J1772 type please. People are already using this and investing in this type of Level 2 charger. Please don't try to reinvent the wheel or be special. Sometimes mainstream is that way for a reason.
Mahalo.
Mahalo.
Last edited:
Plug Type
- Thread starter IdahoJOAT
- 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.
I agree. However, the Tesla style is very good and simpler. It has also proven to be cable if way more power than is currently available. With that said, I doubt VW would adopt the Tesla style.
VW owns Electrify America. They're not going to make a different plug for a single brand in their lineup when every charger they own runs a standard plug.
Correct to assume you meant J1772? This is industry std in North America at this point for all but Tesla and very few smaller battery ChADeMO applications. Difficult to image them doing anything other than J1772
I know you are saying J1772 but the actual connection would be CCS1. CCS1 has the additional inputs for DC Fast charging. J1772 will get level 2, CCS1 gets the Level 3.
Interesting.
So the CCS1 has the addtional 2 ports for DC on the bottom, supporting L3 charging. The only issue with this is those who have a J1772 only, like me, wouldn't be able to use the CCS1 charger on my J1772 rig. Kinda a pain.
That's not true, the J1772 is the same as the top portion of the CCS1. So a J1772 Plugs into the CCS1 for AC charging.
If you have ever been to a location that has a free charger it is typically a J1772. All CCS1 vehicle (id4, ev6, etc) can plug in no issue. All other styles (Tesla/chademo/etc) can plug in with the use of an adapter
Last edited:
I think you misunderstood. I have a Jeep Wrangler 4xe. So if I were to install a male CCS1 charger, it would not be able to charge my Jeep, as the bottom DC ports would interfere with it plugging in.
Ah I understand you now. The reason a jeep 4xe has only a J1772 is because it's battery is small and cannot handle nor does it need DC fast charging. J1772 cannot handle as much charging speed as a CCS1. Which is why it is most likely the CCS1 port that will be on a Scout. But you can still use the J1772 to plug into a CCS1 and charge at level 1 and level 2
Correct, yeah I understood that.
But it's not kinda a thought in my head, where I was wanting to get a hardwired Lvl 2 J1772 charger for the Jeep, now I might have to rethink that if the Scout is going to have the CCS1.
Where are you getting a hard wired J1772? in your home? if you get a J1772 hard wired wired in your home then that 100% will work with a Scout that has a CCS1. Nobody does DC charging in their home because all homes run on AC power.Correct, yeah I understood that.
But it's not kinda a thought in my head, where I was wanting to get a hardwired Lvl 2 J1772 charger for the Jeep, now I might have to rethink that if the Scout is going to have the CCS1.
I would assume though that the CCS1 charger, if hardwired at home, would have a converter to DC to facilitate Lvl 3 charging... is this incorrect?
I'm sure if you really wanted to you could buy some equipment to facilitate Lvl 3 charging at your house...so it is possible but is is very much unnecessary and likely super expensive.
just for reference i use level 1 charging for my Tesla model 3. I have been doing that for the last 2 years. So basically I'm charging at 110v, 12A. I gain roughly 1% of battery every hour I charge(equates to ~3miles of range per hour). When i used to work in the office (i teleworking now) i would drive 44 miles round trip. That would drain roughly ~14% of the battery every day. I get home at 4pm then plug in. I didn't leave for work until 6am the next morning which means i would have a full 14 hours of charging. So in a perfect world I broke even, but If i went out for lunch or did some errands that is all extra range i lost. On average i would finish the work week with 10-30% missing off my maximum charge. However we usually didn't drive much on the weekend or if we did we used my wife's ICE car. So by Monday my car was fully charged and ready.
Of course this is all not idea. If i upgraded and got a level 2 charger in my house that would change to 220v, 50a. This would charge the car at roughly 10% per hour. This is more than sufficient for daily use. Given my situation of driving 44 miles for work each day that means i would re-gain my charge from 1.5 hours of charging and more than able to handle any errands or other things that might happen in a normal day.
Level 3 Charging is really meant for road trips. The last time I did a road trip i would charged my Tesla at a 250kW charger. I would charge from 20% to 80% in about 20 minutes. it is extremely fast and also not good for the battery to be done too often.
The main benefit about home charging is most of the time when you are home you will get around 8 hours of sleep and maybe at least another hour for dinner and another for breakfast. So any given night most cars are just sitting for 10 hours a day. At level 2 charging speeds that is enough to charge a battery to 100% every night.
Granted a Scout's battery will likely be bigger than a tesla model 3's (83kw) and be more likely similar to a Rivian (135kW) so the math is a little off but still well within the range of a level 2 charger and for normal daily use.
You are knowledgable, so you know that it is as much about efficiency, as total battery size considering a constant daily commute. The underlying assumption is that larger vehicle will be less efficient, thus require more battery to go a fixed distance vs a smaller more efficient car. I am still holding out hope for Scout efficiency to be equal or better than Rivian.
I think it is fairly safe to assume that the rivian and the scout will share many of the same characteristics because I'm going to assume they will be a similar boxy shape and they will be roughly the same size. One of the big differences will be the make up or the batteries. Rivian uses cylindrical cells like Tesla and scout is likely to use pouch style prismatic cells that VW group prefers.
But overall I agree that it will be fairly similar to the rivian in regards to size and effeciency
Because there are a lot of moving pieces still at play, what type of batteries Scout ends up using remains to be seen. VW Group is moving away from pouch-type cells and to a prismatic-shaped unified cell. Here are some details from an SAE article:
Volkswagen discretely outlined the potential cost savings for the unified cell. For the potential maximum of 50% savings, it attributes 15% to the cell design, 20% to the less-costly cathode/anode material mix, 10% to production process and 5% to the battery-system “concept” itself.
From the examples presented by Frank Blome, VCG’s head of battery cell and system, it appears VW intends to use the varying cell chemistries in prismatic-shaped modules. That would be a departure from its current pouch-type cells. The company is a customer for pouch cells supplied by LG and SK Innovation, which are in a legal conflict in the U.S. related to trade secrets.
For the new unified cells, Blome described an “entry chemistry” for comparatively inexpensive EV models based on a lithium iron-phosphate design, while the “high-volume” chemistry will be a lithium-ion chemistry with high manganese content. “Specific solutions” – presumed to be for performance or long-range models – will be handled by a nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) chemistry because “high nickel means high range and high performance.” Finally, “The end game, from our point of view, is solid-state,” Blome asserted.
He said today’s typical NMC cathode chemistry for lithium-ion batteries “defines the cost of the cell by 40 percent and range by 90 percent.” VW’s proposed iron-phosphate cathode would be less expensive, while sacrificing a degree of driving range. For the mid-tier “volume chemistry,” he said its lower nickel content and total lack of cobalt makes the battery less expensive while sacrificing little in terms of range-dictating energy density.
For the unified cell’s anode, VW proposes synthetic graphite and silicon. “If we get silicon into the anode, we have better range – it’s plus-10 percent – and the charging time performs better, too, because the silicon can connect more lithium ions than just the graphite.” The Porsche Taycan and Audi eTron GT currently use this battery, Blome said.
But solid-state chemistry is the current goal for lithium-ion cells, he said. “The simpler design leads to higher performance and lower cost,” not to mention reducing weight, Blome said. “There is no barrier any longer for graphite or silicon for charging. He said solid-state charging time can be less than half of current state-of-the art technology and range “will be plus-30 percent because the cell has less weight and is simpler.”
Blome indicated VW expects solid-state batteries to be available around 2025. The technology will help VW achieve its goal of recharging a battery of 77 kWh capacity – such as that in today’s ID.4 – to 80% capacity in 12 minutes, less than half the current recharge time
Volkswagen discretely outlined the potential cost savings for the unified cell. For the potential maximum of 50% savings, it attributes 15% to the cell design, 20% to the less-costly cathode/anode material mix, 10% to production process and 5% to the battery-system “concept” itself.
From the examples presented by Frank Blome, VCG’s head of battery cell and system, it appears VW intends to use the varying cell chemistries in prismatic-shaped modules. That would be a departure from its current pouch-type cells. The company is a customer for pouch cells supplied by LG and SK Innovation, which are in a legal conflict in the U.S. related to trade secrets.
For the new unified cells, Blome described an “entry chemistry” for comparatively inexpensive EV models based on a lithium iron-phosphate design, while the “high-volume” chemistry will be a lithium-ion chemistry with high manganese content. “Specific solutions” – presumed to be for performance or long-range models – will be handled by a nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) chemistry because “high nickel means high range and high performance.” Finally, “The end game, from our point of view, is solid-state,” Blome asserted.
He said today’s typical NMC cathode chemistry for lithium-ion batteries “defines the cost of the cell by 40 percent and range by 90 percent.” VW’s proposed iron-phosphate cathode would be less expensive, while sacrificing a degree of driving range. For the mid-tier “volume chemistry,” he said its lower nickel content and total lack of cobalt makes the battery less expensive while sacrificing little in terms of range-dictating energy density.
For the unified cell’s anode, VW proposes synthetic graphite and silicon. “If we get silicon into the anode, we have better range – it’s plus-10 percent – and the charging time performs better, too, because the silicon can connect more lithium ions than just the graphite.” The Porsche Taycan and Audi eTron GT currently use this battery, Blome said.
But solid-state chemistry is the current goal for lithium-ion cells, he said. “The simpler design leads to higher performance and lower cost,” not to mention reducing weight, Blome said. “There is no barrier any longer for graphite or silicon for charging. He said solid-state charging time can be less than half of current state-of-the art technology and range “will be plus-30 percent because the cell has less weight and is simpler.”
Blome indicated VW expects solid-state batteries to be available around 2025. The technology will help VW achieve its goal of recharging a battery of 77 kWh capacity – such as that in today’s ID.4 – to 80% capacity in 12 minutes, less than half the current recharge time
Personally, I'd really like to see Tesla's NACS really become the "standard," and on my brand new Scout II!
After dealing with both on cars I’ve owned I have to say Tesla gets this right. Way better than J1772. But, I doubt we will win this one.Personally, I'd really like to see Tesla's NACS really become the "standard," and on my brand new Scout II!
Similar threads
