Speculation Alert - possible Harvester Engine Choices

[CarTechGeek]

Please tell me more since you obviously have not read all my posts

I'm replying to a post that said "no replacement for displacement is still extremely valid" and said about EVs: "infrastructure does not exist to support them".

Which seems very anti-EV.

I have a couple of friends are that EV only and they drive everywhere they did with gas, from the Atlantic coast of Canada To Ontario, and NY, on that non existent infrastructure.

 

[Chaparral]

That’s what TFL speculated, if you look at the Funk, there is a massive space behind it.

That video was recorded before the reveal presentation. They had a private briefing and while the information was very fresh they were spit-balling on camera. Those videos from the select few that got early access are the worse for accurate information. The Harvester video clearly shows Scout are conceptualizing the engine in the back under the truck bed.

 

[Chaparral]

Negative. A main goal of REEV is it shouldn't change the way you live unlike BEV did. You should be able to have full capability not relying on charging network. Of course, people would charge whenever they can, but they shouldn't be limited to that. Otherwise it defeats the whole purpose of 500 miles. Limp mode for 500 mi is meaningless

The 500 Harvester miles are obviously 500 miles with 1000 ft/lbs of torque. It’ll drive 499 miles and then do a 3.5 sec 0-60 or pull almost anything! This is in fact possible if the Harvester generator is small, like Scout’s artwork shows it.

If there is a limp mode where driving performance is greatly reduced (which I doubt, because it sounds dangerous to me) that’ll be after the 500 miles where battery power is limited and the Harvester is the only power source.

We’ll have to wait and see, but REEV can mean any split in power between electric and gas. Some have regular sized gas engines and tiny batteries, others have tiny engines and big batteries.

 

[Rampy]

I'm replying to a post that said "no replacement for displacement is still extremely valid" and said about EVs: "infrastructure does not exist to support them".

Which seems very anti-EV.

I have a couple of friends are that EV only and they drive everywhere they did with gas, from the Atlantic coast of Canada To Ontario, and NY, on that non existent infrastructure.

Sorry I hurt your tender feelings with facts but next time try reading my posts slower & out loud instead of getting all emotional and jumping to conclusions

I’m very proud of you for having friends, you get a gold star today…..

 

[MountainDad]

I don't know why this isn't getting through, but again, no one is saying that the battery won't be used. The battery can be used to supplement the power of the generator for high load demands. Why do you think that's not the case?

The battery and the generator are both connected to the motors through a common inverter/controller. The generator does not need to go "through" the battery to power the motor.

I think you don't understand the engineering aspects of this. No one is saying it's technically impossible. We are just saying it is not the correct choice given all of the other considerations at play for the vehicle, and given the specific words the actual CEO has used to describe how it will work. And OBTW, it is not a fact (or a necessity) that the generator be connected to the motors. In fact, it is simpler for the generator to be connected to the battery, and only the battery be connected to the motors. The battery will provide more efficient energy to the motors than the ICE engine would.

Yes, the Ramcharger can do it, but you have to have a full-sized engine with all of the same issues they have such as emissions, gearing, switching between the battery as the power source and the generator as the power source, plus engine management controls that adjust the throttling of the engine within a specific range in order to generate current that is called for by the motors in direct mode. Then on top of that, you have the weight of the 3.0L ICE motor which takes away from electric-only range, you have to have a larger fuel tank, which adds even more weight, you have additional impact protection you have to engineer in to avoid shoving the engine into the passenger compartment in a frontal collision...etc etc.

Scout Motors does not want to build a Ramcharger. They want to build a vehicle that can drive for up to 500 miles on electric motors with the ability to recharge when far away from an electric charging station.

If you want a Ramcharger, buy a Ramcharger.

 

[MountainDad]

Went from a F250 with a 7.3L powerstroke diesel to a F150 till finally able to get a Raptor and back to the current F250 7.3L gasser…..no more diesel’s for this cat…..

I had an articulated steering front end loader running straight #1 freeze up on me pushing snow……while my personal diesel truck had 2 electric battery blankets, block heater and a oil pan heater running treated #1 no more diesel’s in winter

Have had the wife’s new whip for 11 months & put 18k miles on it already & would love for the Scout Traveller Harvester replacing it…….

I've had my diesel in -25F overnight, as well as sitting outside for days in -15F, and it starts right up, because I put DieselKleen anti-gel in the tank.

The battery might freeze, but that's a different problem.

 

[MountainDad]

In Georgia BEV has over $212 annual special tax (and it's going up every year), it'd be great if Harvester could be categorized as PHEV. Still get full federal tax credit but pay only $20 registration each year.
Win-win

And then watch your roads fall apart.

Granted, EV annual registration taxes are regressive taxes that only wealthy people can afford, but they still have to pay for road maintenance for state roads somehow, and EVs are heavier than comparable ICE vehicles today so they have a larger impact on the roads.

Seems to me they should implement a point-of-charge tax, and/or tax home charger usage through utilities tied to registration. But that's an argument for a different place and time.

 

[MountainDad]

Tell that to the huge V8 fan base Dodge built around the V8 & how they flip flopped from the V8 Demon to a I6 that is not as strong as the 1980’s V6 Buick GNX

Ford went to a V8 in the Raptor and the Mustang making profits while at the same time taking a 5 billion loss in the EV market

The old saying no replacement for displacement is still extremely valid

Regardless of all the political rhetoric (and pollution concerns) pushing EV’s they are only a very small segment of the auto industry & the infrastructure does not exist to support them

Are they the vehicle of the future, who knows but they do have a place in today’s society just like gasoline & diesel powered vehicles have a place

Automakers exist to sell cars, and to make money on the cars they sell. They'll sell the cars people want to buy, as long as they can make money on them.

V8s aren't going away because the automakers are ignoring what people want. They are responding to regulations on emissions and fuel economy imposed by the Government. Physics is physics - 8 cylinders thumping and pumping burn more than 6, or 4, or zero.

If you don't like it, vote da bums out.

 

[CarTechGeek]

Sorry I hurt your tender feelings with facts but next time try reading my posts slower & out loud instead of getting all emotional and jumping to conclusions

My feelings aren't hurt. It's just that saying there is "no infrastructure" to support EVs, is the kind of blatant falsehood, that I typically only see from the anti-EV folks at Fox news.

 

[n8rs]

I would like the Scout engineers who are working on the generator to give us details on the math that justifies the addition of a gas generator. How much battery capacity/range is lost compared to the non-range extender setup? What are the theorized e-mpg's of the range extender setup?

 

[Logan]

I would like the Scout engineers who are working on the generator to give us details on the math that justifies the addition of a gas generator. How much battery capacity/range is lost compared to the non-range extender setup? What are the theorized e-mpg's of the range extender setup?

All we have right now is what they've told us.

150 EV only range for the Harvester, and then 500 miles of range while using the range extender. What they haven't told us, is how it will do that.

TLDR:

IMO, Scouts will have an efficiency between that of a Hummer EV, and a Rivian R1 vehicle, around 2 miles per KW.

IMO the Harvester will most likely have a ~75kw useable battery, and a generator capable of producing ~35-80kw/hr, if they want it to keep up with the load on the freeway.

Lots of words:

At one extreme it could be that the Harvester generator will be small, and run the entire time (including while at 100% charge), because it cannot keep up with the expected electrical load to operate the vehicle by itself. Meaning, they're intending the vehicle to be charged/fueled up at the end of that 500 miles. This scenario is most similar to the BMW i3 REX.

At the other extreme we have the scenario where the Harvester engine is big enough to keep up with expected electrical demands, and they intend you to fuel up like a PHEV at the end of that 500 miles of range, and continue on with gasoline until you find a place you want to charge again.

We can also ballpark guess at efficiency. The Hummer EV has an efficiency of 1.6 miles per KW. The Rivian R1 series is between ~2.1-2.4 miles per KW depending on configuration. I'm guessing the Scouts will be less efficient than the Rivians (because aerodynamics), but more than the Hummer. Which means I believe we'll get something like ~1.8-2 miles per KW out of them.

With the range they gave us, and the efficiency guess, we can guess the size of the battery. If we assume 2 miles per KW of efficiency for easy math, the 150 mile range is then a ~75kw useable battery for the Harvester models. And to go 500 miles, you'd need ~250KW of electrical energy. So 250kw -75kw of battery = 175kw of the total energy has to come from the gasoline generator.

If that 2 miles per KW efficiency was based on 70mph, then in an hour we've used ~35kw. I personally don't think we'll see a generator smaller than that (the much smaller i3 REX used a 25kw generator, and the Chevy Volt used a 50kw one, I really doubt we'd see something smaller, but you never know).

 

[mike_scout]

I wonder about the stability of gas in a gas range extender. It seems like they could reduce the engine size if they used diesel. And with a stabilizer, diesel lasts for quite a long time. Or, I wonder if they would use propane to power the range extender. However, that would not have the size/displacement benefit of diesel.

I'm thrilled they kept the Frunk while adding the range extender!

 

[CarTechGeek]

I would like the Scout engineers who are working on the generator to give us details on the math that justifies the addition of a gas generator. How much battery capacity/range is lost compared to the non-range extender setup? What are the theorized e-mpg's of the range extender setup?

You don't need math.

Range extender will increase sales among those with Range Anxiety.

 

[CarTechGeek]

I wonder about the stability of gas in a gas range extender.

Gas should last 3 - 5 months. If you are going 6 months without burning a tank of gas, get a pure EV instead of a range extender. Rent a truck once/twice a year if you need it.

FWIW, I stored my Miata with a full tank of gas 5-6 months of the year ever year for many years, and doing so is a common thing in Canada, and I never heard anyone in the Miata community complain about gas issues from storage.

If you really go months between tanks and are worried about it. Try to find ethanol free gas, and get some gas stabilizer, and you can extend that interval out to a year.

It seems like they could reduce the engine size if they used diesel.

Diesel engines typically produce less power/liter, and less power/KG.

 

[Logan]

Gas should last 3 - 5 months. If you are going 6 months without burning a tank of gas, get a pure EV instead of a range extender. Rent a truck once/twice a year if you need it.

FWIW, I stored my Miata with a full tank of gas 5-6 months of the year ever year for many years, and doing so is a common thing in Canada, and I never heard anyone in the Miata community complain about gas issues from storage.

If you really go months between tanks and are worried about it. Try to find ethanol free gas, and get some gas stabilizer, and you can extend that interval out to a year.



Diesel engines typically produce less power/liter, and less power/KG.

I'd likely put stabilizer in the fuel in the Harvester for much of the year, tbh. Especially if I wasn't planning any road trips soon.

Although I've also left my jeep parked for over a year before (more than once, its only had 50k miles put on it in 15 years), and its been fine. But it has had me worried.

 

[CarTechGeek]

I'd likely put stabilizer in the fuel in the Harvester for much of the year, tbh. Especially if I wasn't planning any road trips soon.

Although I've also left my jeep parked for over a year before (more than once, its only had 50k miles put on it in 15 years), and its been fine. But it has had me worried.

Modern car fuel system are incredibly well sealed now, so there should be less evaporation and water absorption.

 

[Chaparral]

Nope. No need for a range extender with modern EVs. Such an engine would just add needless weight and complexity. Modern EVs charge fast enough and have long enough ranges that lugging an unreliable and redundant combustion engine around would be pointless and expensive while offering almost no benefits.

There will probably be no extra weight to lug around because the battery being a little bit smaller saves weight that is then used for the engine.

A lot of EVs are lugging around big battery packs that are rarely needed. Scout are providing the choice of lugging around a small engine instead. This will extend range beyond what a full-sized battery pack can offer and provide the versatility of two energy sources.

This is no doubt why Scout’s concept shows such a tiny engine - because the weight has to be in balance will how much it is used. I expect for most people their total miles driven will be more than 80% all-electric and less than 20% with the Harvester engine running. Making the Harvester bigger wouldn’t really change this (due to the fact that the vast majority of journeys are very short), therefore it should be as small as possible while enabling a certain range, which Scout say is 500 miles.

 

[shnngns]

You don't need math.

Range extender will increase sales among those with Range Anxiety.

Bingo. For me it's not so much range anxiety but more for when I'm in deep in the backcountry with no gas station OR charging station nearby, it would alleviate the concern of getting home or to a station of some kind if I can have some jerry cans attached.

 

[pwrofgrayskull]

You don't need math.

Range extender will increase sales among those with Range Anxiety.

Yep, agreed. It also increases sales for those that will be using the vehicles far from the beaten path adventuring and/or camping long distances from charging opportunities. Or towing. Depending on how they configure the Harvester option to function, it could help with towing long distances especially in areas with poor charging infrastructure. It’s not limited solely to those with range anxiety issues.

 

[Chaparral]

I'd likely put stabilizer in the fuel in the Harvester for much of the year, tbh. Especially if I wasn't planning any road trips soon.

Although I've also left my jeep parked for over a year before (more than once, its only had 50k miles put on it in 15 years), and its been fine. But it has had me worried.

I expect the vehicle computer will track how much the Harvester is being used and fire it up as necessary, not just to cycle through gas but also to move the oil around the engine.