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

 

[ohvrider]

I am happy with 150 mile range on EV or even 100 mile range only on pure EV, but only if when using the range extender it does not sacrifice performance, acceleration, torque etc.

Pretty sure it will suffer comparing to other EV's. TFL has a video up talking about failure of other EV's range extenders.

 

[J Alynn]

Pretty sure it will suffer comparing to other EV's. TFL has a video up talking about failure of other EV's range extenders.

I think until the tech is actually confirmed along with parts and function it’s all still speculative and just because TFL posts info on failures it doesn’t make them engineering experts. SM may have the right combo of engineers who figure something out that nobody else has. I understand all engineering has its limitations but since October 24th there’s been so much speculation with no validity. I think we’ve come to a point on the forum where this topic just needs put on hold until we get new updates/facts from SM’s team.
Just my opinion

 

[Tyler88]

Pretty sure it will suffer comparing to other EV's. TFL has a video up talking about failure of other EV's range extenders.

I saw that TFL video, the only range extended vehicle that the US had so far was the BMW i3 and the issue with that is BMW mad the extender way too small so it still qualified for California EV credits. It was so small that performance suffered using it so I doubt Scout will have the harvester be too small to power the vehicle on its own.

 

[dleepnw]

Lets remember that battery chemistry matters. If were talking LFP, then we can charge to 100% daily and get the full battery range daily. If were talking NMC, then ideally we dont want to charge more than 70-80% daily to reduce battery degredation, thats reduced range ~105-120 miles, in winter that's even less.

I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to use battery only for daily driving, whats the use case? That being said, I think Scout might consider increasing battery size to increase range to 200 miles because of cold weather reduction.

This probably depends on how the EREV works. I don't think Scout even knows the full answer to this yet.

 

[grahamray]

Most important to me is the output of the Harvester engine. Its range is less important when I can top it off at a conventional gas station. At a minimum, does it put out enough power to make up for the efficiency loss in pulling a trailer?

 

[J Alynn]

I saw that TFL video, the only range extended vehicle that the US had so far was the BMW i3 and the issue with that is BMW mad the extender way too small so it still qualified for California EV credits. It was so small that performance suffered using it so I doubt Scout will have the harvester be too small to power the vehicle on its own.

Thanks for following up on that. Was too lazy to find video. I like TFL but they aren’t always looking for the most comparable apples to apples when they are trying to convey a topic

 

[grahamray]

Lets remember that battery chemistry matters. If were talking LFP, then we can charge to 100% daily and get the full battery range daily. If were talking NMC, then ideally we dont want to charge more than 70-80% daily to reduce battery degredation, thats reduced range ~105-120 miles, in winter that's even less.

I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want to use battery only for daily driving, whats the use case? That being said, I think should consider increasing the battery size to increase range 200 miles because of cold weather reduction.

This probably depends on how the EREV works. I don't think Scout even knows the full answer to this yet.

I saw on a demo that there will be three settings for the harvester. Automatic, EV only, and always on. Leaving it to auto by default is likely best, although if I was pulling a trailer, I would have it turned on at the very beginning to offset the range loss from towing.

 

[rivianwho]

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

Agreed. I was originally going to reserve the EREV until I read where the battery max range was going to be 150 miles. That sounds more like the battery extending the ICE rather than the other way around. No thanks.

Why can't the EREV have the identical battery pack and just put the ICE generator in the front instead of having the frunk? I would gladly sacrifice the frunk for the ICE generator if it meant keeping the 350 max range for the battery pack.

 

[J Alynn]

Agreed. I was originally going to reserve the EREV until I read where the battery max range was going to be 150 miles. That sounds more like the battery extending the ICE rather than the other way around. No thanks.

Why can't the EREV have the identical battery pack and just put the ICE generator in the front instead of having the frunk? I would gladly sacrifice the frunk for the ICE generator if it meant keeping the 350 max range for the battery pack.

Because the frunk is a feature many others want. Imagine overlanding. You have full rear set up for storage under sleeping then the frunk allows in and out gear.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Lets remember that battery chemistry matters. If were talking LFP, then we can charge to 100% daily and get the full battery range daily. If were talking NMC, then ideally we dont want to charge more than 70-80% daily to reduce battery degredation, thats reduced range ~105-120 miles, in winter that's even less.

Batteries care about long-term (weeks at a time) storage at 100%, not being charged to 100%. As long as the charge controller manages the charge rate from about 90% to 100% properly, there's minimal degradation of an NMC (or any other chemistry) battery. An owner charging to 100% and then using the vehicle in the same couple of days is not going to reduce battery lifetime an appreciable amount.

Calendar aging has the most impact on battery lifetime. Then rate and delta of charging events has the next largest impact. This is where LFP performs better than NMC--LFP can handle faster charging better than NMC. So DCFC charge curves can be programmed for higher average rate of charge with an LFP compared with an NMC. But energy density and specific energy are both lower for LFP, so that needs to be considered during balancing of all the factors. A lower capacity, LFP, battery with a higher average rate of charge will provide owners with overall shorter stops (less to charge and faster charge), which is great where the DCFC infrastructure is dense enough to allow slightly lower range in exchange.

NMC also has better retention of energy in cold weather. For the two otherwise identical vehicles with the same capacity battery, the one with LFP will lose more of its nominal range than one with an NMC, when it gets very cold.

But to be clear to the original point: all modern EVs have a buffer on their batteries. When a 100% charge is displayed to the consumer, it's typically anywhere from about 95% to 85% of real capacity. So even if you charge to 100% daily, you're not charging to 100% of total capacity daily.

Very few people in the US drive their vehicle 350 miles every day. Most drive less than 40 miles. Range above that is irrelevant for most people except when they go on a road trip, so the daily charge cap can be anywhere above their range needs and it won't change their use pattern.

For longer range needs, there's never a battery health reason to start such a trip at less than 100% charge. Charge it up to 100% before you leave, get the most out of that battery. It's not going to hurt the battery enough that you notice it.

 

[dleepnw]

Batteries care about long-term (weeks at a time) storage at 100%, not being charged to 100%. As long as the charge controller manages the charge rate from about 90% to 100% properly, there's minimal degradation of an NMC (or any other chemistry) battery. An owner charging to 100% and then using the vehicle in the same couple of days is not going to reduce battery lifetime an appreciable amount.

Calendar aging has the most impact on battery lifetime. Then rate and delta of charging events has the next largest impact. This is where LFP performs better than NMC--LFP can handle faster charging better than NMC. So DCFC charge curves can be programmed for higher average rate of charge with an LFP compared with an NMC. But energy density and specific energy are both lower for LFP, so that needs to be considered during balancing of all the factors. A lower capacity, LFP, battery with a higher average rate of charge will provide owners with overall shorter stops (less to charge and faster charge), which is great where the DCFC infrastructure is dense enough to allow slightly lower range in exchange.

NMC also has better retention of energy in cold weather. For the two otherwise identical vehicles with the same capacity battery, the one with LFP will lose more of its nominal range than one with an NMC, when it gets very cold.

But to be clear to the original point: all modern EVs have a buffer on their batteries. When a 100% charge is displayed to the consumer, it's typically anywhere from about 95% to 85% of real capacity. So even if you charge to 100% daily, you're not charging to 100% of total capacity daily.

Very few people in the US drive their vehicle 350 miles every day. Most drive less than 40 miles. Range above that is irrelevant for most people except when they go on a road trip, so the daily charge cap can be anywhere above their range needs and it won't change their use pattern.

For longer range needs, there's never a battery health reason to start such a trip at less than 100% charge. Charge it up to 100% before you leave, get the most out of that battery. It's not going to hurt the battery enough that you notice it.

Good points.

 

[rivianwho]

Because the frunk is a feature many others want. Imagine overlanding. You have full rear set up for storage under sleeping then the frunk allows in and out gear.

My Rivian has a pretty large frunk and I rarely use it other than carrying spare clothes, shoes, etc. There are plenty of bolt-on gear storage options w/ the tow hitch based Yakima EXO System being one of the best which is what I have. Sure if you want to tow something then, you'll need a roof-mounted system but again, there is no perfect solution but trade-offs.

In my case, I'd MUCH rather trade the frunk for an ICE generator if it meant having the full 350 mile range of the full EV battery pack. YMMV

 

[OIBScout]

<225 mile EPA BEV range (= 200 actual) is wholly inadequate for any destination driving. Have done that with our Model 3.

Local driving and 50 mile commuting trips or occasional <200 mile day outings are what such range is good for.

Great example is Charlotte to the NC coast or the mountains gets you to the sweaty edge of your range at 75mph.

I’m desperately hoping that we get 375 EPA BEV (340 - 350 actual) out of the non-Harvester option. This is a really usable range. One long lunch charge gets you Charlotte to Orlando in 9 hours. Imagine your equivalent longer day trips.

I’ve ordered Harvester, but really don’t want an engine puttering at all times to get maybe 500 range max.

 

[CarTechGeek]

In my case, I'd MUCH rather trade the frunk for an ICE generator if it meant having the full 350 mile range of the full EV battery pack. YMMV

Some people have strange ideas about the purpose of PHEVs/EREVs.

The point is to do your average daily activities with battery power, and for the outlier times where that isn't enough, you have the range extender to back you up.

Some of the best Plug ins have been the Chevy Volt, and current Rav4 Prime. These have about 50 miles of range, and that is enough for the majority of people to do their daily driving. Many Owners report going months between gas fill-ups.

Pushing the EV range out to 150 miles is already kind of overkill, the probably moves the daily coverage from a majority to a something beyond 99% of drivers.

There is really no business case to add another 1000 lbs of batteries and $20K to the price of the truck to give it 350 miles of EV only range and a Harvester.

I'd love to hear the use case that requires that...

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I carry all of my emergency gear, charging gear, tools, a stool/chair, a rubberized blanket for when I need to wrench, jump cables, the air compressor, and other dirty junk in the frunk of our Lightning. And there's still space for more. This keeps the cabin free from all that stuff and allows me to load the bed of the truck with stuff when it's necessary without worrying about what's in the bed. I thought it was silly when I saw it the first time, but now I won't buy a vehicle without a frunk.

 

[illspirit]

Pushing the EV range out to 150 miles is already kind of overkill, the probably moves the daily coverage from a majority to a something beyond 99% of drivers.

If 99% of drivers are home owners and can charge every night, sure. I'm sure some renters might want to be able to drive their vehicle for a few days before taking it to get charged.

 

[CarTechGeek]

If 99% of drivers are home owners and can charge every night, sure. I'm sure some renters might want to be able to drive their vehicle for a few days before taking it to get charged.

If you don't have a place to charge at home, then something with a plug likely doesn't make sense.

 

[J Alynn]

If 99% of drivers are home owners and can charge every night, sure. I'm sure some renters might want to be able to drive their vehicle for a few days before taking it to get charged.

I feel like a traditional hybrid makes more sense if you rent and can’t charge nightly. My accord gets between 500-600 miles on a full 12 gallon tank. My daily is 12 miles round trip and occasional close to home errands. I generally go between 3-4 weeks with fill ups. Unfortunately the Scouts or any EV might not be the best answer for everyone. It’s just a reality-but like other EV makers, you have to cater to the largest market possible.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I didn't understand why people think all EV with a >300 mile range, especially in commuter traffic needs a home charger. Most people drive less than 40 miles a day. Most trips are less than a few miles long. I'm able to get better than 400 miles on my Lightning if I'm commuting. That's more than 10 days before the need for a recharge for the average commuter. Having access to a L2 charger while shopping or a DCFC once every couple of weeks will solve the issue.

Yes, there are places in the country where there aren't many/any public chargers near places people tend to go to for some kind of shopping/dining/entertainment/recreation, but that's not true of everyone.

The FUD-like expectation that an EV doesn't meet the needs of someone who doesn't have a perfect setup is a sad state of affairs.

No, an EV isn't perfect for everyone. But you don't need a home level 2 charger (nor even L1) to realize the benefits of an EV.

Yes, it's better if you have a charger at home. No, it's not necessary.

 

[dearbulls]

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.

How efficient do you think those 35 ATs would be? I can tell you that the KO2s costed me 2mpg on my f150, and that's from 16 to 14 mpg, not from 42 to 40 mpg. If you know that mpg is actually a more illusional figure than gal/100 mile or liter/100km.

Of course you can put smaller road going tires to improve efficiency. Also, there's a 300+ miles pure BEV to choose if you live in CA. But they are designing for buyers from all states not just CA. And we do love the EREV idea even at the cost of shorter EV only range. It's not their fault, it's where the battery technology at. They cannot pack more energy into the limited space, and you don't want a too heavy vehicle like the hummer EV for off-road.