Speculation Alert - possible Harvester Engine Choices

[Logan]

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

Well, the jeep in question is almost 30 years old, so not sure how "modern" that is at this point (although, still has ODB2 as a 1997 ).

But the point stands, I hear you.

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.

This does seem likely too.

I thought my PHEV might do this, but so far I've never hit a time limit when it starts firing up the engine just because. My record on one tank of fuel so far is ~2400 miles... so that was a good 3 months or so, and I thought I might hit it, but nope.

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.

The same math that told us the size of the Harvester versions battery, also gives us the size of the 350 mile BEV version. And therefore the weight difference, to an extent.

The Harvester needs a ~75kw battery to do its 150 EV only miles, while the 350 BEV version would need ~175kw (effective). That means the effective difference is about 100kw. A 100kw battery pack weighs about 1000-1200lbs (Kia's EV9 99.8KW battery pack is 1250lbs).

The gas engine and fuel will weigh another 300-500lbs. So the Harvester will likely weigh 500-750lbs LESS than the largest BEV version.

 

[Gurble]

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.

Man, I don't know what to say. Every time you describe how you think our model works, it's clear that you don't understand what we're saying. I simply don't know how we can be any clearer.

Then you go on to state a bunch of things about the Ramcharger which show that you don't know what you're talking about. By the way, gasoline is far, FAR more power dense than any battery. Exchanging battery size for gas tank size would make the car lighter, not heavier. But that's neither here nor there, because again, no one is suggesting that Scout is going to put a 3.0L V6 in the vehicle. There's a bunch of other stuff you brought up (gearing, emissions, power switching) that you're also wrong about, but honestly, it's just exhausting at this point. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Rampy]

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.

And you sound like a liberal snob who thinks the world revolves around the eastern seaboard or Kalif and has zero understanding of what it’s like to live anywhere outside our your little circle

You might try watching Fox now and then to learn something

 

[Logan]

FWIW:

The same math that told us the size of the Harvester versions battery, also gives us the size of the 350 mile BEV version. And therefore the weight difference, to an extent. And it definitely indicates that the Harvester will be lighter than the BEV version (at least the biggest battery pack that can do 350 miles).

*assuming the Harvester and biggest battery pack version use packs of similar energy density at least.

The Harvester needs a ~75kw battery to do its 150 EV only miles, while the 350 BEV version would need ~175kw (effective). That means the effective difference in battery size is about 100kw. A 100kw battery pack weighs about 1000-1200lbs (Kia's EV9 99.8KW battery pack is 1250lbs).

The gas engine and fuel will weigh another 300-500lbs. So the Harvester will likely weigh 500-750lbs LESS than the largest BEV version.

Heck, even if you toss in a larger engine like the Ramcharger, the math still says it would likely be lighter than the BEV version. The 3.6L V6 in the Ramcharger only weighs ~340lbs (about 140lbs more than the little 1L mentioned a bunch of times). And 27 gal of fuel only weighs 170lbs. So even with a large engine, and large gas tank, and all the other stuff with it, you'd have a hard time weighing more than the large pack BEV.

*this is not me saying a large engine is what will happen, just showing that a gas engine is pretty light.

I think I'm personally of the opinion that the harvester will likely have an output of ~40-80kw (likely from a 1-2.5L 3 or 4 cylinder) and a fuel tank capacity in the neighborhood of ~15 gal.

 

[Rampy]

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.

I was chastised for triggering a Calif liberal and that as a newcomer here to shut up and listen to the elders

Dodge made political decisions based on the anti fossil fuel idiots in the White House and how hard China Joe was pushing EV’s

Ford did that to a lesser extent and lost what 5 billion dollars??

We shall see what happens in the next 48-72 hours

 

[Rampy]

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.

Ambient temperature was -60F and my weather computer froze up at -100 wind chill, but it was a 3 day North Dakota blizzard

 

[J Alynn]

And you sound like a liberal snob who thinks the world revolves around the eastern seaboard or Kalif and has zero understanding of what it’s like to live anywhere outside our your little circle

You might try watching Fox now and then to learn something

For two years this has been a very civil site and we’ve avoided this aggressive banter. The forum should be enjoyable for all, enjoy the site for the info and sharing that happens. I learned quickly you can’t be right every time you post. Several folks were forcibly removed early on in a very short period of time and would hate to see that become the new norm again

 

[Rampy]

For two years this has been a very civil site and we’ve avoided this aggressive banter. The forum should be enjoyable for all, enjoy the site for the info and sharing that happens. I learned quickly you can’t be right every time you post. Several folks were forcibly removed early on in a very short period of time and would hate to see that become the new norm again

I’m just replying to someone who started things, don’t threaten me with a good time while not threatening the other poster who started it

 

[J Alynn]

I’m just replying to someone who started things, don’t threaten me with a good time while not threatening the other poster who started it

Good luck!

 

[Rampy]

Good luck!

I get it, this has been a tight nit community and newcomers are not welcome, especially if they are loud mouth A holes at times

I’ve seen at least 6-8 times since joining all kinds of insinuating derogatory comments about new members

 

[J Alynn]

I get it, this has been a tight nit community and newcomers are not welcome, especially if they are loud mouth A holes at times

I’ve seen at least 6-8 times since joining all kinds of insinuating derogatory comments about new members

It certainly isn’t old vs new and I’m sorry you think that! I try to view every new post every day and go out of my way when possible to welcome new members. Those of us who traveled to the reveal were all equally enthusiastic about sharing what we learned first hand to ALL members. I too have issues some days and can be snarky. But I also try to share news, “like” open dialogs and support as much as I can or at least most threads-for example, as I’ve noted, if they shove a hamster wheel and a pair of critters in the frunk and that runs the vehicle I’m all for it but some threads just don’t interest me so I just take a quick glance and move on.
The success of this forum thus far and support of the SM staff has been positive dialog by us all.
I wasn’t siding with the other poster but in reading the posts your side was very aggressively received as theirs didn’t seem as aggressive to my point of view. I’m certainly not the forum police so speak freely as you wish-I will just choose to avoid your posts and look forward to reading those who are members, long or short term that want to offer less aggressive commentary. I’ve enjoyed and “liked” a number of your posts but now soured I just will focus energy on the other members.
Short of politics, Jamie lets everyone speak freely here. Surely not all my posts are well received by everyone and that’s fine by me-I try to speak freely and with out agendas or aggression. In the end I just hope to offer way more positive than negative feedback.
Please continue to enjoy the forum and hope you get as much out of it as I do.

 

[AAW83]

I don’t think a lot of you commenting in this thread realize what the Harvester generator actually does. The Harvester is going to be a compact engine who’s sole purpose is to recharge the battery probably via an alternator. It would kick in when the battery is at a certain percentage, hence extending range without having to stop to recharge so often. The Harvester engine is not going to be connected to the drivetrain or serve as additional power to the wheels.

The real question is what kind of engine will they use and how much room would it take up. I think Scout should actually look into an engine similar to the e-REX by INNengine. It would be very compact in size (smaller than an electric motor), have tons of power, very efficient and would make no noise or vibration. They could probably put 2 of these in a vehicle if they wanted to.

 

[speedrye]

I like the innovative engine options, I just want electrical output to be equal to or greater than what I would use going down the road at 70mph in a lightly-loaded vehicle. Whether Scout can or will do that won't be answered any time soon, but that answer will definitely affect sales. If anybody that is wanting a smaller, low-output generator ends up with a larger one, I don't think they'll walk on a sale. On the other hand, there are a lot of us that will cancel our orders if the generator is too small. I want a Swiss Army Knife, not a one-trick pony. A vehicle I can drive on gas if really needed, but one that mostly saves me money by running on electricity. A vehicle that I can take camping without worrying about using all of the battery up being hundreds of miles from the nearest charging station. A vehicle that I can use as a generator OR battery backup for power outages at home. Ultimately, that's why I canceled my Rivian R1S preorder, despite the locked-in, low pricing that the early preorders got.

 

[CarTechGeek]

I don’t think a lot of you commenting in this thread realize what the Harvester generator actually does. The Harvester is going to be a compact engine who’s sole purpose is to recharge the battery probably via an alternator. It would kick in when the battery is at a certain percentage, hence extending range without having to stop to recharge so often. The Harvester engine is not going to be connected to the drivetrain or serve as additional power to the wheels.

The real question is what kind of engine will they use and how much room would it take up. I think Scout should actually look into an engine similar to the e-REX by INNengine. It would be very compact in size (smaller than an electric motor), have tons of power, very efficient and would make no noise or vibration. They could probably put 2 of these in a vehicle if they wanted to.

You keep bringing this same experimental engine up in multiple threads.

The reality is that this is essentially a prototype experimental engine. It was only just revealed to the world in 2023. Nothing they claim is verified by third parties. They have been caught making misleading statements in their demo video where they put one in a Miata.

Harvester is critical for Scout, and they can't afford to risk it on some sketchy untested technology.

If the INNengine is really all they claim, then it seems like they would have all kind of takers. Honda could build one of it's portable generators with it. Toyota with it's vast resources could license it. Etc...

But Scout needs reliable, proven technology for their RE.

 

[LastDayScout]

Why you ask? Great question... It's simple.

Because the Harvester motor will be quite small relative to the size of the battery pack and small relative to the size of the truck and its curb weight. And, if you go by CarTEchGeek and the i3 example, then you are essentially using a scooter battery (34 HP) to send power to a motor directly. Yes, 34 HP!

This is also why Scout has a stake in the sand and has stated a 500 mi estimated RANGE for these vehicles (which is absolutely phenomenal BTW). All the naysayers wants to be able to drive for 15 hours straight without stopping for gas or energy. Why they want to do this type of torturous driving, I dunno. That's not for me, and I am perfectly happy to stop, charge, pee and eat while road tripping. Right now there is not a nuclear-optioned Scout to drive for ever.

Now, if you want to take away the EV benefits (including HP, instantaneous TORQUE and all of the additional storage space Scout has planned for everyone), then you could put a giant V6 in the frunk and build a RAM and pretend its an EV. Or you could put a Scooter motor in and skip the whole battery thing.

Even if you went full MAD MAX and filled the bed with all the gas from GAS TOWN, you would be pulling MORE WEIGHT and you would not recoup enough energy to drive for 15 hours at HWY speeds. The truck would simply consume more than it receives from the Harvester. Again there is a stated range of 500 for a reason.
View attachment 3577

Do you know if the vehicle pictured includes crab walk?

 

[MountainDad]

Ambient temperature was -60F and my weather computer froze up at -100 wind chill, but it was a 3 day North Dakota blizzard

Yep, that is cold. Not much will operate at those temps no matter what you do.

 

[MountainDad]

Man, I don't know what to say. Every time you describe how you think our model works, it's clear that you don't understand what we're saying. I simply don't know how we can be any clearer.

Then you go on to state a bunch of things about the Ramcharger which show that you don't know what you're talking about. By the way, gasoline is far, FAR more power dense than any battery. Exchanging battery size for gas tank size would make the car lighter, not heavier. But that's neither here nor there, because again, no one is suggesting that Scout is going to put a 3.0L V6 in the vehicle. There's a bunch of other stuff you brought up (gearing, emissions, power switching) that you're also wrong about, but honestly, it's just exhausting at this point. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Mmmkay

 

[MountainDad]

I was chastised for triggering a Calif liberal and that as a newcomer here to shut up and listen to the elders

Dodge made political decisions based on the anti fossil fuel idiots in the White House and how hard China Joe was pushing EV’s

Ford did that to a lesser extent and lost what 5 billion dollars??

We shall see what happens in the next 48-72 hours

How does regulation work? It influences the supply side only, by dictating how much of what can be approved for sale.

When you mandate a certain schedule that requires a certain progressively higher corporate average fuel economy number, then automakers have to change the types and numbers of vehicles they produce in order to achieve that corporate average number. That number is based on sales, not production numbers.

If the vast majority of their sales happens to be a class of vehicle that causes their averages to exceed the regulated number, they have three choices:

1. Pay a fine and pass the cost on to the consumer - at some point, however, regulatory bodies tire of this behavior and either jack up the fines or take action through the Justice Department - Hyundai gambled and lost on this one with their fuel economy certification violations

2. Reduce the number of vehicles in this class they build and offer, and increase the number of compliant vehicles they sell

3. Redesign the vehicle so that it meets requirements and try to sell it to the same people who bought it before

Keep in mind the US Government lost about $10 Billion of their GM bailout, and Chrysler left taxpayers short about $1.3B. Now, GM and Stellantis are receiving a total of about $1.8B in loans from you and me to build out EV production infrastructure. Don't think for a minute that doesn't come with strings attached, such as discontinuing popular but "dirty" engines such as their best-selling V8's.

Not advocating, simply stating facts.

And OBTW, the California Air Resources Board absolutely dictates what vehicles can be sold in the United States more than the EPA, because they have implemented regulations tighter than the EPA, and 13 other states have signed on to their bandwagon. If cars don't meet those regulations, they can't be sold on those states, and it's too expensive for automakers to make different vehicles for sale between the US and Canada, never mind between different US states.

 

[RebelliousPeasant]

Well, the jeep in question is almost 30 years old, so not sure how "modern" that is at this point (although, still has ODB2 as a 1997 ).

But the point stands, I hear you.


This does seem likely too.

I thought my PHEV might do this, but so far I've never hit a time limit when it starts firing up the engine just because. My record on one tank of fuel so far is ~2400 miles... so that was a good 3 months or so, and I thought I might hit it, but nope.



The same math that told us the size of the Harvester versions battery, also gives us the size of the 350 mile BEV version. And therefore the weight difference, to an extent.

The Harvester needs a ~75kw battery to do its 150 EV only miles, while the 350 BEV version would need ~175kw (effective). That means the effective difference is about 100kw. A 100kw battery pack weighs about 1000-1200lbs (Kia's EV9 99.8KW battery pack is 1250lbs).

The gas engine and fuel will weigh another 300-500lbs. So the Harvester will likely weigh 500-750lbs LESS than the largest BEV version.

The math seems to math but with EV batteries the units we typically use are kWh for storage capacity and kW for power. They aren't interchangeable but they are related. A 75 kWh pack for a truck this big seems about right to give 240 km of range, that's about half as efficient as my current EV which seems like it would be in the right ballpark for a brick-shaped truck. So yeah, I buy those numbers. For the pure EV version I was kinda expecting a 200 kWh pack, that's what the Silverado and Hummer both have for similar ranges so as far as napkin math goes these numbers seem reasonable.

The big question is what is the power output of the engine, that'll determine if the Scouts will be able to keep up on the highway with an unladen swallow or whether the smaller pack will slowly deplete until the truck goes into a sort of limp mode like the i3 used to do.

 

[UberBar]

I think if stationary the onboard generator can recharge the battery if drained, but as an extender I doubt if the generator can move the vehicle once battery fully drained.

I feel the Ram charger with that big V6 may be able to achieve this - perhaps something like a non turbo boxster 4 will do same?