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

 

[Scout_iii]

As the saying goes, it’s hard to make predictions especially about the future… my A7 diesel shows 650+ miles to empty after a fill up. Will we ever see that in any mass market EV? Who knows? But materials science often involves ‘breakthrough’ discoveries… so not quite alchemy, but close. Best thing we could hope for is a ‘modular’ Scout battery pack in case the day ever arrives where solid state battery tech (or ‘whatever’ unknown new battery tech) is commercialized.

And as was noted earlier a new battery module design still needs to account for things like changes to vehicle dynamics, e.g. if the ‘new tech’ is just significantly lower material density - same volume and charge capacity but much lower weight - how would an updated battery module affect things like vehicle’s polar moment of inertia, F/R weight balance, etc. Would it need ballast weight that negates some benefits, etc. But at least with OTA software updates it might be possible to recalibrate any affected vehicle systems like stability control, ABS, etc.

Long nerdy way of saying I’m looking forward to the new Scout vehicles. They look like they’ll have great styling, capabilities, and hopefully great build quality too! But I’m not expecting their fundamental physical properties (range, etc.) to keep pace with new EV tech in the coming years and decades. If the Scout we get hits the targets promised for that vehicle in real life use (no ‘vaporware’ range) it’ll be great.

 

[hozer]

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.

If I had to guess, I'd wager you're going to be disappointed. Ramcharger needed a 3.6L V6 to accomplish that and I doubt the scout has anything close to that. Moving a harvester at 70+MPH is going to be 25kw output range and I don't see them sizing an engine that big in it.

 

[Logan]

If I had to guess, I'd wager you're going to be disappointed. Ramcharger needed a 3.6L V6 to accomplish that and I doubt the scout has anything close to that. Moving a harvester at 70+MPH is going to be 25kw output range and I don't see them sizing an engine that big in it.

I'm not counting it out quite yet. 25kw of power isn't all that much. Its 33HP (net, so not including charging losses).

25kw of power from the generator would be in line with the BMW I3 REX, and way less than the Chevy Volt (which I believe was ~50kw). Both of which are significantly smaller vehicles. Personally don't think you'll see anything that small.

That said, I don't think the generator will be as big as the Ramcharger either. But, that might not be as big of a negative as it might look like. The Ramcharger has a 40-100% higher towing rating (14k lbs vs the 10k lbs on the Terra, and 7k lbs on the Traveler), and features 130-190kw 3.6L V6.

I'm still personally thinking we'll see something in the 75-115kw output range, but who knows. And I do think this is probably the single most interesting/anticipated detail that we are collectively waiting for details on. And I suspect we won't hear anything about it for another year at least, maybe more.

 

[Nmagnatta]

The Harvester (which is both an engine and a generator),

Where has that been discussed? I thought it was just a Generator? Did I miss this? It was my understanding that the Generator was not going to have anything to do with the Drive train. I could very well be mistaken though

 

[J Alynn]

Where has that been discussed? I thought it was just a Generator? Did I miss this? It was my understanding that the Generator was not going to have anything to do with the Drive train. I could very well be mistaken though

It is an engine. Probably the size of a 3 to 4 cylinder. It will generate electricity for the battery. That is what has been announced thus far. Any other comments about powering wheels, etc…are speculation at this point

 

[Logan]

It is an engine. Probably the size of a 3 to 4 cylinder. It will generate electricity for the battery. That is what has been announced thus far. Any other comments about powering wheels, etc…are speculation at this point

Agreed. I think we're going to see a 3-4 cylinder engine, that functions only to generate electricity.

Although personally I'd say (unless something changes), that I think the chance of the engine driving the wheels is low, like "almost zero" low, as they keep talking about how this is an electric vehicle at its core.

Maybe they'll change it, and do something like what Honda does with their hybrid accord (1 speed transmission clutched engine starts to directly drive the wheels at higher speeds), but that seems really unlikely. Anything could happen though.

 

[ID_ENG]

I could be way off but I feel like most people are in two camps for how the EREV will work.

Powering straight to the wheels. Which it is not at least as of now.

Or when you run your battery down to zero, the engine will be sending power through the battery to the motors in real time.

It may also be that if you run the battery all the way down and gas, and go to fill up the harvester. You will have to maybe run the engine in some kind of high rev generate as much energy as possible in like 5-10 minutes. Then at that point you would have enough energy to get back to highway speeds while the engine keeps running at a lower rpm to reduce wear and tear and help continuously generate energy.

To me and I admit I am NO subject matter expert makes sense.
And if you do get completely empty, I don't think it would be too much of a penalty for have to wait a few minutes.

 

[R1TVT]

Some people in the Ramcharger camp do not believe that the Harvester will generate electricity for the battery.

But if the Harvester does serve as a generator to power the battery, and if the vehicle is in motion, the battery may be discharging electrons from one or more of its modules while driving, AND it may also be accepting electrons into "open" battery modules from the Harvester. This is completely theoretical, but it is one way to think about the Harvester. If you were to try to visualize this in a simple fashion, think of the Harvester as working to ultimately slow the the discharge of electrons from the battery with the BMS while the vehicle is moving. You can also think of it working to increase the SOC while the vehicle is motionless and at rest.

in the above scenario (without the generator sending power directly to an inverter then to a motor to physically turn a truck wheel), there is no performance loss until the battery reaches a critically low SOC (just like in any EV). You are driving an EV. The EV experience is the same. The EV spec and battery specs are the same. The performance is the same. You can floor it and blast off up a hill into a headwind and watch your electrons vanish more quickly, or you can drive more conservatively and drive for 500+ miles on a single charge with a full battery and a full gas tank and the Harvester doing its thing (whatever that precise thing is)... And there lies the rub.

Until we know specs for the Harvester and the battery and what the actual implementation & efficiency numbers look like, this is all speculation.

For those wanting a battery that will go 1000 miles (using today's numbers), I would estimate it would cost about $80,000USD to build a 500kWH truck or SUV battery, and that battery would weigh 6,500 lbs or so. If you are at a DCFC and you are charging at a rate of about 250 miles / per hour, you should be able to stop and charge-up from 0-100% in a cool 4 hours or so. You see where this is going...

Battery advancements are going to be incremental between now and launch

 

[Scout_iii]

Some people in the Ramcharger camp do not believe that the Harvester will generate electricity for the battery.

But if the Harvester does serve as a generator to power the battery, and if the vehicle is in motion, the battery may be discharging electrons from one or more of its modules while driving, AND it may also be accepting electrons into "open" battery modules from the Harvester. This is completely theoretical, but it is one way to think about the Harvester. If you were to try to visualize this in a simple fashion, think of the Harvester as working to ultimately slow the the discharge of electrons from the battery with the BMS while the vehicle is moving. You can also think of it working to increase the SOC while the vehicle is motionless and at rest.

in the above scenario (without the generator sending power directly to an inverter then to a motor to physically turn a truck wheel), there is no performance loss until the battery reaches a critically low SOC (just like in any EV). You are driving an EV. The EV experience is the same. The EV spec and battery specs are the same. The performance is the same. You can floor it and blast off up a hill into a headwind and watch your electrons vanish more quickly, or you can drive more conservatively and drive for 500+ miles on a single charge with a full battery and a full gas tank and the Harvester doing its thing (whatever that precise thing is)... And there lies the rub.

Until we know specs for the Harvester and the battery and what the actual implementation & efficiency numbers look like, this is all speculation.

For those wanting a battery that will go 1000 miles (using today's numbers), I would estimate it would cost about $80,000USD to build a 500kWH truck or SUV battery, and that battery would weigh 6,500 lbs or so. If you are at a DCFC and you are charging at a rate of about 250 miles / per hour, you should be able to stop and charge-up from 0-100% in a cool 4 hours or so. You see where this is going...

Battery advancements are going to be incremental between now and launch

One thing about Harvester ICE is it doesn’t need to optimized for ‘drivability’ since it’s not connected to the drivetrain/wheels. Presumably it’ll be optimized for ‘max efficiency’ at whatever rpm is used when charging. Some of the ‘driveable’ 3 & 4 cylinders already have crazy outputs compared to just a few years ago…

 

[ID_ENG]

I for one am not wanting a Hummer esque tank for overlanding. Can you imagine the force needed to pull up and out of mud if you got stuck. If they were to put massive batteries in there.
For me, 150 real miles on EV and 500 on the mix mode is not only reasonable it is more than enough.

I could probably keep it in pure EV mode for about half a week before charging. Having the Harvester run periodically to keep the gas from gunking up

 

[bshindurling]

While 150 miles might cover basic daily needs in the flatter parts of the US, I feel like a 200-mile capacity would unlock important benefits to the Harvester line. At the recommended 80% daily charge level for today's EV batteries, you'd have about 160 miles of usable range - ideal for most situations. This becomes especially important when considering towing needs, where range decreases significantly. For example, towing a boat even 50 miles round trip can substantially impact available range--as we're hearing from R1T owners' experience. Additionally, the mountainous terrain in the intermountain west presents unique challenges for EVs. While regenerative braking helps on descents, the overall efficiency still takes a hit on mountain passes. The extra battery capacity provides a nice buffer, reducing reliance on the harvester feature for typical day trips, while still maintaining the harvester capability that makes these EVs (finally) practical for western recreation.

A 200-mile range target for Scout's harvester editions makes sense for several practical reasons. Of course, the question is: can Scout engineers squeeze it all in?

 

[ID_ENG]

So watching the latest CES interview video to drop. The Engineer said that with the Harvester you'll have slightly different UX, like obviously Harvester optionals, like enabling or disabling it in drive mode, auto mode for a generator like experience in Outdoor Mode, but what caught my ear was the navigation. It will point out charging stations AND gas stations. She was very confident and made it seem like you can charge up or gas up no problem. Whichever is more convenient. This gives me hope that the engine they are planning to use will not be underpowered and give enough power to keep you charged up.
Like @R1TVT mentioned above, it's the natural properties if lithium batteries. You get full power until you are exceptionally low.
Then in my opinion it's the software that'll reduce power and performance, to keep you from hitting 0%.

The question is can the Harvester keep your battery above X% long enough on a tank of gas to be meaningful and not performance limited.

 

[Logan]

While 150 miles might cover basic daily needs in the flatter parts of the US, I feel like a 200-mile capacity would unlock important benefits to the Harvester line. At the recommended 80% daily charge level for today's EV batteries, you'd have about 160 miles of usable range - ideal for most situations. This becomes especially important when considering towing needs, where range decreases significantly. For example, towing a boat even 50 miles round trip can substantially impact available range--as we're hearing from R1T owners' experience. Additionally, the mountainous terrain in the intermountain west presents unique challenges for EVs. While regenerative braking helps on descents, the overall efficiency still takes a hit on mountain passes. The extra battery capacity provides a nice buffer, reducing reliance on the harvester feature for typical day trips, while still maintaining the harvester capability that makes these EVs (finally) practical for western recreation.

A 200-mile range target for Scout's harvester editions makes sense for several practical reasons. Of course, the question is: can Scout engineers squeeze it all in?

Oh, this brings up another point I forgot about before.

So, the normal mode for charging an EV, is, as you say, charging it to 80%. But, charging an PHEV, is usually done to 100%. And because they know that, they build bigger buffers in/etc (ie, "100%" is closer to "80%"), so that battery degradation doesn't kick in as early/hard.

I wonder if that will be the case with the Harvester.

 

[J Alynn]

While 150 miles might cover basic daily needs in the flatter parts of the US, I feel like a 200-mile capacity would unlock important benefits to the Harvester line. At the recommended 80% daily charge level for today's EV batteries, you'd have about 160 miles of usable range - ideal for most situations. This becomes especially important when considering towing needs, where range decreases significantly. For example, towing a boat even 50 miles round trip can substantially impact available range--as we're hearing from R1T owners' experience. Additionally, the mountainous terrain in the intermountain west presents unique challenges for EVs. While regenerative braking helps on descents, the overall efficiency still takes a hit on mountain passes. The extra battery capacity provides a nice buffer, reducing reliance on the harvester feature for typical day trips, while still maintaining the harvester capability that makes these EVs (finally) practical for western recreation.

A 200-mile range target for Scout's harvester editions makes sense for several practical reasons. Of course, the question is: can Scout engineers squeeze it all in?

But fundamentally isn’t that the whole point of the harvester, it kicks the gas engine on to maximize range once you get to +/- 150 miles EV. Not all of us live in flat, coastal regions so demographics force some of us to pay a price on range.
I have a general question (not directly at you) if SM wasn’t here-now and you needed a new vehicle tomorrow to achieve what you are concerned with-what vehicle would you be buying to meet your needs? (Again, not just you but anyone asking for “more”)
With that answer, I’m then curious why the Scout if as announced, it doesn’t meet your vehicular needs?
I’ve always dreamed of driving a Scout again. When they announced it I spent a lot of time on here (past 2 years) learning and decided I can go with an EV and changed my thinking since I was bummed it wasn’t ICE. I’m a person willing to try an EV to satisfy my desire for another Scout. Many intelligent EV owners are on this forum and have offered an abundance of knowledge.
As we’ve stated-there’s only so much room under the vehicle to allow range options.
I love this vehicle, I love that Scott convinced a shit ton of VW execs to create this new company. The design got knocked out of the park, over the mountain and across the bay. That said, as great as this opportunity is to be on this forum at some point we have to accept Scouts for what they are. If up to 500 miles doesn’t work, then this probably isn’t the right vehicle-I’m not sure what the options are other than Dodge or a GMC (based on poor previous life experiences with those manufacturers I’d never pay for one but that’s me)

It’s like @R1TVT commented earlier about battery size vs. battery cost vs. battery weight, etc…. There’s a magic number they feel they can package and be most successful at and that’s what SM’s appears to be doing. I’m sure if they could’ve added the harvester with 200 mile EV they would have done so. I doubt the engineers are shorting themselves/SM/us just because they preset a numeric limit and quit when they hit it. They want to offer as much vehicle as they can to every enthusiast on this forum and every future buyer that sees us in ours and falls in love with their own Scout vehicle.
Maybe in 4 years solid state will be proven and the EV will get 700+ miles without the range extender and I’ll wish I had waited. Until they lock in the final battery tech and publicly announce the engine generator perhaps we should accept the current limits and hope they’ve been under promising and will over deliver with range.

 

[R1TVT]

The question is can the Harvester keep your battery above X% long enough on a tank of gas to be meaningful and not performance limited.

Yes, or another way to think about it is "can your Harvester and battery work together to provide the same performance characteristics across what has been stated as a 500 mile range"... We will have to wait and see if that is the case, but that would be the expectation.

***CAVEAT - Range is always an estimate and it provides a guide for what you should expect to see under "normal" driving conditions.

Just like in any other EV or ICE truck, and if the temp drops below freezing, you suddenly hit 30MPH headwinds, you start climbing a mountain, you attach a 10K-pound trailer with ponies and pixie dust, etc. your mileage may vary.

 

[04Ram2500Hemi]

But fundamentally isn’t that the whole point of the harvester, it kicks the gas engine on to maximize range once you get to +/- 150 miles EV. Not all of us live in flat, coastal regions so demographics force some of us to pay a price on range.
I have a general question (not directly at you) if SM wasn’t here-now and you needed a new vehicle tomorrow to achieve what you are concerned with-what vehicle would you be buying to meet your needs? (Again, not just you but anyone asking for “more”)
With that answer, I’m then curious why the Scout if as announced, it doesn’t meet your vehicular needs?
I’ve always dreamed of driving a Scout again. When they announced it I spent a lot of time on here (past 2 years) learning and decided I can go with an EV and changed my thinking since I was bummed it wasn’t ICE. I’m a person willing to try an EV to satisfy my desire for another Scout. Many intelligent EV owners are on this forum and have offered an abundance of knowledge.
As we’ve stated-there’s only so much room under the vehicle to allow range options.
I love this vehicle, I love that Scott convinced a shit ton of VW execs to create this new company. The design got knocked out of the park, over the mountain and across the bay. That said, as great as this opportunity is to be on this forum at some point we have to accept Scouts for what they are. If up to 500 miles doesn’t work, then this probably isn’t the right vehicle-I’m not sure what the options are other than Dodge or a GMC (based on poor previous life experiences with those manufacturers I’d never pay for one but that’s me)

It’s like @R1TVT commented earlier about battery size vs. battery cost vs. battery weight, etc…. There’s a magic number they feel they can package and be most successful at and that’s what SM’s appears to be doing. I’m sure if they could’ve added the harvester with 200 mile EV they would have done so. I doubt the engineers are shorting themselves/SM/us just because they preset a numeric limit and quit when they hit it. They want to offer as much vehicle as they can to every enthusiast on this forum and every future buyer that sees us in ours and falls in love with their own Scout vehicle.
Maybe in 4 years solid state will be proven and the EV will get 700+ miles without the range extender and I’ll wish I had waited. Until they lock in the final battery tech and publicly announce the engine generator perhaps we should accept the current limits and hope they’ve been under promising and will over deliver with range.

My answer is simple. If Scout had not come out with the Harvester, I wouldn’t even look at it. I’m not sold on the EV lifestyle just yet, but I do like some things about them. There’s just to many open miles without reliable charging in Montana. I travel too far from the main roads to trust an EV will get me back, especially in colder temperatures. Having 150 miles of pure EV would last me over a week with my daily commute, and then having a gas motor as a backup for other situations is perfect for me. I’m excited at potentially dipping my toes into the EV pond, but I’m not jumping in just yet.

 

[J Alynn]

My answer is simple. If Scout had not come out with the Harvester, I wouldn’t even look at it. I’m not sold on the EV lifestyle just yet, but I do like some things about them. There’s just to many open miles without reliable charging in Montana. I travel too far from the main roads to trust an EV will get me back, especially in colder temperatures. Having 150 miles of pure EV would last me over a week with my daily commute, and then having a gas motor as a backup for other situations is perfect for me. I’m excited at potentially dipping my toes into the EV pond, but I’m not jumping in just yet.

And I believe you are the demographic SM sees for the Harvester and it’s awesome you get/chose an opportunity to take on a new Scout. I don’t preach about this for the environment but the simplicity and cost savings over time. But I don’t see you asking for more-from your comments, your a driver willing to try the EREV as SM is serving it and you see advantages. You are their target audience.
I believe in 2-3 years I’ll be in the minority owning a pure Scout EV and that’s OK. As enthusiasts we have two choices to hitch is better than most new vehicles

 

[CarTechGeek]

Oh, this brings up another point I forgot about before.

So, the normal mode for charging an EV, is, as you say, charging it to 80%. But, charging an PHEV, is usually done to 100%. And because they know that, they build bigger buffers in/etc (ie, "100%" is closer to "80%"), so that battery degradation doesn't kick in as early/hard.

I wonder if that will be the case with the Harvester.

Probably less likely than for a typical PHEV. While you can expect that a significant number of people could blow through the full sub 40 mile range of a typical PHEV each day, having 150 mile range means very few people would exhaust that on a daily basis, and 80% can become the daily default charging just like for full EVs.

 

[ohvrider]

Probably less likely than for a typical PHEV. While you can expect that a significant number of people could blow through the full sub 40 mile range of a typical PHEV each day, having 150 mile range means very few people would exhaust that on a daily basis, and 80% can become the daily default charging just like for full EVs.

I'm looking at this as a retirement vehicle for long trips. Mostly from S Utah to Vegas which is about 2 hours. I'd like to make that trip and back on 1 charge.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Where has that been discussed? I thought it was just a Generator? Did I miss this? It was my understanding that the Generator was not going to have anything to do with the Drive train. I could very well be mistaken though

Apologies. I come from a world where an engine is a gas-driven internal combustion device that converts controlled oxidation of fuel into rotary motion for use in all kinds of ways. A generator is a particular kind of electric motor that generates electrical power when driven by an external rotary motion. The combination of the engine and generator is what most people would call a "generator."