Future Model: Scout Sport- Smaller, and more efficient, but still capable.

[CarTechGeek]

I know there are many requests for 2 door Scout as a direct analog to the Bronco/Wrangler 2 doors, but these really don't sell well, despite all the online requests.

That isn't what I have in mind. I'm thinking something more Rav4 like in size and efficiency. This is my ideal sized vehicle, and it is the #1 selling non pickup truck in the USA, so if you want to target a segment after the pickup and mid size SUV, it's a natural target (and would have much more sales than a 2 door Wrangler analog).

I know these are derisively referred to as "Cute-Ute", and universally they have quite low capability, but that is how Scout could stand out from the field. It doesn't have to match it's bigger brothers off road, just clearly best the "Cute Utes". Just a bit better ground clearance, better approach and departure, and crucially an available, real, rear locker would put it far ahead of the "Cute-Utes", while maintaining their practicality, drivability, and park-ability... That would be a stand out in one of the biggest market segments there is...

Call the Sport in comparison to Bronco Sport, or call it Eagle Scout...

 

[eddiet1212]

What about a two door short bed Terra or two door and extended cab Terra?.. lol

 

[eddiet1212]

We won't stop at just the two models we are initially launching with. I can't go into specifics but there are some very cool things on the drawing board.

Great!

 

[nolen]

Adding a smaller version vehicle to the lineup obviously makes sense and Scout Motors has hinted at it in the release information. (correct me if I'm wrong) Those of us on here seem to be either old Scout enthusiasts or off-road, exploration enthusiasts driving other brands but interested in the New Scout. (somebody say, "Yeah. So?) So I think we spend a lot of time trying to make the New Scout do what our old Scouts can do in more extreme situations. While beautiful and extremely capable, size and weight are limiting factors. It seems the focus should be on two Scouts - one that is the fully decked out, highly capable family car (the larger one) and a smaller one that's intended for those who want to get into tighter, rougher spots.

As far as four doors, I think you have to have four in today's market. But I would move the seat back a bit so there is good legroom for adults. Then I'd have the back seats lay flat so if I need to haul something, I have that option too.

I would set up the larger Scout just as designed. Big battery, wide and comfortable. I would make sure it was capable in snow and rain and fun to drive on dirt roads and fire roads. The vast majority of people only use their off-road vehicle on these types of roads. Also, very few people will choose to tow this vehicle behind their motor homes. The weight is a real factor for the average motor home in my opinion.

I would give the smaller Scout a much smaller battery (save weight) but with a Traveler that is large enough to make enough electricity to power the vehicle at 70 miles per hour even with exhausted batteries. I would want to travel 50 or 60 miles on the battery before the Traveler kicked in. (for me this means 90% of the time I'd be on batteries) But when the Traveler is needed, I would want to go 200 miles farther before I needed to stop for gas. I would want this system to function (reduced capability?) even if my battery failed to reduce my chances of being stranded off-road. This model would need to be set up to replace the tens of thousands of Jeeps that are towed behind motor homes.

It's silly to think that the full-size Scout is ever going to be a Rock Crawler. In fact, there's only a small percentage of us that would even take a vehicle this size onto a tight, aggressive trail. So maybe it's not a good use of time to think of it in that context.

Currently my plan is to keep my old Scout II even after I buy a New Scout. It's fun for those wilder adventures, tows fine and I'm less worried about "trail rash." However, a smaller New Scout could change my thinking.

just as an aside - I think you're mixing up the Traveler with the Harvester. Traveler is the vehicle; Harvester is the gas-powered add-on to extend the range

 

[Scoutsie]

I propose to you, fellow Scouts: THE SCOUT THREE MILLION (Thanks, Google Gemini, you make great Lifetouch photography backgrounds for lifeless AI imagery)

For those who wanted to drive a big Mini all along, the Three Million is here for your consideration.

 

[LastDayScout]

I propose to you, fellow Scouts: THE SCOUT THREE MILLION (Thanks, Google Gemini, you make great Lifetouch photography backgrounds for lifeless AI imagery)

For those who wanted to drive a big Mini all along, the Three Million is here for your consideration.

View attachment 4284

If that thing is Suzuki Jimny sized, there might just be a market for it.

 

[J Alynn]

I propose to you, fellow Scouts: THE SCOUT THREE MILLION (Thanks, Google Gemini, you make great Lifetouch photography backgrounds for lifeless AI imagery)

For those who wanted to drive a big Mini all along, the Three Million is here for your consideration.

View attachment 4284

For once AI kinda pulled off something decent. Still a hair on the ‘cute’ side but pretty nice. And those round headlights will keep the retro crowd happy Needs to be rerun with key word/phrase- hidden suicide doors
I think in this render squared headlights would help minimize the ‘cute’ aspect and look a hair more trail worthy

 

[LastDayScout]

If that thing is Suzuki Jimny sized, there might just be a market for it.

 

[DBHowe]

I propose to you, fellow Scouts: THE SCOUT THREE MILLION (Thanks, Google Gemini, you make great Lifetouch photography backgrounds for lifeless AI imagery)

For those who wanted to drive a big Mini all along, the Three Million is here for your consideration.

View attachment 4284

Square it off, fix the head lights, flatten the roof line, install the side window Scout II shape, and you might have something. This vehicle looks like every other vehicle on the road to me.

 

[Scoutsie]

Square it off, fix the head lights, flatten the roof line, install the side window Scout II shape, and you might have something. This vehicle looks like every other vehicle on the road to me.

I fully agree with you. AI creations are awful. I got frustrated after the third attempt, decided “good enough,” and up it went. I stink at using the prompts to generate what I want (and am used to using Midjourney, which I also stink at using). I’m not a fan of AI art, so I don’t really mind stinking at it.

 

[DBHowe]

just as an aside - I think you're mixing up the Traveler with the Harvester. Traveler is the vehicle; Harvester is the gas-powered add-on to extend the range

You are so right!!! It's funny I typed this early this morning and I knew something wasn't right! I'm going to see if I can edit it. Thank you for pointing it out!

 

[DBHowe]

Your post reminded me of "trail turn assist", this has been a great feature in the Bronco and locks the rear wheel to help navigate tight turns.

That's cool. I didn't know that was a thing. In the old days we had dune buggies with turning brakes and you could apply the brakes to either of the back tires. I'm not suggesting that for the New Scouts, but it was CRAZY fun in a buggy! Also my 1952 Ferguson tractor has the ability to brake on one tire only which makes it turn on a dime. I don't know how it works, or if it works well, on the Bronco but that seems like a cool feature.

 

[J Alynn]

View attachment 4286View attachment 4286

Always liked the Jimney’s

 

[Logan]

That's cool. I didn't know that was a thing. In the old days we had dune buggies with turning brakes and you could apply the brakes to either of the back tires. I'm not suggesting that for the New Scouts, but it was CRAZY fun in a buggy! Also my 1952 Ferguson tractor has the ability to brake on one tire only which makes it turn on a dime. I don't know how it works, or if it works well, on the Bronco but that seems like a cool feature.

Those are called “cutting brakes” and are indeed meant to help with tight turns. The bronco is the only modern vehicle I’ve ever heard of that uses it.

Alternatively, as this is an EV vehicle, they could do more tricks with the drivetrain.

One option would be to offer FWD with the rear brakes (or single inside brake) locked, to swivel around in tight places (a buddy of mine with dual transfer cases on his rock crawler would use fWD-low to do this to line up for things).

If they did a tri, or quad motor variant, they could have the inside tire turn backwards to try to make the turn tighter.

Both of those would work, but of course would be on non-paved surfaces only.

 

[DBHowe]

Those are called “cutting brakes” and are indeed meant to help with tight turns. The bronco is the only modern vehicle I’ve ever heard of that uses it.

Alternatively, as this is an EV vehicle, they could do more tricks with the drivetrain.

One option would be to offer FWD with the rear brakes (or single inside brake) locked, to swivel around in tight places (a buddy of mine with dual transfer cases on his rock crawler would use fWD-low to do this to line up for things).

If they did a tri, or quad motor variant, they could have the inside tire turn backwards to try to make the turn tighter.

Both of those would work, but of course would be on non-paved surfaces only.

That sounds amazing to me! I had no idea something like this could be possible. Thanks.

 

[CarTechGeek]

If that thing is Suzuki Jimny sized, there might just be a market for it.

I like small (I've owned a Miata) but the Jimny is too small for me. It's essentially a Kei car, it's smaller than a Miata:

https://www.suzuki.co.nz/suvs/specifications/jimny

Overall length (mm) 3,645 = ~144 inches ( a Miata is ~154 inches long so Jimny is 10" shorter, and that includes the rear mounted spare).
Overall width (mm) 1,645 = ~65 inches
Wheelbase (mm) 2,250 = ~89 inches

A little too small IMO.

Comparisons:
Jeep JL:
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...l-jlu-dimensions-length-width-track-jpg.4236/
Overall length (inches) 2dr ~167"
Overall length (inches) 2dr ~188"
Overall width (inches) ~74"
Wheelbase (inches) ~97"
Wheelbase (inches) ~118"

Comparisons:
Jeep TJ/LJ:
https://www.quadratec.com/c/reference/jeep-wrangler-tj-specifications-2005-2006
https://www.jeepdatabase.com/lj-wrangler
Overall length (inches) TJ ~155"
Overall length (inches) LJ ~170"
Overall width (inches) ~68"
Wheelbase TJ(inches) ~93"
Wheelbase LJ(inches) ~103"


My ideal is probably closest to the Jeep LJ (Long WB version of TJ). Still small but a bit more room inside, and longer wheelbase for better comfort.

 

[R1TVT]

That sounds amazing to me! I had no idea something like this could be possible. Thanks.

Ah yes, harkens back to the Quad Motor Rivian Tank Turn... I think they nixxed it because Rivian was concerned that too many owners would be blasting tank turns on golf courses and lawns. Also a bad look to tear everything up out in the wild, but a very cool feature. Maybe it could be enabled as a feature in specific geofenced off-road areas, but really is a niche use case:

 

[DBHowe]

Ah yes, harkens back to the Quad Motor Rivian Tank Turn... I think they nixxed it because Rivian was concerned that too many owners would be blasting tank turns on golf courses and lawns. Also a bad look to tear everything up out in the wild, but a very cool feature. Maybe it could be enabled as a feature in specific geofenced off-road areas, but really is a niche use case:

Hard to pull off with twin motors connected to differentials, but it would be cool! I'm afraid this is all I would do! Give me mud and turn me loose!

 

[Logan]

Yeah, the tank turn is the same idea as cutting brakes, but a step farther in terms of its utility, and destructive force .

AFAIK, cutting brakes originated in tractors and other farming equipment. The original implementation was 2-4 individual levers, where you could lock any brake that you wanted. The idea is that you can lock one wheel (use it as an anchor of sorts), and then pivot around that wheel to turn more sharply than you would otherwise.

The most obvious implementation is on the inside rear tire in a tight turn on a loose surface. But you can totally do it on the front tire as well. Its a fairly common (or rather, was fairly common, I haven't followed it in years) thing in competitive rock crawling.

More details here (an article from almost 20 years ago ).

https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/131-0707-cutting-brakes/

 

[LastDayScout]

I like small (I've owned a Miata) but the Jimny is too small for me. It's essentially a Kei car, it's smaller than a Miata:

https://www.suzuki.co.nz/suvs/specifications/jimny

Overall length (mm) 3,645 = ~144 inches ( a Miata is ~154 inches long so Jimny is 10" shorter, and that includes the rear mounted spare).
Overall width (mm) 1,645 = ~65 inches
Wheelbase (mm) 2,250 = ~89 inches

A little too small IMO.

Comparisons:
Jeep JL:
https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...l-jlu-dimensions-length-width-track-jpg.4236/
Overall length (inches) 2dr ~167"
Overall length (inches) 2dr ~188"
Overall width (inches) ~74"
Wheelbase (inches) ~97"
Wheelbase (inches) ~118"

Comparisons:
Jeep TJ/LJ:
https://www.quadratec.com/c/reference/jeep-wrangler-tj-specifications-2005-2006
https://www.jeepdatabase.com/lj-wrangler
Overall length (inches) TJ ~155"
Overall length (inches) LJ ~170"
Overall width (inches) ~68"
Wheelbase TJ(inches) ~93"
Wheelbase LJ(inches) ~103"


My ideal is probably closest to the Jeep LJ (Long WB version of TJ). Still small but a bit more room inside, and longer wheelbase for better comfort.

Yes, it is small. I have had a Samurai and currently have a TJ. The LJ would be a decent compromise and have enough "extra" space for the modern safety necessities. If they can get the proposed smaller version down to that footprint, or that of a largish UTV, Scout will have an offroad winner.

 

[LastDayScout]

Yeah, the tank turn is the same idea as cutting brakes, but a step farther in terms of its utility, and destructive force .

AFAIK, cutting brakes originated in tractors and other farming equipment. The original implementation was 2-4 individual levers, where you could lock any brake that you wanted. The idea is that you can lock one wheel (use it as an anchor of sorts), and then pivot around that wheel to turn more sharply than you would otherwise.

The most obvious implementation is on the inside rear tire in a tight turn on a loose surface. But you can totally do it on the front tire as well. Its a fairly common (or rather, was fairly common, I haven't followed it in years) thing in competitive rock crawling.

More details here (an article from almost 20 years ago ).

https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/131-0707-cutting-brakes/

Yes, many tractors still have this feature on the rear axle. Kubota also has what is called Bi Speed turn for the front axle.

"Kubota Bi-Speed Turn" is a feature on certain Kubota tractors that allows the front wheels to automatically turn significantly faster when the steering wheel is turned sharply, enabling the tractor to make tighter turns with greater maneuverability, particularly useful in tight spaces or when mowing around obstacles; essentially, the front wheels speed up when a significant steering angle is reached, making sharp turns smoother.

Key points about Kubota Bi-Speed Turn:

• Function:
  When the steering wheel is turned past a certain angle (usually around 25-30 degrees), the front axle is automatically sped up, allowing for tighter turns.
• Benefits:
  Improves maneuverability in tight spaces, like when tilling close to existing rows or mowing around trees.
• How it works:
  The system automatically adjusts the speed of the front wheels based on the steering angle.

Here is my friend and fellow Kubota dealer Neil Messick showing how it works. I could definitely see Scout using this idea to increase maneuverability.