Time to give up the frunk (if you want the Harvester engine)...

[maynard]

I'm a retired engineer - all the best engineers I saw through my career were the ones that could consider a new idea that conflicted with their current design, pivot, and redesign to make a better product (especially prior to production!)

That being said, Scout needs to embrace change once more. They started with an all-electric design and added a range extender to satisfy customer demand. They need to pivot again and place the range extender under the hood and reduce the two complex electric drive systems (BEV and EREV) to one. Use one battery pack for either system, increasing quantity and hopefully quality.

It solves so many issues/questions (don't you think?) Heat; access; engine choice; towing capability...

Fire away if you'd prefer to stick with the current proposed design...

 

[The Vegan]

The idea of a Frunk feels like a novelty to me anyway. I'm all for it, esp. for all the reasons you've mentioned.

 

[Latrant]

If they delete the frunk, I cancel my two Terra and Traveler reservations.

 

[JesseS]

The deletion of the frunk would make me rethink the purchase based on my needs at the time, and what else was available.

 

[colinnwn]

A parallel hybrid (which is what you are describing) , isn't a simplification especially if it's designed to have the electric motor drive the car alone for some distance. It's actually pretty complicated to do it smoothly with the added CVT drive transmission that links both power sources to the wheels. That's a major complexity and loses some efficiency.

The only real benefit is a little better efficiency when using the engine to power the vehicle and a smaller battery is generally used for less all electric range since it's only meant to power the car in town driving under around 40 mph.

By contrast a series hybrid like the Scout is two relatively simple systems connected only by electric wires and some computer logic to kick on the generator when it makes sense.

 

[colinnwn]

Another issue I didn't go into is Scout was built as an EV first company.

Scott specifically said the range extender is a pretty simple module swap that happens towards the end of the manufacturing, and until that point the vehicles are pretty indistinguishable saving costs.

Redesigning the Scout around a front engine parallel hybrid drivetrain is a time consuming and expensive redesign, would likely need two separate crash test certifications, and be two very different models to build, stock, and manage the supply chain.

Scout seems to be hedging their bets in the medium term BEV will become more popular than the Harvester.

I hope they are able to manage around some of your concerns like heat and maintenance access.

I'm fine if they deliver what they propose, close to on time, at close to their price target with the Harvester.

 

[KarlT]

I’m not an engineer so you may be right. The more I hear about the current Harvester, the less attractive it sounds.

 

[lunterhow]

I’d cancel my reservation if they got rid of the frunk w Harvester version. It’s a huge value add in my Lightning but as someone who takes multiple cross country roadtrips a year to visit family I need a vehicle I can take on those trips and full EV doesn’t cut it.

 

[E90400K]

A parallel hybrid (which is what you are describing) , isn't a simplification especially if it's designed to have the electric motor drive the car alone for some distance. It's actually pretty complicated to do it smoothly with the added CVT drive transmission that links both power sources to the wheels. That's a major complexity and loses some efficiency.

The only real benefit is a little better efficiency when using the engine to power the vehicle and a smaller battery is generally used for less all electric range since it's only meant to power the car in town driving under around 40 mph.

By contrast a series hybrid like the Scout is two relatively simple systems connected only by electric wires and some computer logic to kick on the generator when it makes sense.

Nope, the OP is still suggesting a series hybrid, but with the engine and generator in the front space of the vehicle rather than underneath between the rear axle and bumper.

 

[maynard]

OK - didn't know that the frunk was so important to folks...

I didn't mention a parallel hybrid system - that would make me cancel my reservation. Series hybrid is the way to go. (I was just advocating for the ICE to be moved from under the truck to under the hood and keeping the battery packs the same for the two versions)...

 

[E90400K]

I still say the engine/generator will end up in the front. I do not see how a 4-cylinder engine that needs to make at least 250 HP, with a generator attached to it, will fit in the small space between the rear axle and bumper. So, I agree with you, putting the engine/generator up front avoids serious engineering challenges that will be very expensive to solve.

 

[E90400K]

OK - didn't know that the frunk was so important to folks...

I didn't mention a parallel hybrid system - that would make me cancel my reservation. Series hybrid is the way to go. (I was just advocating for the ICE to be moved from under the truck to under the hood and keeping the battery packs the same for the two versions)...

The Harvester needs to lose the frunk and add a trunk in the bed of the pickup like the Honda Ridgeline pioneered. The Traveler with a trunk in the rear may be over kill, and difficult to access when the rear hatch area is loaded with gear.

 

[E90400K]

Another issue I didn't go into is Scout was built as an EV first company.

Scott specifically said the range extender is a pretty simple module swap that happens towards the end of the manufacturing, and until that point the vehicles are pretty indistinguishable saving costs.

Redesigning the Scout around a front engine parallel hybrid drivetrain is a time consuming and expensive redesign, would likely need two separate crash test certifications, and be two very different models to build, stock, and manage the supply chain.

Scout seems to be hedging their bets in the medium term BEV will become more popular than the Harvester.

I hope they are able to manage around some of your concerns like heat and maintenance access.

I'm fine if they deliver what they propose, close to on time, at close to their price target with the Harvester.

Hope is not an option here. Heat management HAS to be solved. For those who reserved a Harvester, you will be waiting a much longer time to get your trucks. I do not see Scout solving all the engineering challenges for the planned placement in the short time the company has left to deliver the first BEV production units.

 

[E90400K]

OP, what do you think Scout's concept is for their planned engine/generator "module" that fits in the space between the rear axle and bumper. I can't think of any existing VW 4-cyliner that would fit. If they have one, it will have to lay flat and have the generator integrated into the engine block. The engine will need a dry sump design with an electric coolant pump. And if they want to keep the same frunk design as the BEV, where does (do) the radiator(s) go? In the rear fenders? As well as the engine cooling system coolant reservoir and oil reservoir, where do they mount? Corrosion prevention of the engine will be a nightmare to solve.

I've been mulling this over for months now. I just don't see it being easily solvable and fitting within a realistic cost target to engineer and produce.

 

[lunterhow]

The Harvester needs to lose the frunk and add a trunk in the bed of the pickup like the Honda Ridgeline pioneered. The Traveler with a trunk in the rear may be over kill, and difficult to access when the rear hatch area is loaded with gear.

Wouldn’t hate this option as long as it’s big enough. I’d also be okay with a gear tunnel - just something to fit my golf clubs!