Debut.  One thing that antagonists absolutely hate is Toyota's flexibility.  Time and time again, we have seen Toyota adapt on the fly.  Their designs have opportunity in mind, it's included as a requirement right from the very beginning.  Heck, that's how "agile" actually came about.  So when I see comments like this, I know there is more at play that they are not aware of: "In 2017, Toyota said it could be producing cars with solid-state battery packs by 2020.  We are now in 2023, and it is now offering the same 3- to 5-year timetable."  It is important to look at objectives.  Getting hung up on one particular technology or approach is how you back yourself into a corner.  Remember how the GM lacked flexibility with Volt?  That entire project suffered over and over again from missed opportunity as a result... ultimately leading to its death.  That technology in the Primes is still alive & well because Toyota was willing to adapt it.  That seems so obvious.  But when it comes to a debut, enthusiasts force the automaker to adhere to their original promise.  That's the origin of "over promise, under deliver".  Be flexible.  Encourage change.  Deliver goals.  I tried to explain why objectives should be the focus, not any particular method for achieving them:  Devil is in the detail.  It is the same 3 to 5 year timetable, but for an outcome greatly exceeding the original goal.  That target from long ago was for roughly what the latest generation of LFP chemistry delivers.  So, it only made sense to set a more ambitious target for the next offering.  That's how competition works.  It is also the natural progress of technology.

Already Failed.  Gotta like when this is challenged: "Narratives work best when data is cherry-picked, intentionally omitting what doesn't support the image being portrayed..."  It was the result of looking entirely at just what an antagonist didn't like, a genuine advantage Toyota could potentially exploit.  That means avoiding any draw of attention to anything of possible interest.  Focus only on what seems unrealistic.  The best way to do that is to portray that possibility as already have failed.  I got this attempt to do exactly that: "Yeah, hasn't Toyota repeatedly pushed back the dates again and again?"  It's part of FUD, in this case raising doubt.  Since most people are poorly informed, they'll just assume not having any information available on that topic that nothing was ever delivered.  I was more than happy to point out that wasn't actually the case:  Devil is in the detail.  Prototype solid-state batteries were revealed in vehicles during the last Olympics, as planned.  Commercialization (high-volume, high-yield, profitable-margins) are an entirely different matter.  What industry dates have you seen?  In the meantime, bi-polar cells were delivered.  That is an innovative approach to battery weight/density improvement the industry had not been pursuing; yet, their undeniable benefit is now being exploited in production vehicles.

Promises.  Coming from a hypocritical venue, an article with this title was too good for the trolls to resist: "Toyota Details Next-Gen EV Batteries, Promises 497-Mile Range In 2026".  Despite being well written, it was clearly click-bait.  That's easy to confirm too, since other promises aren't called out.  They don't attract attention like Toyota.  When the hybrid leader says something, that is material to stir lots of discussion.  Media outlets survive on that type of activity.  Know your audience...  Anywho, I do.  Waiting for spin to emerge is the routine.  That didn't take long either: "Please please please don't buy a new car now that's superior to anything we currently sell!  Just wait X years for us!  Surely the rest of the marketplace won't change and improve in that same time!"  Gotta love the irony.  They portray Toyota as never improving and got to great extremes to conceal & mislead each  that actually happens.  But rather than a callout on that, I pointed out the double-standard instead:  You're talking about GM, right?  Back in November, their television commercial for Equinox EV stated Spring 2023.  Now, the first Blazer EV won't be delivered until Summer 2024 and there won't even be an entry-level priced Equinox.  Or were you talking about Tesla, where we first got a reveal of CyberTruck way back in 2019?  Perhaps the industry-crushing 4680 which finally rolled but fell far short of expectations in terms volume, cost, and density.  There are many other examples of hype & hope.  The point is to actually state some type of goal, providing consumer interpretation of business mission.

Electricity Guzzler.  This was an interesting read. "Here are all numbers for Hummer EV.  Even if I love the look, I can't believe they waste batteries on those vehicle instead of ramping up Blazer/Equinox EV.  EV2X Pickup: 311 miles (500 km). EV2X Pickup MT: 279 miles (449 km).  EV2X SUV: 303 miles (488 km).  EV2X SUV MT : 279 miles (449 km)."  Numbers like that make you wonder.  What is GM's true push?  Wanting to portray electrification as the future implies reduced emissions and improved efficiency.  Is that really the outcome from selling such a beast?  Notice how much of the industry still completely disregards efficiency, pretty much focusing entirely on range?  That's a false hope.  What are you actually paying for?  Such a disingenuous intent should be called out.  So far, calling any BEV a guzzler results in silence.  Enthusiasts don't want to fight such an obvious battle.  They know they'll lose; yet, the history of such nonsense lives on now.  That repeat with Humber itself is pretty bad.  But seeing the same thing happen with CyberTruck elevates the misrepresentation to an entirely new level.  Simply switching from one type of guzzling to another is a big problem.  When will this finally be acknowledged?  Remember how Volt enthusiasts never cared?  GM did nothing to change any of that.  It was a corporate push for "green" image, not true improvement.  I tried to point what to look for:  40.4 kWh/100 km (1.54 mi/kWh) combined is the most efficient of those 4 models.  There's no possible way to promote an electricity-guzzler like that without being hypocritical to being green.  It does indeed waste batteries.  It will be a hog at DC fast-chargers too.  It simply makes no sense delaying Blazer/Equinox for the sake of selling such a contradiction of purpose.  Ugh!

Unfulfilled Hope.  This sounds reasonable: "I'm not an expert, but I've been following battery tech development.  As far as I can tell, Toyota has not made any technical specs for their SSB available.  That makes me skeptical of their claims."  But then again, what isn't being said can really matter.  I pointed out:  Keep in mind the double-standard Toyota has been facing.  Remember 3 years ago... Battery Day?  That was Tesla's moment with the spotlight, praising their upcoming industry crushing new packaging format... 4680.  Since then, it has been nothing short of disastrous.  Yields are very low, resulting in expensive cells that did not live up to energy-density hype.  Making matters worse, Tesla made the fundamental mistake of premature lock-in.  The chemistry 4680 favors is not the direction industry took.  That's why we see new Tesla vehicles overseas using prismatic & blade format LFP chemistry cells instead.  Put another way, Tesla fanboys have been using Toyota as a distraction from their own unfulfilled hope.

Norway Reality.  Comments like this are how you come to realize there's a secondary narrative at play: "Norway was spending upward of $20,000 per car on BEV subsidies, people still keep their ICE as a second vehicle and they get that money from oil exports, and they are continuing to produce oil, so that argument is very weak."  I wasn't expecting to ever get confirmation like that.  Norway being portrayed as a model for the electrification transition doesn't actually work when you are only told part of what actually happened.  So even if we come to terms with it being having different infrastructure challenges, the fact that we learn some of those BEV owners never stopped driving ICE entirely changes the reality we have been come to believe.  It's just like cherry-picking.  More is really at play than we are informed of.  More comments like this are needed.  Unfortunately, there are not many from Norway who participate on the North American centric forums.  Oh well.  We can debunk now for BEV narratives just like we did for the nonsense spread about hybrids in the past.

Making Profit.  There's a common belief that building lots of BEV will result in strong sales, making profit for automakers just a matter of investing in production.  There is a complete absence of business knowledge.  No matter how much you bring up economics, accounting and marketing, enthusiasts don't want any part of it.  For that matter, they refuse to even just address production itself.  They make assumptions, like faster & cheaper is the best approach.  Since when is avoiding complexity going to result in the most competitive result?  Isn't the desired outcome to deliver a quality product with maximized attributes?  Being able to crank out high-volume at low-cost doesn't necessarily achieve that.  In fact, it likely will not.  That's why I got rather concerned upon hearing 4680 cells were optimized in that matter.  Is taking longer and being priced more a bad tradeoff in the end?  Think about weight.  Think about size.  Think about longevity.  Anywho, I know enthusiasts don't.  So, there isn't much useful information to convey.  Many don't care... hence being enthusiasts.  You want to be supporter, you must acknowledge tradeoffs.  Today's opportunity to enlighten probably fell on deaf ears:  The struggle to sell is interesting, a very predictable outcome from not having any type of profit to leverage.  It is how Toyota was successful with hybrids.  They quite literally milked traditional vehicles with high-margin returns to offset initial losses from hybrid development, then later hybrid spread.  Something was needed to fund their change.   How will Ford, or others for that matter, going to pay for their product shift? Enthusiasts have been attacking Toyota for embracing PHEV, even though that is an obvious path forward to sustainable profit from BEV sales.  Some source of funding is needed for setting up production & dealerships capable supporting an "all in" commitment.

Also, keep in mind that reviewers don't take advantage of infrared-heaters... an opportunity to squeeze out greater efficiency other automakers haven't bothered to try.  I really like the radiant warming they provide... which equates to reduced need for the cabin-heater.

Getting Burned.  This left me wondering: "I got burned by the bZ4X recall debacle, but I can see Toyota's approach in not going all-in on EVs like the other manufacturers."  What does he think others are doing?  For that matter, what was the outcome of "burned" equate to?  I get really tired of vague.  People in general are suckers for just believing wild claims without any detail.  It is how the internet thrives.  That is the very reason I do so much online.  Combatting that nonsense is endless. Spread of misinformation is abundant.  So when someone contributes to FUD with statements like that, I get annoyed.  If you are not part of the solution, you likely could be enabling those trying to undermine.  Anywho, I tried to raise awareness with:  Other automakers declaring "all in" are not actually committed to anything.  There's no milestones or penalties for failing to deliver.  It's the same old game we've seen for over 2 decades now, the same nonsense from back when Toyota shocked the world with Prius.  Those gullible enough to fall for that are just feeding a narrative for an antithesis.  Notice the absence of substance from the "all in" crowd, where there isn't any real accountability?

Getting Attention.  This was opening caught my attention: "I've owned a 2020 Prius Prime since May 2021.  Last time I fueled it was this past May and..."  It concluded with: "Welllllll, the Rav4 Prime has gotten my attention."  Stirring interest is the point, for industry change.  For me, it's getting constructive feedback.  I was quite curious what I would get from sharing this:  Depends upon what your needs truly are.  Our upgrade from Prius Prime to bZ4X has been great.  The extra room is quite handy. Bike trips (with 2-inch hitch) are very nice.  Road trips within a 100-mile radius are no-brainers.  (Farther takes planning, still. But new DC fast-chargers are already helping with that.)  AWD on snow is awesome.  I get a lot more free electricity from the chargers at work, so much so, I don't plug in much at home.  Winter will be especially interesting.  I didn't get much winter driving opportunity this year, just a blizzard which dumped a ton of snow.  Here in Minnesota, the infrared-heaters (radiant warming for your legs & feet) have already been handy.  Along with the heated seat & steering-wheel, there's much less demand on the heat-pump.  Anywho, the choice worked out really well for us.  You'd be happy with a RAV4 Prime.  But as the years go by, you'll likely have that same attention-getting wonder as you do now with the Prius Prime.

Pioneers.  It is interesting to hear from those who are blissfully unaware of history: "This is a first of its kind for Subaru/Toyota and has its flaws, we are pioneers at this point and have to understand that..."  It is great to see attitude like that, but it is woefully misplaced.  Pointing out inaccuracies is a touchy subject too.  I do sometimes.  Keeping the reply brief is key:  Actually, Toyota has been selling EVs elsewhere for several years now.  CH-R will get a second-generation upgrade and UX300e will get a mid-cycle update.  Also, a full EV drive system was rolled out in 2016 within Prius Prime, which included a heat-pump.

Predictions.  More doom & gloom.  Less to support such a dire outcome: "I'm predicting a dramatic transition to majority sales of EVs this decade.  In my opinion, this has already begun.  Toyota is woefully behind and will suffer because of this."  That perspective comes from a limited view, basing change on what the person is witnessing firsthand.  Sure that satisfies many technical requirements, but it does not address logistics.  Demand without support will remain a barrier for a long time to come.  New vehicle sales may shrink as a result of infrastructure shortcomings.  Heavy emphasis on used vehicles sales seems quite likely.  After all, we learned many in Norway saw no incentive to part with their non-electric vehicle following the purchase of an EV.  What kind of unforeseen consequence could happen here?  Think about what role hybrids & plug-in hybrids will play in the transition.  How many of our rural areas will be ready for a dramatic demand shift?  What about densely populated areas?  It's all quite a mystery... nothing solid to support doom & gloom predictions.  I replied to that with:  Claiming Toyota is woefully behind sounds a lot like not being aware of the wide variety of locations they sell vehicles.  Toyota sales span massively diverse markets. I have seen firsthand what they face in Tanzania, a market with basically nothing in common with North America or Europe... where a majority of sales will indeed be EVs (all types of plug-in) by the end of this decade.  In other words, that failure to see is from listening to the limited scope the choir of enthusiasts sing here.  For perspective, notice how that same choir absolutely refuses to acknowledge the specs of popular BEV being sold in China.