Bigger Gas Tank - 15 Gallons is Abysmal

[Demlockian]

First, let's review battery basics, as I understand them: for optimal daily use, electric vehicles (EVs) are generally recommended to stay within an 80% maximum State of Charge (SOC) and avoid consistently dropping below a 20% minimum SOC.

To maximize the longevity of an electric vehicle's battery, a practical guideline is to consider approximately 60% of the battery capacity as the usable range for daily driving. This stems from adhering to an 80% SOC upper limit for and avoiding consistently dropping below a 20% SOC, which minimizes battery stress and degradation.

Realistic Driving Use Case

With an effective 60% SOC window the Harvester's 150-mile range translates to roughly 90 miles of usable range. This effectively addresses the daily driving needs of average commuters, as urban commuters typically travel 20-30 miles round trip (leaving approximately 65 miles of extra range) and rural commuters travel 40-60 miles (leaving around 40 miles of extra range).

For longer journeys, the Harvester's ability to add 300 miles (stopping at 1/6 tank remaining) of range (23.3 MPG) is invaluable. Considering that the average long-distance family road trip is roughly 750 miles (per ChatGPT), and the Scout with the Harvester can travel approximately 390 miles before refueling, a single 15-gallon refill extends the range to 690 miles, enabling completion of the average road trip with just two stops.

However, range is significantly impacted when towing a trailer. According to ChatGPT, towing at 70% of a vehicle's maximum capacity can reduce range by approximately 40%. This would decrease the EV range to around 55 miles and the gasoline range to 175 miles (accounting the same 1/6 remainder stop), resulting in a total of 230 miles per cycle. Therefore, completing a 750-mile trip would require refueling the Harvester approximately four or five times, considering that only 175 miles of range are added with each gasoline refuel.

In contrast, a Ford F-150 with a 3.5L EcoBoost engine achieves an estimated 22 MPG on the highway and has a 36-gallon fuel tank, translating to a towing range of nearly 395 miles per refueling stop (stopping at the same 1/6 tank remainder). This enables the F-150 to complete the same 750-mile trip with half (or fewer) the refueling stops compared to a Scout Terra equipped with the Harvester while towing.

All of this is to say that the 15-gallon proposed gas tank size is severely inadequate for real world towing applications. To be comparable, the Harvester needs an optional 25-gallon or larger tank. The 25-gallon tank option would raise the initial range to nearly 600 miles useable, which competes with similar trucks in the segment. Furthermore, it increases the standard towing refuel range from 175 (abysmal) to nearly 300 miles (acceptable). Bigger would still be preferred personally.

Generator Use
It's hard to speculate how long the Harvester would last in generator mode without further details, but let's do some shade tree math here. A 10kW gasoline generator uses about 2.5 gallons of fuel per hour at full load. According to ChatGPT, the average single occurrence power outage is roughly 2.5 hours, allowing the 15 gallon tank to be adequate (only used 6.25 gallons). However, in coastal areas power outages can be upwards of 72 hours due to large storms. With an upgraded 25-gallon tank, the homeowner (or renter) would have 10 hours of uninterrupted service, enough to sleep through the night comfortably (the 15-gallon tank only provides 6 hours).

 

[dreamweaver]

First, let's review battery basics, as I understand them: for optimal daily use, electric vehicles (EVs) are generally recommended to stay within an 80% maximum State of Charge (SOC) and avoid consistently dropping below a 20% minimum SOC.

To maximize the longevity of an electric vehicle's battery, a practical guideline is to consider approximately 60% of the battery capacity as the usable range for daily driving. This stems from adhering to an 80% SOC upper limit for and avoiding consistently dropping below a 20% SOC, which minimizes battery stress and degradation.

Realistic Driving Use Case

With an effective 60% SOC window the Harvester's 150-mile range translates to roughly 90 miles of usable range. This effectively addresses the daily driving needs of average commuters, as urban commuters typically travel 20-30 miles round trip (leaving approximately 65 miles of extra range) and rural commuters travel 40-60 miles (leaving around 40 miles of extra range).

For longer journeys, the Harvester's ability to add 300 miles (stopping at 1/6 tank remaining) of range (23.3 MPG) is invaluable. Considering that the average long-distance family road trip is roughly 750 miles (per ChatGPT), and the Scout with the Harvester can travel approximately 390 miles before refueling, a single 15-gallon refill extends the range to 690 miles, enabling completion of the average road trip with just two stops.

However, range is significantly impacted when towing a trailer. According to ChatGPT, towing at 70% of a vehicle's maximum capacity can reduce range by approximately 40%. This would decrease the EV range to around 55 miles and the gasoline range to 175 miles (accounting the same 1/6 remainder stop), resulting in a total of 230 miles per cycle. Therefore, completing a 750-mile trip would require refueling the Harvester approximately four or five times, considering that only 175 miles of range are added with each gasoline refuel.

In contrast, a Ford F-150 with a 3.5L EcoBoost engine achieves an estimated 22 MPG on the highway and has a 36-gallon fuel tank, translating to a towing range of nearly 395 miles per refueling stop (stopping at the same 1/6 tank remainder). This enables the F-150 to complete the same 750-mile trip with half (or fewer) the refueling stops compared to a Scout Terra equipped with the Harvester while towing.

All of this is to say that the 15-gallon proposed gas tank size is severely inadequate for real world towing applications. To be comparable, the Harvester needs an optional 25-gallon or larger tank. The 25-gallon tank option would raise the initial range to nearly 600 miles useable, which competes with similar trucks in the segment. Furthermore, it increases the standard towing refuel range from 175 (abysmal) to nearly 300 miles (acceptable). Bigger would still be preferred personally.

Generator Use
It's hard to speculate how long the Harvester would last in generator mode without further details, but let's do some shade tree math here. A 10kW gasoline generator uses about 2.5 gallons of fuel per hour at full load. According to ChatGPT, the average single occurrence power outage is roughly 2.5 hours, allowing the 15 gallon tank to be adequate (only used 6.25 gallons). However, in coastal areas power outages can be upwards of 72 hours due to large storms. With an upgraded 25-gallon tank, the homeowner (or renter) would have 10 hours of uninterrupted service, enough to sleep through the night comfortably (the 15-gallon tank only provides 6 hours).

Scout. “People. Connections. Community. Authenticity." Welcome to the Scout community. Enjoy the ride.
Remember the built in search on the forums is a great place to start getting answers to your many questions.

 

[DaveGunter]

The don’t go over 80% or under 20% guideline is way overblown. What you don’t want to do is go over 90% or under 10% and stay there. Charging to 100% right before using the vehicle is really no big deal and going below 10% is no big deal as long as you can plug in when you stop. In addition EV manufactures have upper and lower buffers built in to the BMS so when the vehicle says 100%, it’s more like 95%, same for the lower end. Also the battery chemistry that Scout is using for the Harvester is way less susceptible to stress and degradation from being left in a fully charged state.

 

[R1TVT]

Completely agree with the above and charge to 100% all the time before leaving my house on a long road trip with virtually no degradation after 50K miles.

 

[J Alynn]

First, let's review battery basics, as I understand them: for optimal daily use, electric vehicles (EVs) are generally recommended to stay within an 80% maximum State of Charge (SOC) and avoid consistently dropping below a 20% minimum SOC.

To maximize the longevity of an electric vehicle's battery, a practical guideline is to consider approximately 60% of the battery capacity as the usable range for daily driving. This stems from adhering to an 80% SOC upper limit for and avoiding consistently dropping below a 20% SOC, which minimizes battery stress and degradation.

Realistic Driving Use Case

With an effective 60% SOC window the Harvester's 150-mile range translates to roughly 90 miles of usable range. This effectively addresses the daily driving needs of average commuters, as urban commuters typically travel 20-30 miles round trip (leaving approximately 65 miles of extra range) and rural commuters travel 40-60 miles (leaving around 40 miles of extra range).

For longer journeys, the Harvester's ability to add 300 miles (stopping at 1/6 tank remaining) of range (23.3 MPG) is invaluable. Considering that the average long-distance family road trip is roughly 750 miles (per ChatGPT), and the Scout with the Harvester can travel approximately 390 miles before refueling, a single 15-gallon refill extends the range to 690 miles, enabling completion of the average road trip with just two stops.

However, range is significantly impacted when towing a trailer. According to ChatGPT, towing at 70% of a vehicle's maximum capacity can reduce range by approximately 40%. This would decrease the EV range to around 55 miles and the gasoline range to 175 miles (accounting the same 1/6 remainder stop), resulting in a total of 230 miles per cycle. Therefore, completing a 750-mile trip would require refueling the Harvester approximately four or five times, considering that only 175 miles of range are added with each gasoline refuel.

In contrast, a Ford F-150 with a 3.5L EcoBoost engine achieves an estimated 22 MPG on the highway and has a 36-gallon fuel tank, translating to a towing range of nearly 395 miles per refueling stop (stopping at the same 1/6 tank remainder). This enables the F-150 to complete the same 750-mile trip with half (or fewer) the refueling stops compared to a Scout Terra equipped with the Harvester while towing.

All of this is to say that the 15-gallon proposed gas tank size is severely inadequate for real world towing applications. To be comparable, the Harvester needs an optional 25-gallon or larger tank. The 25-gallon tank option would raise the initial range to nearly 600 miles useable, which competes with similar trucks in the segment. Furthermore, it increases the standard towing refuel range from 175 (abysmal) to nearly 300 miles (acceptable). Bigger would still be preferred personally.

Generator Use
It's hard to speculate how long the Harvester would last in generator mode without further details, but let's do some shade tree math here. A 10kW gasoline generator uses about 2.5 gallons of fuel per hour at full load. According to ChatGPT, the average single occurrence power outage is roughly 2.5 hours, allowing the 15 gallon tank to be adequate (only used 6.25 gallons). However, in coastal areas power outages can be upwards of 72 hours due to large storms. With an upgraded 25-gallon tank, the homeowner (or renter) would have 10 hours of uninterrupted service, enough to sleep through the night comfortably (the 15-gallon tank only provides 6 hours).

Why do new members always start by complaining? 15 gallons is in the same realm of 85% of all ICE vehicles. Why should the Scouts have more. I don’t understand why so many people think the Scout should offer more than the ICE’s they will compete against. The Broncos gets 20mpg on a good day and have a 16.(something) gallon tank for a range of 320 miles. I ask again-why should the scout have more. If SM adds every extreme everyone asks for this thing will be $150K. This is an EV/hybrid brick on wheels. Let’s all be reasonable because if these vehicles climb past $80K nicely equipped SM will probably lose 40% or more of their buyers. SM has to have done their research and knows where price points need to be. They would not have started a $2 billion dollar endeavor if they hadn’t. Want more range but my the integrated Jerry cans and then you will have the extra range. But to say 15 gallons is abysmal is really funny. Especially since that 15 gallons (which hasn’t been officially confirmed-that I know of) is on top of an additional 150 miles of battery range. Rant over!

 

[Bored and Stroked]

You know, I've been tracking this forum since I made my order back in October, mostly to get updates and monitor some discussions like this one. Generally I have found this forum to feel non-inclusive, where anytime a new person brings up a valid discussion, veteran members shut down the discussion because a) it's already been discussed and the old-timers have already decided the outcome, so don't discuss again, or b) just trust Scout to do the right thing. It really makes me not want to engage because it seems to be the same dozen or so people on every single thread, which reduces the diversity of thought and ideas. Who cares if some folks want to rehash something that was discussed 6 months ago, just ignore it.

I thought the OP made a cogent argument, and posted it very politely. I'm trying to assume everyone here, new folks and veterans, all have an interest in discussing excitement around the Scout.

I'm excited about Scout, but this forum feels more and more like a private club that an open forum.

 

[Chuckles]

You know, I've been tracking this forum since I made my order back in October, mostly to get updates and monitor some discussions like this one. Generally I have found this forum to feel non-inclusive, where anytime a new person brings up a valid discussion, veteran members shut down the discussion because a) it's already been discussed and the old-timers have already decided the outcome, so don't discuss again, or b) just trust Scout to do the right thing. It really makes me not want to engage because it seems to be the same dozen or so people on every single thread, which reduces the diversity of thought and ideas. Who cares if some folks want to rehash something that was discussed 6 months ago, just ignore it.

I thought the OP made a cogent argument, and posted it very politely. I'm trying to assume everyone here, new folks and veterans, all have an interest in discussing excitement around the Scout.

I'm excited about Scout, but this forum feels more and more like a private club that an open forum.

Perhaps long-time members here would be more receptive if people didn't use phrases like "15 gallons is abysmal". Many members here politely urge newbies to do some searching before rehashing topics with new threads. If you see a lot of the same names posting, it's because they are passionate Scout lovers. That's not a negative.

​

 

[Logan]

A few thoughts on this:

• Driving
  • The harvester models will have LFP batteries, which are generally perceived as better able to handle charging to 100%.
  • We don't have details on how the battery range is calculated, but if its anything like a normal PHEV, the 150 miles is of EV range, is until the generator automatically kicks on, not until the battery is totally depleted.
    • This leaves some amount in reserve, so normal operation can be maintained.
    • This is now my PHEV works. It's rated for 33 miles of EV range, and that is when you go from 100% charge, to where the gas engine kicks in, at around ~18%.
• Generator mode
  • The Harvester generator is going to be a small 4 cylinder, fuel injected engine (naturally aspirated). It's likely going to have a power output than 10kw. Likely something much more, like somewhere in the 50-130KW range.
    • This is based on Scotts statement that says that the harvester will be able to sustain 70mph cruising.
    • Using some estimation, we assume a rough ballpark efficiency of ~2 miles per KW.
    • Which means to sustain 70mph if the battery was depleted, it would use .5KW mile, or 35KWh per hour.
    • That is the NET power input the motors need to sustain those speeds, the power output of the generator will have to be higher.
    • For perspective, the Ram Ramcharger is rated for ~130-190KW, but ALSO sports a higher towing rating than the Scouts (14k lbs vs 10k lbs for the Terra). So, a 50-130KW power output range for the harvester makes sense.
  • When using the scout as a generator for a house during a power outage, I don't think the engine will usually be running.
    • Unlike a normal generator, the engine doesn't HAVE to be on. It has a huge battery bank to draw from, which is great because home energy loads are usually not static at 10kw or whatever.
    • More likely, the battery will be drawn down from whatever starting charge, down to some threshold (which according to the CES videos, we can set in the UI), and then the generator will be fired up, to recharge the battery back up to some higher target.

For the Traveler Harvester, I think the 15gal tank is fairly competitive/reasonable (remember, also has a lower max towing rating than the Terra, even in EV mode). And at least for my use cases (non-towing), I think its totally fine.

But for the Terra, for those towing long distances, I think a larger tank could be useful. For comparison, the Ramcharger (again, a different sort of vehicle), has a 29 gal tank. The upside, is that the Terra has a lot more space to put a larger tank as well (with the longer wheelbase), so maybe that will end up happening.

TLDR: I don't think that 15gal is "abysmal", but for the Terra in particular for long distance towing, could potentially benefit from a bit larger tank.

 

[R1TVT]

Who cares if some folks want to rehash something that was discussed 6 months ago, just ignore it.

Perhaps long-time members here would be more receptive if people didn't use phrases like "15 gallons is abysmal". Many members here politely urge newbies to do some searching before rehashing topics with new threads.

Good discussion and I can see both sides of this argument!

At the end of the day, if it's your first time here, you probably want to ease into it and not come in all guns-a-blazing. I think some of the veteran members want to keep it tidy and not have a million threads on the same topic, which I can understand, but I also understand that some of these topics will be nuanced and need a refresh from time to time and include some new perspectives & opinions.

One thing that seems trigger people here is when a new member comes onto the site and has misguided expectations that Scout is going to build them a production vehicle exactly to their specifications, locate a service center directly in their neighborhood and increase the range of the Scout to 700 miles while increasing tow capacity to that of a 5th wheel dually (and still retain its off-road capabilities). Scout is an OEM, not a bespoke custom truck shop building to extreme edge cases.

My take? Personally, I will ignore the trolls, the spammers, the factions and the haters and stick to the facts and try to keep the stoke-level on HIGH. in an open forum like this, it becomes pretty obvious who is here to stir the pot and who is here to learn and better understand where Scout is headed.

 

[Demlockian]

To address comments posted by fellow forum members.

Why do new members always start by complaining?

Instead of simply complaining, I was hoping to initiate a constructive discussion by presenting some real-world truck use case scenarios where the Scout "might" face some challenges compared to the competition.

15 gallons is in the same realm of 85% of all ICE vehicles.

While 15-gallons might be comparable to many ICE vehicles, the Scout is entering the highly competitive truck market. Looking at the Ford F-150 (26-gallon standard, 30.6-gallon hybrid, and optional 36-gallon), the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (24-gallon standard), the RAM 1500 (26-gallon standard and optional 33-gallon), and the Toyota Tundra (22-gallon standard and optional 32.2-gallon), it appears the average truck gas tank is around 24.5 gallons standard, with an option to upgrade to approximately 31.3 gallons. Given these figures, the Scout's 15-gallon capacity is considered below the current market trend for trucks.

Why should the Scouts have more?

The primary reason for suggesting a larger fuel capacity for the Scout is related to towing, as I mentioned earlier. While a 15-gallon tank might be perfectly adequate for daily driving, it could become limiting when the owner needs to tow heavy loads, particularly across challenging terrain like that found in the western United States. With a larger tank, like the average optional 31.3-gallon tank found in many trucks, a user could potentially travel around 375 miles between fuel stops, compared to the Scout's estimated 180 miles. This difference in range could be a significant factor for those who plan to use their Scout for demanding towing tasks.

I don’t understand why so many people think the Scout should offer more than the ICE’s they will compete against.

I think there might be a misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting the Scout Terra should offer more than its ICE competitors. The concern, as I see it, is that it currently seems to offer substantially less in certain key areas, particularly when considering its direct competitors in the truck market. The Scout Terra isn't really competing with sedans or small SUVs; it's aiming for the same buyers as the established truck brands.

The Broncos gets 20mpg on a good day and have a 16 (something) gallon tank for a range of 320 miles. I ask again-why should the scout have more.

While the Bronco, with its 16.9-gallon (2-door) or 20.8-gallon (4-door) tank and estimated 20 mpg, offers a reasonable range for its intended use of daily driving and moderate off-road adventures, it's important to remember that the Scout Terra (pickup truck) isn't directly competing with the Bronco (SUV). That competition would be between the Bronco and the Scout Traveler (SUV). The Terra's target audience is likely to have different needs and expectations, particularly regarding towing and long-distance travel with heavy loads, which is where the larger fuel capacity becomes more relevant.

The Ramcharger (again, a different sort of vehicle), has a 29 gal tank.

Given that the Ramcharger is an EREV, similar to the proposed Scout Terra, it actually emerges as a very relevant competitor. The most significant difference lies in the range it offers; its 29-gallon tank provides roughly 350 miles of towing range, which is nearly double what the Scout is projected to achieve. This disparity in range could be a critical consideration for potential buyers.

One thing that seems trigger people here is when a new member comes onto the site and has misguided expectations that Scout is going to build them a production vehicle exactly to their specifications,

As someone who's traditionally been a gasoline/diesel truck enthusiast, I'm interested in exploring EVs. However, I've noticed that many EV trucks seem designed for a niche market of EV enthusiasts rather than the average truck buyer. In my experience, and within my circle of truck-owning acquaintances, there's a significant hesitancy towards EV trucks. I see Scout as the first manufacturer genuinely attempting to bridge that gap and penetrate the ICE truck segment. The Harvester model, in particular, is a promising step, potentially alleviating range anxiety for daily driving, long-distance trips, and even heavy towing. Features like the solid rear axle, potential spring/shock suspension, and locking axles are all impressive advancements.

For example, at my workplace within the DoD, we have around 20 Silverado EVs that are largely unused. Their limited range and perceived lack of reliability/durability for operating on our range's back roads have made them unpopular, and we continue to rely on our ICE trucks. This resulted in a significant waste of resources due to imposed mandates.

Not a single person I know would even consider a truck EV, yet a few of them use Tesla for daily commuting.

Scout is an OEM, not a bespoke custom truck shop building to extreme edge cases.

The points I'm raising aren't about bespoke customization; they're actually about appealing to a broader market. If Scout focuses solely on the existing EV market, that could be considered more of a niche approach. To illustrate, Ford sold 33,500 F-150 Lightnings in 2024, compared to 460,915 ICE trucks, giving the Lightning a market share of just 7.2%. However, I believe Scout has the potential to significantly outperform the Lightning and break into the traditional truck market.

My take? Personally, I will ignore the trolls, the spammers, the factions and the haters and stick to the facts and try to keep the stoke-level on HIGH.

If my previous posts came across negatively, I apologize. My intention isn't to be discouraging, but rather to offer my perspective on potential challenges Scout might face in penetrating the established truck market. I'm genuinely interested in seeing them succeed and on the verge of reserving one.

 

[Chaz26]

Why should the Scouts have more?

The primary reason for suggesting a larger fuel capacity for the Scout is related to towing, as I mentioned earlier. While a 15-gallon tank might be perfectly adequate for daily driving, it could become limiting when the owner needs to tow heavy loads, particularly across challenging terrain like that found in the western United States. With a larger tank, like the average optional 31.3-gallon tank found in many trucks, a user could potentially travel around 375 miles between fuel stops, compared to the Scout's estimated 180 miles. This difference in range could be a significant factor for those who plan to use their Scout for demanding towing tasks.

The Broncos gets 20mpg on a good day and have a 16 (something) gallon tank for a range of 320 miles. I ask again-why should the scout have more.

While the Bronco, with its 16.9-gallon (2-door) or 20.8-gallon (4-door) tank and estimated 20 mpg, offers a reasonable range for its intended use of daily driving and moderate off-road adventures, it's important to remember that the Scout Terra (pickup truck) isn't directly competing with the Bronco (SUV). That competition would be between the Bronco and the Scout Traveler (SUV). The Terra's target audience is likely to have different needs and expectations, particularly regarding towing and long-distance travel with heavy loads, which is where the larger fuel capacity becomes more relevant.

The Ramcharger (again, a different sort of vehicle), has a 29 gal tank.

Given that the Ramcharger is an EREV, similar to the proposed Scout Terra, it actually emerges as a very relevant competitor. The most significant difference lies in the range it offers; its 29-gallon tank provides roughly 350 miles of towing range, which is nearly double what the Scout is projected to achieve. This disparity in range could be a critical consideration for potential buyers.

I would argue the Terra isn't necessarily competing for all the same buyers as the Ramcharger or an ICE truck. There's overlap for those who use them as more family based cars, and who use it for work around town without needing to do long distance towing (thinking 100 miles a day in local area for work here). But in my mind, the Scout will have better off road capability than a lot of these trucks, but as a downside will have lower tow ratings and range. I'm not intending to be towing anything long distance in mine so it's not a concern for me, but if I was regularly towing 500+ miles then honestly, I'd probably buy a different truck to the Terra.

 

[Demlockian]

Thanks for the reply Chaz26. My intent here is to highlight that a simple modification to the truck, which shouldn't be expensive nor hard, can open the Terra to more buyers. I'm not asking for a V8 or twin turbo gas engine, but a simple modification.

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

You know, I've been tracking this forum since I made my order back in October, mostly to get updates and monitor some discussions like this one. Generally I have found this forum to feel non-inclusive, where anytime a new person brings up a valid discussion, veteran members shut down the discussion because a) it's already been discussed and the old-timers have already decided the outcome, so don't discuss again, or b) just trust Scout to do the right thing. It really makes me not want to engage because it seems to be the same dozen or so people on every single thread, which reduces the diversity of thought and ideas. Who cares if some folks want to rehash something that was discussed 6 months ago, just ignore it.

I thought the OP made a cogent argument, and posted it very politely. I'm trying to assume everyone here, new folks and veterans, all have an interest in discussing excitement around the Scout.

I'm excited about Scout, but this forum feels more and more like a private club that an open forum.

We don't want anyone to feel that this is an exclusive group or club. Having managed communities like this for a very long time, there is a growth pattern where a forum starts, people build a comfort level with each other, and discussions flow. After many months, new members join and the older members start to feel that the same questions and comments keep happening over and over. This is like a circle of life on community forums. So we always ask that the OGs in this forum try and be patient with new posts. Likewise, we hope new members will look through and search older conversations to bubble them back up.

Our teams read these forums every day, so please continue to let us know your thoughts. And a heavy does of patience goes a long way these days.

Jamie

 

[dreamweaver]

We don't want anyone to feel that this is an exclusive group or club. Having managed communities like this for a very long time, there is a growth pattern where a forum starts, people build a comfort level with each other, and discussions flow. After many months, new members join and the older members start to feel that the same questions and comments keep happening over and over. This is like a circle of life on community forums. So we always ask that the OGs in this forum try and be patient with new posts. Likewise, we hope new members will look through and search older conversations to bubble them back up.

Our teams read these forums every day, so please continue to let us know your thoughts. And a heavy does of patience goes a long way these days.

Jamie

Thanks for the great concise response.

 

[cyure]

We don't want anyone to feel that this is an exclusive group or club. Having managed communities like this for a very long time, there is a growth pattern where a forum starts, people build a comfort level with each other, and discussions flow. After many months, new members join and the older members start to feel that the same questions and comments keep happening over and over. This is like a circle of life on community forums. So we always ask that the OGs in this forum try and be patient with new posts. Likewise, we hope new members will look through and search older conversations to bubble them back up.

Our teams read these forums every day, so please continue to let us know your thoughts. And a heavy does of patience goes a long way these days.

Jamie

Thanks Jamie. Appreciate you and the SM team.

 

[J Alynn]

Good discussion and I can see both sides of this argument!

At the end of the day, if it's your first time here, you probably want to ease into it and not come in all guns-a-blazing. I think some of the veteran members want to keep it tidy and not have a million threads on the same topic, which I can understand, but I also understand that some of these topics will be nuanced and need a refresh from time to time and include some new perspectives & opinions.

One thing that seems trigger people here is when a new member comes onto the site and has misguided expectations that Scout is going to build them a production vehicle exactly to their specifications, locate a service center directly in their neighborhood and increase the range of the Scout to 700 miles while increasing tow capacity to that of a 5th wheel dually (and still retain its off-road capabilities). Scout is an OEM, not a bespoke custom truck shop building to extreme edge cases.

My take? Personally, I will ignore the trolls, the spammers, the factions and the haters and stick to the facts and try to keep the stoke-level on HIGH. in an open forum like this, it becomes pretty obvious who is here to stir the pot and who is here to learn and better understand where Scout is headed.

Well said and more level headed than my moment last night.

 

[Chaz26]

Thanks for the reply Chaz26. My intent here is to highlight that a simple modification to the truck, which shouldn't be expensive nor hard, can open the Terra to more buyers. I'm not asking for a V8 or twin turbo gas engine, but a simple modification.

I guess without knowing the full specs, it's difficult to know how much room there is going to be to have a larger tank, and if that changes any weight balance etc. Perhaps if there is room and it doesn't really make too much of a difference, then like on some trucks today, it could be an optional extra for those who want to pay for a bigger tank over standard.

 

[J Alynn]

I guess without knowing the full specs, it's difficult to know how much room there is going to be to have a larger tank, and if that changes any weight balance etc. Perhaps if there is room and it doesn't really make too much of a difference, then like on some trucks today, it could be an optional extra for those who want to pay for a bigger tank over standard.

I think that’s a good approach. The added weight of fuel for those that don’t tow is a detriment to their range so maybe it is an extended tank option if there is room.

 

[Demlockian]

The added weight is not a detriment to range, or I must be missing something in how EVs operate. A gallon of gasoline weights about 6 pounds and we're talking about adding a modest 10 gallons to the vehicle (60 pounds). The actual tank itself might add something around 40 pounds. In total, we're talking about adding ~100 pounds to the vehicle.

This is not a jerk question, as I don't drive or use EVs, but does adding a 100 pound person (think a kid) drop your range detrimentally?

EDIT
What I have noticed while reading this forum is that loyal EV owners go after anything to do with gasoline... It's not evil guys.

 

[cyure]

The added weight is not a detriment to range, or I must be missing something in how EVs operate. A gallon of gasoline weights about 6 pounds and we're talking about adding a modest 10 gallons to the vehicle (60 pounds). The actual tank itself might add something around 40 pounds. In total, we're talking about adding ~100 pounds to the vehicle.

This is not a jerk question, as I don't drive or use EVs, but does adding a 100 pound person (think a kid) drop your range detrimentally?

EDIT
What I have noticed while reading this forum is that loyal EV owners go after anything to do with gasoline... It's not evil guys.

@SpaceEVDriver or @Cranky Canuck should know the answer to this question.

And to expand on that question, let’s say you have a really heavy load in either the Traveler or the Terra would that affect your range?