In short, our market is still stuck in the early-adopter phase.

Efficiency, Common Sense.  Ugh.  Here we go: "This is simply common sense, ANY vehicle will more miles per tank/charge when going 60 mph...why are they making a huge deal about this?!?"  It's hard to tell if that poster understood the nature of the problem or was oblivious as to the way efficiency outcome was assessed.  Sure, going slower will result in better efficiency.  But how was that efficiency reported?  A search through articles of the past, you will rarely ever find "mi/kWh" references.  In fact, I posted a number of comments asking if during the review they had captured that data and would be willing to share it.  Most replied back with not even having thought to capture such information.  Range was their focus... not how much electricity was consumed to achieve any particular distance.  I have to remind people now of that problem:  Look back 2 years ago, the topic of "efficiency" was actually a measure of range.  The fact that so many didn't recognize the difference between kWh and mi/kWh was telling about market progress.  Absence of critical thinking... common sense... has been a problem.

Electric Guzzlers.  It's nice that the topic of inefficient BEVs is finally getting attention.  It's a problem most of the automotive industry turned a blind-eye toward.  They simply wanted to deliver something with a plug that was reliable.  Taking the time to address efficiency, was limited to automakers like Toyota and Hyundai/Kia.  We are most definitely seeing a lack of concern elsewhere.  GM has always been on the wasteful side.  Heck, enthusiasts were giving Volt a pass on both EV and HV efficiency.  They simply didn't care.  It was all about bragging rights.  Equinox EV is much improved, but still not caught up to where Toyota was with bZ4X.  And now with the upcoming bZ promising even better efficiency, I'm quite curious where this topic will take us.  As a low, the new Escalade EV gives us a taste of that.  I wonder what my post in that regard will stir for discussion:  2.7 mi/kWh at 60 mph (2.1 mi/kWh at 70 mph) for summer efficiency is an electricity guzzler.  Think about people asking EV questions related to cost.  Not only are you paying a premium upfront for the massive battery, you are also paying later with the resulting efficiency penalty.  2.8 mi/kWh is what I got on a 141-mile round-trip this weekend, almost all 70 mph driving while carrying an e-bike on a rack in back.  I reset the meter before that trip; it stated 4.2 mi/kWh after 1,017 miles.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, not getting it.  Watching the same history play out again is fascinating.  Some people just plain don't have a clue how business actually operates.  Assumption is that the best technology is all success requires.  Anyone taking a moment of critical thinking will realize that's not the case when you look at entry-level offerings.  That's why the absolutely absurd prediction of Tesla being able to sell 20 million vehicles per year without ever delivering a Model 2 type vehicle was something I kept confronting people on.  That engineering blindness we saw back with Volt is still alive & well all these years later.  Here's how in manifested itself yesterday: "You made the absurd assertion that EV buyers are not the target market for Toyota EVs, not me.  Yikes, that's so bizarre and desperate.  The strange, biased, dishonest worship of mediocre cars is baffling."  That reference to "EV buyers" was a dead giveaway.  He's still seeing the market as isolated, completely ignoring the majority.  Tesla's ability to compete against a basic Corolla is simply dismissed as necessary... which is why Toyota is used as a scapegoat so often.  It's easy to attack what you don't understand.  Anywho, I kept my reply to a step beyond basic:  Economics 201.  Finally coming to the realization that this imbalance... heavy emphasis on engineering... has resulted in a loss of opportunity.  Put another way, the specialization you promote means failure to reach the larger audience.  Business cannot sustain profitable high-volume sales without diversification.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, diminishing returns.  It's getting good now.  He only knows how to promote a product by focusing on more.  Traits that simply increase are not actually a draw for ordinary consumers, since they seek balance.  Recognizing the difference between want & need is what they are good which enthusiasts lack.  This reply made that all too clear: "Not impressed.  330 EPA miles vs 278-288;  250kw vs 150kw charging;  4.4secs 0-60 vs 4.9;  384hp vs 338hp"  Since when are those simply looking for a Corolla or Camry interested in more?  For that matter, look at the popularity of RAV4.  It has reached a plateau, a balance that many seek... hence being a top-seller.  You want more, you purchase a Highlander or Grand Highlander instead.  In other words, focus has shifted to other traits.  What makes a RAV4 standout from competitors?  Notice how he carefully avoided efficiency.  RAV4 stands out due to it being a hybrid, now standard.  bZ4X is the equivalent of a BEV model RAV4, and it is also a standout in terms of efficiency.  Things like acceleration, power and even range make little difference at a certain point.  With regard to charging speed, that never really makes a difference.  Once you hit 150 kW, there's no benefit if you do anything other than wait at the charger.  Going in to get food and use the restroom take longer.  Anywho, I replied with:  Not understanding diminishing returns is a common problem for enthusiasts.  Thankfully, mainstream buyers recognize that loss of benefit.  Another trait you are carefully avoiding is efficiency.  4.2 mi/kWh after 1,000 miles of driving the outgoing model makes a compelling draw for what the upgrade will deliver.  It's well known across the industry that SiC provides a sizeable gain.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, choices.  I kept with the discussion, knowing the topic can only be spun so many different ways before a repeat happens.  This was it: "Which model has all of the numbers you posted?"  Asking that meant not recognizing the topic and refusing to acknowledge replies.  That is telling.  He doesn't like Toyota's next move, diversification.  That's a clear effort to expand reach, to appeal to a new group of shoppers.  Absence of that is what made the "EV Market" so appealing to early-adopters.  They could easily relate & share.  Everyone had the same goal.  More was always better.  That's not the case when choices are offered.  Needless to say, I was aware of his growing frustration and desire to catch me with a gotcha.  Having been through this so many times in the past, I knew it was just a matter of me wearing him out.  I have the patience.  Anywho, this was my reply to his latest nonsense:  That is literally the question I just answered.  Know your audience.  Enthusiasts expect a single model to deliver everything.  Ordinary consumers look at the list, then generally select what they deem important.  That is what over and over again stated models, plural.  Market growth at this stage is about offering choice... hence the article featuring CH-R.

Energy Misrepresentation.  The administration is still misrepresenting "energy" as only being sourced from oil.  Electricity from renewables, along with battery storage, are being completely ignored to support their narrative.  Reality is, renewables are a major source of independence & security for our country.  But even if you completely ignore that, how can you hide costs from consumers?  They have bills to pay.  They know energy isn't just the gas you fill the car's tank with.  Electricity expenses to run the A/C to keep their home cool won't be overlooked.  Solar and battery-storage are topics you can't hide forever.  Then of course, there will be growing curiosity as charging-stations get built.  But then again, everything done by this administration is focused on short-term gain.  Ugh.

Failing to recognize those changes of preference & focus as the market advances to achieve growth is a common problem for those who purchased in the early years.

Non-Interstate.  Devil is in the detail: "That said, if you look at PlugShare, there actually is quite a bit of DC fast charging in almost all parts of the country, even on many non-interstate corridors.  There are still a few holes, such as northern Montana, where hardly any people live or visit.  But, the situation is way better than it was back when the law authorized NEVI was created, even though the vast majority of chargers that went in were non-NEVI."  Posts like that annoy me because I hear the same thing in person.  Usually, it is someone presenting facts about EV growth & acceptance.  Just glossing over what the situation actually is, for the sake of just putting a pushpin in a map, is disheartening.  Trying one of them, you understand the detail that should have been included.  I attempted to point that out with:  Unfortunately, those non-interstate locations tend have come from funding years ago... so they only have 1 or 2 plugs, both are slow, and they haven't been well maintained.  Connecting can sometimes be a challenge too, due to the uncommon software.  Interestingly, the switch over to NACS is forcing retirement/replacement of really old DC hardware, which enables much better load-balancing.  That equates to more plugs at the same location.  Basically, it comes down to business model.  Unclear purpose makes everything else difficult.  Notice how discussion of DC use for PHEV/EREV has become a muddled topic and Supercharger adoption is already a mess.

Mass-Appeal Feedback, ask again.  Here we go: "Oh, what did I assume incorrectly?"  Once the antagonist realizes he made a mistake, he simply pushes the reset button to try again.  Since most people don't pay attention and a fresh start opportunity ends up happening anyway on a new topic, it's simply an annoyance you have to figure out how to deal with.  If I push though, providing compelling enough posts to keep the troublemaker interested, he will ultimately end up making a checkmate mistake.  Backing into a corner like that means a lot of insults and some outright hate.  Someone who's trolling doesn't like getting caught in his own trap.  I simply pointed out my observation of what he's up to:  That explains history repeating.  Your incorrect assumption was already pointed out and explained in this very thread.  There should be no reason to ask about it again.

This is so far beyond making things great.  We are no longer striving to be a world leader anymore.  Seeing the shift toward greed & lazy is so disheartening.  It's going to be a hell of a wake-up call for some people when they realize the terrible choices being made right now.

222.7 kWh, 482 miles.  With BEV hitting a rough spot and an expectation for sales to get much worse (from loss of tax-credits), the category of plug-in hybrid is stirring interest.  Naturally, that comes with the confusion of EREV verses PHEV.  There are official definitions, but not everyone adheres to them.  Of course, the benefit of one over the other is quite unclear anyway.  That's where comments like this come into play: "Escalade is perfect for an extended-range PHEV."  What the heck is that even supposed to mean?  It was a post about a review where the BEV model, with a an enormous 222.7 kWh pack, did terrible in terms of efficiency.  Though, that did equate to 82 miles of range.  So, those clueless about efficiency won't understand that anyway.  Remember that issue in the past?  Oddly, the comment was worthwhile .  So, I jumped into the discussion with:  With such poor efficiency (2.1 mi/kWh), having it as a PHEV instead makes sense.  Carrying around so much battery, with such a big penalty due to the weight & cost, that should be a no-brainer.  Someday when battery packaging gets smaller & lighter along with much faster charging... the objective of solid-state... there could be a BEV paradigm shift with regard to range.  Currently, this BEV will be a hard sell.