And that's what brings us to the vital omission from this article.  When is the emission-rating for the Nissan Note with e-POWER hybrid?  If it does not achieve at least SULEV, it would be a poor idea bringing it to the United States.  Reduction of carbon pollution at the cost of higher smog pollution is the very problem diesel contributed to. Remember?

Even GM Killed It.  That was someone's entire post injected into a fierce debate attempting to dismiss PHEV as a viable solution.  Naturally, it came from a BEV purist.  They hope such brief statements become a talking point, something to be repeated endlessly without thought as a mantra.  Just accept at face value.  Ugh.  More and more though, we are seeing the look beyond early-adopters.  It's getting recognition as a much bigger problem than simply proving the technology being up to the chore.  Remember that lesson learned way back with the first generation of Prius.  They obviously don't.  The problem is getting more complex too.  But then again, complexity isn't a bad thing when it comes to delivering a "simple" solution.  Knowing how to deliver "simple" is quite challenging.  Volt enthusiasts learned that the hard way.  BEV purist still have no idea.  It all starts with a look into why history played out the way it did.  They won't bother.  It's available in great detail online, but following blogs is a challenge when you discover multiple venues were interacting with the same individuals at the same time.  That overlap isn't obvious.  In fact, it can be almost impossible to piece together than puzzle.  This is why only a source, like a blog, can glue together all those influencing events playing out in real time.  For those who document that history as it is unfolding, we try to deliver highlights along the way:  GM faced a problem of having no path forward.  Offering Voltec in an Equinox would have destroyed their sales of traditional Equinox, a vehicle essential for business sustaining profit.  So the configuration was avoided.  Toyota isn't that stupid; instead, they developed a competitive hybrid that could easily support a plug.  That allows them to move the entire fleet forward, onto a platform ready the next step forward.  We are seeing the benefit of that already.  Sienna & Venza no longer have traditional models, they are hybrid only.  Prius, Corolla, and RAV4 hybrids now offer a plug in some markets.  C-HR hybrid has skipped the PHEV step and went straight to BEV.  At the same time, new dedicated BEV platforms are being developed.  In other words, that "Even GM killed it." was a pointless comment.  Just because GM failed to find a non-disruptive path forward does not mean other legacy automakers will too.  It also exposes shortcomings of the "pollute more" study.

Not The Same.  It is quite remarkable how arguments from 20 years ago follow the very same theme now.  Same dance... different song.  The twist now is the attempt to reverse the perspective: "Summing up, PHEVs should be more like EVs."  Instead of claiming they are the same, they are claiming they are different.  The key to that is understanding where the focus actually should be.  The compare isn't actually PHEV to BEV (or the "EV" as they attempt to confuse with labeling).  It's comparing PHEV to each other.  They are not the same.  The category of PHEV is filled with variety.  Remember how hybrids faced this misrepresentation?  It was very frustrating.  But that's what antagonists do.  They want you to make incorrect assumptions based on the false narrative they work so hard to convey.  There isn't much you can do about it for those who listen for talking point.  Actual critical thinking is required.  For those who seek that material, I try my best to keep providing it:  Some already are.  That outdated report from T&E fails to acknowledge the difference variety of PHEV, resulting in a false narrative about what operation is available.  With a newer PHEV excluded from the study, like RAV4 Prime, you have a full EV driving experience in a package very appealing to the masses.  It works exactly like a BEV until the battery-pack is depleted.  And with public charging-stations becoming more abundant, range can be conveniently extended.  The goal of dramatic shift to electricity is accomplished.  You want people to depend upon the plug even more, incentivize its use.  In fact, we are seeing that already with some utility companies.  Their efforts to promote level-2 installs and time-of-use discounts is a win for any type of plug-in vehicle.  Summing up, it is counter-productive to pass along messages of PHEV misrepresentation.  They are not all the same.

Doom & Gloom Attacks.  There are a number of us with sound, constructive information to reply with.  This was such a post: "Toyota is a conservative, multibillion dollar public company.  Going all in on EVs isn't smart for existing market share.  Outside of forums like this, EVs are still a nonstarter with most in the US.  That will take time to change.  When it does, Toyota will be exceeding popular and profitable."  Anything with regard to large-scale legacy response always gets a Toyota focus.  People have basically given up on GM, never had any faith in Ford, and really don't know if the effort is sincere from VW.  You can see the potential from each, but what happens beyond initial an offering still remains a mystery... which is exactly where Tesla is now.  What comes next?  Reaching mainstream consumers is far more difficult than early-adopters.  Infrastructure shortcomings become much more pronounced for the larger and less-forgiving market segment too.  Despite that, nonsense like this continues to be posted by the few desperate remaining enthusiasts: "Toyota is at risk.  Sorry if you don't see it, but money talks and so does the future of the planet."  Their effort to spread generic fear is telling.  There's no substance.  For that matter, there really isn't any actual claim.  Risk of what?  To that type of rhetoric, I keep my responses brief: RAV4 Prime delivers full electric-only driving.  Those same components are already being spread to BEV.  That economy-of-scale benefit, along with experience & reputation, will carry them well into high-volume profitable sales.  What is at risk?

Excuses.  Some fights linger on, but there's nothing to gain.  I find it bizarre how some refuse to give up, long after they have lost.  Of course, we're seeing that with our president right now.  Admitting defeat and accepting the role of "former president" is too much.  Just like with Volt, to disappear entire is more important than the idea living on in some other form.  Ironically, that's exactly what we see now happening with the Prime models.  Prius lost the spotlight in favor of RAV4.  It's a worth succession.  The next-gen Prius will likely have a strong following, but it's not going to be as mainstream as RAV4.  That's just the way things are.  I don't make excuses or move the goal posts.  I recognize the bigger picture and understand how that pertains to the audiences involved.  That's why the posts now by those few remaining antagonists are so telling.  They have nothing to work with anymore and no clear direction.  They just keep fighting for the sake of fighting.  Ugh.  This was my reply to such an effort today, just a short & sweet rebuttal:  There's no excuse for passing along misinformation.  42 miles of EV is more than average daily driving and comes to over 15,000 miles per year, from just overnight charging.  A brief stop at a grocery store (20 minutes) can provide 8 to 10 miles of EV for the drive home.  The claim of "too much of a bother" is meritless nonsense.

Change.  It's coming... finally!  There was far too much nonsense in the past, fighting for the sake of holding pointless ground.  That was in their nature.  Enthusiasts feel they much push harder; otherwise, they get the impression goals won't be achieved.  That's why I pushed so hard for them to state goals.  Not clearly defining what you are actually trying to accomplish meant a lot of wasted effort.  That's why being able to post this now without much pushback anymore is great:  Wasting time in litigation has been the theme, so that "go along with" really didn't make any difference.  For that matter, being "leader" or "behind" was meaningless too.  What happens with the technology itself is what matters... and that isn't political.  It's all about appealing to consumers, since they are how change comes about.  Government incentives are great for establishing, but altering status quo is beyond executive or legislative reach. Their encouragement definitely helps though.

Emissiongate.  There is an enthusiast website that is now milking the opportunity, exploiting a study that was obviously bias.  Knowing that will stir traffic, its no surprise... feeding a new controversy.  That's a common practice for online media.  They seek attention.  Sadly, it give the impression of journalism.  But the lack of objectivity doesn't matter to participants, since they thrive on the resulting activity.  There isn't much to counter the effort.  We've see it for 2 decades now.  It will continue.  It never dies.  All you can do is point out the activity.  Today, I did that with:  Using outdated & cherry-picked data supports the narrative T&E is claiming.  For whatever reason, they want to portray all PHEV as polluting.  It's a blatant misrepresentation, which is easy to debunk.  Just look at more recent data.  Notice how there is no mention of recent additions to the market, most notably RAV4 Prime?  That omission of a vehicle delivering 42 miles of EV driving (no gas consumed) from just overnight charging will result in over 15,000 miles per year using nothing but electricity... which is exactly why RAV4 Prime is missing from report.  It's sad when such attempts are made to mislead.  The claim is a desperate act, an obvious effort to undermine by misrepresenting what PHEV is capable of.

Notice the pattern?  It's a history of mixed messages and unclear intent continuing.  What is GM's purpose with these introductions?  There's no apparent theme, beyond trying to draw green praise and sell high-profit vehicles.

Very Limited Life.  This was the outcome, a nice example of downplay: "The RAV4 is nice, but it has the same long term problem and the reason GM cancelled the Volt.  There is no future with ICE based vehicles.  Think about the states that are now talking about banning ICE.  The RAV4 could have a very limited life."  I doubt my reply will make any difference:  Since PHEV and ZEV share technology & components, there is a mutual benefit from economies of scale... especially since their diversity allows a reach far beyond what either could on its own.  As for long term, that's a moot point. The most aggressive proposed ban is more than 2 generations (typically 6 years) away still.  That supposed "very limited life" could result in many millions of vehicles delivering daily EV miles.  In other words, that is not why Volt was cancelled.  There was a massive amount of potential, which is something other automakers will now exploit. Think about the variety of needs people actually have.  Most importantly, this isn't an academic discussion about a hypothetical.  RAV4 Prime is already on the road.  Focus is now on ramping up production, which will offset non-plug offerings.

What for upcoming news to be ambiguous, lacking focus or any actual detail.  That's a dead giveaway the cycle is restarting.