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).

 

[Chaz26]

@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?

Added weight will affect range. If you're talking an added 60 pounds, it'll still affect range, would it be anything really noticeable over a long trip, not really. If you're talking large payloads then it'll start to have more of an impact. Now if it was 60 pounds of something on the roof which affects aerodynamics as well, then it would be a much bigger impact than just carrying an extra passenger.

This article talks about impact on an F-150 with sandbags added in. Granted it's only a sample test on a test track it but gives an idea of impact. Of course it will have an impact on mpg on gas vehicles as well.

EVs Lose Range When Carrying Added Weight, AAA Test Shows - TT

Electric vehicles lose a significant amount of range when loaded with heavy cargo, according to a new AAA study released June 13.

www.ttnews.com

 

[R1TVT]

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?

Hauling heavy loads will decrease your range (in either an ICE or an EV truck), just as adding accessories will increase your drag and decrease your range, as will adding massive mud chucker A/T tires. People often forget that when they add huge AT tires on a truck with a 3" lift it will croak your MPG, just as it will in an EV and your MPGe... You can't beat the laws of physics or thermodynamics in an either an EV or an ICE truck.

Of course there are trucks that will tow better, rock crawl better, ride better, be more efficient, have more HP, etc.

Personally, if long distance heavy towing were my PRIMARY USE CASE (or I operated a long-haul towing business, for example) I would buy a 2500 HD Diesel. And I think most current truck owners would agree. However, for occasional long distance trips while towing, and when considering the majority of your daily driving, many people don't need or want a 2500 HD diesel anything. This is where the Harvester could be interesting.

Keep in mind that nothing is stopping anyone from carrying a jerry jug or 2 if they want to have some additional peace of mind out in the wilderness or away from civilization. For the majority of people that are daily driving, they won't even need to touch the fuel reserve or use the Harvester.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

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?

@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?

Assuming “range” in this context means highway range at about a constant speed, there’s minimal change in range from adding 100 pounds. If it’s a lot of stop-and-go or a long, long hill climb, it might impact range by about 100/7000 = about 1.5%, assuming the weight of the truck is 7,000 pounds.


Note that where that the extra 100 pounds is put on the vehicle might impact things like towing capacity. If the 100 pounds is placed over the rear axle, that directly impacts the vehicle’s tongue weight limit. The rear axle has a maximum Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR). If we assume that as it’s currently configured in the minds of Scout Motors engineers there are 750 pounds available within the GAWR for loading by putting weight in the bed or on the tongue, that gives the vehicle 7500 pounds towing capacity. Now if they added another 100 pounds permanently to the rear axle for a secondary fuel tank, then that lowers the available weight on the rear axle to 650 pounds, which lowers towing capacity to 6500 pounds. There’s a direct, pound-for-10-pounds relationship between the weight added to the rear axle and its reduction in towing capacity.

 

[Logan]

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.

I agree, the weight of a larger tank, and another ~5-10 gal of fuel, is essentially a non-issue.

 

[Demlockian]

Personally, if long distance heavy towing were my PRIMARY USE CASE (or I operated a long-haul towing business, for example) I would buy a 2500 HD Diesel.

That's a really good point you bring up. The "adventure" vehicle marketing for the Scout, with its off-road features like the trim options, locking axles, solid rear axle, skid plates, and potentially custom suspension, definitely suggests a target audience involved in activities beyond just paved roads. That includes people with side-by-sides or other off-pavement hobbies like fishing, which often involve heavy boats or off-road trailers. The weight can quickly add up – a simple SXS trailer and the machine itself, especially when built up, can easily reach 5,000 pounds combined, even before considering a toy hauler.

So, considering the general recommendation to avoid maxing out towing capacity, if the Scout Terra has a 10,000-pound limit, it makes sense that they're likely aiming for the 5,000-7,000 pound towing range in practical use.

Keep in mind that nothing is stopping anyone from carrying a jerry jug or 2 if they want to have some additional peace of mind out in the wilderness or away from civilization. For the majority of people that are daily driving, they won't even need to touch the fuel reserve or use the Harvester.

It's an interesting thought about using jerry cans to increase range. My concern is whether that approach would really resonate with the target market who are looking for EVs with extended range. Remember, a lot of potential EV buyers are hesitant due to range anxiety, and I wonder if jerry cans might actually exacerbate that concern.

From my own experience, having off-roaded quite a bit, I know jerry cans used to be more common, especially with older vehicles. But even within that community, they've become less of a necessity over time. While they're still around, especially as a stylistic choice for overlanding, I'm not convinced they represent a viable solution for the EV market that's seeking greater convenience and range.

Note that where that the extra 100 pounds is put on the vehicle might impact things like towing capacity.

Increasing spring and shock stiffness, sway bar diameter, axle tube thickness and design, and tire ply and size are all potential ways to compensate for the additional weight. Given the Scout Terra's target payload of over 2,000 pounds, the estimated 80-100 pound increase (which could even be less with lighter materials) likely isn't a significant concern, especially since it's not directly impacting tongue weight.

My own added comment

To be clear, I'm actually quite excited about the Scout and am seriously considering reserving or purchasing one. My concern stems from the fact that gasoline/towing range is a significant factor for my needs, and I suspect it's a common concern for many others as well. Considering that most truck manufacturers offer both standard (around 25 gallons) and optional extended range tanks (around 32 gallons), I was hoping Scout might consider something similar. I'm not necessarily suggesting a tank as large as those offered by Ford, Chevy, or RAM, but perhaps a 25-gallon compromise tank, similar in size to a standard tank, to help alleviate range anxiety and increase overall usability.

Many members of this forum are already enthusiastic about electric vehicles and may not have much interest in gasoline options. However, it's worth remembering that Scout’s goal is to make money and sell vehicles, which is often more achievable by appealing to a broader market. I’m not suggesting anything extreme like asking Scout to add a VW Super Duper TurboSuper Charged V10 engine—just offering a reasonable idea that could help them stay competitive in the gasoline segment, which still makes up about 90% of new car sales.

 

[cyure]

Personally, if long distance heavy towing were my PRIMARY USE CASE (or I operated a long-haul towing business, for example) I would buy a 2500 HD Diesel.

That's a really good point you bring up. The "adventure" vehicle marketing for the Scout, with its off-road features like the trim options, locking axles, solid rear axle, skid plates, and potentially custom suspension, definitely suggests a target audience involved in activities beyond just paved roads. That includes people with side-by-sides or other off-pavement hobbies like fishing, which often involve heavy boats or off-road trailers. The weight can quickly add up – a simple SXS trailer and the machine itself, especially when built up, can easily reach 5,000 pounds combined, even before considering a toy hauler.

So, considering the general recommendation to avoid maxing out towing capacity, if the Scout Terra has a 10,000-pound limit, it makes sense that they're likely aiming for the 5,000-7,000 pound towing range in practical use.

Keep in mind that nothing is stopping anyone from carrying a jerry jug or 2 if they want to have some additional peace of mind out in the wilderness or away from civilization. For the majority of people that are daily driving, they won't even need to touch the fuel reserve or use the Harvester.

It's an interesting thought about using jerry cans to increase range. My concern is whether that approach would really resonate with the target market who are looking for EVs with extended range. Remember, a lot of potential EV buyers are hesitant due to range anxiety, and I wonder if jerry cans might actually exacerbate that concern.

From my own experience, having off-roaded quite a bit, I know jerry cans used to be more common, especially with older vehicles. But even within that community, they've become less of a necessity over time. While they're still around, especially as a stylistic choice for overlanding, I'm not convinced they represent a viable solution for the EV market that's seeking greater convenience and range.

Note that where that the extra 100 pounds is put on the vehicle might impact things like towing capacity.

Increasing spring and shock stiffness, sway bar diameter, axle tube thickness and design, and tire ply and size are all potential ways to compensate for the additional weight. Given the Scout Terra's target payload of over 2,000 pounds, the estimated 80-100 pound increase (which could even be less with lighter materials) likely isn't a significant concern, especially since it's not directly impacting tongue weight.

My own added comment

To be clear, I'm actually quite excited about the Scout and am seriously considering reserving or purchasing one. My concern stems from the fact that gasoline/towing range is a significant factor for my needs, and I suspect it's a common concern for many others as well. Considering that most truck manufacturers offer both standard (around 25 gallons) and optional extended range tanks (around 32 gallons), I was hoping Scout might consider something similar. I'm not necessarily suggesting a tank as large as those offered by Ford, Chevy, or RAM, but perhaps a 25-gallon compromise tank, similar in size to a standard tank, to help alleviate range anxiety and increase overall usability.

Many members of this forum are already enthusiastic about electric vehicles and may not have much interest in gasoline options. However, it's worth remembering that Scout’s goal is to make money and sell vehicles, which is often more achievable by appealing to a broader market. I’m not suggesting anything extreme like asking Scout to add a VW Super Duper TurboSuper Charged V10 engine—just offering a reasonable idea that could help them stay competitive in the gasoline segment, which still makes up about 90% of new car sales.

This is, unfortunately, another one of those things where we just have to have patience. Keep discussing what we need and want in our Scouts so the team is aware.

I would imagine there’s not a hard and fast rule where the Traveler and Terra have to have the same size gas tank. The Terra is longer so I would imagine potentially there is more room to fit a larger gas tank.

Yes there are a lot of EV enthusiasts on here. I would suspect the are also undecideds like me, and people who are definitely getting the Harvester. One of the videos a while ago, sorry I don’t remember which one, but I remember a 70% figure for Harvester reservations. So it would appear there’s lots of people who still want gas in addition to electric.

I am very enthusiastic about getting my Traveler and I can’t wait. I’m on here to learn and have fun.

 

[cyure]

And thanks everyone for jumping in an answering my weight question. I appreciate it.

 

[BeerParty]

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).

Needing to run the generator in the Harvester to provide power is a common misconception about EREVs. Here is a post I made about this topic in another thread.

As for running the generator in the Harvester, keep in mind that the generator would not need to run for the entire outage. I likely wouldn't need to run at all for the first couple of days as long as the battery were charged up beforehand. The house would initially use power from the battery. When the battery gets low the generator would turn on fill up the battery. Once the battery is full, the generator turns off and the house continues to use power from the batteries. Rinse and repeat. For an example of how it works I'll refer you to a YouTube video (

).

The battery+generator he set up in that video is basically what the EREV setup is in the Scouts. In the video, he mentions running his whole house for 6 hours just on the battery. That's 8Kwh of battery capacity when you include the expansion battery. So the battery he is using in that video is about 1/8 the size of the battery in the EREV. Using that as a baseline, just the battery in the EREV would be able to power your house for at least a couple of days. The range extension provided by the generator is 350 miles, which means the generator (with a full tank of gas) should be able to fully recharge the battery at least twice. Based on the main use case for the generator, it would need to run for about 2.5 hours to fully recharge the battery. Likely less since you wouldn't run the battery all the way down to 0. So, the EREV could provide power to your house for about 6 days, but the generator would only need to run for about 5 hours during that time.

 

[Demlockian]

Great point about relying on the battery before the generator takes over. I should have been clearer that I was referring to the generator’s performance once the battery is depleted. That said, as I mentioned, the average duration is only about 2.5 hours, which the battery alone should easily handle.

However, I don’t think it’s realistic for homeowners in areas prone to long outages—like those caused by hurricanes—to count on the Harvester for week-long scenarios. It seems best suited for typical outage situations where power is usually restored within 24 hours. I say this mainly as why would I put wear and tear on a ~$80K truck vs ~$1K generator setup.

 

[R1TVT]

Personally, if long distance heavy towing were my PRIMARY USE CASE (or I operated a long-haul towing business, for example) I would buy a 2500 HD Diesel.

That's a really good point you bring up. The "adventure" vehicle marketing for the Scout, with its off-road features like the trim options, locking axles, solid rear axle, skid plates, and potentially custom suspension, definitely suggests a target audience involved in activities beyond just paved roads. That includes people with side-by-sides or other off-pavement hobbies like fishing, which often involve heavy boats or off-road trailers. The weight can quickly add up – a simple SXS trailer and the machine itself, especially when built up, can easily reach 5,000 pounds combined, even before considering a toy hauler.

Yes, and I own an EV truck (R1T) and I tow a boat. For my own use case (and preference) I have reserved a PURE BEV TERRA. I won't even consider the Harvester, I have no range anxiety and certainly have no range anxiety for daily driving, and no problem with capacity or capability. I'm not even sure why range anxiety would ever be a concern for daily driving (given average commutes and avg daily driving miles), but you did raise that as one of your personal concerns. Concerns about range could be a reflection of where people live, what type of infrastructure they have access to and whether or not they have EV experience. As far as towing in my pure BEV R1T, I have 11K lb towing capacity, which is more than I need and incredible given the size of the R1T and how well it drives as a daily driver compared to a dedicated tow vehicle like a 2500.

From my own experience, having off-roaded quite a bit, I know jerry cans used to be more common, especially with older vehicles. But even within that community, they've become less of a necessity over time. While they're still around, especially as a stylistic choice for overlanding, I'm not convinced they represent a viable solution for the EV market that's seeking greater convenience and range.

Agreed, and for the "EV market that's seeking greater convenience and range" the majority of them will not be long-hauling or heavy towing. The majority will just be driving their trucks, and they will get 500 miles of estimated range. That number is more than adequate without carrying any jerry jugs for the majority of all drivers. The Jerry jug idea was in support of some potential edge case whereby you might be boondocking for days on end, and you had no access to a gas station.

My own added comment
I'm not necessarily suggesting a tank as large as those offered by Ford, Chevy, or RAM, but perhaps a 25-gallon compromise tank, similar in size to a standard tank, to help alleviate range anxiety and increase overall usability.

I’m not suggesting anything extreme like asking Scout to add a VW Super Duper TurboSuper Charged V10 engine—just offering a reasonable idea that could help them stay competitive in the gasoline segment, which still makes up about 90% of new car sales.

Ford & Chevy do not have an EREV option, and Ram has delayed its Ramcharger yet again... I'm not sure that your comparison makes much sense given that the current trucks on the market are not EREV's and therefore do not have a gas tank along side a battery pack. Those trucks do not have the associated componentry, wiring and BMS that goes with an EV, so it it much easier to add a large tank. I also think that Scout is carving out a niche in the truck market and will be selling into a virtually new EREV segment. You can compare the PURE BEV Scouts to Rivian, Lightning, Silverado, Hummer and CT, but it will not be easy to compare the Harvester to anything. This is an interesting place for Scout to be (despite me not wanting a Harvester version of the Terra). To your point, they will absolutely help convert some buyers that are on the fence about EV trucks. At the end of the day, EV's might not be right for everyone. That is fine. There is no mandate.

 

[Demlockian]

Ford & Chevy do not have an EREV option, and Ram has delayed its Ramcharger yet again... I'm not sure that your comparison makes much sense given that the current trucks on the market
I compared the Terra to gasoline and diesel 1/4-ton trucks, focusing on their range when towing a trailer at about 70% of their gross capacity. By adding the 25-gallon tank to the Harvester, the Terra achieves roughly the same initial range as these conventional trucks and offers a very similar towing range when refueling only the Harvester.

In my initial post I mentioned that range anxiety is non-issue for both urban and rural commuters. It's strictly an issue when towing trailers and "should" be easily solvable.

There is no mandate.
I know California has a mandate set for 2035, though it’s currently facing challenges and potential delays. Different presidents also have very different stances on EVs, which could heavily influence large-scale adoption. But I’m not looking to dive into a political debate.



Maybe I’m the outlier here, but I take several long-distance trips each month where charging an EV wouldn’t just be optional—it would be unavoidable. I’m simply not willing to sit in a parking lot for 20 to 50 minutes to charge. I’d much rather pay more for gas, fill up in 2-3 minutes, and enjoy twice the range of any EV car or truck on the market today. The ONLY vehicle on the horizon that I’d gladly buy is a Scout Terra with the Harvester. Every person like me who makes the switch helps move EV adoption forward.

 

[J Alynn]

Personally, if long distance heavy towing were my PRIMARY USE CASE (or I operated a long-haul towing business, for example) I would buy a 2500 HD Diesel.

That's a really good point you bring up. The "adventure" vehicle marketing for the Scout, with its off-road features like the trim options, locking axles, solid rear axle, skid plates, and potentially custom suspension, definitely suggests a target audience involved in activities beyond just paved roads. That includes people with side-by-sides or other off-pavement hobbies like fishing, which often involve heavy boats or off-road trailers. The weight can quickly add up – a simple SXS trailer and the machine itself, especially when built up, can easily reach 5,000 pounds combined, even before considering a toy hauler.

So, considering the general recommendation to avoid maxing out towing capacity, if the Scout Terra has a 10,000-pound limit, it makes sense that they're likely aiming for the 5,000-7,000 pound towing range in practical use.

Keep in mind that nothing is stopping anyone from carrying a jerry jug or 2 if they want to have some additional peace of mind out in the wilderness or away from civilization. For the majority of people that are daily driving, they won't even need to touch the fuel reserve or use the Harvester.

It's an interesting thought about using jerry cans to increase range. My concern is whether that approach would really resonate with the target market who are looking for EVs with extended range. Remember, a lot of potential EV buyers are hesitant due to range anxiety, and I wonder if jerry cans might actually exacerbate that concern.

From my own experience, having off-roaded quite a bit, I know jerry cans used to be more common, especially with older vehicles. But even within that community, they've become less of a necessity over time. While they're still around, especially as a stylistic choice for overlanding, I'm not convinced they represent a viable solution for the EV market that's seeking greater convenience and range.

Note that where that the extra 100 pounds is put on the vehicle might impact things like towing capacity.

Increasing spring and shock stiffness, sway bar diameter, axle tube thickness and design, and tire ply and size are all potential ways to compensate for the additional weight. Given the Scout Terra's target payload of over 2,000 pounds, the estimated 80-100 pound increase (which could even be less with lighter materials) likely isn't a significant concern, especially since it's not directly impacting tongue weight.

My own added comment

To be clear, I'm actually quite excited about the Scout and am seriously considering reserving or purchasing one. My concern stems from the fact that gasoline/towing range is a significant factor for my needs, and I suspect it's a common concern for many others as well. Considering that most truck manufacturers offer both standard (around 25 gallons) and optional extended range tanks (around 32 gallons), I was hoping Scout might consider something similar. I'm not necessarily suggesting a tank as large as those offered by Ford, Chevy, or RAM, but perhaps a 25-gallon compromise tank, similar in size to a standard tank, to help alleviate range anxiety and increase overall usability.

Many members of this forum are already enthusiastic about electric vehicles and may not have much interest in gasoline options. However, it's worth remembering that Scout’s goal is to make money and sell vehicles, which is often more achievable by appealing to a broader market. I’m not suggesting anything extreme like asking Scout to add a VW Super Duper TurboSuper Charged V10 engine—just offering a reasonable idea that could help them stay competitive in the gasoline segment, which still makes up about 90% of new car sales.

The other question that comes into play is where to actually locate the extra 10 gallons. Space under the vehicle(s) with battery packs becomes limited especially with SM wanting to put as many batteries under as possible to appease the other half of the equation who want more battery range. I hope they can find the room but I suspect the 15 gallons tank size that I think Scott eluded to at some point is probably the safe amount they feel they can fit under with everything else going on. Also have to be careful with it due to the larger e-axles and potential damage from rock crawling???

 

[dreamweaver]

The other question that comes into play is where to actually locate the extra 10 gallons. Space under the vehicle(s) with battery packs becomes limited especially with SM wanting to put as many batteries under as possible to appease the other half of the equation who want more battery range. I hope they can find the room but I suspect the 15 gallons tank size that I think Scott eluded to at some point is probably the safe amount they feel they can fit under with everything else going on. Also have to be careful with it due to the larger e-axles and potential damage from rock crawling???

When you are off-roading or rock-crawling there are a lot of things moving around under the vehicle. As you rightly said only so much room. Clearances are critical!

 

[J Alynn]

Ford & Chevy do not have an EREV option, and Ram has delayed its Ramcharger yet again... I'm not sure that your comparison makes much sense given that the current trucks on the market
I compared the Terra to gasoline and diesel 1/4-ton trucks, focusing on their range when towing a trailer at about 70% of their gross capacity. By adding the 25-gallon tank to the Harvester, the Terra achieves roughly the same initial range as these conventional trucks and offers a very similar towing range when refueling only the Harvester.

In my initial post I mentioned that range anxiety is non-issue for both urban and rural commuters. It's strictly an issue when towing trailers and "should" be easily solvable.

There is no mandate.
I know California has a mandate set for 2035, though it’s currently facing challenges and potential delays. Different presidents also have very different stances on EVs, which could heavily influence large-scale adoption. But I’m not looking to dive into a political debate.



Maybe I’m the outlier here, but I take several long-distance trips each month where charging an EV wouldn’t just be optional—it would be unavoidable. I’m simply not willing to sit in a parking lot for 20 to 50 minutes to charge. I’d much rather pay more for gas, fill up in 2-3 minutes, and enjoy twice the range of any EV car or truck on the market today. The ONLY vehicle on the horizon that I’d gladly buy is a Scout Terra with the Harvester. Every person like me who makes the switch helps move EV adoption forward.

I agree but would also say holding on to gas as your primary because you don’t want to change your way of driving is also what is hurting the EV adoption. Not knocking it-just saying it doesn’t help encourage the transition. Many on here have said they’ve made the change and adapted and to them I say kudos. If charger access is legitimately an issue I understand the value of the harvester but to say you don’t want to change your way of driving but asking SM to change isn’t a great way for EV adoption to occur. It’s your choice but I don’t think SM necessarily went the way of Harvester/EREV to accommodate long haul/large tow scenarios but rather to ease the mind of the average truck/SUV owner who grabs some plants and 2x’s at the local Home Depot and shoves the kids sporting gear or outdoor gear in the back 3 weekends a month. Certain vehicles are geared for certain markets. An 8 day a week truck isn’t really geared for a 3-4, 1000+ mile trip per month hauling big loads. Similar to Ford introducing the Maverick-it’s a pick up but with a niche buyer in mind and I think SM is probably a similar outlook but different niche. Nobody yet on the forum has said I bought a Rivian and I long haul heavy load trailers. But that is the most similar vehicle on the market yet Rivian is managing to capture a sold portion of the market for a relatively new EV. I’m not fighting the fight, just saying a $60K EV vehicle isn’t likely going to be the right truck for every demographic and something needs to give eventually so it’s fun to speculate nonetheless

 

[R1TVT]

Similar to Ford introducing the Maverick-it’s a pick up but with a niche buyer in mind and I think SM is probably a similar outlook but different niche. Nobody yet on the forum has said I bought a Rivian and I long haul heavy load trailers. But that is the most similar vehicle on the market yet Rivian is managing to capture a sold portion of the market for a relatively new EV. I’m not fighting the fight, just saying a $60K EV vehicle isn’t likely going to be the right truck for every demographic and something needs to give eventually so it’s fun to speculate nonetheless

Some great points here, and I will add that a whole bunch of people have bought Rivian's (and other EV's like the Lightening) on farms and other rural settings for work, and as work trucks - particularly in the case where they may have installed solar, or may be even completely off-grid. EV's open up a whole new experience for people that have invested in self-reliance and independence! (seems appropriate in light of the Holiday). Honestly, buying an American-made EV truck could be your most patriotic large purchase as an inhabitant of this planet, and if you are truly a person that cares for the environment and the future and your kids futre, even better. I believe Scout will be another brand that will allow a large number of people to have a kick-ass ownership experience in either version of their trucks and enable some great adventures.

It might not be the perfect truck for everyone, but it was designed with many of the people on this forum in mind: "Built for durability and versatility, the Scout was embraced by adventurers, farmers, and outdoor enthusiasts alike, becoming a symbol of freedom and rugged independence. That same spirit lives on today in the new Scout Motors and in all Scout products."

I can get behind that. Looking forward to seeing what the configurator looks like once we have production vehicles and final specs.

 

[Time2Roll]

I plan to have just battery. For those that need more than 15 gallons of gasoline I see plenty of off road jeeps etc with jerry cans. Even the Scout spare tire holder seems to have one attached.

 

[Latrant]

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.

Has the Battery Chemistry been confirmed? LFP?

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

.

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.

I hadn’t seen this comment earlier.

This is absolutely correct. Even going over 90% and under 10% isn’t a big deal. When scientists and engineers say, “don’t store the battery at ___%,” they don’t mean don’t let it be there for a day or two. They mean don’t leave it there for months. And they’re always, always talking about the full battery capacity, not the manufacturer-limited battery capacity. My Lightning has 143 kWh of total battery capacity. I’m told there’s 131 kWh of available capacity. That’s already 91.6% of full capacity. I have zero fears of charging to 95% on the regular because the displayed reading, 95% is relative to the already lowered capacity. When I charge to 95%, the battery is at 87% of full capacity.

And similarly on the 10% end. I don’t happen to have a graph that runs from 100% to 10% or less, but here are two graphs that show these “buffers” on the Lightning.

I apologize to those who have colorblindness; I don’t have any control over the color of these lines nor their general appearance. The true state of charge (relative to 143 kWh) is the red (HvbSoc [%]) line, which starts below the green line. The green line is the displayed state of charge (HvbSocD [%]) and is relative to 131 kWh. It starts and remains above the true state of charge until around 35% when it starts to cross.

This graph is for the lower 40% state of charge. Again, the red line is the true state of charge. They’re difficult to discern for most of the graph. Around 17:28, 32% state of charge, they separate and the red line stays above the green line for the rest of the graph. So here the true state of charge, relative to 143 kWh is higher than the displayed state of charge (the green line). At the end of the graph, the true state of charge is about 14% and the displayed state of charge is at about 12%.

To recap: Above about 35% to 40% state of charge, the true state of charge is lower than the displayed state of charge because they put in a “top-end” buffer so you can’t charge your battery to a true 100%. The graphs slowly approach each other until around 35% they cross. Then the displayed state of charge is lower than the true state of charge. They do this so that it looks like you’re going to run out of energy sooner than you will and so that you will get a charge soon.

When your vehicle tells you it’s at 100%, it’s really likely closer to 90-95%, depending on the decisions made by the manufacturer. When your vehicle tells you it’s at 10%, its really likely closer to 15%, depending on the manufacturer. This protects the battery from damage and gives them some buffer to release when batteries start to have a health that is concerning to the owners.

 

[cyure]

.

I hadn’t seen this comment earlier.

This is absolutely correct. Even going over 90% and under 10% isn’t a big deal. When scientists and engineers say, “don’t store the battery at ___%,” they don’t mean don’t let it be there for a day or two. They mean don’t leave it there for months. And they’re always, always talking about the full battery capacity, not the manufacturer-limited battery capacity. My Lightning has 143 kWh of total battery capacity. I’m told there’s 131 kWh of available capacity. That’s already 91.6% of full capacity. I have zero fears of charging to 95% on the regular because the displayed reading, 95% is relative to the already lowered capacity. When I charge to 95%, the battery is at 87% of full capacity.

And similarly on the 10% end. I don’t happen to have a graph that runs from 100% to 10% or less, but here are two graphs that show these “buffers” on the Lightning.

I apologize to those who have colorblindness; I don’t have any control over the color of these lines nor their general appearance. The true state of charge (relative to 143 kWh) is the red (HvbSoc [%]) line, which starts below the green line. The green line is the displayed state of charge (HvbSocD [%]) and is relative to 131 kWh. It starts and remains above the true state of charge until around 35% when it starts to cross.

View attachment 7593


This graph is for the lower 40% state of charge. Again, the red line is the true state of charge. They’re difficult to discern for most of the graph. Around 17:28, 32% state of charge, they separate and the red line stays above the green line for the rest of the graph. So here the true state of charge, relative to 143 kWh is higher than the displayed state of charge (the green line). At the end of the graph, the true state of charge is about 14% and the displayed state of charge is at about 12%.

View attachment 7594

To recap: Above about 35% to 40% state of charge, the true state of charge is lower than the displayed state of charge because they put in a “top-end” buffer so you can’t charge your battery to a true 100%. The graphs slowly approach each other until around 35% they cross. Then the displayed state of charge is lower than the true state of charge. They do this so that it looks like you’re going to run out of energy sooner than you will and so that you will get a charge soon.

When your vehicle tells you it’s at 100%, it’s really likely closer to 90-95%, depending on the decisions made by the manufacturer. When your vehicle tells you it’s at 10%, its really likely closer to 15%, depending on the manufacturer. This protects the battery from damage and gives them some buffer to release when batteries start to have a health that is concerning to the owners.

Thanks for the explanation Space. Appreciate you always taking time out of your day to be so thorough.

 

[J Alynn]

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.

​

I appreciate seeing a post that recognizes that there are many of us who have been on here for a long time and are indeed passionate for the new Scouts. I try on a regular basis to greet as many new members as I can, sometimes I miss a new name. I try on a regular basis to post new threads to gain interest from different points of view-design, community, engineering, etc… my goal is to try and offer viewpoints that encourage “sideline” members to jump in because maybe they have a unique interest and perhaps something I post encourages them to join a conversation.

Admittedly, there are the occasional posts that do get me heated and the forum is certainly just that-a place to discuss opinions and engage people in passionate conversation. But it is also a place to help guide SM.

I’ve never wanted someone to leave this community because of an opinion I had to offer-be it positive or negative. In 2-1/2 years I’ve regularly had people dump on my ideas and so long as they weren’t being completely inappropriate I accepted it. So if Ive made a person feel unwelcome I apologize as that is pretty much the opposite of what I’ve tried to do with my time on this forum.

If there are ways “veteran” members can do more I’m completely for trying. What I have noticed ( as I’ve watched the past two days), as I feel @Chuckles noticed and commented on is there does seem to be a group of about 15 to 20 folks who post regularly, myself included, and it covers all sorts of topics. What I don’t know is what we can do to get newer members and watchers to join the conversations. Sometimes I feel like if the 15-20 or so regulars didn’t comment and post there wouldn’t be much activity. As a side note-I spent 1-1/2 years on the sidelines of the Bronco6G forum and often felt like I couldn’t jump in because I was out of the loop. (Ironically that is also where I learned about this forum and the new Scout venture). I saw the same regular names commenting on that forum so I understand people’s hesitations but at the same time I feel like I’ve met some great connections here and that is what makes me want to jump on here each day and see what’s new. I also like to try adding new threads as I mentioned above. I’ll go so far as to say I’ve DM’d several members here and there because we have something in common or we hung out at the reveal and I enjoyed chatting but I don’t want to talk personal things when we are on here for Scouts. And now we chat regularly which is cool. I’ve also had a number of members DM me to ask questions or get my take on something. With both these scenarios I feel like the forum has succeeded as it is building community. All I can offer is jump in and join a conversation and like @Chuckles implied-find your passion and join a conversation.