Speculation Alert - possible Harvester Engine Choices

[dumbdork]

I think I've read this entire thread and its gotten me thinking. As with everything, there's tradeoffs. I see this as a slider/gradient/range:

On one side, you have a fully capable ICE with a teeny tiny battery. Not a PHEV cause battery is so small it doesnt matter much. F150 Hybrid is what I'm thinking (exclude the series v parallel hybrid/drive train discussion for now).

On the other end of the range is a pure BEV. F150 Lightning, R1T, Ram REV, etc.

A bit closer to the F150 Hybrid is the RamCharger, with its 'mostly fully capable' motor (but no frunk) and a decently sized battery. Also probably going to be $80k+, but thats a guess.

F150 Hybrid========RamCharger==================(Terra/Traveler?)===================BEV

The questions are:
1. What is the Harvester solving for? Driving 65mph unladen (aka EPA estimates)? Towing an RV trailer (like my GD 2400BH) at 75 in 40mph headwinds while climbing from 2k' to 7k' elevation (like I did leaving Moab last year)? There's a ton of different applications here.

2. How are you solving for it? Can I drive either on battery or gas? Do I need both? eg: To get my 500mi, do I need to run the engine the whole time, or can I leave the house with 10% battery and just flip on the Harvester and get 300+ mi? Or to get the 500mi, do I really need to just flip on the Harvester when I start with 100% battery, and when I get 500mi, do I need to recharge AND refuel?

I think once those two questions are answered (no doubt by market research), they can apply the right solution along the gradient. Larger battery + smaller ICE vs smaller battery + larger ICE.

My gut says RamCharger is the PHEV thats solving for the heavy towing uphill both ways application. Traveler probably doesnt need a large ICE cause I dont see it as being heavily used for towing. I honestly suspect, given the heritage, Terra will also go with Traveler here and not be a 'tow anywhere with full capabilities at all times' truck. It'll be more-so an offroading truck with an ability to tow decent loads, but you'd need to recharge the battery and refuel when you're out of both. I say this despite the fact I'd love it to be closer to the RamCharger capabilities. But I just dont think thats the crowd they're aiming for.

There's sayings like 'heres 3 options, pick any 2'. I feel like there's something like that here but I cant put my finger on it.

Pick any 2?
- big battery
- capable ICE for any application
- $60k and usable frunk

Something like that

And then you have all the regulations to solve for (iirc i3 had its motor neutered for regulatory stuffs). I wont even start into that. I'm sure someone in Scout has a large spreadsheet with a ton of pros/cons of all this stuff tho.

 

[Logan]

I think I've read this entire thread and its gotten me thinking. As with everything, there's tradeoffs. I see this as a slider/gradient/range:

On one side, you have a fully capable ICE with a teeny tiny battery. Not a PHEV cause battery is so small it doesnt matter much. F150 Hybrid is what I'm thinking (exclude the series v parallel hybrid/drive train discussion for now).

On the other end of the range is a pure BEV. F150 Lightning, R1T, Ram REV, etc.

A bit closer to the F150 Hybrid is the RamCharger, with its 'mostly fully capable' motor (but no frunk) and a decently sized battery. Also probably going to be $80k+, but thats a guess.

F150 Hybrid========RamCharger==================(Terra/Traveler?)===================BEV

The questions are:
1. What is the Harvester solving for? Driving 65mph unladen (aka EPA estimates)? Towing an RV trailer (like my GD 2400BH) at 75 in 40mph headwinds while climbing from 2k' to 7k' elevation (like I did leaving Moab last year)? There's a ton of different applications here.

2. How are you solving for it? Can I drive either on battery or gas? Do I need both? eg: To get my 500mi, do I need to run the engine the whole time, or can I leave the house with 10% battery and just flip on the Harvester and get 300+ mi? Or to get the 500mi, do I really need to just flip on the Harvester when I start with 100% battery, and when I get 500mi, do I need to recharge AND refuel?

I think once those two questions are answered (no doubt by market research), they can apply the right solution along the gradient. Larger battery + smaller ICE vs smaller battery + larger ICE.

My gut says RamCharger is the PHEV thats solving for the heavy towing uphill both ways application. Traveler probably doesnt need a large ICE cause I dont see it as being heavily used for towing. I honestly suspect, given the heritage, Terra will also go with Traveler here and not be a 'tow anywhere with full capabilities at all times' truck. It'll be more-so an offroading truck with an ability to tow decent loads, but you'd need to recharge the battery and refuel when you're out of both. I say this despite the fact I'd love it to be closer to the RamCharger capabilities. But I just dont think thats the crowd they're aiming for.

There's sayings like 'heres 3 options, pick any 2'. I feel like there's something like that here but I cant put my finger on it.

Pick any 2?
- big battery
- capable ICE for any application
- $60k and usable frunk

Something like that

And then you have all the regulations to solve for (iirc i3 had its motor neutered for regulatory stuffs). I wont even start into that. I'm sure someone in Scout has a large spreadsheet with a ton of pros/cons of all this stuff tho.

I agree with much of what you've said.

Just want to point out that we sort of know the battery size of the harvester, and it won't be a big battery. In fact, it will likely be the smallest battery offering. They've said a number of times that it is a ~150 mile EV range.

I've shown the math in earlier posts, but the short version, is I expect the battery size of the Harvester version to be ~75KWh, while I suspect the 350 mile BEV version will be ~175KWh (based on estimated efficiency of ~2 miles per KWh, and the range estimates).

Now, you could still have the 75KWh battery, and have very different behavior/targets.

• ~75kWh battery, tiny generator like the I3 REX
  • Designed to be turned on the moment you leave the driveway, and run at full tilt the whole time you're driving
  • The tiny generator does not (and is not designed to) meet the electrical demand of travel, but puts you in a "we've slowed the rate of discharge" sort of situation.
  • Still results in 150mile EV range, and 500 mile EV/Gas range.
  • At the end of those 500 miles, you have to charge, and maybe refuel as well.
• ~75KWh battery, big generator like the Ramcharger
  • Designed to turn on when you hit ~20% battery like most other PHEV's
  • Generator is designed to keep up with most expected electrical demands of travel.
  • Still results in 150 mile EV range and 500 mile EV/Gas range.
  • Provides a "gas and go" experience like a PHEV, charging again when you reach your destination.

Like you, I personally expect we'll see something in the middle. I know the packaging constraints. But I really don't think they'll be putting anything as small as the i3/Volt in the Scout. But I also agree they won't as likely be trying to satisfy the "tow up and down the rocky mountains all day long without any impact" thing like the Ramcharger either (at least with the Traveler).

Which means I'm personally betting on a 1-2L engine, with something like ~60-90kw of output, or thereabouts.

But I sure will be interested to see what the Scout engineers dream up for us .

 

[pwrofgrayskull]

I agree with much of what you've said.

Just want to point out that we sort of know the battery size of the harvester, and it won't be a big battery. In fact, it will likely be the smallest battery offering. They've said a number of times that it is a ~150 mile EV range.

I've shown the math in earlier posts, but the short version, is I expect the battery size of the Harvester version to be ~75KWh, while I suspect the 350 mile BEV version will be ~175KWh (based on estimated efficiency of ~2 miles per KWh, and the range estimates).

Now, you could still have the 75KWh battery, and have very different behavior/targets.

• ~75kWh battery, tiny generator like the I3 REX
  • Designed to be turned on the moment you leave the driveway, and run at full tilt the whole time you're driving
  • The tiny generator does not (and is not designed to) meet the electrical demand of travel, but puts you in a "we've slowed the rate of discharge" sort of situation.
  • Still results in 150mile EV range, and 500 mile EV/Gas range.
  • At the end of those 500 miles, you have to charge, and maybe refuel as well.
• ~75KWh battery, big generator like the Ramcharger
  • Designed to turn on when you hit ~20% battery like most other PHEV's
  • Generator is designed to keep up with most expected electrical demands of travel.
  • Still results in 150 mile EV range and 500 mile EV/Gas range.
  • Provides a "gas and go" experience like a PHEV, charging again when you reach your destination.

Like you, I personally expect we'll see something in the middle. I know the packaging constraints. But I really don't think they'll be putting anything as small as the i3/Volt in the Scout. But I also agree they won't as likely be trying to satisfy the "tow up and down the rocky mountains all day long without any impact" thing like the Ramcharger either (at least with the Traveler).

Which means I'm personally betting on a 1-2L engine, with something like ~60-90kw of output, or thereabouts.

But I sure will be interested to see what the Scout engineers dream up for us .

Great info and summary here, thank you. Same here, I really can’t wait to see what they come up with. For my use, I am really hoping they slide a little closer to the 75KWh scenario you laid out. If nothing else, I and many others are hoping that at the end of 500 miles with the Harvester you do not need to charge AND fuel up. “Gas and go” experience is one of the pieces of the puzzle I am watching the closest because of the way (and WHERE) I will be using my Scout.

 

[dumbdork]

I agree with much of what you've said.

Just want to point out that we sort of know the battery size of the harvester, and it won't be a big battery. In fact, it will likely be the smallest battery offering. They've said a number of times that it is a ~150 mile EV range.

I've shown the math in earlier posts, but the short version, is I expect the battery size of the Harvester version to be ~75KWh, while I suspect the 350 mile BEV version will be ~175KWh (based on estimated efficiency of ~2 miles per KWh, and the range estimates).

Now, you could still have the 75KWh battery, and have very different behavior/targets.

• ~75kWh battery, tiny generator like the I3 REX
  • Designed to be turned on the moment you leave the driveway, and run at full tilt the whole time you're driving
  • The tiny generator does not (and is not designed to) meet the electrical demand of travel, but puts you in a "we've slowed the rate of discharge" sort of situation.
  • Still results in 150mile EV range, and 500 mile EV/Gas range.
  • At the end of those 500 miles, you have to charge, and maybe refuel as well.
• ~75KWh battery, big generator like the Ramcharger
  • Designed to turn on when you hit ~20% battery like most other PHEV's
  • Generator is designed to keep up with most expected electrical demands of travel.
  • Still results in 150 mile EV range and 500 mile EV/Gas range.
  • Provides a "gas and go" experience like a PHEV, charging again when you reach your destination.

Like you, I personally expect we'll see something in the middle. I know the packaging constraints. But I really don't think they'll be putting anything as small as the i3/Volt in the Scout. But I also agree they won't as likely be trying to satisfy the "tow up and down the rocky mountains all day long without any impact" thing like the Ramcharger either (at least with the Traveler).

Which means I'm personally betting on a 1-2L engine, with something like ~60-90kw of output, or thereabouts.

But I sure will be interested to see what the Scout engineers dream up for us .

I'm proud of you for getting the kwh stuff ironed out (that stuff didnt make sense to me when I first learned it either)

One thing I haven't sat down and done the math on: 150mi battery + 350mi ICE would I think basically make the engine fully functional? That would basically be providing a 2.3:1 ratio of ICE:battery electrons going to the motors. That means the the ICE would be doing a majority of the work, no? And if it can provide >2x the amount of miles than the battery, it'd need to be well up in that ability to cover 2mi/kwh.

I would think if the 'slow the battery drain' idea was implemented, you'd need a battery >50% of your goal range?

And tbh, I don't think the 150mi battery is set in stone given the late addition idea of the Harvester. It's a good starting point, but if the density goes up and/or cost comes down enough to fit both a 300mi battery and a small generator in there for the price point, I think they'd do that.

 

[Logan]

I'm proud of you for getting the kwh stuff ironed out (that stuff didnt make sense to me when I first learned it either)

One thing I haven't sat down and done the math on: 150mi battery + 350mi ICE would I think basically make the engine fully functional? That would basically be providing a 2.3:1 ratio of ICE:battery electrons going to the motors. That means the the ICE would be doing a majority of the work, no? And if it can provide >2x the amount of miles than the battery, it'd need to be well up in that ability to cover 2mi/kwh.

I would think if the 'slow the battery drain' idea was implemented, you'd need a battery >50% of your goal range?

And tbh, I don't think the 150mi battery is set in stone given the late addition idea of the Harvester. It's a good starting point, but if the density goes up and/or cost comes down enough to fit both a 300mi battery and a small generator in there for the price point, I think they'd do that.

I've had to work my way up to it. And ask around, I still screw up the units .

So, here is how it maths. Sorry, words alert.

If we know that its 2 miles per KWh, then to go 500 miles, we need 250KWh of energy. And with the Harvester, we know we start with ~75KHw in the battery. That means we need to generate the other 175KWh of energy with the Harvester generator. But its how we do that that matters.

If we do the "start the generator the moment we leave, and let it slow down our battery drain", we don't need a huge generator.

500 miles at 70mph, is a smidge over 7 hours (70mph x 7hrs = 490 miles). Which means in theory we only need a generator to provide 25KW per hour, to keep up with that (7hrs x 25KW = 175KWh). That is a pretty small generator. Like the BMW i3 REX used a 0.6L motorcycle engine, that produced that much.

Alternatively, if we know that we have the "2 miles per KW" efficiency at 70mph (estimate, but makes for easier math), that means in an hour, we've gone 70 miles, but also used 35KWh of energy (70 miles/2 miles per KW == 35KWh). So on flat ground, we'd need a generator that can produce at least 35KW of output to keep up with 70mph cruising.

That said, the 35KW is the NET amount of power we need from the generator, not the gross. This is because there are electrical inefficiencies (converting the power). And obviously if you want to go up a hill, or tow, that number is going to increase. But the math says that in theory, in perfect conditions, you don't need a "huge" generator to slow down the drain.

Now, I think they're not going to design for flat ground, and I think they're "more likely" going to be doing something closer to the "gas and go" approach for the harvester. Which means I'm personally thinking the Traveler will be getting something more in the ~80-100KW output range myself, but thats totally speculation.

The Ramcharger is using a 130-190KW V6 as its generator. They're clearly getting it set to tow.

 

[J Alynn]

I still come back to the basic question of “when do you stop to recharge the battery”. If you can start your trip and theoretically just stop every 5 hours for gas is that not, now a hybrid? At some point during a 10-22 hour trip I gotta think the battery needs recharged. If not then why not just call it a hybrid with an oversized gas driven “alternator” to be able to start it moving.
Sorry I’m the dumb guy or maybe it’s just semantics and that is what it becomes as a Harvester.

 

[dumbdork]

I've had to work my way up to it. And ask around, I still screw up the units .

So, here is how it maths. Sorry, words alert.

If we know that its 2 miles per KWh, then to go 500 miles, we need 250KWh of energy. And with the Harvester, we know we start with ~75KHw in the battery. That means we need to generate the other 175KWh of energy with the Harvester generator. But its how we do that that matters.

If we do the "start the generator the moment we leave, and let it slow down our battery drain", we don't need a huge generator.

500 miles at 70mph, is a smidge over 7 hours (70mph x 7hrs = 490 miles). Which means in theory we only need a generator to provide 25KW per hour, to keep up with that (7hrs x 25KW = 175KWh). That is a pretty small generator. Like the BMW i3 REX used a 0.6L motorcycle engine, that produced that much.

Alternatively, if we know that we have the "2 miles per KW" efficiency at 70mph (estimate, but makes for easier math), that means in an hour, we've gone 70 miles, but also used 35KWh of energy (70 miles/2 miles per KW == 35KWh). So on flat ground, we'd need a generator that can produce at least 35KW of output to keep up with 70mph cruising.

That said, the 35KW is the NET amount of power we need from the generator, not the gross. This is because there are electrical inefficiencies (converting the power). And obviously if you want to go up a hill, or tow, that number is going to increase. But the math says that in theory, in perfect conditions, you don't need a "huge" generator to slow down the drain.

Now, I think they're not going to design for flat ground, and I think they're "more likely" going to be doing something closer to the "gas and go" approach for the harvester. Which means I'm personally thinking the Traveler will be getting something more in the ~80-100KW output range myself, but thats totally speculation.

The Ramcharger is using a 130-190KW V6 as its generator. They're clearly getting it set to tow.

Hah. As I was reading this, you mentioned 'gross energy' and I'm thinking 'but its spread out over time'...which you did the math on This makes perfect sense. I think we're all coalescing on the same ideas: make it reasonably usable on flat ground but not a towing beast OR make it an full featured ICE with a bigger battery than the F150 Hybrid (aka Ramcharger direction).

Despite the fact I bought my Tundra primarily for towing and the Ramcharger fits my needs more, I'd be inclined to think Scout will aim for the former option (aka your `~75kWh battery, tiny generator like the I3 REX` that you laid out so well). And frankly, I'm in. I LOVE the look of the Scout so much I'll deal with the occasional towing drawbacks. Probably wont be doing many more massive towing trips anyway.

Thank you for laying out all your thoughts so well. Let us know when Scout hires you

 

[Logan]

I still come back to the basic question of “when do you stop to recharge the battery”. If you can start your trip and theoretically just stop every 5 hours for gas is that not, now a hybrid? At some point during a 10-22 hour trip I gotta think the battery needs recharged. If not then why not just call it a hybrid with an oversized gas driven “alternator” to be able to start it moving.
Sorry I’m the dumb guy or maybe it’s just semantics and that is what it becomes as a Harvester.

You're not dumb at all .

If it helps. An EREV is a hybrid by definition (it is a hybrid of EV, and Gas). Its a Series Hybrid, instead of a Parallel hybrid. And for whatever reason, most Parallel Hybrids are called "PHEV's (Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle)", while Series hybrids are called "EREV's (Extended Range Electric Vehicle)".

In a parallel hybrid, both the internal combustion engine (ICE) and the electric motor can directly drive the wheels. They can work independently or together. Most PHEV's have small electric batteries (mine is ~13.8KWh), and an electric range of ~25-40 miles, and drive the rest on gasoline. Which means by definition, they are "gas and go" vehicles, that you could easily drive without ever charging.

In a series hybrid, the internal combustion engine (ICE) generates electricity which powers an electric motor. The electric motor is solely responsible for driving the wheels. There haven't really been many in the US market, so "what is normal" isn't as well known. But those we have seen have have larger batteries than a parallel hybrid.

Which really means that a Series hybrid is an evolution of the parallel hybrid (IMO), with greater range.

And all PHEV's on the market today that I'm aware of, are "gas and go". Which I think is why many people here are discussing the "gas and go" expectations for the Harvester. Because by definition, it IS a hybrid. Its just a hybrid that happens to function like a pure battery electric vehicle for up to 150 miles of range. Which means that for 99% of normal around town/commuting, it is an electric vehicle. But when you're on the road, its a hybrid, and you fill with gas.

Which means in the second scenario, after a 22 hr road trip, when do you charge? When you reach your destination/home.

Of course we don't know if that is how it WILL work, but I think that's where the expectation comes from.

Hah. As I was reading this, you mentioned 'gross energy' and I'm thinking 'but its spread out over time'...which you did the math on This makes perfect sense. I think we're all coalescing on the same ideas: make it reasonably usable on flat ground but not a towing beast OR make it an full featured ICE with a bigger battery than the F150 Hybrid (aka Ramcharger direction).

Despite the fact I bought my Tundra primarily for towing and the Ramcharger fits my needs more, I'd be inclined to think Scout will aim for the former option (aka your `~75kWh battery, tiny generator like the I3 REX` that you laid out so well). And frankly, I'm in. I LOVE the look of the Scout so much I'll deal with the occasional towing drawbacks. Probably wont be doing many more massive towing trips anyway.

Thank you for laying out all your thoughts so well. Let us know when Scout hires you

Yep, I think we're saying similar things . I just don't think that we'll see a truely tiny generator in there. I think it will be bigger than the i3/Volt, but smaller than the Ramcharger. Because I'm sure they know the main reason so many people are reserving it, are because they either want the additional towing range, or the long trip scenario (highway, or offroad).

And no job offer from Scout for me, but I'll let you all know if somehow that happened .

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

I should point out that 150 miles of battery range doesn't necessarily reflect on the battery size. There could be conditions where the engine/generator kicks on to start "extending range" before SOC reaches 20%. Make sense?

 

[Logan]

I should point out that 150 miles of battery range doesn't necessarily reflect on the battery size. There could be conditions where the engine/generator kicks on to start "extending range" before SOC reaches 20%. Make sense?

Absolutely.

Thanks for pointing it out again. The range extender does certainly add a wrinkle into the equation.

I mentioned it earlier, but didn’t this last time. If I’m not mistaken then, the more accurate statement would then be that the minimum useable battery size results in a range of 150 miles, correct?

Thanks for keeping an eye on us, and keeping us (ok, maybe just me) from drifting too far off base .

 

[Scoutsie]

I’m amazed by the passion and willingness you guys have had to write 18 pages of Harvester fanfiction. I wish I had more knowledge than “I know what engines are and how they work” and could join in!

 

[Logan]

Oh, one more thing I noticed yesterday while responding in yet another thread about this (but putting the thought here, as its larger/has more eyes).

We've all been theorycrafting about the engine sizes for the Harvester. And we've been comparing it mostly to the BMW i3, Chevy Volt, and upcoming Ram Ramcharger. The general consensus seems to be that the i3 REX had too small of generator, and that the Ramchargers 3.6L V6 is too large for packaging/placement in the rear of the vehicle, so maybe something between those makes sense.

In all of that, I had forgotten that the Ramcharger had a much higher towing rating than the Scouts are projected to have, at 14,000lbs. This is a full 40% higher than the Terra (10,000lbs), and ~87% higher than the Traveler (7,500lbs).

The Ramchargers 3.6L is rated for 174HP continuous output, with up to ~255HP under peak load.

If you try to use that, to help predict what power/size of engine you'd need for a Scout Generator, it is actually pretty helpful.

If you reduce the Ramchargers 174HP by 40%, you end up with ~105HP (174hp x 0.6 ~= 105hp, and max load of ~255hp x 0.6 ~= 153hp ). If you do it by displacement (not a great metric, as engines are not the same efficiency), then you get something a smidge over 2L. (3.6L x 0.6 = 2.16L).

I'm hopeful that this improves the chances that we'll see a generator that can handle the electrical load under a larger variety of use cases in the Scout. As while I know things don't scale perfectly like the math above, the difference in towing ratings was big enough that I thought it should be called out, because it does materially change the needed output for the vehicle, and therefore it does potentially change the packaging constraints quite a bit.

 

[J Alynn]

Oh, one more thing I noticed yesterday while responding in yet another thread about this (but putting the thought here, as its larger/has more eyes).

We've all been theorycrafting about the engine sizes for the Harvester. And we've been comparing it mostly to the BMW i3, Chevy Volt, and upcoming Ram Ramcharger. The general consensus seems to be that the i3 REX had too small of generator, and that the Ramchargers 3.6L V6 is too large for packaging/placement in the rear of the vehicle, so maybe something between those makes sense.

In all of that, I had forgotten that the Ramcharger had a much higher towing rating than the Scouts are projected to have, at 14,000lbs. This is a full 40% higher than the Terra (10,000lbs), and ~87% higher than the Traveler (7,500lbs).

The Ramchargers 3.6L is rated for 174HP continuous output, with up to ~255HP under peak load.

If you try to use that, to help predict what power/size of engine you'd need for a Scout Generator, it is actually pretty helpful.

If you reduce the Ramchargers 174HP by 40%, you end up with ~105HP (174hp x 0.6 ~= 105hp, and max load of ~255hp x 0.6 ~= 153hp ). If you do it by displacement (not a great metric, as engines are not the same efficiency), then you get something a smidge over 2L. (3.6L x 0.6 = 2.16L).

I'm hopeful that this improves the chances that we'll see a generator that can handle the electrical load under a larger variety of use cases in the Scout. As while I know things don't scale perfectly like the math above, the difference in towing ratings was big enough that I thought it should be called out, because it does materially change the needed output for the vehicle, and therefore it does potentially change the packaging constraints quite a bit.

I still think it’s crated 1970’s beetle engines but hey, a man can dream!

 

[Chaparral]

I should point out that 150 miles of battery range doesn't necessarily reflect on the battery size. There could be conditions where the engine/generator kicks on to start "extending range" before SOC reaches 20%. Make sense?

Thanks for this clarification.

 

[speedrye]

I still think it’s crated 1970’s beetle engines but hey, a man can dream!

Air-cooled flat-6 using old 911 castings, haha. No coolant plumbing needed either way, and with no water pump, power steering pump, A/C compressor, etc, it's a compact package. Pretty much just an engine with a big fan on one end and a generator on the other.

 

[LastDayScout]

Air-cooled flat-6 using old 911 castings, haha. No coolant plumbing needed either way, and with no water pump, power steering pump, A/C compressor, etc, it's a compact package. Pretty much just an engine with a big fan on one end and a generator on the other.

I have mentioned that an air-cooled engine could possibly be a good idea to simplify the cooling plumbing. But, who knows. At least VW has (had) lots of air cooled experience.

 

[Harris005]

I just read 18 pages of this post straight through .......sooooooo is the Harvester going to supply electricity to the batteries, or motors? Asking for a friend.

 

[J Alynn]

Is it your imaginary friend? I think that was answered on the 5 or 6th page but I’m sure if you go back and start from the beginning you’ll get your answer

 

[dumbdork]

I just read 18 pages of this post straight through .......sooooooo is the Harvester going to supply electricity to the batteries, or motors? Asking for a friend.

The way I see it is this

Hopefully the pic is OK there. I call it a router. Probably a computer of some sort that either directs the electricity from the engine to the motors or the battery as it needs.
Eninge over producing? Put enough to the motors and the rest recharges the battery. Engine not enough? 100% from engine plus pull some from battery. Not moving? 100% back to battery.

 

[CarTechGeek]

I just read 18 pages of this post straight through .......sooooooo is the Harvester going to supply electricity to the batteries, or motors? Asking for a friend.

I'd suggest paying attention to this previous post:

https://scoutmotors.community.forum/threads/speculation-alert-possible-harvester-engine-choices.1085/page-10#post-12287

It contains this handy reference image. It's from Nissan, but all Series Hybrids work like this, but the post also has a nice explanation by a lead engineer: