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

 

[Variable430]

But is the extra 100 miles worth $8K because that’s the most expensive part of these vehicles. Now you’re at a $70K starting price which means a reasonable build will be $76-80K. This prices out a ton of people when a few stops for extra fuel each year may cost $100 so imagine 8 years is an extra $800 vs. $8,000.

Having lived with these cars for a few years now, it’s something I would be willing to pay more for. It’s not about the cost, it’s the practical usability and the potential longevity on the powertrain if you can reduce the number of charging cycles. We keep our cars that we purchase 10+ years. We have a 16 yr old Infiniti in the house. I would like something built to last or have the confidence that if it is a smaller battery that it can be replaced at a reasonable cost.

 

[R1TVT]

Ideally you don’t want to have to charge your EV everyday, it degrades the battery pack faster and is not optimal for battery health. If the efficiency is poor or the range is limited one will have to do that. We don’t know much at this point, the purpose of the thread was to encourage Scout to extend the battery only range of the harvester which I believe will make it a better vehicle.

Modern battery packs & chemistries coupled with sophisticated BMS systems allow for daily charging with limited degradation. People DO drive their EV's everyday, and people DO charge them daily. Usually, modern EV's even have a preset "daily charge limit", which usually tops you off to around a 70% SOC. If people who own EV's had to worry about degrading their battery packs when they charge, they probably wouldn't buy them in the first place. Not to mention, the battery warranties that exist for EV's offer additional protection and confidence. Don't be fooled by conspiracy theories about charging.

*** Also - most people do not drive 350 miles per day continuously, so there is rarely a case where someone would be charging their EV to 100% daily. L2 charging is what most people do most regularly, and this has even less of an impact on battery health (as compared to DCFC charging).

 

[CarTechGeek]

Having lived with these cars for a few years now, it’s something I would be willing to pay more for. It’s not about the cost, it’s the practical usability and the potential longevity on the powertrain if you can reduce the number of charging cycles. We keep our cars that we purchase 10+ years. We have a 16 yr old Infiniti in the house. I would like something built to last or have the confidence that if it is a smaller battery that it can be replaced at a reasonable cost.

While an extra $8000 may be nothing to you, I'd bet it would be a deal killer for the majority of buyers...

I'm always reminded of the Simpson's episode where Homer gets to design his own car, "The Homer", whenever someone on car forums start's asking for their own personal unicorn vehicles, without regard to cost, and how it might impact sales.

 

[Variable430]

While an extra $8000 may be nothing to you, I'd bet it would be a deal killer for the majority of buyers...

I'm always reminded of the Simpson's episode where Homer gets to design his own car, "The Homer", whenever someone on car forums start's asking for their own personal unicorn vehicles, without regard to cost, and how it might impact sales.

My math - $8000/15yrs =$533.33/yr Maybe instead of buying cars on a 3 yr basis folks should look at keeping things longer… I’ll keep my 2008 Infiniti till 2027 to replace it with this. Agree if some are looking at this as a short term purchase it’s a lot of money.

 

[eddiet1212]

I looked at the Macan several times but I’ve had a diecast model of a Porsche Boxster for over 20 years and I truthfully would love a 718 but my love and nostalgia for a Scout outweighs it. While my wife/accountant know we could swing both there is a practical side that makes me feel selfish. That money would pay for a lot of travel trips both across US and Europe. So time will tell. Maybe a 2008 used Boxster

I owned a 2002 white Boxster, it was fun.....

 

[eddiet1212]

Have had mine for 7 years. I like it better than the newer generation, more analog, just the right amount of tech.View attachment 5050

My favorite Porsche color

 

[CarTechGeek]

My math - $8000/15yrs =$533.33/yr Maybe instead of buying cars on a 3 yr basis folks should look at keeping things longer… I’ll keep my 2008 Infiniti till 2027 to replace it with this. Agree if some is looking at this as a short term purchase it’s a lot of money.

It's a lot of money regardless. Dividing it by expected lifetime, is just a rationalization for overspending.

It's the kind of rationalization, that leads to some people buying more car than they can afford and taking out horrible 84 month loans.

You know what's much better than $8000/15 years? $0/15 years. I'd put the $8000 into and investment fund, and have more than $20,000 cash in 15 years, to put toward my next car.

So again, regardless of your rationalizations or how little $8000 matters to you, I expect it's big difference to most of the market that would be a deal killer.

 

[Variable430]

It's a lot of money regardless. Dividing it by expected lifetime, is just a rationalization for overspending.

It's the kind of rationalization, that leads to some people buying more car than they can afford and taking out horrible 84 month loans.

You know what's much better than $8000/15 years? $0/15 years. I'd put the $8000 into and investment fund, and have more than $20,000 cash in 15 years, to put toward my next car.

So again, regardless of your rationalizations or how little $8000 matters to you, I expect it's big difference to most of the market that would be a deal killer.

That’s assuming that car will last you 15 years without replacing the battery from repeated cycling. Have you checked your cell phone battery health after two years of daily charging?

 

[oldgeeksguide]

That’s assuming that car will last you 15 years without replacing the battery from repeated cycling. Have you checked your cell phone battery health after two years of daily charging?

I wouldn’t extrapolate too much from your experience with a cell phone. Car batteries are managed much more carefully while phone batteries are pushed to the limit in pursuit of ever thinner, lighter phones (cuz they don’t have much else to show advancement these days). EVs are rarely drained to 0 and filled to 100, so counting cycles is complicated. I know it’s not quite the same, but the last hybrid we had lasted 14+ years and the battery was still going strong. Our current hybrid is on its 8th year and no issues with the battery.

I expect the hardware will outlast the software in most modern cars these days, hopefully they’ll figure that out.

 

[J Alynn]

That’s assuming that car will last you 15 years without replacing the battery from repeated cycling. Have you checked your cell phone battery health after two years of daily charging?

There is plenty of research showing car batteries are lasting well beyond the life spans originally anticipated and current reporting is the majority of batteries will outlast the vehicle they are in barring an odd issue or failed cell which is generally covered under the warranty time frame of most current EV’s. @oldgeeksguide is accurate on his comments. We also forget people drop their phones regularly, run them non stop for 14 hours a day and they don’t have cooling in them like most EV’s so I don’t believe there is much to worry about for 15 years. If you keep your cars for 20 years then perhaps you have legit fear at the tail end of the cars lifespan but otherwise the Scouts should run easily for 15 years. Beyond that I guess we will wait and see

 

[THil08]

They might even outlast the OG Scouts. And mind you these won’t come with rust. And with the statement of “future proof” to me that means that we might see the batteries be able to have backwards compatibility making Scouts stay on the road.

 

[CarTechGeek]

That’s assuming that car will last you 15 years without replacing the battery from repeated cycling. Have you checked your cell phone battery health after two years of daily charging?

I'll remind you that the 15 years lifetime was your assumption, and rationalization for spending an extra $8000 like it was nothing.

 

[shutthefrontdoor]

It will be really interesting to see what SM ends up doing here. I'm not sure I'd want to be the one signing off on that decision. I believe they are on record as saying they will go with the best options available at the time but that's a pretty broad stroke of the brush. They are not going to be able to please everyone but even 200 miles would be a major improvement and take away most doubts.

If it's a 150 mile LFP battery, I can't help but think it's going to catch some people in northern climates unaware of how little battery they will have available in very cold weather. I'd think you'd need a reasonably good buffer in order to work with the AREV's ability to charge it without having to stop. If SM is ensuring that will never happen, then maybe 150 miles is OK (though even then, if the engine is running most of the time, what's the point?).

Let's say for arguments sake that for those in cold climates, with 150 mile LFP rated battery, for 3 months a year, the engine is running 80% of the time. Is that acceptable? Perhaps for the majority of the demographic interested in the AREV model, it is but to me this is a huge compromise. You have to be running the engine less than that to justify going down this road in the first place. Otherwise you might as well just consider a normal PHEV or even an ICE vehicle.

I can only hope though that the BEV at least, is NOT LFP. If it is, that's a hard pass for me.

 

[J Alynn]

It will be really interesting to see what SM ends up doing here. I'm not sure I'd want to be the one signing off on that decision. I believe they are on record as saying they will go with the best options available at the time but that's a pretty broad stroke of the brush. They are not going to be able to please everyone but even 200 miles would be a major improvement and take away most doubts.

If it's a 150 mile LFP battery, I can't help but think it's going to catch some people in northern climates unaware of how little battery they will have available in very cold weather. I'd think you'd need a reasonably good buffer in order to work with the AREV's ability to charge it without having to stop. If SM is ensuring that will never happen, then maybe 150 miles is OK (though even then, if the engine is running most of the time, what's the point?).

Let's say for arguments sake that for those in cold climates, with 150 mile LFP rated battery, for 3 months a year, the engine is running 80% of the time. Is that acceptable? Perhaps for the majority of the demographic interested in the AREV model, it is but to me this is a huge compromise. You have to be running the engine less than that to justify going down this road in the first place. Otherwise you might as well just consider a normal PHEV or even an ICE vehicle.

I can only hope though that the BEV at least, is NOT LFP. If it is, that's a hard pass for me.

Maybe we should look at the harvester from a different point of view. Currently, short of a diesel ICE, most comparable ICE’s on the market today (Bronco/4-runner, Yukon, etc…) are probably getting 400-425 miles range per fill up or roughly 18-22 mpg-as “typical”. So SM is offering a vehicle (harvester version) that adds 25% more range with equal to or better towing than the same ICE field.
However, with the traveler I now have the convenience of “re-filling” my daily tank nightly (at home) for like half the cost of gas from a pump and as long as I’m doing typically close to home activities I’m seeing like maybe a 20% savings in fuel cost each year vs ICE equivalents.
I think much of the debate here with the harvester is everyone looks at it as ALL THE GREAT aspects of other EV’s plus a whole lot more because of the gas tank/range extender. What it really is, is an “ICE” (I know-it isn’t really) but think of it as an ICE with the added benefits of everything that makes EV’s great.
You can’t hook up your trailer to your 4-runner and drive 500 miles but yet everyone thinks the Scouts should???
If people really need those kinds of numbers they should be buying a diesel truck, because until solid state is viable, no normally priced truck/suv is gonna get more than basically 425-500 miles and every vehicle actively towing is gonna take a hit on mileage.

And as I wrote this I realized that maybe this is how SM should be marketing the harvester-almost reverse psychology!

 

[shutthefrontdoor]

It's definitely better than a traditional PHEV. No argument there. Just that the buffer required to keep it on battery in the cold seems like it would greatly benefit from being 200 miles as opposed to 150. At the end of the day, they can only work with the materials that are available and then continue to improve it from there. Hopefully their marketing is honest and not too forward sounding. You could really go in a lot of directions there.

 

[dearbulls]

While my average "Single Trip" is probably less than 25 miles (somewhere in the 20 range), My "time between chargers" is closer to 100-150 on some days. I know I'm certainly in the minority, but I have multiple work sites I have to go between -- sometimes all of them in a day, which can add up to 200+ miles -- but I understand that my "visit everyone" days are certainly rare and I'd be using the harvester on them. But here in Snowy Colorado, that "150 mile" EPA Rating on an EV can rapidly fall below 100 or even 80 with Winter Tires (-Efficiency), Cold Temperatures (-Efficiency and ---Cabin Heating), and Snowy/Icy Roads (-Efficiency due to Terrain/Stop Start/Slow traffic).

In an ideal world with the harvester, I'd like to see an EV-Only EPA range of 200-230 miles (2/3 of the 350-mile BEV battery, with 1/3 of Cell space sacrificed for the harvester, and some losses due to the weight of an engine/fuel tank). Honestly I think anything below 125-150 miles EV-Only and I'd have to reconsider my reservation (125 is definitely my bare-minimum number). At that point I'd be using gas a lot of winter days, and that's what I'd like to avoid in a new Scout.

No. You forgot what damaged the range of BEVs most: the Cold. Having an ICE generator can create Heat as a byproduct. All they need to do is add a coolant circulation to heat up the electric motor and batteries, just like what they do on hybrids. So, actually having an ICE engine can solve the biggest drawback of BEV. All it need is having the ICE engine running and create heat as well as generating electricity.

 

[dearbulls]

Maybe I missed something, but what does CA have to do with pure BEV?

If you've read the post I was replying to, you'll know he said he "drives 100 miles per day on Los Angeles", which is in CA. So you tell me, what does CA have to do with pure BEV?

 

[dearbulls]

I am of the same mind as CarTechGeek. I don't want to pay more for or carry around more battery than needed. And the vast majority of people will not need more than 50 miles of pure EV range without recharging. I understand that there will be people that want more than 100 miles of pure EV range, but then a Scoot EREV is not your solution. Maybe someday a company will offer an EREV with 250 miles of EV range, but I doubt it - that vehicle would cost too much and would appeal to too small a segment of the population.

Yep, they are just dead weight you carry around, if you don't need all the juices.

 

[dearbulls]

It's definitely better than a traditional PHEV. No argument there. Just that the buffer required to keep it on battery in the cold seems like it would greatly benefit from being 200 miles as opposed to 150. At the end of the day, they can only work with the materials that are available and then continue to improve it from there. Hopefully their marketing is honest and not too forward sounding. You could really go in a lot of directions there.

BEV use electicity to heat up battery and motor, that's a very inefficient way even with heatpump. Having an ICE engine can heat up the battery quickly without wasting energy. Heat is just a byproduct.

 

[dearbulls]

Welcome!

The short answer is unfortunately, no, no one knows what the MPG will be. In fact, since they haven't released many details, there really isn't much that we DO know about the range extender, and thus is one of the hotly discussed (I'd say debated, but it's more like "theorized" TBH).

What we DO know, mostly comes from the Ram Ramcharger. It offers 142 miles of EV range, and a total of 690 miles of range, using a 3.6L V6 producing ~130-190kw of power, using a 27 gal gas tank. So if you do 690-142, you get 548 miles of gas only range, out of 27 gallons. So that works out to ~20mpg, give or take.

Now, the Ramcharger is larger than the Scouts. It has a ~14k lb towing rating, and is expressly stated that it has enough power to "gas and go" while towing (the gas engine can generate enough electricity to keep up with the electrical demands while it is towing). So this means it might be less efficient than the Scouts (which, most people are theorizing the scouts will use a 3 or 4 cylinder generator).

That said, the Scouts are (big picture) fairly similarly sized/shaped to the Ramcharger. And I can't imagine their efficiency on the open road at 70-80mph is going to be particularly great. Which means that while I have some hopes that the Scouts will get better than 20mpg, I'm not certain that we'll see it.

It's hard to calculate MPG on a "generator". Usually generator use Hours as a measurement. It depends on how fast it revs, and of often it kicks on.