Featured Toyota bZ4X Specifications Revealed

They released the WLTP ratings. They've stated their battery size. What more do you want? Are you waiting for someone to do a real-world test?

 

You would think the US would have XLE/Limited trims for the FWD models and SE/XSE trims for the AWD X-Mode models.


iPad ? Pro

 

Oh! Pick me!! I'll do it!!!

Toyota gives the impression of having rather vigorous battery conditioning for cold-weather driving. With some LFP type chemistry, that warmth is required. Why not put in something more substantial than what NCA or NMC require if there's a decent efficiency return as a result? We'll find out at some point.

Of course, patience is always required with Toyota. Way back in late 1999, thoughts of Prius first emerged. By April 2000, I was going nuts wanting to place an order. When I finally got to, there was still more waiting. September 2000 is when I took delivery. 22 years later, I'm hoping this next wait isn't that long. It could be. There's plenty of time regardless. Winter lasts a long time here in Minnesota. My expectation is to eventually provide that data.

 

WLTP ratings tend to be 20% - 30% worse than EPA ratings. Many would love to know if the BZ will, for example, get 4 miles per KWH. Another thing folks may consider is how big of an upper & lower unusable buffer the BZ traction pack will incorporate. Toyota has always done well taking this into consideration for their hybrids & plug-ins, but a pure EV doesn't get the benefit of their ICE, which prevents a traction pack from dipping too low - programed to fire up before too much strain is put on the traction pack. Some would love to know 0 to 60 MPH as well.
.

 

Battery size is not useful in calculating m/kWh. You need the available battery capacity along with the range those kWh can provide. My brief search didn't reveal the available kWh.

But, if they gave me a bZ4X, I'd gladly discover those numbers (or at least an approximation) and let you all know the m/kWh.

 

To elaborate, and as an example, the Porsche Turbo Tycan may have about a 93kwh traction pack, but it only uses 88% of its capacity - not the bottom 6% nor the top 6%. So it has ~81kwh usable capacity (for the first years, being brand new). Lithium cells lose capacity faster when used all the way to the top and bottom, so by not using it, capacity longevity is extended.
.

 

That's a generalization, incorrect for LFP chemistry.

With LFP, charging to 100% (no top buffer) is normal and without longevity penalty.

 

Yes, the short-range Tesla, as well as other cars from other manufacturers are starting to employ LFP due to being less expensive, albeit less energy DENSITY (per Lb), & thus shorter range. It's kind of a crapshoot as to whether shorter range EV's will be as popular as those with - say over 250 miles range.

 

That's quite vague. Besides not having a top buffer with LFP, there's no reason to stop or even signicant slow down at 80% either. It is a paradigm shift. You cannot just measure value based on previous generation criteria.

There's the gain from infrastructure improvement too. Having a chemistry more resilient to heat means a quick stop for a partial recharge anywhere there's a charging-station becomes realistic. No planning ahead. No concerns about rate slowdown. Stopping wherever can be part of the travel experience.

It also makes the supposed "slower" DCFC more beneficial. As appealing as 350 kW seems on paper, having a steady 150 kW ends up being both more practical and more affordable. The easier to fund 50 kW speed becomes an interesting option for providers too.

Put another way, the argument of faster being better is starting to about to be questioned by the impact of diminishing returns. When it comes to serving the masses, more is usually better.

 

LFP also has lower energy density per volume. So bigger battery for the range. LFP isn't in the long range Model 3 because the battery wouldn't fit.

Is there official news that the bZ4X is using LFP?

 

No. We may not get detail either. I suspect it is some variant with the same purpose... eliminate cobalt & nickel while seeking something with less heat obstacle. Resulting lower cost and longer life is well worth reduced energy capacity. I also suspect that chemistry shares similarity enough to LFP that waiting for the final patent-related component to expire in April was well worth getting labeled as a "laggard" or "behind" in the meantime to avoid potential legal challenges. There's the problem of premature lock-in too. It will be interesting to see how that plays out for automakers with less forward-looking chemistry commitments.

 

Never forget that the enemy of BEV is a fossil fueled vehicle. So LFP solves a lot of supply resource issues yet still kicks the tailpipe of fossil fuel vehicles.

Lucky times to see and be part of the transition from ICE to BEV.

Bob Wilson

ps. Yes, my current ride is a 2019 Tesla Model 3 but I have no illusions that it is the penultimate EV. Sure many EVs struggle to not be an embarrassment but the learning curve can be climbed.

 

Seems the easiest way to take a guess about battery chemistry would be to look at who Toyota has partnered with for batteries. If it's something that the battery company is not making - then it's whatever chemistry they do make.
.

 

Toyota is partnered with CATL and BYD both of which make LFP and other batteries, and Panasonic that does NCA and NCM both in high and low cobalt versions;-)

The BYD connection is for the second BZ car so it isn't likely for the bz4x.

 

My dealer let me know the bz4X would be stopping by today, and I had a look. I liked it. The huge wheels make it look less efficient, but depending on range (in winter) that may not be a concern.

 

At our State Fair this summer, I very specifically looked at ID.4 wheels on the display there. Knowing I would be ordering a bZ4X and never really having a desire for larger wheels, I was curious. After all, less sidewall makes the added battery weight easier to support. Taking that specification into consideration, you discover something:

ID.4 = 4,559 to 4,665 lbs
bZ4X = 4,232 to 4,420 lbs

When someone claims Toyota is desperately "behind" and struggling to "catch up", I point out how Toyota already has a vast amount of experience. 25 years of efficiency refinement should not be dismissed or ignored. They have been making critical decisions about weight for squeezing out efficiency long before most of the rest of the industry. They have also been refining electric-motor design for the same purpose. Along with that comes countless software refinements. Funny thing is, none of those naysayers attempting to feed that narrative of Toyota struggle say anything in reply. They go silent. It's crickets when that detail is brought up. That is the "big lie" our group has to deal with.

Toyota is on their game and hasn't felt any need to attend the early-adopter party. Toyota is well aware of the challenges to come when all that low-hanging fruit is gone. Appealing to the masses in a crowded & confusing market is what Toyota excels at. bZ4X will establish precedent for BEV in the realm of mainstream consumers. Curiosity will grow about bZ3 and bZ2 without hype. Just like with Prius 20 years ago, it will again be a word-of-mouth campaign driven by us... the owners.

Look at that weight specification to stir curiosity. It is very likely that Toyota is using a lower-density cell for the sake of longevity and reduced cost; yet, somehow their vehicle type & size match to VW weighs less. True, the resulting range will be less, but why isn't the weight similar? Regardless of what the answer actually is, the point of stirring interest is achieved. It gets people to think beyond just the basics of 0-60 acceleration and EV range. What is truly important to a loyal Toyota customer?

 

I think Tesla is the only company that allows 100% charging at this time, and then the user has to override the 80% setting each time. Others may already have a hard upper charge limit. This makes a 100% charge limit just a marketing point. Most of the public is going to look at range and charge times. Tesla is currently treating the Model 3 SR with the different chemistries as being the same in that regard.

Agreed, but giving the bZ4X the advantages of LFP is pure speculation at this point. Something that was criticized of others in the past.

 

That simply won't exist with LFP batteries. Due to near flat voltage change, the required means of determining SOC correctly is to measure from full... true full, 100%. Since there is no harm to LFP at 100%, no big deal. In fact, getting to use more of the battery is more cost effective.