Range extender - please adjust spec to 250 miles of EV Range

[Variable430]

The range extender should get at least 50% of its 500 mile range in pure EV mode otherwise it would be pretty worthless with only 150 miles that you can only get in ideal conditions. In the winter this likely means sub 100 miles pure EV range - not acceptable

 

[J Alynn]

The range extender should get at least 50% of its 500 mile range in pure EV mode otherwise it would be pretty worthless with only 150 miles that you can only get in ideal conditions. In the winter this likely means sub 100 miles pure EV range - not acceptable

Perhaps it just isn’t meant for the needs you have. The vehicle is designed for the masses and my hunch is 99% or more of drivers do not drive more than 100-150 miles a day. In bad conditions a 150 EV range should still get 75-90 miles of range. As you appear to be in California I’m not sure what bad conditions would reduce your range below 100-125 miles. If your a bit over the 150 range the generator kicks in. The engine used to generate electricity needs ‘X’ amount of physical space leaving ‘Y’ amount for batteries. The EREV option is to extend and appeal to buyers needing gas for long distance/ convenience not for the EV buyers. There’s only so much space under the vehicle for batteries so doing as you suggest would compromise sales for the EREV especially since like 75% of reservations are for the extended range versions. Perhaps the fully EV is more suited for your needs and you just need to charge an extra time on your long distance adventures

 

[Adrian.57]

I agree. I much prefer a greater EV range. 50% would be a good target.

 

[Variable430]

Perhaps it just isn’t meant for the needs you have. The vehicle is designed for the masses and my hunch is 99% or more of drivers do not drive more than 100-150 miles a day. In bad conditions a 150 EV range should still get 75-90 miles of range. As you appear to be in California I’m not sure what bad conditions would reduce your range below 100-125 miles. If your a bit over the 150 range the generator kicks in. The engine used to generate electricity needs ‘X’ amount of physical space leaving ‘Y’ amount for batteries. The EREV option is to extend and appeal to buyers needing gas for long distance/ convenience not for the EV buyers. There’s only so much space under the vehicle for batteries so doing as you suggest would compromise sales for the EREV especially since like 75% of reservations are for the extended range versions. Perhaps the fully EV is more suited for your needs and you just need to charge an extra time on your long distance adventures

I have two evs, I can tell you that 100miles per day in a city like Los Angeles where people travel distance is in no way adequate. You might as well buy an ICE car at that point. With a 2027 launch date they should thru efficiency and available at the time battery tech get north of 200 miles or they are doing something wrong. Alpt will depend on what the battery size is, and what the weight savings are but let’s say the battery in the range extender is 100kw 150 miles means the efficiency sucks.

 

[J Alynn]

I have two evs, I can tell you that 100miles per day in a city like Los Angeles where people travel distance is in no way adequate. You might as well buy an ICE car at that point. With a 2027 launch date they should thru efficiency and available at the time battery tech get north of 200 miles or they are doing something wrong. Alpt will depend on what the battery size is, and what the weight savings are but let’s say the battery in the range extender is 100kw 150 miles means the efficiency sucks.

The battery is sized with intent for long range driving and support of the generator. Somewhere around 100 miles or as you designate (from what it appeared on CES videos) the generator kicks on to stay ahead of the electrical draw prior to getting to the 150 miles mark. My point is the range extender was added to satisfy people wanting more than 350 mile range with minimal or no charging stops. By requesting a larger battery and smaller engine it defeats the purpose of what the buyer feedback was for the EREV. It’s like a furnace-whether your house is 2000 sf or 3500 the furnace is essentially the same size/footprint. The footprint is part of the equation-you can’t make it small enough to add batteries back.

 

[Logan]

I mean, I think we'd all like more range. But like J is saying, unfortunately we can't have our cake, and eat it too in this context. Or rather, given current battery size/density realities, I don't think Scout will have any spare space laying around for extra battery?

Personally, the 150 mile range on there is already well over what I thought we'd get out of an EREV, and does cover 99% of my driving (It basically covers everything in an hour of highway driving radius from home).

I'd much rather have the harvester be sized to keep up with the electrical demands of driving on the highway (so its gas and go, like the Ramcharger is supposed to be), than to shrink the generator, and give it more battery.

But if they find that they can cram in more battery to the Harvester, I'm sure there would be interest.

I'm still on the fence about which model I'll be going for. And much of it depends on the OTHER vehicle that we end up with around that time. Basically I'm looking for one vehicle for regional/local use, and another for trips. And the one that does trips, likely needs to have gas, for the next 5-10 years.

 

[J Alynn]

I mean, I think we'd all like more range. But like J is saying, unfortunately we can't have our cake, and eat it too in this context. Or rather, given current battery size/density realities, I don't think Scout will have any spare space laying around for extra battery?

Personally, the 150 mile range on there is already well over what I thought we'd get out of an EREV, and does cover 99% of my driving (It basically covers everything in an hour of highway driving radius from home).

I'd much rather have the harvester be sized to keep up with the electrical demands of driving on the highway (so its gas and go, like the Ramcharger is supposed to be), than to shrink the generator, and give it more battery.

But if they find that they can cram in more battery to the Harvester, I'm sure there would be interest.

I'm still on the fence about which model I'll be going for. And much of it depends on the OTHER vehicle that we end up with around that time. Basically I'm looking for one vehicle for regional/local use, and another for trips. And the one that does trips, likely needs to have gas, for the next 5-10 years.

Then go EV with the Scout. Very few other EVs are this cool. Then throw darts at a board for your long trip vehicle

 

[ID_ENG]

Maybe..... By the time of the roll out solid state batteries are commercially viable.
I'm sure there will be the "early adopter tax" and they will cost a premium.

If such a thing should happen it would be great to see a "premium" battery option. With the base offering being what we're told now, $60K base price, 150 pure EV range with Harvester.

Then if someone does want to pay the extra $20k or whatever it is, they can opt for a solid state battery that has greater range.

 

[Variable430]

The battery is sized with intent for long range driving and support of the generator. Somewhere around 100 miles or as you designate (from what it appeared on CES videos) the generator kicks on to stay ahead of the electrical draw prior to getting to the 150 miles mark. My point is the range extender was added to satisfy people wanting more than 350 mile range with minimal or no charging stops. By requesting a larger battery and smaller engine it defeats the purpose of what the buyer feedback was for the EREV. It’s like a furnace-whether your house is 2000 sf or 3500 the furnace is essentially the same size/footprint. The footprint is part of the equation-you can’t make it small enough to add batteries back.

I think part of the problem is that by 2027 we will have EVs that get 450-500 miles of range so the specs of the product aren’t skating ahead of the puck to where the market is going. We don’t really have any useful information to work with regarding weight/battery sized trade offs. If the range EREV is only 150miles I would likely switch to all EV. You would end up using the gas engine far too often to be a useful EV daily and many are failing to consider the wear on the battery of having constant charging cycles with only 100-150 miles of range depending on weather.

 

[ohvrider]

More would be nice, but everything involves trade offs. They have to give up some battery space/weight to put a gas tank and engine.

I was thinking that by 2027 EV's would be getting around 1,000 miles? We'll see, I know China is one pushing this market.

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

Battery technology isn't moving quite that quickly. Sure, if you have the space, you can shoehorn more batteries into the vehicle, but this just adds more weight and more cost. In the end batteries are technology and more money is being spent on battery research than ever in history. Why? Because so much of what we use every day now (phones, cameras, tools, vehicles and on and on) use batteries. If you think about the first phone and tool batteries and where we are today, things have improved significantly. But those breakthroughs have to be tested, brought to mass production which takes time. Lets see where this goes and we have a few years before we go to production to refine our plans and strategies.

 

[nolen]

Battery technology isn't moving quite that quickly. Sure, if you have the space, you can shoehorn more batteries into the vehicle, but this just adds more weight and more cost. In the end batteries are technology and more money is being spent on battery research than ever in history. Why? Because so much of what we use every day now (phones, cameras, tools, vehicles and on and on) use batteries. If you think about the first phone and tool batteries and where we are today, things have improved significantly. But those breakthroughs have to be tested, brought to mass production which takes time. Lets see where this goes and we have a few years before we go to production to refine our plans and strategies.

as someone who doesn't really know much of anything about how the batteries in the cars go, I was wondering - if they are able to develop an improved-distance battery that has the same dimensions as the batteries currently used, would it be possible to swap them to improve the car's range or would the tech in the car not be able to accept the change?

 

[Mirinjesse]

I think part of the problem is that by 2027 we will have EVs that get 450-500 miles of range so the specs of the product aren’t skating ahead of the puck to where the market is going. We don’t really have any useful information to work with regarding weight/battery sized trade offs. If the range EREV is only 150miles I would likely switch to all EV. You would end up using the gas engine far too often to be a useful EV daily and many are failing to consider the wear on the battery of having constant charging cycles with only 100-150 miles of range depending on weather.

I have similar logic as well. Right now the Scout concept checks all of the boxes except competitiveness when it comes to EV range. I reserved the harvester, but will likely switch since 150 miles is not ideal, especially with reduced capacity in the winter. For example, my Nissan Ariya suggested range is 289 and I regular see 200-210 in the winter time.

I wish scout is able to push a bit higher on the EV only range to be more competitive with Rivian and Ford, but at the 350 will still be more than I have now.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

as someone who doesn't really know much of anything about how the batteries in the cars go, I was wondering - if they are able to develop an improved-distance battery that has the same dimensions as the batteries currently used, would it be possible to swap them to improve the car's range or would the tech in the car not be able to accept the change?

Almost anything is possible in this realm, but the question is how much are you willing to spend?

 

[nolen]

Almost anything is possible in this realm, but the question is how much are you willing to spend?

I'm ok with what they are offering now - I was just thinking that might be helpful info for the people who are wishing there was more range.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

The Harvester (which is both an engine and a generator), its fuel tank, and all the control hardware is going to take up way more space than people seem to realize, especially if the frunk is kept. The only realistic space that will be available for the Harvester is one or more battery modules. Similarly, the only realistic cost reduction is also in the battery. Adding a Harvester without reducing weight by removing modules from the battery would be a travesty. Nobody wants to see a $100,000, 10,000 pound Scout-Hummer.

There's little chance a solid state battery will be available for use in any vehicle in the US by 2027. It's not going to be available early enough for Scout to verify that it's capable of doing what they need it to do. They need that V&V completed this year (probably two years ago) to even consider including it in the vehicle. All of the control hardware, all of the control software, and everything else would need to be built, written, tested, rewritten, rebuilt, and retested and verified between now and 2026 so they can start manufacturing the batteries and their controllers in time for their first batch of pre-production vehicles to be integrated and then abused and they can really find out what needs their immediate attention for production in 2027. That is possible with existing hardware, but not realistic for vaporware like solid state batteries. I would much rather see a product with NMC and/or LFP batteries released on time than for Scout Motors to be chasing mythical unicorns.

Plugging in a different battery is fine if the battery is the same chemistry, capacity, weight, and dimensions (i.e., a simple replacement). If you want an "upgrade," then you need new control hardware, new control software, and possibly a change in suspension and other components, depending on whether it's a kg-for-kg swap or if the mass of the new battery is significantly different. I would say this is as possible as someone doing an aftermarket motor-transmission-transaxle swap on their Scout II. It's possible, but when I did it in the mid 1980s, I had to weld new motor, transmission, and transaxle mounts, I had to fabricate a new drive line, and I had to upgrade the suspension. I should have installed new, bigger brakes too, and to say nothing of the interior sheet metal details that needed to be done. It's a different kind of work, but the level of difficulty is going to be similar.

 

[DS2xScout]

I would also like to see more electric range in the Harvester models. I've driven a full EV for five years now , but still have an ice pick-up. I was close to purchasing a new ice pick-up when I saw the intro to the Traveler and Terra. Having previously owned two Scouts and the stated range of the Harvester models hit the sweet spot for me, so I quickly put a deposit down. I would truly like to personally use as little gas as possible. I have followed these threads re: the Harvester and all the reasons for the low electric range , space being the biggest issue. But isn't that what engineers do, solve issues? I have to say, I have not used my frunk more than once the whole time I've had the EV, so there's some room.

 

[J Alynn]

The Harvester (which is both an engine and a generator), its fuel tank, and all the control hardware is going to take up way more space than people seem to realize, especially if the frunk is kept. The only realistic space that will be available for the Harvester is one or more battery modules. Similarly, the only realistic cost reduction is also in the battery. Adding a Harvester without reducing weight by removing modules from the battery would be a travesty. Nobody wants to see a $100,000, 10,000 pound Scout-Hummer.

There's little chance a solid state battery will be available for use in any vehicle in the US by 2027. It's not going to be available early enough for Scout to verify that it's capable of doing what they need it to do. They need that V&V completed this year (probably two years ago) to even consider including it in the vehicle. All of the control hardware, all of the control software, and everything else would need to be built, written, tested, rewritten, rebuilt, and retested and verified between now and 2026 so they can start manufacturing the batteries and their controllers in time for their first batch of pre-production vehicles to be integrated and then abused and they can really find out what needs their immediate attention for production in 2027. That is possible with existing hardware, but not realistic for vaporware like solid state batteries. I would much rather see a product with NMC and/or LFP batteries released on time than for Scout Motors to be chasing mythical unicorns.

Plugging in a different battery is fine if the battery is the same chemistry, capacity, weight, and dimensions (i.e., a simple replacement). If you want an "upgrade," then you need new control hardware, new control software, and possibly a change in suspension and other components, depending on whether it's a kg-for-kg swap or if the mass of the new battery is significantly different. I would say this is as possible as someone doing an aftermarket motor-transmission-transaxle swap on their Scout II. It's possible, but when I did it in the mid 1980s, I had to weld new motor, transmission, and transaxle mounts, I had to fabricate a new drive line, and I had to upgrade the suspension. I should have installed new, bigger brakes too, and to say nothing of the interior sheet metal details that needed to be done. It's a different kind of work, but the level of difficulty is going to be similar.

Well stated

 

[nolen]

...

Plugging in a different battery is fine if the battery is the same chemistry, capacity, weight, and dimensions (i.e., a simple replacement). If you want an "upgrade," then you need new control hardware, new control software, and possibly a change in suspension and other components, depending on whether it's a kg-for-kg swap or if the mass of the new battery is significantly different. I would say this is as possible as someone doing an aftermarket motor-transmission-transaxle swap on their Scout II. It's possible, but when I did it in the mid 1980s, I had to weld new motor, transmission, and transaxle mounts, I had to fabricate a new drive line, and I had to upgrade the suspension. I should have installed new, bigger brakes too, and to say nothing of the interior sheet metal details that needed to be done. It's a different kind of work, but the level of difficulty is going to be similar.

that's what I was wondering - I didn't know if it would be able to handle the change easily or not. Oh well. Good to know though! Thanks!

 

[04Ram2500Hemi]

150 miles of EV range will be plenty for me with my day to day needs. I opted for the Harvester because the charging network in Montana is still way behind. My hope is 500 miles combined, and then if I’m at a spot where a charger is not available, I can get gas and keep going at highway speeds.

I can’t stress this enough, the Harvester needs to be able to run at highway speeds on gas only safely. If not, there’s not a lot of sense to invest in the Harvester.