Range extender - please adjust spec to 250 miles of EV Range

[Variable430]

The range extender should get at least 50% of its 500 mile range in pure EV mode otherwise it would be pretty worthless with only 150 miles that you can only get in ideal conditions. In the winter this likely means sub 100 miles pure EV range - not acceptable

 

[bsddrake]

Jeep wrangler. I get 14 as well.

Does this sound about right?
compare that to a Jeep Wrangler that gets 14 MPG. Traveling 500 miles would consume 35.71 Gallons of fuel and cost $142.86 dollars.

The funny thing about all this is, we already know it does worse than a small car, and better than a truck. It might be inline with some Subarus, so that's cool.

 

[OH1984]

Perhaps the full EV is a better choice. At 350 mile range, even with a 50% return on the coldest months of the year that’s still 185-200 miles per charge during less than ideal conditions which satisfies your noted needs. On your 400-800 range trips your still going to need at least one stop to fuel so for another 10-15 minutes you could go to full EV and avoid all the hassles and maintenance of a gas engine.

I’m torn on this. So I’ve already swapped back and forth twice. This trip for example in my model 3, from 100% charge was 292 miles til empty then trip down here on vacation I arrived with 39% battery (not advised to go below 20%). Only one level 2 charger that estimated 3.5 hours to get to 80% battery and an hour each direction to the nearest super charger.

I charge on level 2 at home no sweat and the 150 mile range would fit most days even my long commutes that are 60 ish miles on 2-3 days a week. I’m plugged in with a level 1 that I carry with me at a camp site. The infrastructure isn’t there and I’m not out in the boonies, I’m at popular state park close to the highway. Currently swapped to the EREV, since I’m keeping the Tesla and the scout will be our family trip vehicle and my daily for EV only. I “think” this is the right option.

 

[Nathan]

150 miles EV plus range extender would be perfect, in my opinion. I’ve owned a Rivian for years. If I’m driving more than 100 miles in a day, there’s a good chance I’m driving more than 250 that day. I’d prefer to save the weight. Rivians eat tires. And there are lots of other reasons why you don’t want to haul the extra battery weight around every day.

 

[dreamweaver]

150 miles EV plus range extender would be perfect, in my opinion. I’ve owned a Rivian for years. If I’m driving more than 100 miles in a day, there’s a good chance I’m driving more than 250 that day. I’d prefer to save the weight. Rivians eat tires. And there are lots of other reasons why you don’t want to haul the extra battery weight around every day.

Scout. “People. Connections. Community. Authenticity." Welcome to the Scout community. Enjoy the ride.

 

[cyure]

150 miles EV plus range extender would be perfect, in my opinion. I’ve owned a Rivian for years. If I’m driving more than 100 miles in a day, there’s a good chance I’m driving more than 250 that day. I’d prefer to save the weight. Rivians eat tires. And there are lots of other reasons why you don’t want to haul the extra battery weight around every day.

Welcome to the community.

 

[R1TVT]

Rivians eat tires.

I would say Drivers eat tires more than trucks (unless they're out of alignment)... I drive my R1T around in standard ride height 98% of the time and have had no issues with uneven or accelerated tire wear. Rivians can be ripped around turns with a low center of gravity, launched at high speeds from a stop, be set to "drift mode" on dirt and change ride heights (and suspension characteristics), all of which will impact tire wear more quickly. Don't blame the truck - its doing what its supposed to do. Tires are a wear item and some people would rather rip around all day, or drive in low or high settings when not necessary, and they'll just need replace tires more frequently. And the low setting on the HWY doesn't seem to get you much more efficiency based on my rough calculations and range estimates. A heavy Scout pure BEV will likely be similar.

Post in thread 'Scouts with Handicapped Adaptability'

Apr 17, 2025

@R1TVT correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Rivian plagued with alignment issue due to the air suspension?

No. Never had an alignment in 45K Miles. You're likely conflating potential tire wear with possible camber issues with "alignment". A lowered suspension will create a situation where the tires have some degree of negative camber, and conversely riding around in a high setting will result positive camber. I don't drive around in these settings on pavement and use ride heights very sparingly. The truck also drives best in its standard height setting with the tires flat on...

• R1TVT

• 

 

[AlanL]

The battery is sized with intent for long range driving and support of the generator. Somewhere around 100 miles or as you designate (from what it appeared on CES videos) the generator kicks on to stay ahead of the electrical draw prior to getting to the 150 miles mark. My point is the range extender was added to satisfy people wanting more than 350 mile range with minimal or no charging stops. By requesting a larger battery and smaller engine it defeats the purpose of what the buyer feedback was for the EREV. It’s like a furnace-whether your house is 2000 sf or 3500 the furnace is essentially the same size/footprint. The footprint is part of the equation-you can’t make it small enough to add batteries back.

In addition to possibly affecting the genset a larger battery means a smaller gas tank, possibly compromising combined range.

 

[AlanL]

I have two evs, I can tell you that 100miles per day in a city like Los Angeles where people travel distance is in no way adequate. You might as well buy an ICE car at that point. With a 2027 launch date they should thru efficiency and available at the time battery tech get north of 200 miles or they are doing something wrong. Alpt will depend on what the battery size is, and what the weight savings are but let’s say the battery in the range extender is 100kw 150 miles means the efficiency sucks.

They have to be qualifying and testing their batteries now, they can't switch late in the dev cycle. Can't you do brief or lunch recharges at stops around LA? Are you really driving non stop over 100 miles? The Harvester battery is in the 60-70 kWh range (Motor Trend interview) which works out to 2.3 mi/kWh. These are big heavy vehicles, not efficiency champs.

 

[AlanL]

I'd much rather have the harvester be sized to keep up with the electrical demands of driving on the highway (so its gas and go, like the Ramcharger is supposed to be), than to shrink the generator, and give it more battery.

I rewatched the Jay Leno interview yesterday. Scott said the Harvester genset is targeted to maintain the battery at 70 mph on the highway.

 

[AlanL]

I think part of the problem is that by 2027 we will have EVs that get 450-500 miles of range so the specs of the product aren’t skating ahead of the puck to where the market is going. We don’t really have any useful information to work with regarding weight/battery sized trade offs. If the range EREV is only 150miles I would likely switch to all EV. You would end up using the gas engine far too often to be a useful EV daily and many are failing to consider the wear on the battery of having constant charging cycles with only 100-150 miles of range depending on weather.

I don't think some of you appreciate how long product development cycles are. I spent 10 years at Apple, critical aspects of a computer are locked down two or more years in advance. Scout can't aim for what might possibly if everything works out be available in 2027. They have to qualify and test batteries now. Sure if maybe things go really well in battery tech and manufacturing they might by late 2028 offer a new battery. But not for first deliveries.

 

[AlanL]

I can’t stress this enough, the Harvester needs to be able to run at highway speeds on gas only safely. If not, there’s not a lot of sense to invest in the Harvester.

Depends on exactly how you mean this. The Harvester has to be able to maintain the battery on average at highway speeds, the peak power draw will still depend on battery input. In the Jay Leno interview Scott said they are aiming to do that at 70 mph. The Harvester does not need to go uphill faster than a loaded semi without battery input. Even then you still get 150 miles of pure EV range for short trips or long trips where you don't mind recharging. You still get EV performance and quietness when driving gas-and-go, they have said the Harvester will be almost inaudible. The point of the Harvester is to give that gas-and-go use to people who can't find convenient chargers or do not want to wait.

Everybody's choice of what makes sense is of course personal and never wrong for them.

 

[AlanL]

It is an engine. Probably the size of a 3 to 4 cylinder. It will generate electricity for the battery. That is what has been announced thus far. Any other comments about powering wheels, etc…are speculation at this point

They have said 4 cylinder and been very clear the drive train is EV. The ICE+generator (genset) just provides electricity.

 

[J Alynn]

I don't think some of you appreciate how long product development cycles are. I spent 10 years at Apple, critical aspects of a computer are locked down two or more years in advance. Scout can't aim for what might possibly if everything works out be available in 2027. They have to qualify and test batteries now. Sure if maybe things go really well in battery tech and manufacturing they might by late 2028 offer a new battery. But not for first deliveries.

The other item that we tend to overlook is this EV class is relatively new-a fully capable EV off-road truck. Nobody is currently offering this other than the Hummer which is $$$ and maybe the ford and gmc trucks but they really are meant for serious off-roading. I don’t think anyone conceived the scouts as 120 mile commuter cars-a Honda Accord hybrid would even be a better solution. If you are doing 100-120 daily commuting are you looking at a Yukon or equivalent ICE suv that gets like 18-22mpg (if traffic isn’t stop and go). Expecting the scout (heavy boxes on wheels) to solve range expectations seems a bit unfair. If these scouts were ICE they range as noted above and 320 would be your max range anyway so in theory a 350 mile range EV SUV is better than an ICE SUV.

 

[AlanL]

Powering straight to the wheels. Which it is not at least as of now.
Or when you run your battery down to zero, the engine will be sending power through the battery to the motors in real time.

The drivetrain is electric only. No way can I see them changing that, especially for 2027. Too much effort, too much complexity, too much cost, too much weight. Scott was very clear in the Motor Trend interview about the product and manufacturing advantages. Almost the entire vehicle is common except for battery changes (and suspension?) to fit the genset and gas tank, along with related control modules and software.

Unless something breaks or you are foolish to run out of gas you will never run the battery down to zero. The Harvester software will maintain adequate battery for peak power needs.

 

[AlanL]

But if the Harvester does serve as a generator to power the battery, and if the vehicle is in motion, the battery may be discharging electrons from one or more of its modules while driving, AND it may also be accepting electrons into "open" battery modules from the Harvester. This is completely theoretical, but it is one way to think about the Harvester. If you were to try to visualize this in a simple fashion, think of the Harvester as working to ultimately slow the the discharge of electrons from the battery with the BMS while the vehicle is moving. You can also think of it working to increase the SOC while the vehicle is motionless and at rest.

They may not have explicitly said so but there will be a common high power DC bus. It is the way these things are done. Input from battery, genset, regen braking. Output to battery and drive units, all managed dynamically.

 

[AlanL]

Apologies. I come from a world where an engine is a gas-driven internal combustion device that converts controlled oxidation of fuel into rotary motion for use in all kinds of ways. A generator is a particular kind of electric motor that generates electrical power when driven by an external rotary motion. The combination of the engine and generator is what most people would call a "generator."

Yeah, why I've started using "genset".

 

[MasterSpam]

Perhaps it just isn’t meant for the needs you have. The vehicle is designed for the masses and my hunch is 99% or more of drivers do not drive more than 100-150 miles a day. In bad conditions a 150 EV range should still get 75-90 miles of range. As you appear to be in California I’m not sure what bad conditions would reduce your range below 100-125 miles. If your a bit over the 150 range the generator kicks in. The engine used to generate electricity needs ‘X’ amount of physical space leaving ‘Y’ amount for batteries. The EREV option is to extend and appeal to buyers needing gas for long distance/ convenience not for the EV buyers. There’s only so much space under the vehicle for batteries so doing as you suggest would compromise sales for the EREV especially since like 75% of reservations are for the extended range versions. Perhaps the fully EV is more suited for your needs and you just need to charge an extra time on your long distance adventures

I am more than satisfied with a 150 mile EV range and happily will purchase one with 100 mile range.
No PHEV I am aware of can acheive that at present.

 

[MasterSpam]

The Harvester (which is both an engine and a generator), its fuel tank, and all the control hardware is going to take up way more space than people seem to realize, especially if the frunk is kept. The only realistic space that will be available for the Harvester is one or more battery modules. Similarly, the only realistic cost reduction is also in the battery. Adding a Harvester without reducing weight by removing modules from the battery would be a travesty. Nobody wants to see a $100,000, 10,000 pound Scout-Hummer.

There's little chance a solid state battery will be available for use in any vehicle in the US by 2027. It's not going to be available early enough for Scout to verify that it's capable of doing what they need it to do. They need that V&V completed this year (probably two years ago) to even consider including it in the vehicle. All of the control hardware, all of the control software, and everything else would need to be built, written, tested, rewritten, rebuilt, and retested and verified between now and 2026 so they can start manufacturing the batteries and their controllers in time for their first batch of pre-production vehicles to be integrated and then abused and they can really find out what needs their immediate attention for production in 2027. That is possible with existing hardware, but not realistic for vaporware like solid state batteries. I would much rather see a product with NMC and/or LFP batteries released on time than for Scout Motors to be chasing mythical unicorns.

Plugging in a different battery is fine if the battery is the same chemistry, capacity, weight, and dimensions (i.e., a simple replacement). If you want an "upgrade," then you need new control hardware, new control software, and possibly a change in suspension and other components, depending on whether it's a kg-for-kg swap or if the mass of the new battery is significantly different. I would say this is as possible as someone doing an aftermarket motor-transmission-transaxle swap on their Scout II. It's possible, but when I did it in the mid 1980s, I had to weld new motor, transmission, and transaxle mounts, I had to fabricate a new drive line, and I had to upgrade the suspension. I should have installed new, bigger brakes too, and to say nothing of the interior sheet metal details that needed to be done. It's a different kind of work, but the level of difficulty is going to be similar.

Exactly.

 

[MasterSpam]

I have similar logic as well. Right now the Scout concept checks all of the boxes except competitiveness when it comes to EV range. I reserved the harvester, but will likely switch since 150 miles is not ideal, especially with reduced capacity in the winter. For example, my Nissan Ariya suggested range is 289 and I regular see 200-210 in the winter time.

I wish scout is able to push a bit higher on the EV only range to be more competitive with Rivian and Ford, but at the 350 will still be more than I have now.

All well and good, but the public EV infrastucture in New Mexico is pitful at present and the push for more multifamily stuctures currently doesn't support the ability to charge at home.
That will have to be mandated at huge expense for property owners.

 

[MasterSpam]

Maybe..... By the time of the roll out solid state batteries are commercially viable.
I'm sure there will be the "early adopter tax" and they will cost a premium.

If such a thing should happen it would be great to see a "premium" battery option. With the base offering being what we're told now, $60K base price, 150 pure EV range with Harvester.

Then if someone does want to pay the extra $20k or whatever it is, they can opt for a solid state battery that has greater range.

Agreed