Battery Capacity Options

[Silversoul]

With the announcement that the Terra/Traveller will have around a 120-130kWh battery in them to get the 350 miles of range, I'd be curious how much more it would cost to push it to a 450 mile range. Some basic napkin math would put a 160kWh battery around that range (splitting the difference of the announced battery capacity), if we could get an extended battery option, I'd be willing to pay an extra $4-5k to get that extra ~30kWh to hit that mark. I'm not sure of the logistics behind it (again, very basic napkin math), but if they could lower the ground clearance and tack on that extra capacity, I'd be a happy camper. I know it's not as simple as that, but I'd love to see some form of this come to life.

 

[dreamweaver]

With the announcement that the Terra/Traveller will have around a 120-130kWh battery in them to get the 350 miles of range, I'd be curious how much more it would cost to push it to a 450 mile range. Some basic napkin math would put a 160kWh battery around that range (splitting the difference of the announced battery capacity), if we could get an extended battery option, I'd be willing to pay an extra $4-5k to get that extra ~30kWh to hit that mark. I'm not sure of the logistics behind it (again, very basic napkin math), but if they could lower the ground clearance and tack on that extra capacity, I'd be a happy camper. I know it's not as simple as that, but I'd love to see some form of this come to life.

One potential issue with NMC is a possible supply chain issues due to cobalt, $$$ unknown.

 

[absentEE]

With the announcement that the Terra/Traveller will have around a 120-130kWh battery in them to get the 350 miles of range, I'd be curious how much more it would cost to push it to a 450 mile range. Some basic napkin math would put a 160kWh battery around that range (splitting the difference of the announced battery capacity), if we could get an extended battery option, I'd be willing to pay an extra $4-5k to get that extra ~30kWh to hit that mark. I'm not sure of the logistics behind it (again, very basic napkin math), but if they could lower the ground clearance and tack on that extra capacity, I'd be a happy camper. I know it's not as simple as that, but I'd love to see some form of this come to life.

Honestly think it will be tough to achieve a real world range of 350 miles with only a 130kWh battery, the Lightning can only do 345 miles with a 131kWh battery and it doesn’t have MT or AT tires nor a solid rear axle. Personally think they’ll have to go with a higher capacity battery or lower range expectations but would be great if they didn't have to.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Honestly think it will be tough to achieve a real world range of 350 miles with only a 130kWh battery, the Lightning can only do 345 miles with a 131kWh battery and it doesn’t have MT or AT tires nor a solid rear axle. Personally think they’ll have to go with a higher capacity battery or lower range expectations but would be great if they didn't have to.

Careful, slow driving in my extended range Lightning can get 350 miles, but the EPA rating is 320 miles.

I seriously doubt Scout will get 350 miles on 130 kWh battery with their current profile and 4wd capability plans.

 

[absentEE]

Careful, slow driving in my extended range Lightning can get 350 miles, but the EPA rating is 320 miles.

No doubt though was referring to Edmunds range test:

I seriously doubt Scout will get 350 miles on 130 kWh battery with their current profile and 4wd capability plans.

Agreed.

 

[J Alynn]

From a marketing perspective I would have to think they are using conservative numbers so as not to over promise and under deliver. Perhaps they aren’t sharing all the exact details.
They list harvester as 500 miles but Scott has now (twice) said over 500 miles so I’m thinking they are keeping numbers low so maybe math equation is ok but maybe their kw ratings will be a bit different number at final

 

[David.Rich]

Hello - I am new to the forum and looking forward to the ongoing discussions. I just want to share my thoughts..... I initially reserved the BEV configuration until I read more about the range extender. I subsequently changed my reservation. I like the approach of a smaller battery that will meet 90% of my driving needs and avoid the added weight and penalties of a larger battery.

I think Scout has it right on this one - less tire wear with the lighter vehicle yet added range if really needed.

 

[dreamweaver]

Hello - I am new to the forum and looking forward to the ongoing discussions. I just want to share my thoughts..... I initially reserved the BEV configuration until I read more about the range extender. I subsequently changed my reservation. I like the approach of a smaller battery that will meet 90% of my driving needs and avoid the added weight and penalties of a larger battery.

I think Scout has it right on this one - less tire wear with the lighter vehicle yet added range if really needed.

We shall see as they get closer to production what those numbers are.
Welcome to the community.

 

[absentEE]

Hello - I am new to the forum and looking forward to the ongoing discussions. I just want to share my thoughts..... I initially reserved the BEV configuration until I read more about the range extender. I subsequently changed my reservation. I like the approach of a smaller battery that will meet 90% of my driving needs and avoid the added weight and penalties of a larger battery.

I think Scout has it right on this one - less tire wear with the lighter vehicle yet added range if really needed.

While true to a degree, I think much of the increased tire wear people talk about is due to the acceleration available in many EVs that in the past was only possible in sports cars which are also known for going through tires… so much of this can be remedied by simply driving more conservatively. Also neither will be particularly light and correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is the chemistry of the battery in the EV variants will have a higher energy density so weights may be closer than it would appear.

That said I do agree it was the correct move for Scout to offer EREVs, as they will act as trojan horses into the ice world and will help drive down the cost of EV manufacturing/componentry all while masquerading as a ice vehicle. They also offer flexibility and a sense of security for those on the fence.

 

[dreamweaver]

While true to a degree, I think much of the increased tire wear people talk about is do to the acceleration available in many EVs that in the past was only possible in sports cars which are also known for going through tires… so much of this can be remedied by simply driving more conservatively. Also neither will be particularly light and correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is the chemistry of the battery in the EV variants will have a higher energy density so weights may be closer than it would appear.

That said I do agree it was the correct move for Scout to offer EREVs, as they will act as trojan horses into the ice world and will help drive down the cost of EV manufacturing/componentry all while masquerading as a ice vehicle. They also offer flexibility and a sense of security for those on the fence.

The EV will use the NMC battery pack. NMC Advantages: Higher energy density, better performance in cold climates.

 

[J Alynn]

Hello - I am new to the forum and looking forward to the ongoing discussions. I just want to share my thoughts..... I initially reserved the BEV configuration until I read more about the range extender. I subsequently changed my reservation. I like the approach of a smaller battery that will meet 90% of my driving needs and avoid the added weight and penalties of a larger battery.

I think Scout has it right on this one - less tire wear with the lighter vehicle yet added range if really needed.

Welcome to the forum

 

[cyure]

Welcome to the forum

Hello - I am new to the forum and looking forward to the ongoing discussions. I just want to share my thoughts..... I initially reserved the BEV configuration until I read more about the range extender. I subsequently changed my reservation. I like the approach of a smaller battery that will meet 90% of my driving needs and avoid the added weight and penalties of a larger battery.

I think Scout has it right on this one - less tire wear with the lighter vehicle yet added range if really needed.

Welcome!

 

[Chuckles]

While true to a degree, I think much of the increased tire wear people talk about is due to the acceleration available in many EVs that in the past was only possible in sports cars which are also known for going through tires… so much of this can be remedied by simply driving more conservatively. Also neither will be particularly light and correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is the chemistry of the battery in the EV variants will have a higher energy density so weights may be closer than it would appear.

That said I do agree it was the correct move for Scout to offer EREVs, as they will act as trojan horses into the ice world and will help drive down the cost of EV manufacturing/componentry all while masquerading as a ice vehicle. They also offer flexibility and a sense of security for those on the fence.

The same Motor Trend podcast (The Inevitable) that had Scott Keogh on recently had an episode in November with a Tire Rack SVP of Marketing. He confirmed that EV tire wear is caused by massive torque, not weight.

 

[dreamweaver]

The same Motor Trend podcast (The Inevitable) that had Scott Keogh on recently had an episode in November with a Tire Rack SVP of Marketing. He confirmed that EV tire wear is caused by massive torque, not weight.

Even my wife's Maverick Hybrid spins the tires easily when you take off from a light in EV mode.

 

[oldgeeksguide]

The same Motor Trend podcast (The Inevitable) that had Scott Keogh on recently had an episode in November with a Tire Rack SVP of Marketing. He confirmed that EV tire wear is caused by massive torque, not weight.

In that case, since it’s all controlled by software, one could have a “tire saver” setting that limits the torque at low speed or something.

Not that anyone would want to use it

 

[nolen]

Both the torque and the weight influence the particulate matter emissions of a vehicle. So do the brakes - different types create different dust. I don't think there has been a decision on which is the majority contributor but I'm not in the PM division.

In case anyone is interested, EPA has a (free) software program you can use to estimate emissions of different vehicles. From the FAQs:

Can I model emissions from Electric, Fuel-Cell, and Hybrid Vehicles and Equipment in MOVES?​

Electric vehicles and equipment do not generate tailpipe or evaporative emissions like conventional vehicles. However, these vehicles do consume energy, leading to greenhouse gas emissions, and they generate brake and tire particulate matter (PM) emissions. MOVES includes electricity as a “fuel type” for all vehicle types other than motorcycles, and thus can directly estimate energy consumption and brake and tire wear PM emissions for them.

Latest Version of MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) | US EPA

Background, guidance, and installation information for the latest version of EPA's MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES).

www.epa.gov

 

[Sisko99]

It would be interesting if you could turn off the all wheel drive when you wanted to. That didn't use to be uncommon with 4x4 vehicles, though it's a lot less common today. Running as RWD or FWD (Tesla's track mode has a slider that lets you send the power to the front or rear as desired) could certainly help with range extension. If you're just driving down the highway or around town, you don't really need AWD. If you're off road or the weather is ugly....then you have AWD ready and waiting. Turning it off wouldn't be quite as good as it not being there from a range perspective, you'd still have some drag on the system, but it could help get you a few more miles down the road.

 

[Silversoul]

It would be interesting if you could turn off the all wheel drive when you wanted to. That didn't use to be uncommon with 4x4 vehicles, though it's a lot less common today. Running as RWD or FWD (Tesla's track mode has a slider that lets you send the power to the front or rear as desired) could certainly help with range extension. If you're just driving down the highway or around town, you don't really need AWD. If you're off road or the weather is ugly....then you have AWD ready and waiting. Turning it off wouldn't be quite as good as it not being there from a range perspective, you'd still have some drag on the system, but it could help get you a few more miles down the road.

This is what my AWD ID.4 does technically. It only engages all 4 wheels if a certain amount of acceleration is needed or if I have it in the Sport/All-Terrain modes.