L, LE, and XLE.  Most of the time, what Toyota does goes unnoticed.  Why should it anyway?  Toyota focuses on its own customers.  When something about them is brought up in automotive discussions, it is almost entirely negative.  That's because enthusiasts just plain don't care about mainstream offerings, but find Toyota an excellent "What about?" to distract from their own problems.  In this case though, even this slipped by quietly.  That's probably because nothing good could come from pointing out that Prius is very much a mainstream offering now.  Being available in the United States since for over 18 years now and being available in a wide variety of models, as well as having diversified the technology as rollouts in other popular vehicles, there's a solid history of not being a niche.  After millions of sales, it is the new normal... especially as we approach the final year of the second decade of the 21st Century.  Guzzlers just plain don't make any sense anymore.  That's why the annoucement last week of Prius package naming is such a fundamental move.  Rather than the numbers, Prius now gets identifiers instead... just like the other Toyota vehicles.  In this case, it is L, LE, and XLE for the 2019 model year.

Like it or not, a turning point has been reached.  It's time to move beyond niche offerings.  The fleet itself must finally be addressed.  GM must provide something for GM customers.

No Longer Quiet.  The quiet of GM has changed to sending mixed messages.  That sounds familiar.  We are back to the uncertainty stage, yet again.  It makes sense, knowing the timing of the tax-credit phaseout and how poorly plug-in sales have been.  The downturn of the stockprice and market pressure from the new tariffs having a negative effect is really making a mess of things.  What should investors expect?  For that matter, what should customers expect?  Both of those questions raises uncertainty for dealers.  What will they sell?  I took offense for today's play, grabbing the ball and running like hell with it.  I don't think the antagonists saw this coming:  GM did not target its own consumers; instead, they offered vehicles appealing to enthusiasts.  That is the very definition of niche.  Mainstream buyers should have been targeted.  They were not.  Technology developed for the purpose of widespread deployment was never widespread deployed.  The origin of Volt was the Two-Mode hybrid, which we saw a prototype of with a plug way back in 2009.  Yet, all these years later, there is still no SUV with a plug available from GM.  Attempts to change the topic or make up info about the messenger won't change any of that.

What legacy automaker do you think is better positioned?  It certainly isn't GM with their stubborn reluctance to spread plug-in tech to one of their mainstream vehicles.

Behind.  It has been interesting watched firsthand: "The fact that you continue to stick up for Toyota says it all.  Had they continued to push forward to EV they would be light years ahead.  They have buried their collective heads in the sand.  When they come out with an EV they will also be years behind vs. the years ahead they should be."  That story is told over and over again... but without substance.  There isn't ever any detail provided to support the claim.  They just get angry and declare "behind" without follow up.  Having studied business so extensively in college (it was my minor) and worked in retail for that many years, then followed the automotive industry closely for the past 2 full decades, I know what I'm talking about.  You don't study so much for so long without recognizing success patterns.  There's also my passion for computers which dates all the way back to the 70's.  Watching that industry evolve was quite exciting.  Anywho, I get tired of those who don't bother to do their homework.  Making empty claims is unacceptable.  If you have good reasoning, share it!  Don't just start a quarrel without any intent to back it.  Geez!  Oh well.  That's what I have to deal with.  In this case, I responded with:  Behind what?  The market hasn't even emerged out of the early-adopter stage.  Whether or not you accept the fact that Toyota is working to refine their already available EV drive, plus related components & software, is not their problem.  They are busy setting the stage for dealer & salesperson, as well as building a process for traditional vehicle phaseout.  It never ceases to amaze me how some feel "ahead" should be quantified based on short-term measure, even though production cost is still out of reach and energy-density still isn't quite there yet.  As for where they should be, where exactly is that?  There's no basis for a mass acceptance of plug-in vehicles yet.  High-Volume sales without subsidy haven't even been attempted yet.  Reliance on tax-credits is a problem Tesla is scrambling to avoid though, but it is not a legacy automaker.  GM is and will inevitably pay the price from not having a competitive product prior to triggering phaseout.  Toyota still has time and will smoothly pass by from having taken the slower path to adapt a system capable of sustainable profits with a clear path to a wide variety of plug offerings.  They carefully studied the market, rather than rushing to it.  It's like watching the Tortoise & Hare story playout right before our eyes...

Whoa!  I just had a parking lot encounter at lunch today.  It was with my 2003.  I was able to confirm up close that it was indeed my old Prius from 15 years ago.  The package was a rare choice, quite distinct in appearance, and I put a very unique dent in it.  That was strange seeing it after having upgraded 3 times since the trade.  There were a few new dents and one of the headlight fogged.  But otherwise, it looked fine and was obviously still in use.  Too by I wasn't able to chat with the current owner.  I had been looking for years, hoping the purchase was local.  I did see it roughly a month after having upgraded, but not since.  Doubt about ever seeing it again is realistic; though, today was a heck of a surprise.  At least I know it survived beyond the duration anyone expected it to.  That's a great endorsement for Toyota's forethought.  They really designed a system to last... something quite realistic for ending the reign of dirty guzzlers.

Phew!  It's nice to enjoy a pause from the fight.  This was just an ordinar response to an ordinary discussion, a very nice change from the growing mess:  The genius of Toyota's approach has been flexibility.  "Just drive it" provides results well above that of traditional vehicles, regardless of your driving circumstances.  The addition of a plug builds upon that.  When you recharge from an outlet, results are amazing no matter what you do with that electricity.  Having the option to recharge using the gas-engine is a bonus.  If you want to exploit the design to squeeze out even higher efficiency, you have that ability.  It is by no means necessary or required. Some owners will never take advantage of having it.  Others will exploit the opportunity.  The point is, you are given that choice.  So, we make an effort to explain how it works.  Keep in mind that you also have the choice of recharging speed. For 120-volt connections, you have 8 & 12 amp options.  For 240-volt connections, it is currently limited to 3.6 kW.  As demonstrated by this video, you can see that 7.2 kW may be offered in the future.  It's a flexible design.  Toyota carefully studies how it is used & responds and tweaks choices accordingly.  Give it a try.

Getting Messier.  I got called a "shill" many times in the past for my critical thinking.  They'd claim that under the pretense that it was really just a defense of Toyota.  Seeing the reality that it was actually just good business sense for any of the automakers we too much to accept... because one can never agree with a competitor.  Never wanting to accept the fact that traditional vehicles are the competition has been the problem.  That means you much acknowledge a problem from within, rather than just blaming someone else for your own struggle.  Oddly, they keep trying.  This time though, it was so desperate, I was left beside myself.  The claim now is that autonomous driving is an essential part of EV delivery.  I fought back that nonsense with:  Autonomy.  Huh?  The article topic didn't make any mention of it.  That certainly hasn't ever been anything I've been interested in or even commented about.  It's totally unrelated to any type of EV mandate.  Why was it brought up?  Let's try a different perspective...  Profitability.  That's how you know an automaker is attempting to deliver a product targeted at mainstream consumers.  If the vehicle was designed to sustain high-volume sales, that's all the more confirmation you need.  What does a mandate achieve?  We've seen both Volt & Bolt rolled out as niche offerings, since they rely heavily upon tax-credits and haven't demonstrated appeal to GM's own loyal customers.  If there was mandate already in place, it would be easy to label them a compliance rollouts.  Remember, the goal is to replace traditional vehicles.  That's means what is found on dealer's lots must change.  Waiting many years for a few token offerings is not enough.  The entire product-line must have some type of path to electrification.  Without that, dealers simply won't bother, which means potential customers won't have anything with a battery-pack to purchase.

In other words, how long must we wait for an affordable Chevy Trax plug-in hybrid to finally be offered... or Equinox... or Traverse... or Blazer?

Closed Minds.  There are a few on the big Prius forum who focus entirely on the short-term.  They just plain don't care what's coming.  That means any effort that's long-term is simply ignored.  Closing your mind to anything except the immediate is a terrible waste, since it makes progress a challenge.  People don't want to invest in the future.  That's why the tax-cuts were recieved with such high praises.  Barriers that move to live in the now created weren't taked into consideration.  It's a selfish move.  You intentionally sacrifice the future.  Yet, there are many in our socieity who do that.  This is how great powers fall.  We have many examples throughout history.  There is a cost to pay.  Sadly, some contribute to the mess.  You have to turn on former allies as a result.  It's the figurative slap-in-the face, with a hope of waking them up to their complacency.  Maybe it will work.  Maybe it won't.  The point is, I tried:  You are feeding a greenwash narrative by cherry-picking like that.  Prime was clearly designed for profitability.  Compliance vehicles don't bother.  Toyota's effort to deliver affordability is overwhelming evident that it is targeting mainstream sales.  Choosing to only acknowlege the short-term perspective is intentionally misleading.