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

[donnyb]

I’ve already made the choice to switch to the full EV. The harvester just sounds like a future service nightmare and probably will be. Lol

 

[Wareagle]

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.

Why would you need 250hp? You really only need about 50 to 100hp generator. I would think a two cylinder generator may even be enough, but using an off the shelf 4 cylinder VW engine would keep costs down and with a 4 cylinder it will likely be quieter than. 2 cylinder.

 

[Pogeegitz]

Maybe I'm an old knuckle-dragger, but I really don't understand the "ride or die" attitude with frunks... It's something that didn't exist 10 years ago, but has somehow become a necessity (on a truck of all things). It's a truck, with this thing called a "bed."

A series hybrid with the engine up front seems to fix a lot of the issues like cooling, access, protection from debris, and towing capacity. I would 100% give up one (perceived) gimmicky feature for a different (perceived) gimmicky feature. For me, the extended range and/or ability to fill up on a jerry can from anywhere is waaay more important than an extra storage compartment for...?

Maybe I'm a rare breed that wants to start embracing the future of energy technologies, but still wants a truck to do "truck things" rather than a glorified golf cart.

 

[E90400K]

Why would you need 250hp? You really only need about 50 to 100hp generator. I would think a two cylinder generator may even be enough, but using an off the shelf 4 cylinder VW engine would keep costs down and with a 4 cylinder it will likely be quieter than. 2 cylinder.

Horsepower (watts) is horsepower (watts). While steady state cruising could be supported by 100 HP, any incline, towing requirements will need much more power. The Scouts are going to be well over 5,000 pounds. While we don't yet know the minimum SOC the generator will keep the battery charged so the drivetrain has reserve watts for high demand loads, at worst a 100 HP (75 kW) could be all that is available (leaving out losses), which would not be enough power.

I think 250 HP is a bit light for most use cases. But a 250 HP generator is not a small apparatus.

 

[Forrest]

I drive an ICE truck today with a shell on the back. I often have a bunch of stuff in the back that would make accessing an in-bed storage like the Ridgeline pretty useless. That means I end up putting a lot of things in the back seat area which creates clutter and reduces rear passenger space/comfort. The frunk would be a helpful addition for those reasons.

That said, I may end up deleting the harvester option from my Terra order. Mostly because of second thoughts around ICE maintenance for this vehicle. If the frunk was deleted then it would make the decision easier.

 

[GulfBlue911]

There’s likely to be a saying, once you go frunk…

When Ford added a heat pump to the 2025 Mach-E recently, the design impact was having to reduce the size of the frunk by some 60% rendering it almost useless. Shots were fired. Unless you lived in a climate where you can leverage the heat pump, you were at a net loss. Yes, it’s crazy the vehicle wasn’t designed with a pump to begin with so this was the best they could do without having to retool and make major platform changes, so I get it. And that’s Ford.

Point is the frunk is a very useful and effective storage area. It not only expands the existing storage but it also adds a level of security you can’t get by placing cargo exposed in the rear. So just because we didn’t have frunks 10 years ago doesn’t mean new innovation is not embraceable (we didn’t have a lot of thing 10+ years ago that we can’t seem to be able to live without now). That being said, the benefits of no frunk has to greatly outweigh losing the frunk to make sense for many of us. But I don’t believe Scout will do anything to add layers of complexity to their assembly strategy. Meaning both harvester and non-harvester models need to be able to be built on the same line with the ability to drop in a motor at some milestone without much effort. Anything outside that and you risk the essence of the business model you created, meaning time and money.

Also, wasn’t the placement of the engine in the rear to also maintain same noise levels as full EV? I don’t see how placing it up front will be able to accomplish that.

 

[2wheeltraveler]

If that design change would result in simpler engine servicing AND bring back the full towing capacity, I'd consider it a no-brainer.

If the towing capacity is still compromised, I'd question what the real value of the move and loss of frunk is.

 

[Sunrack]

The design is set and will not change. But, from a packaging standpoint, the benefit, along with switching to a robust independent rear suspension (like the F150 Lightning), would be to lower the rear load-floor/bed height a few inches. That would also result in significantly less unsprung weight vs the solid rear axle with electric motor attached. Note that the 72-80 Scout II rear flat load-floor/tailgate height was less that 22-inches (albeit with 15" wheels and std tires/springs). From the available pictures and videos, the new Scout rear load-floor/tailgate height looks to be around 30+ inches high.

 

[Pogeegitz]

Horsepower (watts) is horsepower (watts). While steady state cruising could be supported by 100 HP, any incline, towing requirements will need much more power. The Scouts are going to be well over 5,000 pounds. While we don't yet know the minimum SOC the generator will keep the battery charged so the drivetrain has reserve watts for high demand loads, at worst a 100 HP (75 kW) could be all that is available (leaving out losses), which would not be enough power.

I think 250 HP is a bit light for most use cases. But a 250 HP generator is not a small apparatus.

For my purposes I'm really torn as to whether I want the Harvester to actually charge/provide while driving, or if I'd rather have it basically be an inboard/integral generator that can provide a charge when stopped. In which case, it would probably make the most sense to just switch to a BEV and carry around a generator in the bed when going on longer, remote trips. (maybe I can just fill up the frunk with gas! )

 

[E90400K]

There’s likely to be a saying, once you go frunk…

When Ford added a heat pump to the 2025 Mach-E recently, the design impact was having to reduce the size of the frunk by some 60% rendering it almost useless. Shots were fired. Unless you lived in a climate where you can leverage the heat pump, you were at a net loss. Yes, it’s crazy the vehicle wasn’t designed with a pump to begin with so this was the best they could do without having to retool and make major platform changes, so I get it. And that’s Ford.

Point is the frunk is a very useful and effective storage area. It not only expands the existing storage but it also adds a level of security you can’t get by placing cargo exposed in the rear. So just because we didn’t have frunks 10 years ago doesn’t mean new innovation is not embraceable (we didn’t have a lot of thing 10+ years ago that we can’t seem to be able to live without now). That being said, the benefits of no frunk has to greatly outweigh losing the frunk to make sense for many of us. But I don’t believe Scout will do anything to add layers of complexity to their assembly strategy. Meaning both harvester and non-harvester models need to be able to be built on the same line with the ability to drop in a motor at some milestone without much effort. Anything outside that and you risk the essence of the business model you created, meaning time and money.

Also, wasn’t the placement of the engine in the rear to also maintain same noise levels as full EV? I don’t see how placing it up front will be able to accomplish that.

If the engine cooling system and the battery cooling system use the same chemical coolant, then that would help production. The engine will require oil and gasoline fills at some assembly station along the line, so there is complexity added there. And the engine/generator will need to be tested before final assembly is completed. Maybe the module gets tested in advance of assembly.

Adding a 16 gallon fuel tank is also another assembly complexity that straight BEV does not have. The tank has to fit in the front of the cab, I'd assume some frunk space has to be used for it.

If what we have read is true and 80% of reservations are Harvester, then building the BEV version is actually the anomaly and adds complexity to the assembly process.

 

[bakdraft21]

screw all of this drop in a LS3 and lets get moving

 

[OscarPhilips]

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.

While the original post was unclear, after 42 years of working with unclear engineers, that was my understanding as well. Further, I took it that the simplification suggested was a common battery pack size, which is a great concept, except it leaves you with a big, expensive battery and the added cost of the engine/generator/integration are all additive to the BEV cost, making the harvester option very expensive.

That said, it would be great to be able to buy the BEV and “drop a generator” in the fronk for occasional long trips, maybe even renting one for that one or two trips per year.

 

[Wareagle]

Horsepower (watts) is horsepower (watts). While steady state cruising could be supported by 100 HP, any incline, towing requirements will need much more power. The Scouts are going to be well over 5,000 pounds. While we don't yet know the minimum SOC the generator will keep the battery charged so the drivetrain has reserve watts for high demand loads, at worst a 100 HP (75 kW) could be all that is available (leaving out losses), which would not be enough power.

I think 250 HP is a bit light for most use cases. But a 250 HP generator is not a small apparatus.

The Scout will be a series hybrid. The 4 cylinder engine will only be charging the batteries, not providing propulsion. If Scout allows us to manually turn on the engine, maybe when the battery is below 75% you should be able to maintain the battery charge level.

If you are only going uphill on an incline, yes it may deplete the battery faster than the generator can keep up, but with every incline, there will be a decline where regenerative braking and the generator will be able to charge the battery back up.

The longest incline the US is in Hawaii of 62 miles with an elevation change of 13,767 feet. Maybe if this is your daily commute an electric or series hybrid is not the answer. Actually not everyone should buy electric or a plug in hybrid, but it is nice to have the option. If you are towing or hauling a lot of weight long distances Diesel may be a better option. If you are towing a boat a few miles to the lake every weekend, and commuting during the week an electric or plug in hybrid may be a good option.

The BMW i3 REX had a 2 cylinder 38hp engine. The i3 weighs in at 3234lbs. I changed the coding so I could turn on the REX at 75% or lower of the battery charge. The US was coded to come on automatically at 25% or less if I remember correctly. I never had issues maintaining the battery charge. I would run on battery in town, switch the REX on when I would go on the highway for a long distance, and switch it off when I got off the highway. The issue with the i3 REX is the US limited the tank to only 1.9 gallons. The EU had 2.4 gallons, which was a bit better, but the range was limited either way. You could fill up every 70 miles or so and keep driving. (The tank could also be coded to 2,4 gal in the US) This is not a direct comparison, but it gives an example of how it can work.

With a 10 gallon or more gas tank and 100 hp in the Scout Harvester, this should exceed the needs of most use cases.

For me, the Scout with the Harvester, makes sense for my use case. I would use electric only mode ~90% of the time. The other ~10% will be longer trips out of town.

I usually have owned two cars, one electric (Two Nissan Leafs and the BMW i3) for commuting and another (LX450, CX5, Tacoma) for longer trips and trips to Home Depot. This will allow me to only have one vehicle. Hopefully Scout can keep the price affordable.

 

[Chuckles]

If the engine cooling system and the battery cooling system use the same chemical coolant, then that would help production. The engine will require oil and gasoline fills at some assembly station along the line, so there is complexity added there. And the engine/generator will need to be tested before final assembly is completed. Maybe the module gets tested in advance of assembly.

Adding a 16 gallon fuel tank is also another assembly complexity that straight BEV does not have. The tank has to fit in the front of the cab, I'd assume some frunk space has to be used for it.

If what we have read is true and 80% of reservations are Harvester, then building the BEV version is actually the anomaly and adds complexity to the assembly process.

Scout has always indicated the frunk will not be affected by the Harvester. The gas tank will likely go where the batteries are being removed. Removing half of the batteries should leave plenty of room for a gas tank.

 

[PNW Nate]

This tradeoff makes a lot of sense.
I would trade off battery size options, better weight distribution, and accessibility to the engine for the frunk.

A great solution would be to make the generator modular - we can winch it out to switch to a pure BEV with a frunk. The only connections would have to be power out and a data connection for control. The fuel can be part of the module.