(And yes, I found the fictitious date... September 31... for availability quite amusing.)

Confused.  New owners who jump on opportunity without having any background, especially with first year rollout, will post something like what we got today: "I'm really confused. Maybe I just don't understand how electric cars work or the way my mileage is estimated."  I kept my reply to that simple, interested to see what discussion gets stirred by that request for understanding:  The easiest reply is to just point out how efficiency for an electric vehicle is no different than one that uses gas.  Both are subject to the influence of temperature & speed.  Driving at 80 mph with the A/C (or heater) will consume fuel quickly.  Estimates of available range will take recent consumption-rate into account.  In more favorable conditions, you'll see much better results.  Watch what happens driving in the suburbs with just the outside vent.

Gas Station Rants.  The attack came from a BEV purist fighting Toyota's endorsement of hybrids and plug-in hybrids.  It started with this: "I think they were expecting to build increasingly efficient hybrids for the next 20 years before the major push to EVs.  That's what their strategy appears to be."  Then, it turned into a rant about how infrastructure wasn't really a problem.  He eliminated the original context of timing and pretended there was some investor making the choice.  I was especially amused by the disregard for cost.  Supposedly, a large tanker trunk delivering gas is expensive, but storing the equivalent amount of energy in the form of electricity is a trivial matter.  Ugh.  That type of dangerous disregard to facts is scary.  Who is he trying to convince?  Quite annoyed, I tried to direct the discussion toward a constructive exchange... expecting that to fall on deaf ears:  If you look at Toyota's entire market, seeing an increasingly optimized hybrid emerge makes sense.  Europe, North America and China will be heavily dominated by BEV choices from Toyota, but sales elsewhere won't have supporting infrastructure for a very long time.  My trip to Tanzania reinforced that assessment.  Toyota has a very strong presence there, but electricity simply isn't available for charging vehicles.  While other legacy automakers will struggle with ICE sales having plummeted, Toyota will balance their overall sales/profit with hybrids.  Notice how those others really don't have a plan for addressing unsupportive markets?

Spreading Lies.  This is a type of projection that will likely start to look desperate: "Toyota in particular are lying about how much pollution their PHEVs and Hybrids emit.  Labs have found they emit 3 times more than Toyota states."  It isn't anything new.  It's just way easier to prove false now.  I was amused.  Someone immediately jumped on that asking which "labs" actually made such a statement.  For me, I just dismiss nonsense like that.  Even weak data... you know, cherry-picked & outdated... isn't worth the time.  That just creates noise online, feeding the FUD.  So, I just write it off with:  That is utter nonsense.  There isn't even any logic to such a claim.  What would a PHEV with a range of 44 miles (2023 Prius) or 42 miles (2023 RAV4) be emitting 3 times more of?  Entirely electric commutes are just as non-polluting as any BEV.  No gas-engine starting means what?  Ironically, the efficiency of Toyota's design shows too.  Resulting mi/kWh shows their technical expertise.

First Sighting!  My first sighting of another 4X just driving on the road finally happened here.  Woohoo!  It was a white like mine.  I wasn't able to get any other detail.  It was going in the opposite direction, but was only 3 miles from home.  So, I could end up seeing it again.  I wondered how long it would actually take.  There aren't many deliveries here, yet.  We are just 4.5 months from California rules take effect, where automakers will be required to supply their dealers with a minimum inventory to maintain their ability to continue sales in the state.  There's no requirement to actually sell them.  No push of any sort is enforced.  It's just the first step toward helping those interested in purchasing a plug-in vehicle to be able to do so.  Absence of availability has been a problem in the past.  The hope is dealers will embrace it as an opportunity, seeing the state is willing to assist with electrification efforts.  Anywho, nothing happens quickly.  We are seeing progress though.  That sighting on the road is a milestone, a sign of encouragement.

Documentation.  I was asked this: "Can you provide some documentation to back up this claim of pre-conditioning for driving?"  It was totally reasonable and quite understandable why someone would request a definitive answer to question.  Unfortunately, the topic is not as simple as it would seem.  In fact, the subject around thermal management of battery-packs is horribly conveyed.  Enthusiast avoidance of detail comes back to haunt them on this very topic.  The most basic things, like ideal temperature, still remain an unknown.  Heck, discussion of chemistry differences has resulted in almost nothing for documentation.  Among that crowd, no one making an effort is a sign of trouble.  Expecting something for a mainstream consumers from legacy automakers, forget it.  This is how I tried to draw attention to that conundrum:  We have to start by clarifying what "pre-conditioning" actually represents... which is exactly why the subject will persist until real-world data is shared.  That's the same problem we've seen with hybrids; documentation isn't enough.  The questions asked refer to 3 very distinct levels of warming without any detail.  The most basic is protection.  The battery will automatically be kept warm.  We don't know the detail because reviewers didn't bother.  As an owner living in Minnesota, I will.  Stay tuned.  Readings from ODB-II with my Prius Prime showed temperature reading above 39°F even in the extreme of winter.  Warming beyond that can be entirely pointless, since using energy while you drive for the sake of improving efficiency while you drive can result a net loss.  Warming to the level of DC fast-charging while you drive, just to deliver fastest results, is wasteful consumption.  Toyota currently doesn't endorse that approach; instead, the aggressive heating isn't started until connected to the DC charger.  With initial ownership no having included winter yet, you're just going to have to wait like the rest of us to find out.  If you don't like that, try getting detail on the same subject from other BEV.  Notice how vague their documentation is.  That saying "the devil is in the detail" is why some enthusiasts avoid technical discussion.

Vastly Superior, charging.  Obsession with speed is nothing new.  We deal with that nonsense all the time.  When it comes to charging-stations, the problem is there's a narrative being pushed that "slow" is 150 kW and the faster 350 kW is what every automaker should be striving for.  In reality, there is only a tiny count of vehicles capable of even remotely reaching that speed and none of them can maintain it for long.  You need a massive battery-pack and an incredibly wasteful design to take advantage of such speed.  What's the point?  Ordinary consumers are just fine with the base 50 kW chargers, especially when it means more availability.  Remote areas simply cannot deliver faster.  Electricity service on that scale is expensive.  That's why I resent comments like this: "50 kW are a total shit".  He was desperately trying to insult & offend anyone trying to endorse them.  Sometimes, enthusiasts are their own worst enemy.  It makes no sense fighting a resource that could thrive in remote areas.  Heck, my own county has parks that are striving to deliver 62 kW chargers.  How is that not fast enough?  When you visit the park, you'll be there well over an hour anyway.  Being able to get a substantial charge while out on a hike would be awesome.  I fired back at that vastly superior nonsense with some facts:   Every technology has enthusiasts who refuse to acknowledge the benefit of reaching a tipping point. It is when the level of performance hits that threshold where more isn't necessarily better.  In this case, a routine stop at a grocery or retail store delivers a very useful about of range.  50 kW for 20 minutes will result in 59 miles from an everyday BEV like Chevy Bolt (120 MPGe = 3.56 mi/kWh).  That distance is well over the average daily drive distance without any inconvenience.  How often do people actually travel beyond the capacity of their battery-pack where minutes are critical?

Thanks!  It is very nice to get feedback from a comment posted on a review.  Their attempt to convey useful information about bZ4X was challenged, just like any other reviewer faces.  There is a struggle to learn about the vehicle and get detail right while being within the constraints of time, along with the logistics of filming.  It's a challenge.  Most do an ok job.  The reviews serve a helpful role with initial interest.  Value fades as real-world data becomes available from actual owners.  That type of endorsement comes with deep insight from driving the vehicle day in and day out.  You become familiar with what is actually important for ownership.  Generically glossing over specifications isn't what people really want to know.  How does a reviewer address that?  Most probably struggled with the topic for awhile, then move on if nothing fruitful comes from their effort.  That's where I come in.  I try to convey tidbits they may not have realized or understood the value of.  After all, knowing audience is a big deal.  Today, I pointed out what I thought would do exactly that.  Turns out, it did!  I got a thank you from the reviewer for sharing this:  I own the AWD, with the latest software update, and strongly disagree with the advice related to timing.  On road trips, it is not a good idea to charge to 80% with any EV.  That's due to charge-curve.  You stop around 60% since it is so much faster.  It's a diminishing return effect commonly overlooked.

Practical Speed.  The government of Japan is beginning to invest in infrastructure improvement.  The hope is to raise the base 40 kW speed available from most DC fast-chargers to 90 kW by 2030.  Coming from a market hoping to offer lots of 350 kW capable stations, that must slower rate seems absurd.  Is it though?  Without context, you sure get that impression.  But it shouldn't take much to stir some questions about speed.  After all, overnight charging works just fine for virtually all daily needs with nothing but a EVSE that plugs into a dryer-outlet... or so the BEV purists say... which makes you wonder how arguing that something 18 times faster isn't good enough makes sense.  Why isn't it?  That absence of detail and unwillingness to address need is confirmation certain individual are not interested in practical.  They want more speed, period.  Identifying want is unacceptable.  They'll refuse acknowledgement of diminishing return too.  It's a common downfall among enthusiasts.  Anywho, I an not such an individual.  I try to be part of the chorus of true supporters, willing to engage in constructive exchanges.  Here is such an attempt:  A practical example here are the 62 kW stations Starbucks is experimenting with.  Those are less expensive, allowing the business to provide more of them.  That makes a lot of sense.  Their goal is for you to purchase coffee & food while you wait... not queuing up in the parking lot.

Garbage Narrative.  A comment posted from that video stated the following: "It'd be neat to see them repeat this experiment in a Tesla.  Not that I think media should promote the brand, but they should acknowledge that they are ahead of the game and that the supercharger network is the blueprint for other brands.  Non-tesla charging infrastructure is garbage currently."  That just plain is not true.  Some are indeed bad.  Some are actually better than Tesla... faster speed... longer cord... better parking.  To generalize like that is wrong.  Tesla has done an awesome job of filling in gaps, enabling long-distance travel.  But that shouldn't be the point of owning a BEV, as many enthusiasts spin the situation.  Notice how the goal-posts have moved, how the original selling-points for a BEV are no longer the focus of attention?  Think about why that is, how that happened.  Enthusiasts lost objectivity.  That's what allowed range obsession to get so out of hand.  Who is the competition?  Needless to say, I had thoughts of my own about that neat-to-see suggestion:  Careful what you wish for.  Tesla stations lack a fundamental ordinary consumers expect and NEVI funding requires... a basic payment interface, just like all gas-pumps have.  No way to pay with a credit-card is a lot bigger deal than most enthusiasts participating in online discussions realize.  Not having to inform the user of pricing & progress is pretty much a deal breaker.  As savvy as we are with phones and interfacing with the vehicle, don't expect the same from an typical driver.  V4 stations will supposedly address those shortcomings, as well as provide a longer cord.  There is a great deal of potential, but we are far from any ubiquitous still.

"EV" Misrepresentation.  When the title of the report is "EV Range Anxiety" but the only vehicle types mentioned are ICE and BEV, what are you supposed to think?  In other words, that exclusion forces you to consider the situation to be binary.  Omitting other options available is not journalism, it's cherry-picking.  As good as the local 9-minute video on the topic was, it disappointed.  It was especially troubling when they presented a count including PHEV, but repeatedly state "EV" in the context of "BEV"... hence the topic.  In other words, it was just another piece feeding a narrative.  Blah.  I responded to the post sharing the video with:  As nice as that report was, it excluded a fundamental bridge to help get people plugging in right away.  Unfortunately, that unintended bias is quite common.  It's a narrative we have to make an effort to stop feeding.  If a BEV cannot support your long-distance travel, it isn't worth considering a purchase yet.  That's just plain wrong.  PHEV (plug-in hybrids) do an awesome job of levering electric-only driving immediately, while at the same time encouraging level-2 installs at home and enabling other vehicles in the household to become BEV.  You can dramatically reduce gas consumption without any range-anxiety.  Think about the title of the report.  Think about how easy it is to own a BEV for daily use when there is a PHEV also available.  Think about how many families have more than a single vehicle who could benefit from plugging in every night.  btw, if you look at the actual registration data from MN.GOV, you can clearly see that PHEV are included in the count they quoted.  Yet, there was no mention of the fact that PHEV don't ever cause range-anxiety.  The report portrayed BEV as the only plug-in choice available.