Approximate Charge Time
- Thread starter DBHowe
- Start date
-
From all of us at Scout Motors, welcome to the Scout Community! We created this community to provide Scout vehicle owners, enthusiasts, and curiosity seekers with a place to engage in discussion, suggestions, stories, and connections. Supportive communities are sometimes hard to find, but we're determined to turn this into one.
Additionally, Scout Motors wants to hear your feedback and speak directly to the rabid community of owners as unique as America. We'll use the Scout Community to deliver news and information on events and launch updates directly to the group. Although the start of production is anticipated in 2026, many new developments and milestones will occur in the interim. We plan to share them with you on this site and look for your feedback and suggestions.
How will the Scout Community be run? Think of it this way: this place is your favorite local hangout. We want you to enjoy the atmosphere, talk to people who share similar interests, request and receive advice, and generally have an enjoyable time. The Scout Community should be a highlight of your day. We want you to tell stories, share photos, spread your knowledge, and tell us how Scout can deliver great products and experiences. Along the way, Scout Motors will share our journey to production with you.
Scout is all about respect. We respect our heritage. We respect the land and outdoors. We respect each other. Every person should feel safe, included, and welcomed in the Scout Community. Being kind and courteous to the other forum members is non-negotiable. Friendly debates are welcomed and often produce great outcomes, but we don't want things to get too rowdy. Please take a moment to consider what you post, especially if you think it may insult others. We'll do our best to encourage friendly discourse and to keep the discussions flowing.
So, welcome to the Scout Community! We encourage you to check back regularly as we plan to engage our members, share teasers, and participate in discussions. The world needs Scouts™. Let's get going.
We are Scout Motors.
My Mustang has a 92 kWh battery, which I suspect is about half the size of the battery the electric-only Scout will have (350 miles range / 1.9 miles/kWh efficiency = 184 kWh). My Mustang also has a 400V (nominal) battery, which is half the promised voltage of the Scout battery. Assuming those two things suggests that the Scout will require about the same amount of time to charge the same % while on DCFC. Over several hundred DCFC charging sessions in the past few years and 52,000 miles, my median charging stop time is 25 minutes (this includes the Lightning, which has a bigger battery but about the same maximum charge rate as the Mustang). I would expect anywhere from ~10 minutes to 30 minutes for most charging stops in the Scout, assuming access to 350 kW chargers. If the power limit on the chargers is closer to 150 kW, then I think you'll see closer to 45 minute stops.
For at-home charging, the charge time is pretty irrelevant. A 184 kWh battery charging at 11 kW goes from 0% to 100% in 17-18 hours. If you're driving less than 50% in any given day, and you can charge for at least 10 hours in a day, the charger will catch you up faster than you'll deplete the battery.
For at-home charging, the charge time is pretty irrelevant. A 184 kWh battery charging at 11 kW goes from 0% to 100% in 17-18 hours. If you're driving less than 50% in any given day, and you can charge for at least 10 hours in a day, the charger will catch you up faster than you'll deplete the battery.
From my experience, I see between a 6% and 16% increase in long range road trip times. Usually closer to 10%. I consider a road trip to be at least 5 hours one way. The drive we do most often is 1100-1200 miles round trip. We don't see a difference in travel time. We stop at the same places for the same amount of time. We stop for lunch, and while we're eating, the car is charging--we often have to hurry back to the charger because it's idling and we are in danger of being charged idle fees (and more importantly, blocking someone else from charging). We stop for dinner and the car charges while we're eating. Some trips take longer, often because we run into unexpected issues. Sometimes chargers are heavily used or blocked or overheating. But it's rare and we just enjoy the journey. If we're in a hurry, it's a flight, not a road trip.
Also in my experience, people underestimate how long they spend at a gas station. I've taken to timing people when I'm in drive-throughs, charging, etc. My small sample of data suggests the time people spend at the station is closer to 10-15 minutes. A 5-minute stop usually only happens at gas stations in town, where all people are doing is gassing up on the way home. Freeway stops tend to involve the restroom, snacks, walking the dog, finding the kids, etc.
Also in my experience, people underestimate how long they spend at a gas station. I've taken to timing people when I'm in drive-throughs, charging, etc. My small sample of data suggests the time people spend at the station is closer to 10-15 minutes. A 5-minute stop usually only happens at gas stations in town, where all people are doing is gassing up on the way home. Freeway stops tend to involve the restroom, snacks, walking the dog, finding the kids, etc.
I agree that most people stop for more time than they realize. With that said, we are often trying to squeeze 10 or more solid hours of driving (does not include any time for stops) into a single day. Therefore, it is not uncommon for us to get to a gas station and have everyone hop out - I start the pump while everyone hops in the travel trailer to go to the bathroom and grab snacks and if all goes well we’re ready to hop back on the road when the pump clicks off. Burning 40 or more minutes at every single stop would change how many days would be required for our trips so it’s a big consideration. Definitely not the same situation for everyone though as we’re probably the minority.
Yes, that describes our road trips too. I've started studying the charging app maps. I see that there are many more large Supercharger stations than I ever noticed. I don't understand all of the plug types and nuances of picking a station and charging, but I have a few years to learn.
Yes. 10 hours of solid driving is somewhat rare for most people. My wife and I have done these days on occasion, but that's almost always in the motor home. Sounds like that's you too when you're pulling a trailer. Seems to me that an EV pulling a trailer and wanting to travel for 10 solid hours with very few stops is a special problem.
Yep, I agree it’s probably a special problem. Fingers crossed that the Harvester will make it a possibility!
I’m i
900 mile in one day road trips leave very little “extra” time. Because that extra time would push us into the “this is a two day trip” range.
I’ve timed our stops the last few years. We are usually 10-15min, which is basically gas and pee, then go. We occasionally take as long as 20min.
According to a few vehicles I’ve tested on a better route planner, an EV would add an extra 45min-3hours or so to the drive, depending on the model. An extra 45 minutes would likely be ok. But 3 hours would mean an 18hr day, which is more than I’m comfortable doing.
EV times are getting close though. And depending on the actual charging speed/charging curve, it might work for us. but my reservation is for a harvester just because I don’t think the charging infrastructure will be where it needs to be in the rural parts of WA, OR, ID and UT by the time we can purchase.
We will see though
.
I’m In the same boat as you.Yep, I agree it’s probably a special problem. Fingers crossed that the Harvester will make it a possibility!
900 mile in one day road trips leave very little “extra” time. Because that extra time would push us into the “this is a two day trip” range.
I’ve timed our stops the last few years. We are usually 10-15min, which is basically gas and pee, then go. We occasionally take as long as 20min.
According to a few vehicles I’ve tested on a better route planner, an EV would add an extra 45min-3hours or so to the drive, depending on the model. An extra 45 minutes would likely be ok. But 3 hours would mean an 18hr day, which is more than I’m comfortable doing.
EV times are getting close though. And depending on the actual charging speed/charging curve, it might work for us. but my reservation is for a harvester just because I don’t think the charging infrastructure will be where it needs to be in the rural parts of WA, OR, ID and UT by the time we can purchase.
We will see though
.
So I (probably with many others) posted that it would be cool if the Traveler was large enough that it could power the Scout. Very much like a modern locomotive. Then 90% of the time you could use the Scout as an EV but on special occasions (long trips, power outages, etc.) you could use the Scout more like an ICE. Everything has tradeoffs, seems like the best of both worlds to me.Yep, I agree it’s probably a special problem. Fingers crossed that the Harvester will make it a possibility!
I agree the Harvester could end up offering pieces of both worlds all at the same time to make for a great package. I’m keeping my eye on the Ramcharger release for sure as I see similarities. Just like Logan, my family and I take frequent trips throughout the rural and sometimes remote parts of many western states and current charging infrastructure is somewhere between inadequate and non-existent in a lot of those places. I do not expect any significant change to that situation in the next two to four years. I’m staying tuned for details on how the Harvester will function and everything that the whole package will end up offering. Pretty exciting!
A new report out about the Thanksgiving holiday travel says that compared with last year, there were 50% more stops at public DC Fast Chargers and at the same time, there was 25% less time spent at those chargers (on the charger--no data about how much of a line there was or was not). This suggests that not only are there more chargers available compared with last year, but there was an increase in charger reliability and people seem to be more used to charging so they're more efficient at the chargers.
Rivian R1 LFP Charging Curves
This is Rivian R1 platform charge curve for the LFP battery. If Scout can make that curve battery since it’s NACS that would be amazing. Even though that charge curve really isn’t that bad, I’ve seen worse from BMWs.
Very interesting. Could it also be that many people were very busy and short on time so they opted for quicker, shorter, charges? If that's the case, then they would spend 25% less time at the charger. However, since they were not taking the time to get a full charge they would have to stop 50% more often?
Right now I think it is a lot of - It depends. It will depend on the charging station (not many level 4 stations exist, I suspect there are still a LOT of level 2 stations out there). Even when you get to level 3 stations, the odds are they are sharing their capacity over multiple towers, so your charging speed can vary based on how many vehicles are charging on the station. The next it depends will be the charging profile of the batteries. Even if you can find a level 4 charging station that can give you level 4 power levels at your tower - most vehicles only accept that rate of charge for a few minutes within their charging cycle.
The good news, 2025 might be the first year of mass installation of Level 4 chargers that can take advantage of the 800v architecture (Tesla now has the Cybertruck, so they have an incentive to do it) . Perhaps by 2027, they will be common enough that existing level 3 stations are being upgraded.
FWIW, I recently (2 weeks ago) did a round trip from Texas to Florida. Saw my first level 4 charging stations being installed. Funny part (for me) was they were Mercedes, and in the same parking lot as a bunch of Level 3 Tesla chargers.
The good news, 2025 might be the first year of mass installation of Level 4 chargers that can take advantage of the 800v architecture (Tesla now has the Cybertruck, so they have an incentive to do it) . Perhaps by 2027, they will be common enough that existing level 3 stations are being upgraded.
FWIW, I recently (2 weeks ago) did a round trip from Texas to Florida. Saw my first level 4 charging stations being installed. Funny part (for me) was they were Mercedes, and in the same parking lot as a bunch of Level 3 Tesla chargers.
I don't know what you mean by Level 3 or Level 4 charging...? Did you mean supercharger Version 3 and Version 4?
Level 1: 120 Volts, maximum of 16 Amps = 1.9 kW, but most people will have a 1.4 kW L1 charger.
Level 2: 240 Volts, maximum of 80 Amps = 19 kW, but most people will have a 9.6 kW L2 charger.
DCFC: 400-1000 Volts, maximum of >1000 Amps, 50-1000 kW or more, but currently production vehicles in the US max out at 350 kW, with some dubious claims of about 500 kW in the CT, but those peaks aren't sustained charging rates and are pretty meaningless in realistic charge scenarios. The charge curve for the GMC Sierra EV with a 225 kWh battery looks like this:
I'm guessing the Scouts will have 180 kWh to 200 kWh of battery.
L1 @ 1.4 kW = 128 hours
L2 @ 9.6 kW = 19 hours
DCFC @ ??? kW. Probably about 45 minutes to charge from 20% to 80% on a 350 kW charging station.
We don't know what the charge curve will look like, but it will likely be similar to the Sierra's.
Last edited:
My guess for Scouts battery size will be around 85kWh for the harvester package and 180kWh for fully electric.
Only because the range of the harvester is around 57% less than full Electric.
You’ll definitely want a Level2 / Destination charger on a two-pole circuit at home. Many EV owners do the majority of charging in their own homes on this set up, which can be set up in the charger app to only charge off-peak, if desired.
180 is a really big and heavy battery. You may be right but I hope it’s smaller and the package is just more efficient to reach the stated range goal.
Agreed... 180-200 is big (and expensive) and heavy, which also means longer charge times, which also makes DCFC charging on the road more expensive.
As battery tech continues to evolve & improve incrementally, and as Scout tweaks the production version of the trucks (perhaps gaining some additional efficiency) I would guess that a 150kWh battery pack might be adequate to get 350 miles of range, and that new battery packs of that size could get slightly lighter with more efficient packaging - and Scout will have 800V architecture. By comparison, the Hummer EV thing has a battery of similar size (205kWh) and is by far and away the least efficient EV truck (and obv the most expensive to charge) with the worst drag coefficient. I'm guessing Scout will much better from an efficiency perspective, but we'll have to wait and see. The engineers anticipate comparisons like this, but also important to keep costs in line.
As battery tech continues to evolve & improve incrementally, and as Scout tweaks the production version of the trucks (perhaps gaining some additional efficiency) I would guess that a 150kWh battery pack might be adequate to get 350 miles of range, and that new battery packs of that size could get slightly lighter with more efficient packaging - and Scout will have 800V architecture. By comparison, the Hummer EV thing has a battery of similar size (205kWh) and is by far and away the least efficient EV truck (and obv the most expensive to charge) with the worst drag coefficient. I'm guessing Scout will much better from an efficiency perspective, but we'll have to wait and see. The engineers anticipate comparisons like this, but also important to keep costs in line.
The main efficiency drag is...well, drag. Above between about 30 mph, air resistance and E=1/2mv^2 takes over from W=F*d and friction.
Given its proposed shape, physical size, and front profile, there's very little SM can do to make the Scout any more efficient than the Lightning, Silverado, etc. An efficiency of 1.7-2.0 miles/kWh is about the best that a pickup truck or large SUV can hope for in the EPA test. Given the aim of 350 miles, that leads to 175-205 kWh. Maybe they can squeeze things to get up to 2.1 (167 kWh) or 2.2 (160 kWh). This has very little to do with battery chemistry, and a lot more to do with the physics of moving a wheeled brick through an atmosphere.
A lighter battery will only matter for shorter distances when the vehicle is regularly accelerating and decelerating, etc. It won't matter (very much) once the vehicle is up to speed.
For the Harvester, yeah, something like 80-90 kWh is more likely. But a lower capacity battery generally has to charge more slowly (in a relative sense to its total capacity) because of the way the cells are damaged if they're charged at too high a current. An average of 1C charge rate is a pretty reasonable expectation to charge most existing batteries from 0% to 80% charge (then it drops dramatically). But on the flip side, when the battery gets higher capacity, that becomes more difficult to accomplish for multiple reasons, not the least of which is thermal management.
You'll notice that the Silverado/Sierra charge curve above is lower than 1C for the 0-80% part of the curve. A 1C rate from 0% to 80% would take 80% of 1 hour, or 48 minutes. It starts off very aggressive (so GM can claim a high peak rate), slows to a reasonable value, then takes a nose dive at about 60%.
Scout can improve on that charge curve with better thermal management. The curve shouldn't dive down so badly at 60%. If Scout lowered the peak charge rate slightly, the temperature of the battery would stay lower for longer and they could increase the 60% to 80% charge rate. They would get a better overall charge curve if they just started slightly slower. But then marketing would be an issue.
Alternatively:
One of the things that Scout will benefit from is learning that 1C isn't as big a danger to new batteries (if they provide proper thermal management). I believe we can get away with 1.5C during charging for longer periods of time. If they open up the power to hit a sustained 1.5C, that would be fantastic. If the battery is 200 kWh and it can handle 1.5C sustained and if they manage the battery's temperature better, they might be able to start with a peak of 1.75C current for 5 minutes, during which they would pull 30 kWh or 15% charge. That followed by 1.5C sustained (until 80%; 130 kWh; 26 minutes) would mean a total time:
0% to 80%: 31 minutes
20% to 80%: 25 minutes
30% to 80%: 22 minutes.
Even with the bigger battery.
Given its proposed shape, physical size, and front profile, there's very little SM can do to make the Scout any more efficient than the Lightning, Silverado, etc. An efficiency of 1.7-2.0 miles/kWh is about the best that a pickup truck or large SUV can hope for in the EPA test. Given the aim of 350 miles, that leads to 175-205 kWh. Maybe they can squeeze things to get up to 2.1 (167 kWh) or 2.2 (160 kWh). This has very little to do with battery chemistry, and a lot more to do with the physics of moving a wheeled brick through an atmosphere.
A lighter battery will only matter for shorter distances when the vehicle is regularly accelerating and decelerating, etc. It won't matter (very much) once the vehicle is up to speed.
For the Harvester, yeah, something like 80-90 kWh is more likely. But a lower capacity battery generally has to charge more slowly (in a relative sense to its total capacity) because of the way the cells are damaged if they're charged at too high a current. An average of 1C charge rate is a pretty reasonable expectation to charge most existing batteries from 0% to 80% charge (then it drops dramatically). But on the flip side, when the battery gets higher capacity, that becomes more difficult to accomplish for multiple reasons, not the least of which is thermal management.
You'll notice that the Silverado/Sierra charge curve above is lower than 1C for the 0-80% part of the curve. A 1C rate from 0% to 80% would take 80% of 1 hour, or 48 minutes. It starts off very aggressive (so GM can claim a high peak rate), slows to a reasonable value, then takes a nose dive at about 60%.
Scout can improve on that charge curve with better thermal management. The curve shouldn't dive down so badly at 60%. If Scout lowered the peak charge rate slightly, the temperature of the battery would stay lower for longer and they could increase the 60% to 80% charge rate. They would get a better overall charge curve if they just started slightly slower. But then marketing would be an issue.
Alternatively:
One of the things that Scout will benefit from is learning that 1C isn't as big a danger to new batteries (if they provide proper thermal management). I believe we can get away with 1.5C during charging for longer periods of time. If they open up the power to hit a sustained 1.5C, that would be fantastic. If the battery is 200 kWh and it can handle 1.5C sustained and if they manage the battery's temperature better, they might be able to start with a peak of 1.75C current for 5 minutes, during which they would pull 30 kWh or 15% charge. That followed by 1.5C sustained (until 80%; 130 kWh; 26 minutes) would mean a total time:
0% to 80%: 31 minutes
20% to 80%: 25 minutes
30% to 80%: 22 minutes.
Even with the bigger battery.
Similar threads
- Suggestion
