John's Stuff - Personal Log 1299

November 2, 2024 - November 12, 2024

Last Updated: Weds. 6/25/2025

11-12-2024 Subpar, superiority. Here we go: "So while GM is moving on to third gen, Toyota purposely released a subpar 1st gen?" I had a lot to say about that. My rebuttal started with:

Subpar based on enthusiast criteria, which has little in common with priorities of mainstream consumers.

Think about it. Audience has been conquest buyers... which has proven less effective. Notice the complete absence of loyal GM customers, showing no interest in purchase of Volt or Bolt. They were simply early-adopters taking advantage of the opportunity, then later abandoned GM with their next purchase.

GM is finally getting around to targeting their own showroom shoppers by offering Equinox EV. That's exactly what Toyota is working on with bZ4X, which resembles RAV4. In 2 years when the gen-2 variants (there will be choices of battery-type) start to rollout, it will hitting a market only then reaching that wider audience.

As for the criteria itself, think about what's truly important... reliability. Notice how bZ4X is already well refined? That level of EV reliability & efficiency comes from their PHEV experience. That knowledge transferred over well for BEV. It is why focus of the upcoming gen-2 can be on cost, range and speed.

If you really want to claim subpar, consider cost-per-mile. People ask all the time what will be the impact to their monthly electric bill.

27 kWh/100mi = Lexus RZ 300e FWD

31 kWh/100mi = Equinox EV FWD
How come GM's supposedly superior 3rd gen is less efficient than Toyota's 1st gen?

11-11-2024
SiC Rollout. I was very happy to see this: "SiC has become the go to design criteria for inverter drive units and SiC/GaN has become a defacto go to in OBC (onboard charger) units in the EV sector." It's something new to discuss, a look forward with some actual critical-thinking material. Phew! That's a nice change of pace. Though... I do wonder what direction this topic will take. We'll see. I posted: Note that based on anecdotal evidence, it would appear that Toyota's rollout of SiC (silicon carbide) use has already begun. Knowing their history of subtle launches, using a model not in the spotlight for real-world shakeout, it makes sense. Look at reports from Lexus RZ 300e owners about their observed efficiency. Those impressive results could be explained by use of their next-gen invertor, especially since it matches the timeline they had planned years back.

11-11-2024 Impossible, audience. Ugh. There are some who will never get it: "Yeah, this is a 'tell' you're one of those folks that like to scare themselves. Jumping from (ICE) floe to (ICE) floe is like that dream where you are falling, falling, falling then wake up sweating, sweating, sweating.....LOL" When acceptance of the message is too much to handle, the next step it to attack the messenger. It's the usual set of insults along with some type of portrayal of weakness. Again, ugh. I dealt with it the same way I always do... point out audience:

Know your audience.

Much intimidation comes from that very first step, purchasing anything other than an ICE. From that newbie perspective, having a battery-pack is scary. There are many, many concerns about reliability & longevity.

Toyota is aggressively and very successfully overcoming that consumer barrier. 100% of Camry, the top-selling sedan in the United States, is now hybrid. Next is an expectation for the top-selling crossover in the United States to become 100% hybrid, RAV4. That sets the stage for easy promotion of the plug-in model, while at the same time opens the door for BEV.

Meanwhile, we know that Toyota is pursuing battery & inverter upgrades for their BEV to use. There are both a larger & smaller BEV platforms in the works too. That's why narratives are Toyota being doomed are utter nonsense.
That's why current focus is on raising the base. After all, we still haven't been told how other legacy automakers are supposedly going to achieve 35% by 2026 model year.

11-11-2024
Impossible, problem shifting. It never ends: "The usual bleating and whining when the writing has been on the wall for a decade." Complete disregard for what's actually happening in the world, an oblivious state of being, it to be expected from enthusiasts. Even before the election, aggressive sales goals made no sense. Toyota is dedicated 85% of their BEV inventory to 25% of their dealers to stage the market. It's exactly what they did in the past. No mandate necessary. It was simply a matter of directing resources to areas capable of using them best. States having adopted California rules, just the ones to require inventory but not enforcing any type of sales, will still be better informed then the rest. That's us here in Minnesota. Consumers much have something available for purchase. That's how you build demand. The "writing" tells us it will still be a few years before any actual mandate for most states. Despite that, there's an expectation of 35% by next year. How? I kept pushing to find out: Yet, no one has been able to present any legacy automakers plan on how they will achieve 35% for the 2026 model year. Notice that silence. Only Toyota has the integrity to push for discussion, despite the obvious problem most falling short of 35%. Knowing how much goal-posts get moved anyway, why not set more realistic milestones? What benefit is there from pushing? All that will do is deprive other states of inventory. In other words, it simply shifts the problem elsewhere rather than actually solving it.

11-10-2024 Impossible, profit. Someone actually tried to be constructive, but that quickly fell apart: "The analysis you are referring to divided the total development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced by 2012 to declare GM was losing 49k on each Volt sold. GM continued to sell the Volt until it reached the max "Clean" vehicles it could sell with the rebate in 2019." Not knowing the bigger picture, what else happened, is a big problem. That creates a distorted perspective, one I have to constantly battle. Oh well. At least I have some fact to stir awareness of the other elements that were at play:

I wasn't referring to any analysis, since that would only convey an American perspective. Reality is, GM signed over most of the rights for that IP to ownership in China, to the SAIC group. That severely limited GM's options. This is why the forthcoming Equinox PHEV will be an entirely new design.

Profit is paramount. This is why Toyota is focusing on diversification at the moment instead. Their PHEV is currently being spread to CH-R and Crown, following that is an expectation for Harrier (Venza), while at the same time phasing out ICE to make their base all hybrid. It's the bigger picture most keyboard-warriors fail to notice.
When production of both battery & hybrid is well established here and the smoke clears from whatever mess the next administration creates, then ramp up of both PHEV and BEV will begin. It simply makes no sense, in a market struggling from loss-leader sales, tax-credit dependency, and mandate uncertainty to push volume yet.

11-10-2024 Impossible, consequences. This reply was telling: "It's only impossible if you don't take action. Toyota is learning the consequences of fucking around." Rather than answer any of the questions as to how others can, it was a double-down effort to keep focus on Toyota. Undeterred, I asked another question:

What consequences? Toyota has been watching other legacy automakers push loss-leader offerings and get stuck with overproduction. Notice how no one has been able to explain how anyone else will be able to deliver 35% for the 2026 model year. It's a preview of the "all in" pledges failing to be reached.

California is taking a sensible approach by setting a series of milestones, rather than just one big one. Unfortunately, legacy automakers have been focusing on want rather than need. More range is overkill. Ironically, it is the "dead weight" argument once used in favor of BEV now becoming a trait against BEV. It simply makes no sense trying to squeeze in more battery range clearly not needed for day-to-day use when we already see the solution elsewhere in the world... more DC fast-chargers. That's how NEVI came about, a means of empowering states to do things like adopt California rules.
Toyota has been pointing out that mismatch of priorities. Rather than listening to enthusiast "underwhelming" nonsense, they are just quietly refining their tech and preparing for next-gen rollout. No amount of chest-pounding will change the reality that no one has been able to explain how meeting the California rules is possible.

11-09-2024 Impossible, click bait. This article title set off a firestorm of rhetoric, inviting antagonists to a place where they can thrive: "Toyota Calls California EV Rules 'Impossible' " In other words, we have arrived at another tipping point. They fear Toyota is correct. This comment made that all too clear: "Memo to Toyota: if others can but you cannot, then get the heck out of the state until you are willing to play by the rules. It is possible to meet the requirements but you just don't want to, not that you are unable to." It's so obvious there is a state of panic building when no one can actually explain how. Absence of detail is the confirm. In this case, nothing at all to back claims. I fired back at that nonsense, all too happy to be playing offense now:

Others can? The list of layoffs due to financial struggles begs to differ... GM, VW, Nissan, Stellantis. Heck, Ford has to idle production due to slow sales. Legacy automakers are bleeding money. For that matter, Tesla is having to deal with significantly reduced profit and isn't even trying to compete in the entry-level market. In other words, this is exactly the "low hanging fruit" those enthusiasts wearing rose-colored glasses were warned about.

GM registrations for 2023 in California was 118,952. To meet the 35% next year based on that, it would mean needing to sell 41,633. How many more would be needed to satisfy OR, WA, NY, MA, VT, VA, CO, MD, DE, NM, NJ who have also adopted ACC-II rules? What about the 3 other states currently proposed... RI, DC, ME? There's also MN staged to consider ACC-II. And let's not forget the rest of the states simply wanting some inventory to sell due demand emerging from efforts like NEVI? In other words, we have good intentions faced with the reality of still trying to run a profitable business.
Using Toyota as a scapegoat for those unable to is nothing new. At least Toyota has the backbone & integrity to draw attention to unrealistic expectations. Notice how many of the "all in" legacy automakers are already reneging on their bold production promises?

11-06-2024
Gas Prices. They are the lowest I have seen in years. It's election day today and the opposition is promising significant price reduction for gas makes no sense. How will that be possible and what would the benefit be? It seems nothing more than an effort to kick the can, yet again. Pushing change in times of struggle rarely works. Portraying good prices now as somehow being a hardship is clearly an effort to enable more denial. They are providing an excuse to not have to care. In other words, the propaganda continues. Price of gas should not be a concern. That isn't a big cost when long-term exposures come to mind. The typical focus on short-term at the sacrifice of long-term is normal. Thankfully, Toyota is a long-term planner. Enthusiasts hate that. They are impatient and want big returns. The idea of continuous improvement is portrayed by them as a weakness. Ugh. Anywho, this is what I had to say on such a consequential topic on such a consequential day: Keeping focus entirely on gas is what keeps the rhetoric alive. America's best selling sedan is Camry, produced in Georgetown, Kentucky. 100% are now hybrid, delivering 51 MPG. The best selling SUV is RAV4, also produced in Georgetown, Kentucky. 43% are hybrid, delivering 39 MPG. 7% are the plug-in hybrid model. It was government regulation that pushed such a realistic solution for the masses to help ease the pain of gas. Those hybrids are affordable, competitive and profitable... as well as less polluting. Put another way, the only solution isn't drilling more.

11-06-2024
300,000 Sold. This was an interesting headline: "GM Has Sold Over 300,000 EVs In The U.S. In Less Than A Decade." That stirred some interesting memories. From that, I shared: Some of us remember the 300,000 goal Toyota set for hybrids. It was reached in early 2005, back when there was nothing but a $2,000 deductible available... which worked out to about $200 on the typical tax return. The tax credits we have come accustomed to didn't exist back then. The very first was an allocation of only 60,000 per automaker, starting January 1, 2006.

11-05-2024
Facing Reality. I'm intrigued to see how long it takes for this messaging to sink in, especially with the outcome of tomorrow's election: "The reality is, who gets to a higher energy density battery chemistry and can assemble a battery pack with more energy density, less weight and safer at a price point of $100/kWh or less retail, they will vault ahead of the "others" while they play catch up and flounder along the way." Here's my contribution to that discussion: This group hasn't wanted to face that reality. They have been in the favor of premature lock-in. If an automaker wasn't locking into a battery chemistry in the here & now, they were labeled as a laggard... so hopelessly behind, bankruptcy was an inevitable outcome. That was absurd, not reality. We know much higher density cells are being developed. We know a variety of companies have been making progress with solid-state. We also know that high-volume sales of loss-leaders (unprofitable vehicles) is a risky move. In short, the EV landscape will change rather profoundly as battery technology improves. It won't be in a linear fashion either. Sodium-Ion will provide a boom for energy-storage, making remote DCFC locations, high-count DCFC locations, and even slow-speed DC at home a reality. Change is coming. It will be a major paradigm-shift from early-adopters (low-hanging fruit) to how mainstream consumers view the industry.

11-03-2024
They Don't See. Much of the problem with EV progress here is from the fact that worldwide views are missing. Most here only see what's happening here. That's how we end up with confusion like this: "Yet another fine battery with a weirdly specific range." Much of that comes from our information sources either being bias or just narrow scoped. It's how so many of the accomplishments in China are never heard about here. In fact, there's some prejudice here too. I certainly got confirmation of that when purchasing the bZ4X model using the CATL-supplied battery. It came from China rather than Japan. People were well informed about Panasonic, so they didn't look any further. You don't learn anything if you don't research. When you do, you notice things... like seeing most units related to development are in metric. Upon that epiphany, you recognize that targets & deliverables aren't actually weird. Those outcomes make a lot of sense... once you see & understand their origin. Hopefully, this short reply to that post will bring about some unexpected insight: That's only if you look at it from an American perspective. 621 miles = 1000 km.

11-02-2024
Marketing Priorities. This is just plain wrong: "How long are we in NA going to give the so called Big Three protection from these Chinese manufacturers?? Obviously the NA producers got caught being too old and slow to adopt the new technology and now NA consumers are being made to pay the price for it." That wasn't it at all. Our obsession with speed, power and range was the problem. The technology was adopted long ago, but antagonists raising the bar by always pushing for more. That's how our marketing works. Priority is entirely on offering more each time. There's never a mindset of acceptable. Compromise has been given a stigma of weakness rather than representing balance. Since the article was able NIO, an automaker in China who sells a SUV that looks very similar to Tesla Model Y but at a significantly lower price, I turned around the discussion to hopefully raise awareness of our own market. Of course, the truth hurts and most don't want to hear it: How long are we in NA going to call vehicles with sleek aerodynamics and low ground-clearance SUVs? There's a lot of denial & misrepresentation to overcome still. A encouraging sign of progress is that efficiency is finally getting attention. It was truly absurd how reviews of the past referred to "efficiency" in terms of range. How many miles you got had absolutely nothing to do with electricity consumption. Thankfully, measures like mi/kWh and kWh/100km are finally getting some attention. Our priorities have really been messed up... which is why NA producers are now scrambling.

11-02-2024
More Questions. Gotta love this recent shift from rhetoric to critical thought. This question popped up shortly after answering the previous: "Thinking of buying 300e. Can someone let me know if we can use Tesla fast charging or how you charge outside the home?" That was an easy one to respond to, though I wish the answer itself didn't include a reminder that rollout is always slower than hoped: Unfortunately, owners of Lexus/Toyota EVs are still limited to only Tesla Superchargers with MagicDock. Based on the slow progress to J3400 (NACS), my expectation is we won't get access & adapters until sometime mid-2025. Fortunately, DC fast-chargers with CCS work fine and there numbers continue to increase.

11-02-2024
Expensive? I really like seeing newbie questions like this: "Is 56 cents per kWh expensive? How does it compare to ice?" Having become a top contributor on some of the popular EV groups, I get to indulge with my responses. The answer to this one was particularly exciting, since I was curious what those in Europe would have to say. Their gas is far more expensive... which is a big reason why EV ownership there is so much more popular. Imagine spending 2 to 3 times more per gallon of gas. Whoa! Anywho, this is the answer I provided: The answer depends upon usage. Paying 56 cents per kWh while on a road trip is reasonable. In fact, the cost to "fill" a typical battery-pack is very similar to a typical gas-tank at that price. The catch is, you pay far less at home. The current national average cost for electricity in the United States is 16.63 cents per kWh. That makes EVs a clear winner in terms of usage expense. Even better is when owners take advantage of time-of-use & off-peak discount opportunities from their electricity provider. Cost drops anywhere from 8 to only 2 cents per kWh. Such a massive savings over gas is why most EV owners state they will never go back to owning an ICE.

11-12-2024	Subpar, superiority. Here we go: "So while GM is moving on to third gen, Toyota purposely released a subpar 1st gen?" I had a lot to say about that. My rebuttal started with: Subpar based on enthusiast criteria, which has little in common with priorities of mainstream consumers. Think about it. Audience has been conquest buyers... which has proven less effective. Notice the complete absence of loyal GM customers, showing no interest in purchase of Volt or Bolt. They were simply early-adopters taking advantage of the opportunity, then later abandoned GM with their next purchase. GM is finally getting around to targeting their own showroom shoppers by offering Equinox EV. That's exactly what Toyota is working on with bZ4X, which resembles RAV4. In 2 years when the gen-2 variants (there will be choices of battery-type) start to rollout, it will hitting a market only then reaching that wider audience. As for the criteria itself, think about what's truly important... reliability. Notice how bZ4X is already well refined? That level of EV reliability & efficiency comes from their PHEV experience. That knowledge transferred over well for BEV. It is why focus of the upcoming gen-2 can be on cost, range and speed. If you really want to claim subpar, consider cost-per-mile. People ask all the time what will be the impact to their monthly electric bill. 27 kWh/100mi = Lexus RZ 300e FWD 31 kWh/100mi = Equinox EV FWD How come GM's supposedly superior 3rd gen is less efficient than Toyota's 1st gen?
11-11-2024	SiC Rollout. I was very happy to see this: "SiC has become the go to design criteria for inverter drive units and SiC/GaN has become a defacto go to in OBC (onboard charger) units in the EV sector." It's something new to discuss, a look forward with some actual critical-thinking material. Phew! That's a nice change of pace. Though... I do wonder what direction this topic will take. We'll see. I posted: Note that based on anecdotal evidence, it would appear that Toyota's rollout of SiC (silicon carbide) use has already begun. Knowing their history of subtle launches, using a model not in the spotlight for real-world shakeout, it makes sense. Look at reports from Lexus RZ 300e owners about their observed efficiency. Those impressive results could be explained by use of their next-gen invertor, especially since it matches the timeline they had planned years back.
11-11-2024	Impossible, audience. Ugh. There are some who will never get it: "Yeah, this is a 'tell' you're one of those folks that like to scare themselves. Jumping from (ICE) floe to (ICE) floe is like that dream where you are falling, falling, falling then wake up sweating, sweating, sweating.....LOL" When acceptance of the message is too much to handle, the next step it to attack the messenger. It's the usual set of insults along with some type of portrayal of weakness. Again, ugh. I dealt with it the same way I always do... point out audience: Know your audience. Much intimidation comes from that very first step, purchasing anything other than an ICE. From that newbie perspective, having a battery-pack is scary. There are many, many concerns about reliability & longevity. Toyota is aggressively and very successfully overcoming that consumer barrier. 100% of Camry, the top-selling sedan in the United States, is now hybrid. Next is an expectation for the top-selling crossover in the United States to become 100% hybrid, RAV4. That sets the stage for easy promotion of the plug-in model, while at the same time opens the door for BEV. Meanwhile, we know that Toyota is pursuing battery & inverter upgrades for their BEV to use. There are both a larger & smaller BEV platforms in the works too. That's why narratives are Toyota being doomed are utter nonsense. That's why current focus is on raising the base. After all, we still haven't been told how other legacy automakers are supposedly going to achieve 35% by 2026 model year.
11-11-2024	Impossible, problem shifting. It never ends: "The usual bleating and whining when the writing has been on the wall for a decade." Complete disregard for what's actually happening in the world, an oblivious state of being, it to be expected from enthusiasts. Even before the election, aggressive sales goals made no sense. Toyota is dedicated 85% of their BEV inventory to 25% of their dealers to stage the market. It's exactly what they did in the past. No mandate necessary. It was simply a matter of directing resources to areas capable of using them best. States having adopted California rules, just the ones to require inventory but not enforcing any type of sales, will still be better informed then the rest. That's us here in Minnesota. Consumers much have something available for purchase. That's how you build demand. The "writing" tells us it will still be a few years before any actual mandate for most states. Despite that, there's an expectation of 35% by next year. How? I kept pushing to find out: Yet, no one has been able to present any legacy automakers plan on how they will achieve 35% for the 2026 model year. Notice that silence. Only Toyota has the integrity to push for discussion, despite the obvious problem most falling short of 35%. Knowing how much goal-posts get moved anyway, why not set more realistic milestones? What benefit is there from pushing? All that will do is deprive other states of inventory. In other words, it simply shifts the problem elsewhere rather than actually solving it.
11-10-2024	Impossible, profit. Someone actually tried to be constructive, but that quickly fell apart: "The analysis you are referring to divided the total development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced by 2012 to declare GM was losing 49k on each Volt sold. GM continued to sell the Volt until it reached the max "Clean" vehicles it could sell with the rebate in 2019." Not knowing the bigger picture, what else happened, is a big problem. That creates a distorted perspective, one I have to constantly battle. Oh well. At least I have some fact to stir awareness of the other elements that were at play: I wasn't referring to any analysis, since that would only convey an American perspective. Reality is, GM signed over most of the rights for that IP to ownership in China, to the SAIC group. That severely limited GM's options. This is why the forthcoming Equinox PHEV will be an entirely new design. Profit is paramount. This is why Toyota is focusing on diversification at the moment instead. Their PHEV is currently being spread to CH-R and Crown, following that is an expectation for Harrier (Venza), while at the same time phasing out ICE to make their base all hybrid. It's the bigger picture most keyboard-warriors fail to notice. When production of both battery & hybrid is well established here and the smoke clears from whatever mess the next administration creates, then ramp up of both PHEV and BEV will begin. It simply makes no sense, in a market struggling from loss-leader sales, tax-credit dependency, and mandate uncertainty to push volume yet.
11-10-2024	Impossible, consequences. This reply was telling: "It's only impossible if you don't take action. Toyota is learning the consequences of fucking around." Rather than answer any of the questions as to how others can, it was a double-down effort to keep focus on Toyota. Undeterred, I asked another question: What consequences? Toyota has been watching other legacy automakers push loss-leader offerings and get stuck with overproduction. Notice how no one has been able to explain how anyone else will be able to deliver 35% for the 2026 model year. It's a preview of the "all in" pledges failing to be reached. California is taking a sensible approach by setting a series of milestones, rather than just one big one. Unfortunately, legacy automakers have been focusing on want rather than need. More range is overkill. Ironically, it is the "dead weight" argument once used in favor of BEV now becoming a trait against BEV. It simply makes no sense trying to squeeze in more battery range clearly not needed for day-to-day use when we already see the solution elsewhere in the world... more DC fast-chargers. That's how NEVI came about, a means of empowering states to do things like adopt California rules. Toyota has been pointing out that mismatch of priorities. Rather than listening to enthusiast "underwhelming" nonsense, they are just quietly refining their tech and preparing for next-gen rollout. No amount of chest-pounding will change the reality that no one has been able to explain how meeting the California rules is possible.
11-09-2024	Impossible, click bait. This article title set off a firestorm of rhetoric, inviting antagonists to a place where they can thrive: "Toyota Calls California EV Rules 'Impossible' " In other words, we have arrived at another tipping point. They fear Toyota is correct. This comment made that all too clear: "Memo to Toyota: if others can but you cannot, then get the heck out of the state until you are willing to play by the rules. It is possible to meet the requirements but you just don't want to, not that you are unable to." It's so obvious there is a state of panic building when no one can actually explain how. Absence of detail is the confirm. In this case, nothing at all to back claims. I fired back at that nonsense, all too happy to be playing offense now: Others can? The list of layoffs due to financial struggles begs to differ... GM, VW, Nissan, Stellantis. Heck, Ford has to idle production due to slow sales. Legacy automakers are bleeding money. For that matter, Tesla is having to deal with significantly reduced profit and isn't even trying to compete in the entry-level market. In other words, this is exactly the "low hanging fruit" those enthusiasts wearing rose-colored glasses were warned about. GM registrations for 2023 in California was 118,952. To meet the 35% next year based on that, it would mean needing to sell 41,633. How many more would be needed to satisfy OR, WA, NY, MA, VT, VA, CO, MD, DE, NM, NJ who have also adopted ACC-II rules? What about the 3 other states currently proposed... RI, DC, ME? There's also MN staged to consider ACC-II. And let's not forget the rest of the states simply wanting some inventory to sell due demand emerging from efforts like NEVI? In other words, we have good intentions faced with the reality of still trying to run a profitable business. Using Toyota as a scapegoat for those unable to is nothing new. At least Toyota has the backbone & integrity to draw attention to unrealistic expectations. Notice how many of the "all in" legacy automakers are already reneging on their bold production promises?
11-06-2024	Gas Prices. They are the lowest I have seen in years. It's election day today and the opposition is promising significant price reduction for gas makes no sense. How will that be possible and what would the benefit be? It seems nothing more than an effort to kick the can, yet again. Pushing change in times of struggle rarely works. Portraying good prices now as somehow being a hardship is clearly an effort to enable more denial. They are providing an excuse to not have to care. In other words, the propaganda continues. Price of gas should not be a concern. That isn't a big cost when long-term exposures come to mind. The typical focus on short-term at the sacrifice of long-term is normal. Thankfully, Toyota is a long-term planner. Enthusiasts hate that. They are impatient and want big returns. The idea of continuous improvement is portrayed by them as a weakness. Ugh. Anywho, this is what I had to say on such a consequential topic on such a consequential day: Keeping focus entirely on gas is what keeps the rhetoric alive. America's best selling sedan is Camry, produced in Georgetown, Kentucky. 100% are now hybrid, delivering 51 MPG. The best selling SUV is RAV4, also produced in Georgetown, Kentucky. 43% are hybrid, delivering 39 MPG. 7% are the plug-in hybrid model. It was government regulation that pushed such a realistic solution for the masses to help ease the pain of gas. Those hybrids are affordable, competitive and profitable... as well as less polluting. Put another way, the only solution isn't drilling more.
11-06-2024	300,000 Sold. This was an interesting headline: "GM Has Sold Over 300,000 EVs In The U.S. In Less Than A Decade." That stirred some interesting memories. From that, I shared: Some of us remember the 300,000 goal Toyota set for hybrids. It was reached in early 2005, back when there was nothing but a $2,000 deductible available... which worked out to about $200 on the typical tax return. The tax credits we have come accustomed to didn't exist back then. The very first was an allocation of only 60,000 per automaker, starting January 1, 2006.
11-05-2024	Facing Reality. I'm intrigued to see how long it takes for this messaging to sink in, especially with the outcome of tomorrow's election: "The reality is, who gets to a higher energy density battery chemistry and can assemble a battery pack with more energy density, less weight and safer at a price point of $100/kWh or less retail, they will vault ahead of the "others" while they play catch up and flounder along the way." Here's my contribution to that discussion: This group hasn't wanted to face that reality. They have been in the favor of premature lock-in. If an automaker wasn't locking into a battery chemistry in the here & now, they were labeled as a laggard... so hopelessly behind, bankruptcy was an inevitable outcome. That was absurd, not reality. We know much higher density cells are being developed. We know a variety of companies have been making progress with solid-state. We also know that high-volume sales of loss-leaders (unprofitable vehicles) is a risky move. In short, the EV landscape will change rather profoundly as battery technology improves. It won't be in a linear fashion either. Sodium-Ion will provide a boom for energy-storage, making remote DCFC locations, high-count DCFC locations, and even slow-speed DC at home a reality. Change is coming. It will be a major paradigm-shift from early-adopters (low-hanging fruit) to how mainstream consumers view the industry.
11-03-2024	They Don't See. Much of the problem with EV progress here is from the fact that worldwide views are missing. Most here only see what's happening here. That's how we end up with confusion like this: "Yet another fine battery with a weirdly specific range." Much of that comes from our information sources either being bias or just narrow scoped. It's how so many of the accomplishments in China are never heard about here. In fact, there's some prejudice here too. I certainly got confirmation of that when purchasing the bZ4X model using the CATL-supplied battery. It came from China rather than Japan. People were well informed about Panasonic, so they didn't look any further. You don't learn anything if you don't research. When you do, you notice things... like seeing most units related to development are in metric. Upon that epiphany, you recognize that targets & deliverables aren't actually weird. Those outcomes make a lot of sense... once you see & understand their origin. Hopefully, this short reply to that post will bring about some unexpected insight: That's only if you look at it from an American perspective. 621 miles = 1000 km.
11-02-2024	Marketing Priorities. This is just plain wrong: "How long are we in NA going to give the so called Big Three protection from these Chinese manufacturers?? Obviously the NA producers got caught being too old and slow to adopt the new technology and now NA consumers are being made to pay the price for it." That wasn't it at all. Our obsession with speed, power and range was the problem. The technology was adopted long ago, but antagonists raising the bar by always pushing for more. That's how our marketing works. Priority is entirely on offering more each time. There's never a mindset of acceptable. Compromise has been given a stigma of weakness rather than representing balance. Since the article was able NIO, an automaker in China who sells a SUV that looks very similar to Tesla Model Y but at a significantly lower price, I turned around the discussion to hopefully raise awareness of our own market. Of course, the truth hurts and most don't want to hear it: How long are we in NA going to call vehicles with sleek aerodynamics and low ground-clearance SUVs? There's a lot of denial & misrepresentation to overcome still. A encouraging sign of progress is that efficiency is finally getting attention. It was truly absurd how reviews of the past referred to "efficiency" in terms of range. How many miles you got had absolutely nothing to do with electricity consumption. Thankfully, measures like mi/kWh and kWh/100km are finally getting some attention. Our priorities have really been messed up... which is why NA producers are now scrambling.
11-02-2024	More Questions. Gotta love this recent shift from rhetoric to critical thought. This question popped up shortly after answering the previous: "Thinking of buying 300e. Can someone let me know if we can use Tesla fast charging or how you charge outside the home?" That was an easy one to respond to, though I wish the answer itself didn't include a reminder that rollout is always slower than hoped: Unfortunately, owners of Lexus/Toyota EVs are still limited to only Tesla Superchargers with MagicDock. Based on the slow progress to J3400 (NACS), my expectation is we won't get access & adapters until sometime mid-2025. Fortunately, DC fast-chargers with CCS work fine and there numbers continue to increase.
11-02-2024	Expensive? I really like seeing newbie questions like this: "Is 56 cents per kWh expensive? How does it compare to ice?" Having become a top contributor on some of the popular EV groups, I get to indulge with my responses. The answer to this one was particularly exciting, since I was curious what those in Europe would have to say. Their gas is far more expensive... which is a big reason why EV ownership there is so much more popular. Imagine spending 2 to 3 times more per gallon of gas. Whoa! Anywho, this is the answer I provided: The answer depends upon usage. Paying 56 cents per kWh while on a road trip is reasonable. In fact, the cost to "fill" a typical battery-pack is very similar to a typical gas-tank at that price. The catch is, you pay far less at home. The current national average cost for electricity in the United States is 16.63 cents per kWh. That makes EVs a clear winner in terms of usage expense. Even better is when owners take advantage of time-of-use & off-peak discount opportunities from their electricity provider. Cost drops anywhere from 8 to only 2 cents per kWh. Such a massive savings over gas is why most EV owners state they will never go back to owning an ICE.