May 6, 2025 - May 16, 2025
Last Updated: Tues. 10/28/2025
page #1317
page #1319
BOOK
MAP INDEX
| 5-16-2025 | Woodland bZ. Yesterday's reveal left antagonists dumbfounded. They weren't expecting that mystery upcoming larger BEV from Toyota to be revealed. It's not a Highlander BEV. It's an extended bZ, 6 inches longer, 1 inch higher, and 30-cubic feet more rear cargo space. It will arrive in early 2026, following the mid-cycle updated bZ late 2025. An additional choice from Toyota, not just a reconfigure like Tesla is rolling out, really messes up the narrative. Toyota cannot be considered anti-EV if they are delivering a variety of choices so quickly. We'll be getting that BEV model of CH-R in early 2026 too. It's inevitable that a crossover variant of bZ will be available from Lexus as well. Range will be less, due to the extra weight. But towing capacity has been disclosed already at 3,500 pounds. Of course, it will also have X-mode. So, people will be getting the rugged AWD version of bZ they had hoped for. Patience really does have its rewards. |
| 5-15-2025 | Impossible. Attempts to mislead are emerging at a rapid pace. Clearly, these are desperate efforts to find new rhetoric material. For example: "We EV people, back when Prius were new, asked for a plug-in hybrid version and Toyota said was impossible." That isn't what really happened. It is familiar though. I remember in the past antagonists wouldn't tell you everything. Leaving out a vital bit of information is like quoting out of context, it alters understanding of what was intended... which is the point. They want you to assume incorrectly. I knew what the "impossible" referred to. It wasn't a "we cannot deliver" type situation, implying an engineering barrier. The actual barrier was the ability to make any money doing it.. a fact enthusiasts don't care about. Back then, just like now, they expect automakers to sell loss-leaders. That's never realistic for anything beyond introduction. Anywho, I could not let that attempt to mislead slip by: Omitting the rest of what was actually said is an attempt to rewrite history. Toyota said it was impossible to deliver a profitable plug-in hybrid. GM proved it during that period too by never being able to achieve profit with Volt. That's why the battery production plant Toyota just opened in North Carolina is so important. It presents the opportunity to be able to finally deliver on profitability. Think about what that means for the upcoming new RAV4 PHEV. |
| 5-15-2025 | Saving Face. Here is an
interesting twist: "Toyota seems to have come out
swinging, perhaps all of this time the Hydrogen economy talk was just that,
a repurposed "rope-a-dope" to put the competition off guard." It
is another effort to rationalize having been caught off guard, having failed
to use critical thinking. It's the type of post I like to comment on,
which I did: Those of us who saw the upgrades Toyota delivered in
2016, greatly improving their electric-drive system, knew it was really just
a matter of being patient. After all, with so much dependency on tax-credits
still and lack of a North American DCFC standard, it was obvious the market
clearly wasn't ready for mainstream consumer purchases yet anyway. |
| 5-14-2025 | Scapegoat. This is another one of those gotta love posts: "Never buying another Toyota/Lexus product. They have actively attempted to hurt the sale of EVs and boost their combustion and hybrid offers just because they've fallen behind. Not giving them any money to continue to hurt EV adoption across the world!" Fallen is an interesting twist. Others have never risen. Consider GM's token effort. Only resulting in conquests sales is a hallow victory. That doesn't accomplish anything. Their status quo remains unchanged. Equinox & Blazer EV might though. We'll find out when the tax-credits vanish. Subsidies are early-adopter opportunities, great for establishing but may not equate to sustainability. Actual change is very difficult. That's why having someone to blame when things go wrong is what enthusiasts thrive on. In this case, they portray Toyota as a laggard fighting against change. Evidence is to the contrary... but when has truth been important in our culture? Ugh. I replied to that nonsense with: Turning a blind-eye to the token efforts other legacy automakers have made... resulting in a pullback on production & sales... is really just making Toyota a scapegoat. And how is expanding the EV choices offered an effort to hurt adoption? Also, Toyota has been aggressively ending production of ICE (combustion) models. |
| 5-14-2025 | CH-R BEV. Of all the comments I would have expected from the North America reveal for the BEV model of CH-R, it wouldn't have been this: "Toyota may end up being the tortoise that beats the hare (Tesla), because the hare got overconfident." That's what I have been saying for years. While supposed competitors like GM and Tesla have been demonstrating what appears to be a win, their status was really just short-term conquest. That only works when the race is a sprint. You don't win customer loyalty by appealing to those just looking for opportunity. Loyal customers want their priorities to be addressed. Knowing a current CH-R owner will likely be compelled to consider a new CH-R with a plug should be a no-brainer. That means delivering something when those owners are shopping for replacement. In other words, there was nothing to gain from rushing. Work out details using bZ4X as the real-world shakeout platform, then deliver refinements from that in a CH-R platform. That type of learning & planning is basic business, principles of success keyboard warriors clearly don't understand. It sure is nice to see some using critical thought speak up now. Recognition of a tortoise & hare situation is awesome! |
| 5-14-2025 | Video: Crossing the Twin Cities. If you ever wondered how bZ4X operates in real-world driving, this is the video to watch. It was an opportunity to capture a drive from the southern suburbs of the Twin Cities to the northern suburbs. It was too good to miss. Conditions outside were near ideal, comfortable & beautiful. I took advantage, capturing as much detail as I could. The results are well worth the share. Hope you enjoy watching and learn a little along the way... Toyota bZ4X - Crossing the Twin Cities |
| 5-13-2025 | Good. Something construction
emerged from today's posting mess: "Seems like they're addressing a lot
of the biggest complaints I see. Should be good." Toyota's
effort from day one was to get real-world feedback. Opinions of
enthusiasts may or may not have value. Finding out how ordinary
consumers respond to their complaints is the true goal. Some of what
is said equates to worthless rhetoric. Bits of it emerge as gold
though, a reveal with strength to carry the design forward. That's
what it's all about... and the reason why Toyota seems so disconnected.
It's because they should be. That's called being objective.
Passion from early-adopters doesn't translate to a rewarding ownership
experience for someone loyal to the brand willing to try something new.
I didn't bother sharing that with those so unwilling to consider audience.
Instead, I kept it simple posting: Complaints from the perspective of enthusiasts, who were never the target audience. Constructive feedback for ordinary consumer purchases. In other words, Toyota took advantage of the early market to shake out what traits were truly value added. The market is loaded with examples of diminishing returns. It simply makes no sense trying to deliver a middle-market vehicle that competes with niche offerings. Another way to look at it is figuring out what will deliver the most sales at a reasonable profit. So yes, that should be good. |
| 5-13-2025 | Sucker Punch. Antagonists are at a loss. They never imagined Toyota would be able to deliver updates so quickly. They didn't believe the continuous improvement approach was practical. So, they fed the narrative that Toyota had 10 years of catching up to do. I was portrayed as hopeless. Toyota was doomed. Bankruptcy was inevitable. That's why they still focusing on the name, not wanting to acknowledge details of the upgrades. That's why we get this: "Toyota Marketing: We're now calling it just BZ, BecauZz we realized we actually have to sell these things, now 66% less weirdmobile!" It all started when they set expectations far too high. Instead of being realistic, rolling out something targeting ordinary consumers, Toyota was supposed to blow the minds of enthusiasts by delivering something amazing. Why? That's not what you do when trying to achieve sustained profitable sales. That's why Camry & Corolla were considered "boring" for decades. Appealing to the masses isn't actually exciting. bZ will be for someone looking for a mainstream EV though. It checks all the boxes. It wasn't supposed too. This news really catching those who liked to frame Toyota as their antithesis off guard, like a sucker punch. To that, I say "Woohoo!" They deserve it. This is how I elucidated the situation: Those knowledgeable of Prius history will recognize the approach. It's a familiar pattern of enthusiasts trying to impose their expectations upon an automaker not interested in catering to them. Both timeline & priorities have been focused on an offering for the masses. That's why the "behind" narrative was never anything more than rhetoric without any regard to what ordinary consumers will end up considering for purchase. Note how the very first sales mandate does not begin until the end of 2025... which is perfectly timed with the 2026 model. |
| 5-13-2025 | Pushing Narratives. There are many efforts. The one most at play is actually counter-productive and quite predictable. When a product debuts, it's unique nature is what becomes the draw. But as the market progresses, growing to reach new audiences, moving focus elsewhere for that wider appeal becomes a struggle. Enthusiasts learned to thrive on whatever it was that stood out and have an extremely difficult time letting go... so much so, they end up impeding sales. This posted comment today summed up that particular problem as it applies in the case of EV growth: "The notion that fast charging speeds are the top concern of the average owner is absurd - this is a narrative pushed by EV spec junkies that are divorced from real world use cases. Overall the improvements they made are meaningful." It should be obvious that affordability is really the top concern. People rarely ever take long road trips, so it makes no sense that the fastest possible charging is what they would be willing to spend the most on. You can still reach your destination with slower charging... which reveals speed is a want, not a need. There's no real benefit if you aren't in a hurry anyway. I drew attention to that fact this way: It's easy to debunk that by pointing out what a person actually does when they stop for DC. The time it takes to use the restroom, get food & beverage, and stretch a little can result in a decent amount of charging. Heck, even a quick catch up on phone activity while you were driving uses up more minutes than people tend to be aware of. |
| 5-13-2025 | The Pattern. They don't like
when point out confirmation to validate the pattern. Enthusiast denial
has a very difficult time dealing with so many facts contradicting their
claims. I enjoyed posting this: This mid-cycle update reminds me of the first for Prius, yet another resemblance in history showing Toyota approach. The 1998, 1999, 2000 model of Prius was exclusive to Japan. Rollout in the United States with the 2001 model included: · increased ICE horsepower from 58 to 70 · increased MG2 horsepower from 40 to 44 · increased MG2 torque from 225 to 258 · increased MG2 rpm from 2000 to 5600 · increased MG1 rpm from 4800 to 6500 · increased battery W/kg from 600 to 900 · decreased battery lbs from 125 to 110 · upgraded battery cells from D to Prismatic · upgraded screen from button to touch It was an awesome example of continuous improvement, now a bedrock trait of Toyota business. Many have attempted to feed the narrative that Toyota was desperately behind, scrambling to catch up. None wanted to admit it was simply a different approach, one that focuses more on the needs of ordinary consumers rather than catering to interests of early adopters. Lastly, the gray bumpers of that original Prius got changed to key-colored with the mid-cycle update. Notice the pattern with bZ4X. |
| 5-12-2025 | Remedy Approach. Certain enthusiasts are still not dealing with history well: "GM made the Bolt right, and gave everyone a new battery. Toyota has had: Wheels falling off the b4xzs." It makes me wonder how worried they actually are related to the inevitable ramp-up coming from Toyota. The idea that early rollout efforts were to learn about the market, that low-volume was intended all along completely derails their narrative. Toyota was supposed to be "kicking & screaming", being forced to comply. Getting confirmation Toyota had been taking the situation seriously all along, that they were simply just playing the long game is too much for some to accept. I enjoy reminding them of what actually happened, why a different approach was taken. Of course, I don't always go all the way back to when Lexus was new decades ago and Toyota really blew it back then. I instead point out how they responded in recent history, applied what they learned from that past: GM took several attempts with Bolt before getting it right. We know that history. We also know that no wheels ever actually fell off. Toyota addressed the potential immediately (providing several options for early owners) after finding 3 total worldwide reports of loose bolts from demanding reviews. Remember, it's the approach, not the remedy. |
| 5-08-2025 | Only Gas. Ugh. This administration is determined to undermine progress any way it can. Bringing America back means going backward. Not only will their be efforts to drill oil more, now it is an effort to charge all EV owners a $250 annual fee. For what? Some states already collect road tax for them. This administration has claimed it wants states to have more control, removing any ties to state related support for federal funding. This is a blatant contradict. It doesn't make sense either. How can such a high amount be justified? It's obvious sabotage. I put it this way by pointing out the "only gas" component of that effort: The cards are stacked against us. Measures to impede EV progress have never been so blatant. We still have the covert struggle against subtle undermining too. The election promises to "reduce energy cost" implied all types... stuff like electricity, natural gas, heating oil, and gas. People will find out the hard way it was really only gas... which makes are messaging related to EV advantage even more difficult. |
| 5-07-2025 | Getting Serious, denial.
Watching this play out has been quite interesting. We're on the
precipice of change. Does he recognize that? Taking this reply
into consider, I would say, yes: "Ha ha, nice wheels on that goal
post. Now that they lowered the price to reflect the mediocrity…the story
changes lol. Still over priced considering all the many compromises."
That is so far from trying to take the situation seriously, it's obvious
denial. That was very easy to deal with: |
| 5-06-2025 | Getting Serious, trapped. I pointed out how most enthusiasts have a very difficult time recognizing when the conquest stage is wrapping up. It resulted in more spin & denial: "Right…mainstream buyers are clamoring for less range! It's all over the news - buyers have been holding out for options that give them less, not more! Great consumer insight." Ironically, you can actually find that news. There indeed has been consumers holding out for entry-level offerings. That's why VW already offers a smaller battery-pack in the North American market and Tesla is planning to. Elsewhere, smaller as an option is perfectly normal. If you aren't taking trips or DC fast-charging is very convenient, why in the world would you want to pay for more capacity that will reduce efficiency & handling of the vehicle due to that extra weight? I responded to that nonsense with: Pointing out that the mid-cycle update delivering a range increase to about 285 miles is a step to appeal to the masses resulted in this reply: "Right…mainstream buyers are clamoring for less range!" That's quite out of touch with what mainstream shoppers seek. They want an EV that's affordable, something to cover their day-to-day needs. Many households have another vehicle and do not have level-2 charging yet. Believing all ordinary consumers require long-distance capacity confirms not knowing audience. You're just another enthusiast trapped in the conquest stage. |
