Questions about the Harvester

[Mattk]

Then ultimately it may just not be right for everyone. It’s a great vehicle and that counts for something. A year ago there was NO range extender so the majority of folks here wouldn’t consider. Now it’s still not enough for everyone. In two years these vehicles will be $100K at the rate people want crazy range. It’s a brick on wheels. It will either work as designed for people or they will need to compromise their expectations or move on. It’s just a reality. I’d love a two seat hard top convertible but it just isn’t out there so I live without. That’s what will occur with Scouts. Good or bad!

I’m not here to complain, but I’m also not here to be a brand fanboy. I’m providing perspective from an existing EV owner and a potential future customer.

“Most people don’t need more than 150 miles of range anyway” — If this is the case then most won’t be willing to pay the (likely large) premium for the generator.

“Just get the EV only model if you want more battery range” — The generator is advertised as a range extender, but the real value is in reducing or eliminating charge time. This feature is an exciting opportunity for Scout to carve out a niche in the market and telling potential customers to just get the EV only model forces them to weigh the Scout against other EV only competitors.

Scout is making a mistake by not figuring out how to package the 300 mile range battery with a generator. Look no further than the comments in this thread and others like it. When the pricing and specifications are released, the complaints will only get worse.

It’s unfortunate, but unless Scout makes changes this feature will not be well received by the market.

 

[J Alynn]

I’m not here to complain, but I’m also not here to be a brand fanboy. I’m providing perspective from an existing EV owner and a potential future customer.

“Most people don’t need more than 150 miles of range anyway” — If this is the case then most won’t be willing to pay the (likely large) premium for the generator.

“Just get the EV only model if you want more battery range” — The generator is advertised as a range extender, but the real value is in reducing or eliminating charge time. This feature is an exciting opportunity for Scout to carve out a niche in the market and telling potential customers to just get the EV only model forces them to weigh the Scout against other EV only competitors.

Scout is making a mistake by not figuring out how to package the 300 mile range battery with a generator. Look no further than the comments in this thread and others like it. When the pricing and specifications are released, the complaints will only get worse.

It’s unfortunate, but unless Scout makes changes this feature will not be well received by the market.

I actually think when the general buying market sees the actual models in person (as some of us have) they are going to want the vehicles on that merit along with being able to say they drive an EV. Nearly every woman I know drives an SUV. I also don’t know a single woman that spends weekends rock crawling-not implying they don’t/cant-just saying I don’t know anyone. Just like the Bronco and the Wranglers this vehicle will appeal because of perceived lifestyle and with people who don’t want a vanilla SUV. It will be a daily driver for most. It is bigger than the Bronco/Wrangler so it will appeal to moms and dads and honestly, as a two row it leaves more space for “gear”. My guess is men will push their wives to drive them because they are happy to be seen in them and it’s not the typical SUV.
This forum is for enthusiasts-be it Scout or be it EV. We haven’t seen the impact of sales yet because (obvious-not available) but most of the general public hasn’t seen it. When they do, they will accept it for what it is. The Luxury SUV’s don’t get any better EV range then what has been offered by SM thus far and men/women where I am are buying those left and right. 300+ mile range for an EV brick on wheels will more than satisfy 75% or more of the ultimate buyers when Scouts hit the experience centers. And if they are built better than Ford’s and Jeeps their reputation will only boost future sales

 

[Mattk]

I actually think when the general buying market sees the actual models in person (as some of us have) they are going to want the vehicles on that merit along with being able to say they drive an EV. Nearly every woman I know drives an SUV. I also don’t know a single woman that spends weekends rock crawling-not implying they don’t/cant-just saying I don’t know anyone. Just like the Bronco and the Wranglers this vehicle will appeal because of perceived lifestyle and with people who don’t want a vanilla SUV. It will be a daily driver for most. It is bigger than the Bronco/Wrangler so it will appeal to moms and dads and honestly, as a two row it leaves more space for “gear”. My guess is men will push their wives to drive them because they are happy to be seen in them and it’s not the typical SUV.
This forum is for enthusiasts-be it Scout or be it EV. We haven’t seen the impact of sales yet because (obvious-not available) but most of the general public hasn’t seen it. When they do, they will accept it for what it is. The Luxury SUV’s don’t get any better EV range then what has been offered by SM thus far and men/women where I am are buying those left and right. 300+ mile range for an EV brick on wheels will more than satisfy 75% or more of the ultimate buyers when Scouts hit the experience centers. And if they are built better than Ford’s and Jeeps their reputation will only boost future sales

You're absolutely correct on typical lifestyle customer. If you look at wrangler or bronco, 90% will never even see a gravel road. My comments and criticism are specifically aimed at the harvester feature, which I don't think will be popular. But I hope the truck overall is!

The harvester won't be cheap. I'd guess it will carry a $20-30k premium. Will lifestyle customers justify this expense? Unlikely. For the EV road trip customer who can justify that expense, in my opinion the value proposition isn't there. I don't want a longer range plug in hybrid.

If any Scout employees are reading this thread, I live in Blythewood and would be happy to participate in any market research or feedback initiatives you have regarding this. Please feel free to reach out.

 

[J Alynn]

You're absolutely correct on typical lifestyle customer. If you look at wrangler or bronco, 90% will never even see a gravel road. My comments and criticism are specifically aimed at the harvester feature, which I don't think will be popular. But I hope the truck overall is!

The harvester won't be cheap. I'd guess it will carry a $20-30k premium. Will lifestyle customers justify this expense? Unlikely. For the EV road trip customer who can justify that expense, in my opinion the value proposition isn't there. I don't want a longer range plug in hybrid.

If any Scout employees are reading this thread, I live in Blythewood and would be happy to participate in any market research or feedback initiatives you have regarding this. Please feel free to reach out.

Agreed. I thing range extender will be premium but not sure on $20-30K. Batteries are more than engine but need to pay for all the engineering to develope it. I’d guess $8K. I’m still intending EV but I can charge at home (need to install charger) have a good infrastructure in SE Pennsylvania and any long distance road tripping we do will be in our Honda Pilot. Onboard with your same thoughts. Just thing REX will be less because at 20-30 majority will walk and go with an ICE SUV. Even $8K worries me a bit.

 

[BartMan]

My guess is it will be more then 8k. I would say 12 k.

 

[Mattk]

My guess is it will be more then 8k. I would say 12 k.

Let's say for example they use the EA888 or something similar, which is the 2.0L 4cyl engine VAG puts in pretty much every car they make. Dealers will quote around $10k in parts and labor for an engine replacement.

With that as a reference, once you factor in cost of additional components for specialized control systems, electric generator, packaging/cooling, as well as engineering costs the $20k estimate doesn't seem unrealistic.

This will be an expensive feature. It's not the little Honda generator you use at a tailgate.

 

[J Alynn]

Let's say for example they use the EA888 or something similar, which is the 2.0L 4cyl engine VAG puts in pretty much every car they make. Dealers will quote around $10k in parts and labor for an engine replacement.

With that as a reference, once you factor in cost of additional components for specialized control systems, electric generator, packaging/cooling, as well as engineering costs the $20k estimate doesn't seem unrealistic.

This will be an expensive feature. It's not the little Honda generator you use at a tailgate.

Correct but you have to account for offset cost of losing about 1/3 of the battery pack which is approximately $6-8K and the labor for new engine is somewhat baked into assembly cost already which is probably $2-3K.
Again, guessing game but I’m saying in my mind if you get over $10K that becomes a VERY expensive upgrade in a vehicle. I will say maybe $12K is the realistic number but will be interesting at that cost how many people will say-wellllllll…….I’m only long tripping once or twice a year so that extra 60 minutes a trip isn’t worth $12K and then they convert back to full EV.
At one or two long road trips a year for a lot of people I think they’ll quickly adapt to full EV. Just my thinking as I feel a lot of range extender reservations are strictly range anxiety buyers. Time will tell

 

[RebelliousPeasant]

Correct but you have to account for offset cost of losing about 1/3 of the battery pack which is approximately $6-8K and the labor for new engine is somewhat baked into assembly cost already which is probably $2-3K.
Again, guessing game but I’m saying in my mind if you get over $10K that becomes a VERY expensive upgrade in a vehicle. I will say maybe $12K is the realistic number but will be interesting at that cost how many people will say-wellllllll…….I’m only long tripping once or twice a year so that extra 60 minutes a trip isn’t worth $12K and then they convert back to full EV.
At one or two long road trips a year for a lot of people I think they’ll quickly adapt to full EV. Just my thinking as I feel a lot of range extender reservations are strictly range anxiety buyers. Time will tell

As a long-time EV driver you're are exactly correct about people adapting. Road trips in an EV aren't difficult but because they are different than what people are used to there's a lot of fear around them. Personally I've ordered the EV-only version because I don't want the nuisance of having a gas engine, especially a gas engine that will be seldom used. I think a lot of people are over-estimating how beneficial the range extender will be and are exaggerating how much they actually drive and how difficult charging is.

As for the cost, I expect the entire pack to cost around $10k so by fitting a range extender you might save about half that but then you have a lot of annoying engineering to do around air intakes and exhaust and cooling and all the other nonsense a combustion engine requires. Plus you need to make provisions for changing oil and belts and sparkplugs and such. If Scout doesn't make the range extended version more expensive I'd be very surprised.

 

[Derek]

You're absolutely correct on typical lifestyle customer. If you look at wrangler or bronco, 90% will never even see a gravel road. My comments and criticism are specifically aimed at the harvester feature, which I don't think will be popular. But I hope the truck overall is!

The harvester won't be cheap. I'd guess it will carry a $20-30k premium. Will lifestyle customers justify this expense? Unlikely. For the EV road trip customer who can justify that expense, in my opinion the value proposition isn't there. I don't want a longer range plug in hybrid.

If any Scout employees are reading this thread, I live in Blythewood and would be happy to participate in any market research or feedback initiatives you have regarding this. Please feel free to reach out.

I actually think the harvester option may REDUCE the cost as SM then puts 200 miles less battery in it. Cost estimates are $110-160 per kWh so if you assume that 100kWh less battery, then the reduced battery should save the company $11k to $16k. I would guess the Harvester with all the stuff that goes with it is in a simlar range (motor, emissions, cooling, fuel system, etc). You might see the harvester and non harvester being nearly the same cost and it being down to customer preference which one they buy.

 

[BartMan]

I actually think the harvester option may REDUCE the cost as SM then puts 200 miles less battery in it. Cost estimates are $110-160 per kWh so if you assume that 100kWh less battery, then the reduced battery should save the company $11k to $16k. I would guess the Harvester with all the stuff that goes with it is in a simlar range (motor, emissions, cooling, fuel system, etc). You might see the harvester and non harvester being nearly the same cost and it being down to customer preference which one they buy.

I don't believe the battery in the Harvester model will be 1/3 the size of the total EV. Seems like this speculation is based on that 150 range information. Again there has to be a 30-40 % soc on the battery when the inverter kicks in.

 

[R1TVT]

For the majority of U.S. daily drivers, 150 miles of pure electric range will be more than adequate (based simply on data and the average daily drive of US citizens). That is a fact. Owning an EV comes with the caveat of charging, so the assumption may be that these owners have access to L2 charging at work or home. Every day (on average) they never come close to 150 miles of driving, and they wake up the next day and have 150 miles of PURE EV range to work with. Your mileage may vary, but that is what the data says.

IMHO looking at 150 miles of pure battery range with the Harvester is not the correct way to think about range when you are considering a longer road trip. The entire point of the Harvester is to create a COMBINED range of 500+ miles, so that should be precisely how to look at range (when you buy the Harvester) for the purposes of going long. The assumption here is that you are leaving with a FULL tank of gas and a battery FULL of electrons. That is a huge amount of range in any highly capable SUV or Truck.

Also, and based on what we see in the reservation numbers, there aren't a lot of people pushing back on a combined range of 500 miles - the data is quite clear based on the reservation numbers below:

FWIW... My theory (and perhaps an interesting poll consideration for another thread) is that the the majority of the reservation holders for the Harvester have never owned an EV. I hold this theory for two reasons - FIRST b/c this is an electric truck (not a car) so there are fewer truck owners that have had access to EV trucks based on market availability, and this is also a "SCOUT" electric truck. Given that early reservation holders may have (in theory) some prior knowledge of the brand, one part of the reservation demographic that knows Scout already may be older and perhaps gravitate toward the Harvester b/c it gives them added confidence in a "known entity" (a crawl walk run option to EV ownership), SECOND b/c people fixate on overall range (oftentimes over-thinking their worst case scenario) for the once a summer, 1800 mile trip to Uncle Buck's house in the Minnesota woods.

As an extension to this theory, I'm guessing that the very small category of PURE TERRA reservation holders (like me) which is sitting at a measly 7.2% probably have EV experience and may have EV TRUCK experience. I will happily take the simplicity and performance of 350 miles of range in a truck like the Terra for both daily driving, and for roadtrips. I see charging infrastructure getting better, I see architecture getting better, I see charge times getting faster, and I already feel comfortable finding charging options where I live.

Scout is smart to provide both of these options to help drive the revival of the brand and to generate & maximize reservations for launch. Personally, I don;t see the pricing for either option differing very much for the reasons already mentioned.

 

[J Alynn]

I don't believe the battery in the Harvester model will be 1/3 the size of the total EV. Seems like this speculation is based on that 150 range information. Again there has to be a 30-40 % soc on the battery when the inverter kicks in.

I implied it will be reduced by 1/3-ish which was stated at the reveal. They also have to account for all the engineering as they are in a sense creating 2 power trains. If it’s more desirable and they are accommodating buyers it most certainly will be a premium cost. It offers more range so that is an enhancement that they want to capitalize on

 

[chucchinchilla]

Let's say for example they use the EA888 or something similar, which is the 2.0L 4cyl engine VAG puts in pretty much every car they make. Dealers will quote around $10k in parts and labor for an engine replacement.

With that as a reference, once you factor in cost of additional components for specialized control systems, electric generator, packaging/cooling, as well as engineering costs the $20k estimate doesn't seem unrealistic.

This will be an expensive feature. It's not the little Honda generator you use at a tailgate.

The EA888 would be overkill. My guess is it'll be the EA211 3 cylinder which is currently being used in hybrid applications on some Volkswagen models.

If the Harvester is a five figure option or close to it, I'm out. For comparison the REX in the BMW i3 was a $4K option so let's call it $5K for Scout.

 

[DaveGunter]

FWIW... My theory (and perhaps an interesting poll consideration for another thread) is that the the majority of the reservation holders for the Harvester have never owned an EV. I hold this theory for two reasons - FIRST b/c this is an electric truck (not a car) so there are fewer truck owners that have had access to EV trucks based on market availability, and this is also a "SCOUT" electric truck. Given that early reservation holders may have (in theory) some prior knowledge of the brand, one part of the reservation demographic that knows Scout already may be older and perhaps gravitate toward the Harvester b/c it gives them added confidence in a "known entity" (a crawl walk run option to EV ownership), SECOND b/c people fixate on overall range (oftentimes over-thinking their worst case scenario) for the once a summer, 1800 mile trip to Uncle Buck's house in the Minnesota woods.

I posted a similar poll on another Scout forum, results are not what you expect

Current EV owners: are you sticking with full-EV or switching to EREV Harvester Scout?

Question inspired by the stats on the reservation tracking sheet: It'd be interesting to see how “Own an EV” and “Full electric or electric and gas” correlate. If you're an EV owner, please answer the attached poll. And please share what you drive and why you're sticking with full-EV or...

www.scoutevforum.com

 

[R1TVT]

I posted a similar poll on another Scout forum, results are not what you expect

So 36% of "current EV owners" are opting for the Pure EV Scout in that poll... Def not a "majority", but does show correlation to EV ownership for those choosing the PURE EV Scout (compared to the general take-rate). Good stuff!

 

[DaveGunter]

So 36% of "current EV owners" are opting for the Pure EV Scout in that poll... Def not a "majority", but does show correlation to EV ownership for those choosing the PURE EV Scout (compared to the general take-rate). Good stuff!

The poll you suggested would be interesting too as the respondents may or may not have EV experience, but any responses are also based on a limited knowledge of what the Harvester specs are.

 

[CarTechGeek]

“Most people don’t need more than 150 miles of range anyway” — If this is the case then most won’t be willing to pay the (likely large) premium for the generator.

That's a strawman argument. No one is saying that.

What some (including me) are saying is that the vast majority of people don't drive more than 150 miles/day on average.

For the non average days where you exceed that, then the Range Extender fires up to cover any needs beyond that.

PHEVs/EREVs like the Rav4 Prime and Chevy Volt have been fine with only 40-50 miles of EV range. They have been extremely well received because even with that much shorter range, they still cover most daily miles covered by most people.

If anything 150 Miles would be a lot of overkill, but it's probably that high to help with towing.

 

[BartMan]

I just talked to my buddy Joe who is a pilot and Rivian owner. I just realized I have no idea what I am talking about and everyone should ignore any of my posts on the Harvester. I will wait and learn the specifics when Scout gives us more information.

 

[Derek]

I just talked to my buddy Joe who is a pilot and Rivian owner. I just realized I have no idea what I am talking about and everyone should ignore any of my posts on the Harvester. I will wait and learn the specifics when Scout gives us more information.

Bartman, I mean this sincerely... the ability to admit one still has something to learn, and to approach life with some humility is one of the greatest strengths of a strong person.

 

[friscoscout]

I'm ok with this...and a caveat that I have not based this on any information about only 150 miles range for Harvester, but changed my Terra option to pure EV. My wife's Traveler will still carry a Harvester option, which I am ok with, but may change that in the near term once actual range estimates on both are made public. I will credit this discussion with helping me get over my fear of charging as an offset for additional cost and maintenance. Given the infrequency of long distance road trips, I've decided that as an offset flights are actually a reasonable expectation instead of a 1000 mile road journey. I do think the capabilities of an EV capable of off road can still be satisfied with a pure EV.