Don't let the Scout become a status symbol; why $60k misses the point of the Revival

[THil08]

For my Uncle Jamies sake and well being, lets all just ignore this thread and it will eventually disappear in the deep deep deep endless amounts of threads on here!

 

[robothero]

For my Uncle Jamies sake and well being, lets all just ignore this thread and it will eventually disappear in the deep deep deep endless amounts of threads on here!

AMEN!

 

[THil08]

AMEN!

AMEN!

 

[tomgillotti]

I thought I’d drop this here just to keep our blood pressure up regarding "Value" vs. "Price."

I just watched a short on the Geely M9. Now, before everyone screams "China!" and "Subsidies!", just look at the raw hardware you get for $37,000 USD:

• 870 Horsepower

• 932 miles of range (let's say 600 real-world, still insane)

• Heated, Ventilated, and Massaging seats... in the second row

• Heated third row with deep recline

• HUD, Fridge/Warmer, giant screens, air suspension.

]


My point in sharing this isn't that "we should all buy Chinese cars." My point is that this video exposes the "Inflation" lie we are being fed. If a manufacturer can build a vehicle with 870hp and massaging seats for $37k, it proves that the actual cost of this technology has plummeted.

When a domestic truck with cloth seats and a plastic dash costs $65k, it’s not because "parts are expensive." It’s because we are being charged a 200% markup to protect legacy margins. This Geely is what happens when a company competes on product; the current US truck market is what happens when companies compete on marketing.

Scout has the VW Group behind it. They have the scale to get close to this kind of value. If they choose not to, it’s not an engineering problem—it’s a greed problem.

 

[strider]

Oh good grief. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Why have American Corporations shipped so much manufacturing to China, Mexico, etc over the past few decades? Lower wages (costs in general). I asked ChatGPT what autoworker salaries are in China and the US.

Country	Typical Median Frontline Auto Worker Wage
United States	~$60,000 – $70,000 per year (≈ $30–$33 /hr)
China	~$10,000 – $13,000 per year (~¥6,000–¥7,000 /mo)

Don't give me that "But muh robots!" crap. A TON of human labor goes into making cars and automation is covered by the above in that US cars are 2X vs China vs a 5X difference in wages. Also electricity is way cheaper in China than the US.

I tell you what, when YOU are willing to work for $13,000/year then you can have a $40,000 Scout. Deal?

Bringing back good middle class jobs is exactly what this country needs. Will that make things cost more? Yes. But it is a price we must pay or the country will fall apart. People generally consider the 50's and 60's to have been an amazing period economically. Guess what? Stuff was expensive. I was watching a video from an appliance repair person who was trying to explain why appliances don't last. He found the receipt for his Mother's fridge rom the 50's. Adjusted for inflation that tiny fridge cost $3,500. Now you can buy a fridge that size for $700. So outsourcing gave us cheap goods but destroyed our middle class.

Now it's a chicken and egg problem. If we keep going down the outsourcing path in order to lower costs for people that are facing declining wages, eventually we will run out of things to outsource. We need to create good jobs for people who can then pay for the goods that they produce.

What you are asking for is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I'm sorry @robothero and @THil08. I shouldn't feed the trolls but I couldn't help myself. You can smack me if we ever meet IRL

 

[tomgillotti]

Oh good grief. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Why have American Corporations shipped so much manufacturing to China, Mexico, etc over the past few decades? Lower wages (costs in general). I asked ChatGPT what autoworker salaries are in China and the US.

Country	Typical Median Frontline Auto Worker Wage
United States	~$60,000 – $70,000 per year (≈ $30–$33 /hr)
China	~$10,000 – $13,000 per year (~¥6,000–¥7,000 /mo)

Don't give me that "But muh robots!" crap. A TON of human labor goes into making cars and automation is covered by the above in that US cars are 2X vs China vs a 5X difference in wages. Also electricity is way cheaper in China than the US.

I tell you what, when YOU are willing to work for $13,000/year then you can have a $40,000 Scout. Deal?

Bringing back good middle class jobs is exactly what this country needs. Will that make things cost more? Yes. But it is a price we must pay or the country will fall apart. People generally consider the 50's and 60's to have been an amazing period economically. Guess what? Stuff was expensive. I was watching a video from an appliance repair person who was trying to explain why appliances don't last. He found the receipt for his Mother's fridge rom the 50's. Adjusted for inflation that tiny fridge cost $3,500. Now you can buy a fridge that size for $700. So outsourcing gave us cheap goods but destroyed our middle class.

Now it's a chicken and egg problem. If we keep going down the outsourcing path in order to lower costs for people that are facing declining wages, eventually we will run out of things to outsource. We need to create good jobs for people who can then pay for the goods that they produce.

What you are asking for is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I'm sorry @robothero and @THil08. I shouldn't feed the trolls but I couldn't help myself. You can smack me if we ever meet IRL

I appreciate the "feeding the trolls" comment—it's always refreshing to see someone take the high road while calling people ignorant. But since you brought up the 1950s and "math," let's actually do some.

1. The "Golden Age" Math

You cited the 1950s as the economic ideal we should return to. I agree!

In 1950, a brand new Ford F-1 pickup cost about $1,200.

Adjusted for inflation (CPI), that is roughly $16,000 in today's money.

So, in the era of "Good Middle Class Jobs" that you want to protect, a factory worker could buy a brand new truck for the equivalent of $16k. Today, you are defending a price of $60k.

You just proved my point: The "Middle Class" is dying because the cost of essential tools (like trucks) has outpaced inflation by 300%. We had high wages and cheap trucks then. Why is it impossible now?


2. The "American Labor" Myth

You claim that American wages ($33/hr) are the reason trucks are expensive.

Fact Check: The Toyota Camry is built in Georgetown, Kentucky, by American workers.

Refer back to the Wolf Street graph. The Camry price tracked inflation perfectly ($26k-$30k). The F-150 price went vertical ($60k+).

If "American Wages" force high prices, why didn't the Kentucky-built Camry skyrocket to $60k too?

The Answer: It didn't. Labor is only ~10-15% of a vehicle's cost. The difference is that trucks are priced for profit, not for labor.

I’m not asking for Chinese wages. I’m asking why a truck built by Americans in 1950 cost $16k (adjusted), and a sedan built by Americans in 2024 costs $30k, yet you insist a Scout must cost $65k to "save the country." The math simply doesn't support your anger.

Check your emotions

 

[eunichron]

You just proved my point: The "Middle Class" is dying because the cost of essential tools (like trucks) has outpaced inflation by 300%. We had high wages and cheap trucks then. Why is it impossible now?

Regulatory inflation. As much as 20% of the cost of a new vehicle is due to government regulation (safety, fuel efficiency, and emissions). Compliance is expensive.

China doesn't have to deal with that.

 

[tomgillotti]

Regulatory inflation. As much as 20% of the cost of a new vehicle is due to government regulation (safety, fuel efficiency, and emissions). Compliance is expensive.

China doesn't have to deal with that.

That is a fair point—compliance costs are definitely real, and I don't want to dismiss the impact of safety and emissions tech entirely. 20% is a solid estimate for that burden.

But even when I plug that 20% into the math, I still can't get the numbers to line up with current prices. If we start with a solid inflation-adjusted price for a basic truck—say $35,000—and add that full 20% regulatory cost on top, we land at $42,000.

The problem is, we aren't seeing $42,000 trucks on the lots. We are seeing $65,000+ trucks. So even accounting for the government's slice, there is still a roughly $20,000 gap that regulations alone don't explain.

This is why I keep going back to the Camry comparison (the purple line in the graph). The Camry has to meet all the same crash standards, backup camera mandates, and airbag requirements that trucks do. Actually, sedans often face stricter MPG targets than trucks due to the footprint rule. Yet, the Camry's price stayed relatively flat with inflation, while the F-150 skyrocketed.

If regulations were the main driver, wouldn't we have seen the Camry shoot up to $60k too? The fact that it didn't suggests to me that the "Truck Premium" is coming from somewhere else besides the government.

 

[Mousehunter]

It's not just the wages of the factory workers, it is also the wages of the sales staff at the dealer, the overhead of the dealer (maintaining a brick and mortar presence, maintaining a floor plan), and the Regulatory pressure is not just the vehicles - it is the factories (from the permits, through the building, to the operations-every OSHA and EPA breath), and the complete supply chain that is US sourced. Good luck paying for US made bolts with US steel. The regulatory pressure goes from the raw materials all the way to the exaust system of the paint shop. Hell, I hate to think of the layers of regulations for making paint, glue, wire insulation (&%$#@ soy based insulation)...

 

[tomgillotti]

It's not just the wages of the factory workers, it is also the wages of the sales staff at the dealer, the overhead of the dealer (maintaining a brick and mortar presence, maintaining a floor plan), and the Regulatory pressure is not just the vehicles - it is the factories (from the permits, through the building, to the operations-every OSHA and EPA breath), and the complete supply chain that is US sourced. Good luck paying for US made bolts with US steel. The regulatory pressure goes from the raw materials all the way to the exaust system of the paint shop. Hell, I hate to think of the layers of regulations for making paint, glue, wire insulation (&%$#@ soy based insulation)...

I actually agree with your breakdown of the costs—but that breakdown is exactly why I’m holding Scout to a higher standard.

You listed "Dealer Overhead" (sales staff, brick & mortar, floor plan interest) as a major driver of the final price. You are 100% correct. The franchise system adds massive bloat to the sticker price.

But remember: Scout is Direct-to-Consumer. They are bypassing that entire "Dealer Overhead" layer you just described. They don't have independent franchise markups or floor plan interest. If the dealer model is as expensive as you say (and it is), then cutting it out should logically result in a lower price, not a higher one.

As for the "Regulatory & Supply Chain" costs—I’m not saying those are zero. I’m saying that legacy manufacturers have proven you can build large, US-sourced vehicles for under $40k. The difference is that when they sell a $40k vehicle, they accept a slim margin (maybe 5%). When they sell a $65k truck, they are targeting a "Luxury Margin" (often 20%+).

My frustration isn't with the cost of the bolts; it's with the size of the margin. We shouldn't accept that a "utilitarian" brand like Scout needs to have Porsche-level profit margins just because "regulations exist."

 

[N Wilson]

I'm still not convinced that you're not AI but just in case you're not, here are a few thoughts:

1. DTC model vs franchise dealer doesn't equal zero cost in the DTC model. They are still going to be acquiring land, building brick and mortar locations (workshops, studios, service centers or whatever they end up being called) staffing all those locations. They will have salespeople, just not the pushy, commission based kind. Service techs, service managers, parts managers, etc, etc, etc.

2. The VW backing you keep bringing up as a reason why Scout should be able to hit your arbitrary desired price point. This may have a good deal to do with why they can't hit your price point, actually.

Put yourself in VW's shoes for a moment. You are the sole investor in a new vehicle brand. You have invested billions in building a new factory, hiring thousands of employees (salaries, benefits, etc) and some guy on the internet (or bot) keeps insisting that you sell the new vehicles at very little to no margin. As much as we may not like it, VW will very much have a say in what margin SM ends up putting on the vehicles. Scout wasn't a charity project for them. Their investors are expecting a return on their investment.

In fact, given the headwinds EV manufacturers are currently facing, it would not be entirely surprising to me if at some point VW decided to pull the plug on the whole Scout brand altogether and take a loss and write it off. Ford just took a ~$19B loss and ended the Lightning production. That's a good example of a major manufacturer not being willing to lose money on every vehicle produced forever. I know, I can already predict your response to this. Something along the lines of . ..you're proving my point because Ford priced the Lightning too high...etc...

But my point is none of us know right now what it will cost to produce a Scout in 2027/2028. Not even Scout, VW or anyone else knows the answer to that. If they commit now to a price that ends up being a loss on every vehicle, they won't be around long at all.

Like most things, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You are wildly oversimplifying complex automotive market dynamics because you want a Scout for $45k. Scout may be able to produce a vehicle for less than $60k, but as I said before, they don't know that yet. Not a single production vehicle has rolled off the line yet and been delivered to it's owner.

Why don't we give them some grace and see how it goes when production starts. If you don't want to pay the price they are asking at launch, don't. Wait and buy used (like I did with my Lightning).

 

[tomgillotti]

I'm still not convinced that you're not AI but just in case you're not, here are a few thoughts:

1. DTC model vs franchise dealer doesn't equal zero cost in the DTC model. They are still going to be acquiring land, building brick and mortar locations (workshops, studios, service centers or whatever they end up being called) staffing all those locations. They will have salespeople, just not the pushy, commission based kind. Service techs, service managers, parts managers, etc, etc, etc.

2. The VW backing you keep bringing up as a reason why Scout should be able to hit your arbitrary desired price point. This may have a good deal to do with why they can't hit your price point, actually.

Put yourself in VW's shoes for a moment. You are the sole investor in a new vehicle brand. You have invested billions in building a new factory, hiring thousands of employees (salaries, benefits, etc) and some guy on the internet (or bot) keeps insisting that you sell the new vehicles at very little to no margin. As much as we may not like it, VW will very much have a say in what margin SM ends up putting on the vehicles. Scout wasn't a charity project for them. Their investors are expecting a return on their investment.

In fact, given the headwinds EV manufacturers are currently facing, it would not be entirely surprising to me if at some point VW decided to pull the plug on the whole Scout brand altogether and take a loss and write it off. Ford just took a ~$19B loss and ended the Lightning production. That's a good example of a major manufacturer not being willing to lose money on every vehicle produced forever. I know, I can already predict your response to this. Something along the lines of . ..you're proving my point because Ford priced the Lightning too high...etc...

But my point is none of us know right now what it will cost to produce a Scout in 2027/2028. Not even Scout, VW or anyone else knows the answer to that. If they commit now to a price that ends up being a loss on every vehicle, they won't be around long at all.

Like most things, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in the middle. You are wildly oversimplifying complex automotive market dynamics because you want a Scout for $45k. Scout may be able to produce a vehicle for less than $60k, but as I said before, they don't know that yet. Not a single production vehicle has rolled off the line yet and been delivered to it's owner.

Why don't we give them some grace and see how it goes when production starts. If you don't want to pay the price they are asking at launch, don't. Wait and buy used (like I did with my Lightning).

I assure you, the frustration is very human. My username is also a pretty dead giveaway as to who I am if you look closely, but I’ll leave the detective work to you.

I need to focus on your statement that "none of us know right now what it will cost to produce a Scout in 2027/2028. Not even Scout." With all due respect, that is a completely ludicrous suggestion. In professional automotive manufacturing, you don't build a vehicle and then add up the receipts at the end to see what it costs. That is how a hobbyist builds a hot rod; it is not how Volkswagen approves a $2 billion investment.

The reality is that Scout knew the exact target cost of this vehicle before they ever poured the foundation for the factory. This is called "Target Costing." Every bolt, every chip, and every panel is engineered specifically to hit a pre-determined price point that justifies the investment. If they truly "didn't know" the production cost this close to launch, the entire executive team would be fired for gross negligence. They know the cost down to the penny. The only thing they are deciding now is the margin.

You also mentioned Ford's struggles, but you are drawing the wrong conclusion. Ford didn't hit a wall because the Lightning was too cheap; they hit a wall because they priced it out of the volume market. When the Lightning was $40k, it was sold out. When they jacked it to $60k+, inventory piled up. That is exactly why Ford is now pivoting their strategy to match Scout’s—moving toward affordable platforms and EREV systems (like the Harvester). They realized that high-priced electric trucks are a dead end. If Ford is scrambling to lower costs to survive, Scout has no excuse to repeat their mistake. They know the cost, and they know the market limit. Any price above that is just greed, not "inflation."

 

[N Wilson]

I assure you, the frustration is very human. My username is also a pretty dead giveaway as to who I am if you look closely, but I’ll leave the detective work to you.

I need to focus on your statement that "none of us know right now what it will cost to produce a Scout in 2027/2028. Not even Scout." With all due respect, that is a completely ludicrous suggestion. In professional automotive manufacturing, you don't build a vehicle and then add up the receipts at the end to see what it costs. That is how a hobbyist builds a hot rod; it is not how Volkswagen approves a $2 billion investment.

The reality is that Scout knew the exact target cost of this vehicle before they ever poured the foundation for the factory. This is called "Target Costing." Every bolt, every chip, and every panel is engineered specifically to hit a pre-determined price point that justifies the investment. If they truly "didn't know" the production cost this close to launch, the entire executive team would be fired for gross negligence. They know the cost down to the penny. The only thing they are deciding now is the margin.

You also mentioned Ford's struggles, but you are drawing the wrong conclusion. Ford didn't hit a wall because the Lightning was too cheap; they hit a wall because they priced it out of the volume market. When the Lightning was $40k, it was sold out. When they jacked it to $60k+, inventory piled up. That is exactly why Ford is now pivoting their strategy to match Scout’s—moving toward affordable platforms and EREV systems (like the Harvester). They realized that high-priced electric trucks are a dead end. If Ford is scrambling to lower costs to survive, Scout has no excuse to repeat their mistake. They know the cost, and they know the market limit. Any price above that is just greed, not "inflation."

Well, of course they would have done due diligence and costing. I figured that went without saying.

Scout was announced 4-5 years ago. Many things have changed in the time since, not the least of which is the administration currently in power that is openly hostile to EVs and clueless about tariff impacts on the American automotive industry.

Point is, things change. Even the best estimates from 4 years ago will be different when the first Scouts roll off the line.

You seem to have gotten pretty upset, for reasons I don't fully understand. maybe take your own advice from a few posts ago.

Check your emotions

 

[tomgillotti]

Well, of course they would have done due diligence and costing. I figured that went without saying.

Scout was announced 4-5 years ago. Many things have changed in the time since, not the least of which is the administration currently in power that is openly hostile to EVs and clueless about tariff impacts on the American automotive industry.

Point is, things change. Even the best estimates from 4 years ago will be different when the first Scouts roll off the line.

You seem to have gotten pretty upset, for reasons I don't fully understand. maybe take your own advice from a few posts ago.

Check your emotions

I am unsure how you've tried to twist anything I said into me "being upset," but hey, it's text and difficult to interpret. I’m just allergic to the idea that a multi-national corporation is "guessing" with $2 billion of shareholder money. If being precise about manufacturing economics comes across as emotional to you, that might say more about how low the bar for discussion has fallen in this thread.

As for the "Administration and Tariffs" point—you actually just highlighted why Scout should be in a strong position, not a weak one.

• Tariffs: If Scout is truly "Made in America" at the South Carolina plant with a localized supply chain (as they claim), then tariffs on foreign imports should be a competitive advantage for them. It makes their foreign rivals more expensive. If you are suggesting tariffs will ruin Scout's pricing, you are implicitly admitting that they aren't as "American Made" as the marketing suggests and are relying on cheap foreign parts. Which is it?

• The Administration: Yes, the new administration is hostile to pure EVs. That is exactly why the Harvester (EREV) is the golden ticket. It burns gas. It fits the "energy independence" narrative perfectly. The political wind is blowing toward hybrids/EREVs, not away from them.

"Things change," sure. But hedging against those changes is literally the job of the executives. They don't just shrug and pass the bill to us. They have entire departments dedicated to locking in long-term supply contracts to insulate the price tag from exactly this kind of volatility. Expecting them to do their job isn't being "upset"; it's being a rational consumer.

 

[Mousehunter]

I think it is fairly obvious to anyone that the costs have changed since they started designing the Scout. Scout was formed after Covid, so at least they did not have to deal with the initial inflation that caused - but Covid fallout did change the inflation pasterns for years to come. Sadly, with every administration change, the economic crystal ball gets thrown on the floor and shattered. You can plan for change, but not always predict it. Plus, while production will start in 2027, the majority of the reservations will probably not be filled until later - another election year, one that will cause another administration change.

Imagine if the next administration allows Chinese EV's into the American market. The American market will either evolve or die. But 2 years could change the entire dynamics of the world as well. Not to get into politics specifically-but entire supply chains might be crushed or arise from new directions. We might be getting batteries from Finland (Donut Lab's joke).

 

[tomgillotti]

I think it is fairly obvious to anyone that the costs have changed since they started designing the Scout. Scout was formed after Covid, so at least they did not have to deal with the initial inflation that caused - but Covid fallout did change the inflation pasterns for years to come. Sadly, with every administration change, the economic crystal ball gets thrown on the floor and shattered. You can plan for change, but not always predict it. Plus, while production will start in 2027, the majority of the reservations will probably not be filled until later - another election year, one that will cause another administration change.

Imagine if the next administration allows Chinese EV's into the American market. The American market will either evolve or die. But 2 years could change the entire dynamics of the world as well. Not to get into politics specifically-but entire supply chains might be crushed or arise from new directions. We might be getting batteries from Finland (Donut Lab's joke).

I agree with you that the threat of Chinese EVs is real, but I think you are misdiagnosing why the industry is vulnerable. It’s not just bad luck or "uncertainty"—it’s self-inflicted.

The entire US auto industry has made itself a "sitting duck" for foreign competition because of Greed-flation. The Big Three made a conscious choice to abandon the affordable volume market (the $25k-$35k segment) to chase fewer, wealthier buyers with $80k luxury trucks. By doing that, they left the bottom 80% of the market completely undefended. They basically rolled out a red carpet for BYD or Geely to come in and sweep up the millions of customers they ignored.

This is exactly why I am holding Scout to a higher standard. Ford and GM are "trapped" ducks. They have massive legacy costs—pension obligations, dealership networks that legally require a cut, and inefficient old factories—that force them to keep prices high to survive.

Scout is different. They are a clean slate.

• No dealers.

• No pension debt.

• Modern, dedicated factory.

• VW Group parts bin scaling.


Scout is the only American brand that actually has the structural ability to break the "Greed-flation" cycle. If they choose to ignore that advantage and just join the flock of overpriced sitting ducks, they aren't just protecting themselves from uncertainty—they are effectively deciding to be prey rather than a competitor. They have the option to be the predator (the disruptive value option), but they seem determined to follow the dinosaurs off the cliff.

 

[Mousehunter]

On one side I do agree. The US automakers have set their own traps. Unpopular here, but UAW is part of that. Unpopular here is that Musk has tried to avoid some of those traps with Tesla. But VW group has also set their own traps. Legacy has it's specific inherent problems. It is hard to change the direction of the Titanic. Legacy, both in the US and Europe has a bit of a history of trying to manage the board rather than fix the problems. It is hard to steer dozens of groups within an organization when each group knows they will be devastated by the new direction. (Which is why Ford and VW ended up investing in Rivian architecture - they could have made their own, but infighting prevented it.

On the other hand, I can also understand that some problems are going to be impossible to address directly. US manufacturers will always have to deal with different regulatory overhead that parts of Asia simply do not. The US is simply not going to give up on those regulations, even if they do make US manufacturing less economical. I am less aware of the specific regulations in Europe, but pretty certain they are either equal or worse. But ultimately just trying to make more regulation protection is not the answer, we need to adapt our manufacturing to be more efficient as well. Crossing my fingers that Scout has already learned that lesson.
---
Direct sales is an interesting problem. The golf cart industry is a great example of it. I can probably dig up 20 years (probably a lot more) of a specific brand of Asian built golf carts being the current fad (and people being left with buggies that have no supply chain of repair parts 3 years later-cannibalism being the only part source). Problem is that the US importers were not manufacturers, with no real ties to the manufacturers other than their initial purchase contracts. At least some of the consumer protection laws have merit. But even those laws really don't help the owner of a Fisker during a road trip.

 

[tomgillotti]

On one side I do agree. The US automakers have set their own traps. Unpopular here, but UAW is part of that. Unpopular here is that Musk has tried to avoid some of those traps with Tesla. But VW group has also set their own traps. Legacy has it's specific inherent problems. It is hard to change the direction of the Titanic. Legacy, both in the US and Europe has a bit of a history of trying to manage the board rather than fix the problems. It is hard to steer dozens of groups within an organization when each group knows they will be devastated by the new direction. (Which is why Ford and VW ended up investing in Rivian architecture - they could have made their own, but infighting prevented it.

On the other hand, I can also understand that some problems are going to be impossible to address directly. US manufacturers will always have to deal with different regulatory overhead that parts of Asia simply do not. The US is simply not going to give up on those regulations, even if they do make US manufacturing less economical. I am less aware of the specific regulations in Europe, but pretty certain they are either equal or worse. But ultimately just trying to make more regulation protection is not the answer, we need to adapt our manufacturing to be more efficient as well. Crossing my fingers that Scout has already learned that lesson.
---
Direct sales is an interesting problem. The golf cart industry is a great example of it. I can probably dig up 20 years (probably a lot more) of a specific brand of Asian built golf carts being the current fad (and people being left with buggies that have no supply chain of repair parts 3 years later-cannibalism being the only part source). Problem is that the US importers were not manufacturers, with no real ties to the manufacturers other than their initial purchase contracts. At least some of the consumer protection laws have merit. But even those laws really don't help the owner of a Fisker during a road trip.

You are spot on—turning the Titanic is impossible, and the internal politics at places like Ford and VW are exactly why they invested in Rivian instead of fixing their own houses.

But this is exactly why I am so critical of Scout’s potential pricing. Scout was/is supposed to be the Speedboat. The entire reason VW invested in Scout as an independent American entity was to launch a speedboat off the deck of the Titanic. They were supposed to leave the UAW contracts, the pension debts, the dealer lobby, and the "management by committee" culture behind in Germany/Detroit and start fresh.

If Scout ends up being just as expensive and bloated as the Titanic they launched from, then the entire experiment is a failure. They were given a "clean slate" specifically to solve those efficiency problems.

Regarding your point on regulations making US manufacturing expensive: I hear that a lot, but the data doesn't fully support it.

Toyota builds the Tundra in Texas. Honda builds the Ridgeline in Alabama. Nissan builds the Frontier in Mississippi. These companies build trucks in the US, paying American wages, complying with American EPA/NHTSA regulations, and using American supply chains. Yet, they consistently offer better value and reliability than the Big Three.

It proves that "Building in America" isn't the problem. The problem is "Legacy American Management."

As for the "Fisker/Golf Cart" fear—that is a valid concern for a standalone startup. But Scout isn't Fisker. They have the deep pockets and parts bin of the Volkswagen Group behind them. They have the "Insurance Policy" of a legacy giant with the "Agility" of a startup. That combination should result in a better, cheaper product. If it doesn't, it’s because they chose margin over volume.

I recognize I may be beating a dead horse on this pricing topic. I know it’s repetitive. But it needs to be said—and kept being said—until Scout finally makes the necessary change to their strategy.

 

[eunichron]

The problem is, we aren't seeing $42,000 trucks on the lots. We are seeing $65,000+ trucks. So even accounting for the government's slice, there is still a roughly $20,000 gap that regulations alone don't explain.

Well, there are $42,000 trucks on the lots... the work trucks usually reserved for fleet sales, which are the closest analogs to a 1970s/80s truck.
No one buys them, because that's not what the majority of consumers want anymore.

Just to illustrate the point, here are the results within 100 miles of a major metro area (Chicago) - Frontiers for $33k, Sierra 1500s for $34k, F-150s for $39k. For under $40k you can have a truck that's every bit as capable as the $60k 4dr Crew Cab short bed with all the bells and whistles. But the point remains, people don't want a truck just for its capability anymore. They also want a family vehicle, they want to be comfortable while driving it, and they want some convenience features on top of all that. It all adds up.

 

[tomgillotti]

Well, there are $42,000 trucks on the lots... the work trucks usually reserved for fleet sales, which are the closest analogs to a 1970s/80s truck.
No one buys them, because that's not what the majority of consumers want anymore.

Just to illustrate the point, here are the results within 100 miles of a major metro area (Chicago) - Frontiers for $33k, Sierra 1500s for $34k, F-150s for $39k. For under $40k you can have a truck that's every bit as capable as the $60k 4dr Crew Cab short bed with all the bells and whistles. But the point remains, people don't want a truck just for its capability anymore. They also want a family vehicle, they want to be comfortable while driving it, and they want some convenience features on top of all that. It all adds up.

@eunichron, that Chicago inventory data is a fair snapshot, but I think the conclusion that "no one buys them because that's not what they want" is missing a huge piece of recent history: The Ford Maverick.

When the Maverick launched at $19,995, it didn't just sell well; it was the fastest-selling vehicle in America. Ford essentially broke the internet because they finally gave consumers exactly what they wanted: affordable utility.

The demand was so violent that Ford had to shut down the order banks. The reason you don't see those cheap Mavericks anymore isn't because the "market changed"—it's because Ford realized they had a hit and immediately started jacking the price (up nearly $8k in 3 years) to chase margins. The demand for affordable trucks is massive; manufacturers just hate filling it because they prefer the fat margins of a $65k Lariat.

And honestly, I reject the premise that we have to choose between "Affordable" and "Comfortable." You mentioned that for under $40k, you get a "work truck." Why?

Why have we accepted the narrative that basic creature comforts like heated seats, a decent screen, and actual off-road capability (lockers) require a $65,000 price tag?

• Tech is cheap: A touchscreen is a commodity part.

• Comfort is cheap: Heated seat elements cost the factory about $20.

• Capability is structural: If you design the platform right, a locker is a marginal cost increase over an open diff.


My argument is that $45,000 is plenty of money to build a Scout that has both the capability (lockers/tires) AND the comfort (modern tech). Legacy auto has conditioned us to believe that "fun" and "comfort" are luxury items that only belong in the $60k+ bracket. Scout has the chance to prove that wrong—if they prioritize mass market adoption over low volume / high margins.