Approximate Charge Time

[THil08]

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.

I think your number of 160kWh for the battery of fully electric is probably the most accurate since Rivian’s Max pack is only 140kWh but they have a bit more aerodynamic and drag efficiency.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I think your number of 160kWh for the battery of fully electric is probably the most accurate since Rivian’s Max pack is only 140kWh but they have a bit more aerodynamic and drag efficiency.

Yeah, could be. If the Scout can get 2.2 miles/kWh on the EPA test, that would be not terrible. I'd love to see it get 2.44 like the Lightning. If that's the case, then we might even see a 143 kWh battery. But I'm skeptical given the Scout's ground clearance and planned large tires.

We shall see.

 

[THil08]

Scout ii, quick fact in case anybody wants to do it when you convert its 20 MPGe to kWh it gets .593384

Scouts possible Efficiency number (averaged from Scout 2 1980 and Rivian): +/-1.735

Mileage on each possible battery kWh:

Harvester-

75kWh: 130miles

80kWh: 138miles

85kWh: 147miles

90kWh: 156miles

Fully Electric-

175kWh: 303miles

180kWh: 312miles

185kWh: 320miles

190kWh: 329miles

195kWh: 338miles

200kWh: 346miles

Extra since @SpaceEVDriver mention a 209kWh-

209kWh: 362miles

All calculations could be: +/-

***(mind you this is all math related, without any software system that will optimize battery usage so calculations of these numbers could be off slightly)***

 

[R1TVT]

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.

The math is the math, and 100% agree on the current numbers.

If the Scout were to launch today, you would see 175-205 kWh battery pack. I will refrain from speculating on where things land 2 years from now, and progress will be incremental. Charging curves should continue to improve (and have improved with SW & OTA's over time on existing EV models).

 

[R1TVT]

Yeah, could be. If the Scout can get 2.2 miles/kWh on the EPA test, that would be not terrible. I'd love to see it get 2.44 like the Lightning. If that's the case, then we might even see a 143 kWh battery. But I'm skeptical given the Scout's ground clearance and planned large tires.

We shall see.

Not to nitpick b/c EPA ratings for EV's are a bit odd, but where are you getting the 2.44 figure for the Lightening? I thought the EPA rating for the Lightening was 2.1? Although, the various wheel and tire choices make a big difference... Same for the R1T.

The thing about EPA ratings is that they don't really translate that well in real-world conditions for a lot of people based on their actual driving. I do a lot of uphill, then downhill driving. If you were to look only at uphill numbers, into a headwind, loaded with gear on a cold day with temps in the teens, you would get nowhere remotely close to the EPA number on the Rivian (or any EV truck).

Turn-around and drive 100 miles in the opposite direction, well, different story entirely.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Not to nitpick b/c EPA ratings for EV's are a bit odd, but where are you getting the 2.44 figure for the Lightening? I thought the EPA rating for the Lightening was 2.1? Although, the various wheel and tire choices make a big difference... Same for the R1T.

The thing about EPA ratings is that they don't really translate that well in real-world conditions for a lot of people based on their actual driving. I do a lot of uphill, then downhill driving. If you were to look only at uphill numbers, into a headwind, loaded with gear on a cold day with temps in the teens, you would get nowhere remotely close to the EPA number on the Rivian (or any EV truck).

Turn-around and drive 100 miles in the opposite direction, well, different story entirely.

A 131 kWh ER Lightning XLT/Lariat gets an EPA rating of 320 miles. 320 miles / 131 kWh = 2.44 miles/kWh.

I regularly get better than 2.4 miles/kWh in freeway driving. But I run my tires at closer to 50 PSI instead of the OEM 39 PSI, and I stick to about 70-73 mph.

 

[Logan]

I've been assuming the efficiency is in the ~2 miles per KWh range.

Thats based on the Hummer EV (which of course is huge, and is probably about as bad as efficiency could be with ~35-37in tires) having an efficiency of ~1.6 miles/KWh, and Rivian R1's having an efficiency of ~2.1-2.4 miles per KWh (which seem more aerodynamic than the Scout).

So I just sort of guessed right between the two (and it makes the math easy ). Anything above 2miles/KWh is gravy as far as I'm concerned.

Or maybe I'm just managing expectations .

 

[R1TVT]

A 131 kWh ER Lightning XLT/Lariat gets an EPA rating of 320 miles. 320 miles / 131 kWh = 2.44 miles/kWh.

I regularly get better than 2.4 miles/kWh in freeway driving. But I run my tires at closer to 50 PSI instead of the OEM 39 PSI, and I stick to about 70-73 mph.

Ah, I see... I was going by the Ford window sticker which shows a 320 Lariat gets 48kWh/100miles = 2.1 miles/kWh (combined)...

The reason I thought this was b/c my R1T launch edition shows the same calc (48kWh/100miles) on the same size (20") wheels. Only difference is the Rivian runs AT Scorpion tires on 20's and the Ford runs BSW all-season tires on 20's

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Ah, I see... I was going by the Ford window sticker which shows a 320 Lariat gets 48kWh/100miles = 2.1 miles/kWh (combined)...

The reason I thought this was b/c my R1T launch edition shows the same calc (48kWh/100miles) on the same size (20") wheels. Only difference is the Rivian runs AT Scorpion tires on 20's and the Ford runs BSW all-season tires on 20's

Interesting. I never bothered to look at that part of my window sticker. Haha!

The value of MPGe includes charging losses, assuming Level 2 charging. So both are correct, depending on your goals. MPGe is fine when you want to estimate the total cost to drive the vehicle and EPA estimate of range in miles / kWh of battery is good when you want to estimate the range of the vehicle, independent of the cost of the electricity.

Fuel Economy and EV Range Testing | US EPA

EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) tests new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. to ensure that they comply with federal emissions and fuel economy standards.

www.epa.gov

MPG equivalent (MPGe) is used for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). MPGe conveys the energy consumption in terms of how many miles the vehicle could go on an amount of fuel that has the equivalent energy content as a gallon of gasoline.

• Example - A gallon of gasoline has the energy equivalent of 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity. A PEV that uses 33.7 kilowatt-hours to drive 100 miles will use the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline and, therefore, would have an MPGe of 100 miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent.
• Note: MPGe values provided by EPA include charging losses. Charging a PEV is not 100% efficient. A small amount of energy is lost through energy conversion and heat. MPGe values assume level 2, alternating current (AC) charging and account for losses from the charging cable (also called the electric vehicle supply equipment or EVSE) and the on-board vehicle charger. This moves the measurement from the vehicle to the outlet in the wall to better represent how much users would pay to refuel their car.

 

[Logan]

I know what they're trying to do, but man, I've always thought that MPGe, is just... not a great way to convey what they're trying to convey.

The problem is that your typical consumer doesn't really think about how much energy is in a gallon of gas. So displaying how much more efficient an EV is, in terms of miles per gallon, doesn't really mean much. Especially because they don't also convert the battery size into "Gallons of gas equivalent" or something like that.

I mean, if they had MPGe, plus GOGe, and that together showed the total range, at least it would make sense... but also, sort of not, as then we'd be talking about electricity in units of gasoline, which gets weird past an initial "whats that about equivalent to" phase of conversion.

Ironically, it is sort of useful to compare EV's efficiency to each other.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I know what they're trying to do, but man, I've always thought that MPGe, is just... not a great way to convey what they're trying to convey.

The problem is that your typical consumer doesn't really think about how much energy is in a gallon of gas. So displaying how much more efficient an EV is, in terms of miles per gallon, doesn't really mean much. Especially because they don't also convert the battery size into "Gallons of gas equivalent" or something like that.

I mean, if they had MPGe, plus GOGe, and that together showed the total range, at least it would make sense... but also, sort of not, as then we'd be talking about electricity in units of gasoline, which gets weird past an initial "whats that about equivalent to" phase of conversion.

Ironically, it is sort of useful to compare EV's efficiency to each other.

When I estimate the cost to drive, I just use the range I know I can get on a battery at 100% SoC and the cost of the electricity I'll be buying for that drive. At home, I pay $0.034/kWh during super-off-peak in the winter, so my Lightning costs about $4-$5 to fill from 0% to 100%. I have a pretty close-to-320 mile average range, unless I stay around town, in which case it's closer to about 450 miles, even in the winter. I can estimate my best cost/mile will be $4 / 450 miles = $0.009/mile for around town driving. On a road trip, the cost is closer to $0.48/kWh, and my range is closer to 320 miles, so $63/320 = $0.197/mile. There's a lot of space in that range for reality to step in...

 

[EV_Or_Gas]

Yeah, could be. If the Scout can get 2.2 miles/kWh on the EPA test, that would be not terrible. I'd love to see it get 2.44 like the Lightning. If that's the case, then we might even see a 143 kWh battery. But I'm skeptical given the Scout's ground clearance and planned large tires.

We shall see.

The Silverado's EPA rating is 2 miles/kWh - and I expect Scout Terra to be the same. The lower limit can be got from the Humme EV which is 1.5

 

[EV_Or_Gas]

The math is the math, and 100% agree on the current numbers.

If the Scout were to launch today, you would see 175-205 kWh battery pack. I will refrain from speculating on where things land 2 years from now, and progress will be incremental. Charging curves should continue to improve (and have improved with SW & OTA's over time on existing EV models).

From what I understand, the next big leap in battery capacity will be from solid state batteries. While they may seem like perpetually 5 years away, QuantumScape and VW have already started pilot production, and given that Scout is a VW company it may happen sooner than we realize.

 

[R1TVT]

The Silverado's EPA rating is 2 miles/kWh - and I expect Scout Terra to be the same. The lower limit can be got from the Humme EV which is 1.5

2024 Silverado EV 4WT window sticker shows 63 MPGe and 53kWh / 100 miles, which is 1.88 miles/kWh.

From what I understand, the next big leap in battery capacity will be from solid state batteries. While they may seem like perpetually 5 years away, QuantumScape and VW have already started pilot production, and given that Scout is a VW company it may happen sooner than we realize.

I would be shocked if we saw solid state batteries in the first Scouts, but certainly possible in future model-years... I only say that thinking that if solid state batteries are coming out of the Ottawa PowerCo plant, they won't be available until at least 2027:


“The battery plant that we have in Canada will be solid-state batteries,” he said. “These batteries will have a cost benefit, but they’ll also have way more range and performance.”

Powerco Canada Inc. — VW’s battery manufacturing subsidiary — said in December that the site was ready for groundbreaking and that construction of the $7-billion St. Thomas gigafactory would begin this year with a goal of producing batteries by 2027.

 

[LastDayScout]

2024 Silverado EV 4WT window sticker shows 63 MPGe and 53kWh / 100 miles, which is 1.88 miles/kWh.


I would be shocked if we saw solid state batteries in the first Scouts, but certainly possible in future model-years... I only say that thinking that if solid state batteries are coming out of the Ottawa PowerCo plant, they won't be available until at least 2027:


“The battery plant that we have in Canada will be solid-state batteries,” he said. “These batteries will have a cost benefit, but they’ll also have way more range and performance.”

Powerco Canada Inc. — VW’s battery manufacturing subsidiary — said in December that the site was ready for groundbreaking and that construction of the $7-billion St. Thomas gigafactory would begin this year with a goal of producing batteries by 2027.

There are also three major, multi-billion dollar, battery recycling facilities under construction in SC. Whether or not they will work with Scout remains to be seen, but anything is possible.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

From what I understand, the next big leap in battery capacity will be from solid state batteries. While they may seem like perpetually 5 years away, QuantumScape and VW have already started pilot production, and given that Scout is a VW company it may happen sooner than we realize.

They haven't started pilot production. QS just (Q3 2024) built a test cell. They can operate the cell at room temperature, but haven't even begun to test it at the kind of environmental conditions required for a vehicle. It's not a production cell, it's a small-batch manufacturing cell, at best. They're at least 5 years from having a cell that can be put into a test vehicle and another few years from producing a viable battery for EVs.

Solid-State EV Batteries Now Face “Production Hell”

Solid-electrolyte EV batteries present big promises, bigger hurdles

spectrum.ieee.org

 

[THil08]

They haven't started pilot production. QS just (Q3 2024) built a test cell. They can operate the cell at room temperature, but haven't even begun to test it at the kind of environmental conditions required for a vehicle. It's not a production cell, it's a small-batch manufacturing cell, at best. They're at least 5 years from having a cell that can be put into a test vehicle and another few years from producing a viable battery for EVs.

Solid-State EV Batteries Now Face “Production Hell”

Solid-electrolyte EV batteries present big promises, bigger hurdles

spectrum.ieee.org

If anything we will get LFP batteries. As cool as solid state would be it’s still too new and it would suck to be the real world use test dummies.

 

[Mousehunter]

I don't think many EV's are allowing 100 amp 240v charging. I think Ford offered something like that as an option for the Lightning, but between the cost and the demand, it has already been discontinued. IIRC it required 2 onboard chargers - and for residential installs, it required 2 circuits - not impossible on a new construct, but not cost effective for most people. Still, without it, I don't think you are going to get a full charge overnight with those big batteries.

Did just watch a video that included home DC charging - but that is $$$.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I don't think many EV's are allowing 100 amp 240v charging. I think Ford offered something like that as an option for the Lightning, but between the cost and the demand, it has already been discontinued. IIRC it required 2 onboard chargers - and for residential installs, it required 2 circuits - not impossible on a new construct, but not cost effective for most people. Still, without it, I don't think you are going to get a full charge overnight with those big batteries.

Did just watch a video that included home DC charging - but that is $$$.

I have the Ford Charge Station Pro, which is the 100 Amp circuit, 80 Amp EVSE. That's the maximum on 240 volts under the J1772 standard. It does involve two onboard chargers and has been discontinued for most Lightnings, except as an option. It doesn't require two circuits (that doesn't make any sense). It's just a 100A circuit, which isn't easy to get installed without a service upgrade in many homes.

For most driving, you don't need a full charge overnight once you're home. Most people in the US drive less than 40 miles in a day. A vehicle with 2 miles/kWh efficiency uses 20 kWh for those 40 miles. A 40A, 240V charger provides about 9 kW, so will recover most of that 20 kWh in just over two hours.

For a longer drive, say, arriving home with 10% charge, that leaves something like...oh, guessing based on my guesses about battery size...160 kWh, leaving 16 kWh remaining and 144 kWh to recover. A 9 kW charger would require 16 hours on the charger to fully recover to 100%. A 48A (maximum for a single onboard charger) would provide 11.5 kW and so 12.5 hours of recharge time. An 80A charger will provide 19 kW, so a full recharge in about 7.5 hours.

In my experience, the 80A charger isn't necessary, but is super convenient. In colder climates, an 80A charger might be super helpful or maybe even close to necessary, but it has to be supported by the vehicle.

Most of the time, we don't go out on a long drive the day after coming home from a road trip so we don't need a super-rapid recharge. I usually have the charger dialed down to about 60A.

 

[R1TVT]

My truck is plugged in at home right now on a 60A circuit (48A current) which requires 6gauge wire (rivian charger)
Here's what I am seeing on the Rivian Large Pack Battery with the truck sitting at about 39F degrees in the garage (19F outside).
I'm pulling about 23 miles an hour...



Here's a breakdown on different charge times based on power: