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

[CyberJoe]

The battery only range of the range extender version is disappointing.

 

[2wheeltraveler]

The battery only range of the range extender version is disappointing.

It would be great to have more range, but I get the reasoning, as it's well within the average American daily distance so it covers a vast majority of the need (assuming nightly charging). If you go beyond that, you're paying for extra batteries that are minimally used. You also have to consider that at some point, you just run out of space so removing battery capacity is needed to fit the engine and gas tank (unless you remove the Frunk... which takes us back to the main topic)

 

[colinnwn]

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.

That's not what this statement means to me.

"and reduce the two complex electric drive systems (BEV and EREV) to one."

Just moving the range extender into the Frunk does not equate to reducing drive systems. It's just moving one of them.

"Use one battery pack for either system"

I wasnt even sure what that meant as there would be one traction battery system regardless. It's pretty common to put a 12v regular ICE battery in for accessories and maybe the generator starter.

 

[colinnwn]

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.

The generator will likely be closer to 100-150 hp output than 250. Packaging shouldn't be super difficult as look at the tiny engine compartments of some micro cars. Though a boxer engine seems like it would have worked better.

I agree that cooling and maintenance access will be thorny challenges.

 

[Chuckles]

The generator will likely be closer to 100-150 hp output than 250. Packaging shouldn't be super difficult as look at the tiny engine compartments of some micro cars. Though a boxer engine seems like it would have worked better.

I agree that cooling and maintenance access will be thorny challenges.

You are right. It's a naturally aspirated 4-cylinder so there's no way it would have 250 horsepower.

 

[colinnwn]

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.

Since none of us have inside visibility into Scout's progress all we have is hope that they can deliver in 2028 something close to what they propose at close to $60k, and that they've done enough engineering studies before announcing anticipated features that they feel pretty confident in it. But putting a plan into practice can bring great companies to their knees.

At least we haven't seen any off the rails suggestions from them to believe our hope is backed by only bloviation, like some electric car manufacturer out there.

 

[5ohbrad]

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.

I'm glad to see someone else who recognizes this- it's an EV company. The Harvester option is a band aid for folks with range anxiety. Agreed that the BEV will become more popular in short order. While I don't wish delays on anyone, I would wager the Harvester takers should prepare to be a bit more patient.

 

[GulfBlue911]

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.

This is a good point. But we will have to see where this ends up given the final product. That being said, Scout will have to make assembly and process decisions “today” based on current consumer demand and future orders. So the pressure to keep their commitments and promises is definitely there, especially if the majority of orders are Harvesters. And this includes the promise that the frunk shall live in all models at the same capacity

 

[mdhanson21]

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...

I've had 2 Tesla and now a Rivian ... think I have used the fronk like twice.

 

[GulfBlue911]

Silly question, but if we placed a deposit on a Harvester, are we able to change to BEV model before delivery or do we need to place another deposit? I really want to see the final electric-only range on the EREV to decide if it’s worth the range extender cost.

 

[Chuckles]

Silly question, but if we placed a deposit on a Harvester, are we able to change to BEV model before delivery or do we need to place another deposit? I really want to see the final electric-only range on the EREV to decide if it’s worth the range extender cost.

You can change until your order is placed. At that point, you're locked in.

 

[E90400K]

This is a good point. But we will have to see where this ends up given the final product. That being said, Scout will have to make assembly and process decisions “today” based on current consumer demand and future orders. So the pressure to keep their commitments and promises is definitely there, especially if the majority of orders are Harvesters. And this includes the promise that the frunk shall live in all models at the same capacity

I'll have to wait to see the engineering solution before I decide to cancel my reservation for the Harvester. I doubt I'm going to stay with the engine/generator solution if it's stuck in the rear of the chassis. I just don't see it as a viable design for longevity and what operational compromises are needed.

 

[E90400K]

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.

So, now you want a 16-gallon gas tank to share the space with the engine and generator between the rear axle and bumper?

 

[E90400K]

The generator will likely be closer to 100-150 hp output than 250. Packaging shouldn't be super difficult as look at the tiny engine compartments of some micro cars. Though a boxer engine seems like it would have worked better.

I agree that cooling and maintenance access will be thorny challenges.

At 100 HP it will be underpowered.

 

[E90400K]

That's not what this statement means to me.

"and reduce the two complex electric drive systems (BEV and EREV) to one."

Just moving the range extender into the Frunk does not equate to reducing drive systems. It's just moving one of them.

"Use one battery pack for either system"

I wasnt even sure what that meant as there would be one traction battery system regardless. It's pretty common to put a 12v regular ICE battery in for accessories and maybe the generator starter.

The OP is saying just have a one-size battery for both the Hybrid and BEV versions. The issue is the LFP chemistry of the smaller Harvester battery is more suitable for constant charging cycles that the generator system will provide, where the NCM chemistry of the BEV battery is better suited for plug-in charging cycles.