Growing Fear.  The trolls are hard at work.  They see the recent recall as an invitation to attack Toyota.  As a result, we are getting more off-topic provokes, like: "Here's a turd you can polish."  It was a graph of an AWD charging-session.  He's been milking that for all it's worth.  No one ever really bites.  It's really just meant to reinforce the narrative.  Today though, I jumped on that.  After all, it was an actual invite for me to reply.  So, I did:  Looks like you are afraid to face the reality of chemistry differences.  The FWD model closely resembles the charging-curve of ID.4 which no one here seems to have any problem with.  That reveals a supplier difference, not some shortcoming of design as you repeatedly attempt to spin.  We also know Toyota already has a working 800v system.  What probably scares you most is if the AWD model here actually does have a better chemistry.  Anything delivering improvement battery-life is a problem for those pushing the "behind" narrative.  We know for a fact that LFP delivers much improved longevity and just happens to be a popular choice from the very provider Toyota is using for the AWD model here.  In other words, it is easy to see growing fear from your post.

Think about this recall.  None of it has anything to do with the EV system itself.  In fact, a fix like swapping out stems & nuts is as simple as it gets.  Follow that up with some type of good will (like a ChargePoint gift-card) would be Toyota taking advantage of having the spotlight.

Death of Journalism.  Anyone can publish content on the internet.  We see articles with lengthy read-times.  It doesn't mean their has been a rise in quality though.  In fact, there is really just more of the same.  Problem is, with more that length comes fewer comparisons.  People will just latch onto a source and call it good.  That makes it easy for narratives emerging from poorly informed writing.  If the writer doesn't bother to check facts or even do in-depth research, they are just passing along garbage.  For example: "The Japanese automaker proclaimed that the RAV4-sized ute would get around 300 miles of range. When the bZ4X arrived in the US, however, the front-wheel drive version only got 252 miles of EPA-estimated range... Compared to other crossovers in the segment, it's solidly in the middle of the pack, with nowhere near the promised longer range."  That was never true.  I remember the reveal.  The potential to deliver as much as 400 km upon rollout.  That was just a rough estimate based upon WLTP driving criteria (the European measure).  There was never anything with regard to 300 miles from Toyota, no promise like that.  I did the translation among those very first posts back then.  My quick back-of-the-envelope estimate came to 232 miles for EPA.  The write set the tone of that article by posting fictitious information.  My guess is he got his "facts" from some untrustworthy source.  That happens a lot.  Journalism is falling apart, dying a slow and unnoticed death.

Wheels Could Fall Off.  Out of an excess of safety, Toyota issued a recall.  There is potential for the problem based on finding from a few early models.  Likely, these were review vehicles driven really hard.  Toyota discovered a handful of wheels becoming loose.  No accident was reported.  It appeared to be entirely the result of inspection.  Exactly what should be happening is taking place.  The internet was a buzz yesterday.  Absence of detail didn't matter.  There was no critical thought either.  My impression was a new stem or nut in combination with the wrong torque specs were used.  You try a newer, lighter metal there could indeed be a problem.  Fortunately, that would be an easy fix.  Parts could be shipped quickly and labor would be minor.  Providing a loaner vehicle in the meantime would be the challenge, while confirmation of fix is taking place.  To no surprise, the person who continued to push the false claim of bZ4X really just being a BYD rebrand abruptly changed his stance.  Suddenly, the vehicle is a Toyota after all.  The temptation to "What about?" this situation is overwhelming.  Reality is, a problem was found and responded to right away.  Only 258 bZ4X have been delivered to North America so far.  Despite that, I expected the biggest outcry to come from here.  The 2,200 in Europe will likely get addressed quickly & quietly.  Using Toyota as a scapegoat will continue.  Ugh.

The "28.5 kWh/100mi" observation for mixed driving, which calculates to 3.5 mi/kWh, clearly does not fall short.

In fact, from their mixed driving we see bZ4X did quite well.

Error Code.  We found out the owner with the first ever reported bZ4X problem apparently had trouble with their 12-volt battery.  That would have been an easy component to blame.  After all, strange stuff happens when it gets low.  But not wanting to influence the discussion much and to stay in a state of heightened awareness, I remained quiet.  After all, you don't want to jump in with an answer too soon.  It would prevent others from participating and may give the owner a false sense of hope.  With the visit to the dealer scheduled already, the wait was short anyway.  She posted.  We all breathed a sigh of relief.  This is how I responded upon getting the news:  Sadly, seeing a new owner post trouble with their 12-volt battery was a common theme from hybrid purchases.  Sitting on a ship, then in port, then in transport, then at the dealer is a looooong time with only minimal driving and a bunch of prep time.  That battery gets drained.  It's good to know the error-code was simple to resolve.

Real-World Data.  Hooray!  We got this from a bZ4X owner today: "During the course of a 64-mile mixed driving test circuit through Copenhagen and into the surrounding countryside, our all-wheel drive test car averaged 3.57 miles/kWh, which would mean a real-world range of 254 miles, with the A/C on and my leaden foot at the controls."  That is awesome.  It is exactly the type of experience I hope to share.  Efficiency observed being more than the rating is quite typical.  But you never really know and certainly should plan on it.  Who knows if I will get a chance to actually try the A/C with mine until next year.  That necessity is 3 months remaining here, at most.  Of course, being in Minnesota, I will be able to provide a wealth of cold-weather data... the real-world kind, complete with detailed video.  I'm really looking forward to that.

What If It Was?  I got this in response to my speculation: "As an AWD owner I REALLY HOPE THEY'RE LIFEPO4 THAT WOULD BE DANK!  But it only says 'lithium ion' everywhere I've checked for specs."  We'll eventually find out.  Here was my volley back in the discussion:  A confirmation would be to find out what the default/recommended charge level is.  LFP requires 100% from time to time to calibrate.  Since voltage variance is so minor, sticking to 80% as with the NMC and NCA chemistries isn't enough.  Tesla ended up being rather coy about the situation, not wanting to upset the delicate balance already in place.  LFP is a rethink, especially since it breaks the supposed benefit of vertical integration.  Tesla is known for delivering more range and faster charging; trading that for longevity is out of character... a Toyota trait.  It's easy to see the appeal of eliminating dependence on nickel & cobalt though.  Anywho, that necessity to charge to 100% would be a tell-tale sign.

Inaccurate Advice.  There's no excuse for blindly forwarding an article link.  Take 3 seconds to verify the date of when it was published.  Knowing how quickly the technology is evolving, it is far to easy to stumble across something that is no longer accurate.  In this case, the purpose was to provide advice for new owners.  That's fine if the content of whatever you share is kept up to date.  Today, it wasn't.  I was quite annoyed.  No reason to blame anyone though.  My purpose is to seek out teaching moments, then exploit that opportunity to convey as much helpful info as possible.  In this instance, I started simple:  Outdated articles like this will increasingly be a problem.  That happened a lot back in the hybrid days.  Now, we face similar incorrect understandings & advice for BEV.  Notice how it recommends to avoid charging to 100% to avoid strain?  That is exactly what you should be doing if your battery uses LFP chemistry, since it does not experience stress and 100% and that full recharge is needed to maintain SOC calibration.  Notice how that October 2021 article refers back to an April 2019 article?  It makes the outdated advice even worse by supporting with facts no longer relevant for some.  Adding to the confusion are vague references treating all BEV as if they were the same.

What if it turns out that alternate chemistry really is LFP type?  Following some refinements to increase charging speed, would that "not an issue" situation become a situation?  Europe could find itself with less durable batteries.  Then what?