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

[strider]

@strider, I understand the macroeconomic reality of inflation perfectly well. But you can't accuse people of "anchoring" when Scout is the one who set the anchor.

When pre-orders opened, Scout was actively advertising a starting price of "under $50k." Last time I checked the fine print on their site, that number was still buried in an asterisk somewhere. Yes, that original marketing factored in the now-defunct $7,500 EV tax credit. But even if we back that credit out entirely, the baseline math puts the starting target at $57,500.

Now, the expectation being floated is $60k as a baseline, easily scaling to $80k. That $2,500+ minimum discrepancy isn't inflation—it is corporate price creep.

And that leads right into @Jrgunn5150's point, which honestly nails exactly what is actually driving that creep.

Jrgunn5150 reserved a capable, utilitarian truck, but is already seeing the writing on the wall: the project is drifting toward "white leather, 20-inch wheels" and luxury feature-creep to absorb that $1.2B CapEx overrun.

That is exactly what Tommy from TFL meant when he called it a "luxury off-roader." And as others have pointed out above, people are now actively comparing this platform to an $80k BMW IX3 or an $86k Model X.

If Scout's actual brief was to build an $80k luxury SUV positioned against BMWs, they should have just revived a luxury badge. If everyone here is comfortable accepting that this revival has morphed into a luxury mall-crawler, that's fine. But we can't pretend that a "white leather" pivot won't price out the exact mass market that a brand-new platform needs to survive.

I'm really getting tired of having the same argument with you. You keep saying that you understand the macroeconomics then you completely ignore them and expect Scout to defy reality. When I speak of anchoring, I am talking about your belief that trucks in 2026 should still cost $40k. Your view of what a dollar is worth is anchored in the 1980-2020 disinflationary period and you have not accepted the post-2020 change to an inflationary regime.

The fact that the trucks are delayed by a year instantly adds 9% to the cost (based on actual government money printing). You ask where that $2,500 dollars is and it is literally inflation. Even if you use the USG's completely bogus 3.3% CPI number on $57,500, that is $59,497.50 after ONE YEAR. After 2 years that rises to $61,357.62. Do you really still not understand how this works?

As for "Jrgunn5150 reserved a capable, utilitarian truck," that is an intentionally false (or ignorant) statement. The new Scout Motors has been absolutely consistent in exactly what they are building. They have never "pivoted" (the cost creep is completely attributable to cost inflation). From the drawings to the concepts they have always shown off-road capable luxury vehicles. You and others may wish that were otherwise but it is what it is. If that is not what you want to buy, then you should look elsewhere.

 

[robothero]

My Model X comparison was really just to show how big the Scout is (and inexpensive by comparison)

 

[tomgillotti]

I'm really getting tired of having the same argument with you. You keep saying that you understand the macroeconomics then you completely ignore them and expect Scout to defy reality. When I speak of anchoring, I am talking about your belief that trucks in 2026 should still cost $40k. Your view of what a dollar is worth is anchored in the 1980-2020 disinflationary period and you have not accepted the post-2020 change to an inflationary regime.

The fact that the trucks are delayed by a year instantly adds 9% to the cost (based on actual government money printing). You ask where that $2,500 dollars is and it is literally inflation. Even if you use the USG's completely bogus 3.3% CPI number on $57,500, that is $59,497.50 after ONE YEAR. After 2 years that rises to $61,357.62. Do you really still not understand how this works?

As for "Jrgunn5150 reserved a capable, utilitarian truck," that is an intentionally false (or ignorant) statement. The new Scout Motors has been absolutely consistent in exactly what they are building. They have never "pivoted" (the cost creep is completely attributable to cost inflation). From the drawings to the concepts they have always shown off-road capable luxury vehicles. You and others may wish that were otherwise but it is what it is. If that is not what you want to buy, then you should look elsewhere.

@strider, there is no need to get frustrated. We are just looking at the same corporate rollout through different lenses. But you made two points in your last reply that I have to push back on because they fundamentally rewrite reality.

First, your claim that Scout has always shown and positioned these as "luxury vehicles" is complete historical revisionism. The International Harvester Scout was built by a tractor company; it was the ultimate blue-collar, utilitarian tool. When Scout Motors launched this revival, their entire marketing angle heavily leaned into that exact mechanical, rugged, working-class heritage. They specifically positioned it as the antidote to the bloated, screen-filled luxury trucks currently dominating the market. If their goal from day one was to build an $80k luxury SUV, they could have just slapped an Audi or Porsche badge on it. The "luxury" pivot we are seeing now is exactly what I’m calling out—it’s a departure from the original brief to justify a higher MSRP.

Second, regarding your inflation math: you are arguing that because Scout is potentially delaying production by a year or two, buyers should automatically expect to absorb an extra 3% to 9% in compounded inflation. But production delays are a corporate inefficiency, not a consumer financing opportunity. If a startup misses their timeline and tries to pass the carrying costs of their own delay onto the buyer, that just proves the project's financial model is struggling.

You mentioned that if I don't want to buy an $80k luxury vehicle, I should "look elsewhere." You are absolutely right. And my entire point in this thread is that if Scout abandons the $45k-$50k utilitarian market to chase the $70k+ luxury market, the vast majority of the general public will do exactly that.

 

[robothero]

If only there was a window between the $45-50k and the $70k+ price points Scout could squeeze in.

 

[tomgillotti]

If only there was a window between the $45-50k and the $70k+ price points Scout could squeeze in.

I appreciate the sarcasm, but your math assumes that $60k is some kind of standard middle ground. It isn't. In today's market, $60,000 is the start of luxury pricing.

If Scout's absolute stripped-down baseline is $60k, they haven't squeezed into a window—they have already entered the luxury bracket. And we all know how automotive pricing actually works. By the time you add destination charges, taxes, and any of those premium features they are currently showing off, that $60k base is easily leaving the lot at $75,000+.

And if we want to talk about what these vehicles should cost, look at what Jrgunn5150 pointed out earlier about BYD. The global EV market is actively proving what these platforms actually cost to build when you strip away legacy corporate bloat. Global competitors are producing true luxury EVs, packed with better tech and more options, for drastically less money than US legacy automakers.

The global market is exposing the fact that a $60k base / $80k loaded price tag isn't just "inflation" or a necessary middle ground. It is a corporate choice to protect massive margins.

If Scout abandons the original $45k-$50k mass-market target to try and squeeze buyers into that bloated $60k+ luxury bracket, they are going to get absolutely embarrassed when true global competition finally breaks into the US market.

 

[R1TVT]

 

[robothero]

Scout has always said they are targeting 60k which, in fact, fits between 45-55 and 70.

 

[strider]

First, your claim that Scout has always shown and positioned these as "luxury vehicles" is complete historical revisionism. The International Harvester Scout was built by a tractor company; it was the ultimate blue-collar, utilitarian tool. When Scout Motors launched this revival, their entire marketing angle heavily leaned into that exact mechanical, rugged, working-class heritage. They specifically positioned it as the antidote to the bloated, screen-filled luxury trucks currently dominating the market. If their goal from day one was to build an $80k luxury SUV, they could have just slapped an Audi or Porsche badge on it. The "luxury" pivot we are seeing now is exactly what I’m calling out—it’s a departure from the original brief to justify a higher MSRP.

There has been no "pivot." The vehicles that were shown at the launch were luxury vehicles. They have been absolutely consistent in what they have shown. Yes, it is an antidote to the "everything on a screen" disease that is permeating cars these days and is exactly why I am here - I do not like the direction Tesla is going in when it comes to physical interfaces.

Scout may not be delivering what you imagined when you heard that Scout was being revived, but this is absolutely NOT a departure from the original brief, at least from what I have been involved in since the reveal.

Second, regarding your inflation math: you are arguing that because Scout is potentially delaying production by a year or two, buyers should automatically expect to absorb an extra 3% to 9% in compounded inflation. But production delays are a corporate inefficiency, not a consumer financing opportunity. If a startup misses their timeline and tries to pass the carrying costs of their own delay onto the buyer, that just proves the project's financial model is struggling.

I am saying that costs are continuously increasing. You are arguing that Scout's investors need to absorb these cost increases and not pass them on to the consumer. That is a path to bankruptcy. Otherwise the price of gas would not be rising, the price of food, the price of housing, etc. The prices of all of those things are going up due to inflation. Companies have no choice but to pass increased costs on to their customers. Why do you think cars are immune to this effect?

You mentioned that if I don't want to buy an $80k luxury vehicle, I should "look elsewhere." You are absolutely right. And my entire point in this thread is that if Scout abandons the $45k-$50k utilitarian market to chase the $70k+ luxury market, the vast majority of the general public will do exactly that.

Scout Motors was NEVER in the $45k-$50k utilitarian market for this first round of vehicles. They plan to offer additional, lower-priced vehicles in the future. As I have said multiple times in this thread, Scout Motors is following the successful paths of Tesla, Rivian, and (hopefully) Lucid, by selling higher margin vehicles to early adopters and using that funding to stabilize operations and offer lower-margin, mass-market vehicles later on. You can disagree with this strategy but Scout Motors has been absolutely consistent with what they're doing.