is quite remarkable.  It's the same old nonsense we saw from prior enthusiasts.  They dismiss what they don't like and base leadership upon niche success rather than accepting how mainstream change takes place.  Ugh.

Practical Nature.  We get more of the same history repeat.  Some people get so hung up on looks, they forget the bigger picture.  Still to this day, Toyota is targeted for Prius.  The reality that roughly two-thirds of their hybrid sales were not Prius is completely overlooked.  The fact that so many other models were rolled out, yet not really noticed, is a huge endorsement for the technology.  That's the point, to not stand out... which is exactly why you deliver a model that does.  It's basically a showcase, like a spokesperson.  Nonetheless, that part just slips by.  They accept change because it doesn't apply to them.  I'm not buying a weird looking Prius, I'll buy the Camry hybrid instead.  Gotta love it.  That's why comments like this are so amusing: "Those front fenders are brutal."  The practical nature of Prius was completely lost to many.  It was the only midsize hatchback available.  Back then, there simply weren't any besides compact.  Larger was very practical.  If you need it, great.  Like the high ground-clearance for bZ4X.  I'll use that for driving through snow and it will be nice having that extra height when carrying a load on back (no chance of scraping).  Anywho, the hang-up on looks will never go away and it serves a useful purpose.  This is how I pointed that out:  It makes no sense to have the vehicle look like all the others.  In fact, wanting a plain appearance is somewhat bizarre of a request in such a saturated market where crossovers already blend into the crowd.

Immune.  It's telling how Tesla is portrayed as immune.  No matter what happens, Tesla is supposedly already well prepare for it and Toyota has been caught totally off guard.  Ugh.  With that mentality, we get statements like this: "But the more likely outcome is Osborne shrinks Toyota by ~ a million a year from 24-27, and Tesla surpasses them in 2026, with absolutely terrible momentum for Toyota to try to recover from.  Fun times."  As for the immunity of the other legacy automakers, that position is assumed but never mentioned.  The narrative focuses entirely on Toyota's demise and portrays the others as slow and without struggle.  Quite annoyed, I followed up that nonsense with this reply:  Looking at VW and GM, we see only the choice ICE or BEV.  Not having any type of bridge option to address supply shortage, overwhelming demand will create an Osborne Effect.  The PHEV and hybrids Toyota has available serve as a buffer while BEV across the entire industry lags.  It is an absurd act of denial to acting as VM and GM are immune, that Tesla will only impact Toyota.

Won't Care.  This stated the situation remarkably well: "The vast majority of car buyers aren't mad at Toyota, or Honda, or any other manufacturer.  They don't follow these things or comment on message boards.  When they need to buy a car they'll buy what fits their needs, be it Toyota that tried to push FCEVs or Hyundai that pushed FCEVs but also developed EVs.  They won't care."  That nailed the sentiment I have been saying all along, without having to point out the important of "know your audience".  In fact, this goes way back to the question of "Who is the market for Volt?"  It was to address fundamentals.  What will people actually purchase?  It's like when they provide a reaction at an auto show, then express completely different interest when shopping for a vehicle.  Toyota babying the battery-pack seems absurd to an enthusiast, but totally makes sense to a person seeking longevity.  Think about what people will care about many, many years from now.  Those protective measures taken... like not pre-conditioning or allowing ultra-fast charging... will be recognized & desired.  Put simply, mainstream consumers assign value quite differently from early-adopters... and the current online audience just plain cannot accept that reality.

Flawed Logic, distance.  The response to my size post was great: "The majority of people average 15,000 miles a year.  That is a hell of a lot more than 40 miles."  He clearly didn't actually do the math.  The way some people assume is quite remarkable when you actually get to witness their thought.  I wonder how much he was thinking people drive per day.  Needless to say, after what will definitely be a bitter post to read, I don't expect to hear from this guy again:  RAV4 Prime delivers 42 miles of EV per charge.  Multiply that times 356 and you get 14,952 miles.

Flawed Logic, size.  Gotta like this: "The logical solution for right now is PHEVs with 24 or 30 KW battery packs and range extenders."  It comes down to not really understanding the technology or how legacy automakers have responded to it.  You can see the weaker designs required more battery to achieve the same results.  That's why I am constantly harping on efficiency.  Don't look at range, look at how the electricity is being consumed.  Simply cramming in more battery isn't a real solution.  It wastes resource, costing you more in terms of vehicle price and operation expense.  Growing desperation to meet mandated emission requirements will make that bad situation even worse.  Getting the message through is a challenge.  Many enthusiasts online lack the skill of critical thinking.  They just see a number and impose it elsewhere, without considering what it truly represents.  I attempt to put that into relatable terms:  That's overkill.  40 miles is all that's needed to cover daily driving.  RAV4 Prime exceeds that with 18.1 kWh and the new Prius Prime will get roughly 40 miles with 13.6 kWh.  As for "range extenders" need, that's really just marketing.  Any PHEV with the ability to achieve a SULEV emission-rating while operating in hybrid mode must by necessity be very efficient.

Changing Their Mind.  I remember posting about GM actually doing that.  They had a binary approach, it was "all in" for one particular technology.  Sound familiar?  It's remarkable how little things change.  Back then with Volt, it was the "range anxiety" campaign... a clear declaration of being against BEV.  Now, it is the reverse, plug-in hybrids are supposedly evil.  Ugh.  That is why the diverse approach for Toyota gets so much opposition: "Seriously... they need to make their mind up... I think there is an article every 3 or 4 months where Toyota says they changed their minds."  People twist that multi-solution problem solving as a terrible idea, as if risking it all on a single investment is wise.  Again, ugh.  This is what I had to say from having to continuously deal with that nonsense:  That "changed their minds" is a narrative being pushed by some wanting purity, only a single focus.  All along, Toyota has been saying they will be taking a diverse approach.  We see PHEV models of Prius & RAV4 already. Crown, Harrier (Venza) and CH-R models are on the way.  At the same time Prius Prime is getting the next-gen PHEV upgrade.  While all that is happening, Toyota has begun rolling out new "bZ" vehicles.  We currently have 4X and have seen the prototype for a smaller 3X model. In short, they have made of their mind.  It's just that some don't like the message.

Sales Misleading.  This was quite predictable: "After selling a mere 1,220 units of its first electric SUV, the bZ4X, in the US last year."  No matter what the circumstances, the first year is always treated as if it was a full 12 months... for Toyota, anyway.  That double-standard is telling.  You either have an article writer who doesn't bother to research well or one attempting to feed a narrative.  Using the word "mere" expresses bias.  That's the clue.  How to reply to that nonsense varies.  In this case, I called it out directly with:  That is like quoting sales for the first year of Prius; it gives a very misleading impression of sales by leaving out vital facts.  In this case, bZ4X deliveries did not start until 4 months into the year, they were halted for 4 months during the recall, then it took another month to apply the fix.  So basically, the first year was only for 3 months and only for the coastal states.  That in now way represents demand nor even reflects the current wait-list.

Range Issue?  This is at best a fizzle: "You would think if Toyota could spend billions to develop hydrogen vehicles that they could have addressed the range issue with their introductory model.  Hope they succeed."  It's a strange benefit of the recall.  Delay of delivery allowed those who weren't well informed to back out of their purchase decision.  Keep that in mind when antagonists spin it the other way.  This reminds me a lot of each new Prius rollout.  The next-generation model would always appeal to a new audience... one that included poorly informed shoppers.  Heck, that's a big part of the reason I'll be jumping into a 4X.  That opportunity to get in front of the misinformation wave is priceless.  People make assumptions.  Good or bad, that is reality.  So, when you bump into it, think about how to respond.  This is what I did in this instance:  Which "range issue" narrative are you referring to... the one where WLTP is highly misleading or the choice to not deliver a long-range capacity?  In other words, look at actual MI/KWH or KWH/100KM values, then share with us related concerns.  There's simply too much rhetoric flying around to be helpful otherwise.

$40,000 Tax-Credit.  Did you know the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) includes a $40,000 tax-credit for electric vehicles that weigh more then 14,000 pounds?  Makes you wonder how much Hummer EV weighs.  Thankfully, it isn't anywhere near that much.  But tipping the scales at 9,063 pounds is rather extreme regardless.  Remember the $10,000 tax-credit for the regular Hummer?  That supposedly was a "good for the economy" purchase.  Let's hope whatever beast that actually qualifies for this is truly used for the better.  Commercial delivery vehicles (large trucks) come to mind as practical.  We'll see.

WLTP Test.  Do you know how a WLTP test is performed?  Most people don't.  It's quite misleading, way more so than EPA.  Average speed is just 46.5 km/h.  That's less than 28.9 mph.  There is no A/C or Heater.  For that matter, the fan isn't even turned on.  Testing temperature is 23°C (73.4°F).  That's basically ideal conditions.  Someone today pointed that out and said: "Try driving like this and you will see the difference."  Doing that, you'll get great results.  Going significantly faster with the heater running is quite the opposite... yet, many are surprised to discover that.  In fact, some flat out refuse to accept it.  This is an entire level more complex than hybrids... which many... most... still don't understand.  It is a big reason why being able to mislead about PHEV in markets with WLTP is so easy.  When the audience is so unaware of how efficiency is measured and the influences affecting it, you have an environment ripe for deception.  Ugh.