Please don't put the Harvester engine behind/below the rear axle

[speedrye]

Reading over the patent information was interesting in a few areas. I recognize not all of these will pan out, but I suspect some are engineering goals at least.

They actually mentioned diesel as a potential fuel source, so I'm guessing they didn't get the memo from VW. I get it though, you want to cover all bases on a patent application.

The Harvester will be mounted on it's own subframe and will be easily removable by disconnecting the fuel lines and wiring harness. I'm guessing this will be the method for servicing the engine.

The Harvester can be removed altogether, allowing the vehicle to operate like a normal BEV without affecting roadworthiness.

The Harvester/subframe will be part of the crash-absorbing structure. With that said, I don't know how removing it wouldn't affect roadworthiness. It looks like the rear bumper will be a separate entity, but the rear portion of the Harvester subframe will actually be the cross member for the trailer hitch/receiver.

The Harvester is possible to be installed on vehicles not originally equipped, though it didn't say where it'd get the gas since the gas tank is not part of the subassembly. Seems odd to me. Will vehicles not equipped have the Harvester wiring harness preinstalled? Also seems odd to me. I definitely rule this out

 

[MountainDad]

There are plenty of those available to choose from and readily available. Seems like you actually know what you want, just not packaged with a Scout logo.

What off road capable EREV SUVs are available on the market today? Please list them.

 

[J Alynn]

What off road capable EREV SUVs are available on the market today? Please list them.

You noted popping the hood and working on a slant 4. There are a handful of 4 cyl pickups available on the market already. Toyota comes to mind, Nissan Frontier-not sure if the smaller Ford’s like Ranger or Maverick have a 4 cylinder (just presuming) but there certainly are trucks available now with engines under the hood. You didn’t specifically mention EREV so just noting trucks with engines under hood that are for sale currently

 

[MountainDad]

You noted popping the hood and working on a slant 4. There are a handful of 4 cyl pickups available on the market already. Toyota comes to mind, Nissan Frontier-not sure if the smaller Ford’s like Ranger or Maverick have a 4 cylinder (just presuming) but there certainly are trucks available now with engines under the hood. You didn’t specifically mention EREV so just noting trucks with engines under hood that are for sale currently

No, I specifically asked for EREVs. Your post is irrelevant.

 

[J Alynn]

No, I specifically asked for EREVs. Your post is irrelevant.

Technically you mentioned the harvester, implying the Scout due to the “brand” name. I pointed out that if you want A 4cylinder under the hood there are options. If you are now saying EREV only, then you are correct. But since SM has already announced the engine/generation location and are now nearly 2 years into development, this whole thread, to be fair seems a bit irrelevant. If we are going to be technical

 

[MountainDad]

Technically you mentioned the harvester, implying the Scout due to the “brand” name. I pointed out that if you want A 4cylinder under the hood there are options. If you are now saying EREV only, then you are correct. But since SM has already announced the engine/generation location and are now nearly 2 years into development, this whole thread, to be fair seems a bit irrelevant. If we are going to be technical

Dude, what forum are we on?

 

[J. Sweat]

OP: As you can probably tell, it’s useless to go against the groupthink around here. The tribe does not take kindly to “outsiders” with questions about the site’s intended subject matter. I’ve been on a ton of auto forums and this one is uniquely dominated by like three people. I’m sure you will enjoy your Scout nonetheless and I’ll do my best to help along where I can.

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

I think part of the issue here is that we've already discussed the location of the Harvester engine and generator, and it is locked in. The platform was designed from the start to support a rugged off-road vehicle. That means turning radius and articulation in the front that can support large tires. That also means the frame geometry itself has to take that into consideration, resulting in a narrow frame cross-section up front. The other part of this equation is that a Scout has a very short front-end overhang and if we added an engine up front, we'd also have to start thinking about crash tests and packaging factors.

 

[speedrye]

I think part of the issue here is that we've already discussed the location of the Harvester engine and generator, and it is locked in. The platform was designed from the start to support a rugged off-road vehicle. That means turning radius and articulation in the front that can support large tires. That also means the frame geometry itself has to take that into consideration, resulting in a narrow frame cross-section up front. The other part of this equation is that a Scout has a very short front-end overhang and if we added an engine up front, we'd also have to start thinking about crash tests and packaging factors.

Hearing about the narrow frame up front warms my heart!! That should translate to longer control arms and more articulation in the independent front suspension! Better turning radius is a secondary benefit, but I'll happily take it!

Edit: I say these things, but the Traveler is too big for my usual trails, so I'll need to find new places to ̶b̶r̶e̶a̶k̶ challenge the Scout.

 

[6-ScoutFamily]

Scout II’s had a B** A** turning radius. Hope the new ones are somewhere close.

 

[J. Sweat]

The OP seems pretty clear that they understood where the harvester engine will be located. OP simply disagreed with that placement and offered valid concerns that remain valid, regardless of what is or isn’t *currently* set in stone with Scout Motors. The principle issue that I see here for an off road vehicle with disproportionate weight in the rear: hill climbs and particularly traction on those front wheels. Traction seems more important to an off road vehicle than just about anything else.

 

[speedrye]

The OP seems pretty clear that they understood where the harvester engine will be located. OP simply disagreed with that placement and offered valid concerns that remain valid, regardless of what is or isn’t *currently* set in stone with Scout Motors. The principle issue that I see here for an off road vehicle with disproportionate weight in the rear: hill climbs and particularly traction on those front wheels. Traction seems more important to an off road vehicle than just about anything else.

Everything is a trade off. In this case, you lose some weight over the front wheels, but you get more articulation, allowing those front wheels to maintain contact with the ground for added traction. It's common for Toyotas and new Broncos (or most any ICE vehicle with an independent front suspension) to be hanging a front wheel in the air because the front control arms are short due to the engine being in the way. On a 3-ton vehicle with heavy batteries towards the front, I don't know that a 300-400lb genset at the rear will change much in a hill climb, but I'll bet better front articulation will, IF the terrain is uneven. Which is ultimately the better choice? I have no clue!

 

[MountainDad]

I think part of the issue here is that we've already discussed the location of the Harvester engine and generator, and it is locked in. The platform was designed from the start to support a rugged off-road vehicle. That means turning radius and articulation in the front that can support large tires. That also means the frame geometry itself has to take that into consideration, resulting in a narrow frame cross-section up front. The other part of this equation is that a Scout has a very short front-end overhang and if we added an engine up front, we'd also have to start thinking about crash tests and packaging factors.

So what are you doing to support serviceability and maintainability? This is the biggest issue I see with hanging the engine off the back.

A small 4 banger in the front isn't a challenge for Toyota, Land Rover, Jeep, who all fit much bigger engines between the front wheels. My Land Rover is practically mid-front engined, with little to no mass ahead of the front wheels. There's enough space to install an internally mounted winch there.

 

[MountainDad]

It's common for Toyotas and new Broncos (or most any ICE vehicle with an independent front suspension) to be hanging a front wheel in the air because the front control arms are short due to the engine being in the way. On a 3-ton vehicle with heavy batteries towards the front, I don't know that a 300-400lb genset at the rear will change much in a hill climb, but I'll bet better front articulation will, IF the terrain is uneven. Which is ultimately the better choice? I have no clue!

And with modern traction control it matters very little. I've never lost momentum with one of my wheels in the air in my Land Rover. Neither have friends with 4Runners, Broncos, Raptors, etc.

 

[speedrye]

So what are you doing to support serviceability and maintainability? This is the biggest issue I see with hanging the engine off the back.

A small 4 banger in the front isn't a challenge for Toyota, Land Rover, Jeep, who all fit much bigger engines between the front wheels. My Land Rover is practically mid-front engined, with little to no mass ahead of the front wheels. There's enough space to install an internally mounted winch there.

I'm definitely curious what they're doing for maintenance and service as that was one of the reasons I passed on the new Land Cruiser. There's so much crap in the way now with the hybrid setup, you can't get to the engine. There was mention in the patents that the whole Harvester setup would be easy to drop as an integral unit with only the air intake, wiring harness and fuel lines needing to be disconnected. If done right, it'd be pretty cool to have that setup essentially hinged on two bolts so you could just loosen a few bolts and the air intake, pivot the whole Harvester subframe down with a floor jack and service as needed, leaving the wiring and fuel lines connected. When serviced, just jack up the subframe, connect the intake and put the bolts back in.

With space being so tight back there though, I fear we'll have to drop the whole setup with a hydraulic lift, table cart or something similar. Easy enough to do in the garage, not so much on the trail. I'm also not crazy about regular connection and disconnection of the high voltage generator wiring.

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

So what are you doing to support serviceability and maintainability? This is the biggest issue I see with hanging the engine off the back.

A small 4 banger in the front isn't a challenge for Toyota, Land Rover, Jeep, who all fit much bigger engines between the front wheels. My Land Rover is practically mid-front engined, with little to no mass ahead of the front wheels. There's enough space to install an internally mounted winch there.

The whole thing was designed with maintenance in mind. Our platform wasn't designed to support an engine up front and I've already mentioned the short front overhang and front crash tests with an engine located up front becoming challenging (and costly).

I'm definitely curious what they're doing for maintenance and service as that was one of the reasons I passed on the new Land Cruiser. There's so much crap in the way now with the hybrid setup, you can't get to the engine. There was mention in the patents that the whole Harvester setup would be easy to drop as an integral unit with only the air intake, wiring harness and fuel lines needing to be disconnected. If done right, it'd be pretty cool to have that setup essentially hinged on two bolts so you could just loosen a few bolts and the air intake, pivot the whole Harvester subframe down with a floor jack and service as needed, leaving the wiring and fuel lines connected. When serviced, just jack up the subframe, connect the intake and put the bolts back in.

With space being so tight back there though, I fear we'll have to drop the whole setup with a hydraulic lift, table cart or something similar. Easy enough to do in the garage, not so much on the trail. I'm also not crazy about regular connection and disconnection of the high voltage generator wiring.

Are you dropping engines out of existing vehicles on the trail? The engine is protected by a cage and skid plates, and you could remove several mounting bolts securing the cage and drop the engine out the back. Oil changes are accessible underneath as well.

 

[speedrye]

Are you dropping engines out of existing vehicles on the trail? The engine is protected by a cage and skid plates, and you could remove several mounting bolts securing the cage and drop the engine out the back. Oil changes are accessible underneath as well.

No, but I've replaced enough hoses/belts/simpler things over the years (thankfully mostly on others' vehicles) that I appreciated having easy access to more failure-prone parts. Without knowing any specifics of your arrangement, I'm left to speculate. Is the water pump a remote one powered by a motor, or a mechanical one on the engine? Traditional thermostat, or handled by a variable speed water pump? I'm assuming we don't have a traditional alternator to mess with, so that'll be one less thing needed to access at least.

Semi-related, but please make the front CV axles as easy to replace as possible, especially if we're getting a front locker.

 

[cyure]

No, but I've replaced enough hoses/belts/simpler things over the years (thankfully mostly on others' vehicles) that I appreciated having easy access to more failure-prone parts. Without knowing any specifics of your arrangement, I'm left to speculate. Is the water pump a remote one powered by a motor, or a mechanical one on the engine? Traditional thermostat, or handled by a variable speed water pump? I'm assuming we don't have a traditional alternator to mess with, so that'll be one less thing needed to access at least.

Semi-related, but please make the front CV axles as easy to replace as possible, especially if we're getting a front locker.

As someone who doesn’t off-road I have a question. How often are you all fixing things in the middle of nowhere? Is it because a part failed or because you went on a trail and sustained damage due to the terrain?

 

[speedrye]

As someone who doesn’t off-road I have a question. How often are you all fixing things in the middle of nowhere? Is it because a part failed or because you went on a trail and sustained damage due to the terrain?

I drive a Toyota, so not very often on my own vehicles

I'll often stop to help others on the trails though. Axle and drivetrain components are usually killed by drivers making dumb decisions. Engine components are more likely heat-related as the vehicles are going slow without much airflow for cooling. For vehicles with independent front suspensions and lockers (not that common, but it'll apply to the new Scouts), turning the wheel and getting too hard on the gas puts immense strain on those CVs which are typically the weak point in the front and they snap. The terrain itself can definitely damage things too, especially if you're in the rocks. Having a tire slip off a rock can bend or break things pretty quickly. Most of the time, damage is caused by an overzealous/overconfident driver or equipment not up to the task, but sometimes, crap just happens, the same as if you're on the road. The bulk of the damage I see on trail would apply equally to ICE or BEV vehicles as they're more chassis-related.
The only damage I've personally had is a few bent control arms and some mangled control arm mounts that weren't protected enough from rocks.

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

No, but I've replaced enough hoses/belts/simpler things over the years (thankfully mostly on others' vehicles) that I appreciated having easy access to more failure-prone parts. Without knowing any specifics of your arrangement, I'm left to speculate. Is the water pump a remote one powered by a motor, or a mechanical one on the engine? Traditional thermostat, or handled by a variable speed water pump? I'm assuming we don't have a traditional alternator to mess with, so that'll be one less thing needed to access at least.

Semi-related, but please make the front CV axles as easy to replace as possible, especially if we're getting a front locker.

Keep in mind, this engine/generator set is as simple of a setup as possible. The engine is built specifically for this use to simplify the setup as much as possible and maximize the needed power band. More information as we get closer to production.