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.

 

[OleScout]

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.

The pricing debate around Scout honestly reminds me a lot of the cold plunge market.

A cold plunge is still just cold water, but over time, the market evolved from “throw ice in a stock tank” into fully integrated systems with filtration, temperature control, sanitation, insulation, recovery tracking, and sleek design. Suddenly something that sounds simple can cost thousands of dollars- vehicles have gone through the exact same evolution.

I've owned a an Explorer 15-20 years ago and recently my Wife purchased a base model. A modern “base model” Ford Explorer isn’t remotely comparable to a base model SUV from 15 years ago. What used to be considered luxury is now expected with adaptive cruise control, giant infotainment screens, heated seats, lane assist, wireless connectivity, digital displays, power everything, advanced safety systems, and refined interiors. Manufacturers aren’t just selling transportation anymorE, they’re selling convenience, comfort, tech, and experience.

That’s why the $60k conversation gets complicated. On paper, people hear “base model” and imagine something stripped down and utilitarian. But in reality, even entry-level vehicles today are already operating at a premium feature level compared to older generations. It will be interesting to see the future of Slate as they are offering a "base" model at a much lower price point but have we've now raised our demands for a base model?

And honestly, Scout is probably trying to balance two difficult things at once; keeping the rugged, simple identity people nostalgically want, and meeting modern expectations buyers now consider non-negotiable.

It’s similar to cold plunges; some people are perfectly happy with a feed trough and ice bags, while others want a polished, reliable system that works every single morning without effort. Neither approach is wrong, they’re just different customers.

The risk for Scout is making sure they don’t drift too far into “premium lifestyle product” territory where the rugged accessibility starts feeling performative. But at the same time, expecting a modern EV with today’s safety standards, technology, and capability to land at old-school pricing probably isn’t realistic either.

 

[TaconicBear]

Hi everyone,

I’m posting this because I am all-in on the Scout revival. The design team has done the impossible: they’ve captured the soul of the original International Scout. I want this vehicle. I want to see these on every road in America.

But if Scout Motors wants to dominate the market—and not just be a boutique toy for the wealthy—we need to have a hard conversation about the targeted $60,000 starting price.



A Perspective from a "Target Buyer"

I want to be transparent: I am a high-income earner. On paper, I am exactly the demographic that marketing teams target for a $60,000+ adventure vehicle.

But I didn't start here. I grew up in a blue-collar town. I worked my way up from nothing, and because of that, I deeply respect the value of a dollar. Just because I can afford a $60k truck doesn’t mean I’m willing to throw my hard-earned money away on inflated margins.

I want to spend that money on experiences with my family—road trips, camping, and investing in our future—not on a bloated car payment for a status symbol. I suspect many of you feel the same: we want a tool to enjoy life, not a luxury tax.

The Data: It’s Not Just "Inflation," It’s a Shift in Strategy

Before anyone says "prices went up for everyone," let’s look at the actual numbers.

• 2019 Average New Car Price: ~$37,000

• 2025 Average New Car Price: ~$50,000+

That is a 35% increase in just six years. Wages haven't risen 35%. This isn't just inflation; it's a systematic removal of affordable, quality options. Manufacturers have abandoned the $35k-$45k segment to chase six-figure customers. Scout has the chance to fix this.



The "Cheap" Trap: Why the Slate is a scam at $25k

I keep seeing people bring up the new Bezos-backed "Slate" truck as the answer for affordable EVs. Let’s be honest with ourselves: The Slate is not a truck. It is a penalty box.

They are charging nearly $30,000 (after fees) for a plastic shell with manual windows, no radio, unpainted panels, and the comfort of a glorified golf cart. That isn't "value." That is a $10,000 novelty item being sold for a 200% markup because the market is desperate. It is insulting to suggest that if we don't want to pay $60k, our only other option is a plastic toy.



The Real Benchmark: What $42k Should Buy You

On the other end of the spectrum, look at the global market. I recently looked into the Xiaomi SU7. Love it or hate it, that vehicle proves a point. For roughly $42,000, they are delivering a vehicle with cutting-edge tech, premium materials, and incredible performance.

The "Value Gap" right now is massive:

• Slate ($25k): You get a stripped-down shell.

• Xiaomi ($42k): You get a spaceship.

• Scout Target ($60k): ...?



"I Know What You’re Thinking..."

I know bringing up a Chinese brand on this forum is going to ruffle feathers. I can already hear the replies:

• "But they have massive government subsidies!"

• "Labor costs are different!"

• "Safety regulations aren't the same!"

Let's be real: While those factors exist, they don't account for a $20,000+ discrepancy in value. Scout Motors has the massive backing and global supply chain scale of the VW Group. They aren't a startup in a garage.

If a tech company can produce a fully loaded, cutting-edge EV for $42k, why are we being conditioned to believe that an American SUV must start at $60,000?



Scout Can Be the Hero We Need

I am not asking Scout to build a cheap vehicle. I am asking them to build a valuable one.

They have the power to step into that massive hole in the market—the $40,000 Real Truck.

The Bottom Line

I want this brand to succeed. I want to raise my family in a Scout, just like previous generations did. But that requires the vehicle to be attainable without sacrificing our financial future.

Scout, don't make us choose between a $60k mortgage-on-wheels or a $25k plastic crate. Be the good guys. Be the brand that brings sanity back to the American road.



Let’s aim for $40k. Not because it's cheap, but because it's right.

You wrote this 6 months ago, but it still rings true, even though we now have at least 6 upstarts in the Slate class, plus all the majors are introducing a smaller & lighter pickup -- even one with a 600mile range. Reo and Ram are offering a suite of vehicles, some, at least, starting at the desired price point. Even Rivian's R2 will be touching that lower affordability mark when their 2WD version appears next year. Realistically there are two considerations here, price and size. They have packed a lot of desirable car into a legacy Scout size vehicle.
It's no secret that pickups have become bloated, and their SUV versions, too. I've heard it speculated that SM went large because they felt Jeep and Bronco had saturated the market for a truly legacy-Scout-sized vehicle. From what I've observed of the mock-ups that SM shows us I have to believe that SM design and engineering could have made a very respectful dent in that supposedly saturated market.

 

[tomgillotti]

@OleScout, your cold plunge analogy is incredibly accurate (I built my own cold plunge from an old deep freezer in 2024, btw), but I want to clarify one thing: when I say I want a ~$45k starting price, I am not asking for a bare-bones "feed trough" like the Slate. The Slate is honestly a joke—charging $25k+ for what is essentially a Lego kit.

At $45k, we shouldn't have to settle for bare bones. Steel and air are cheap materials; physical size itself isn't a reason for inflated pricing. But more importantly, we need to stop believing the lie that advanced tech and infotainment screens are what make modern vehicles so expensive.

Western legacy automakers love to use "software and screens" as the excuse for a $70k MSRP, but China has proven this to be completely false. The Chinese EV market shows us every single day that you can have a fully loaded, tech-heavy vehicle for a fraction of what US and European automakers are charging. We are being asked to subsidize bloated, legacy corporate margins, not the actual cost of goods. If legacy automakers can't adapt to modern manufacturing and get with the times, they deserve to go bankrupt.

@TaconicBear, you hit the nail on the head regarding the white space in the market, and everything we are seeing in the global industry right now is validating this in real-time.

I’ve been warning about China’s effect on the auto industry for months, and we are watching the legacy collapse happen right now. Look at the news that just dropped about VW: they are planning one of the biggest restructurings in their history, looking to cut up to 100,000 jobs worldwide and close four factories in Germany. Why? Because they are explicitly facing growing pressure from Chinese automakers, higher US tariffs, and weaker demand. The legacy strategy of protecting massive margins with bloated luxury vehicles is failing.

And it isn't just Chinese brands moving into that affordability segment. Look at Ford's not-so-secret skunkworks project. They are actively developing a true $30k EV pickup right now. If Ford can figure out the manufacturing architecture to hit a $30,000 price point for a highly capable midsize EV truck, there is absolutely zero excuse for Scout to pretend that $60k is the necessary floor for a base model.

If Scout insists on launching into that saturated $60k+ luxury segment while the rest of the world (and Ford) pivots hard to actual affordability, they are going to get left behind.

 

[R1TVT]

Designing a $30K highly capable midsized EV truck as an established OEM

Designing a $60K highly capable, off road-ready fullsized EV truck as a brand new OEM

If Scout insists on launching into that saturated $60k+ luxury segment while the rest of the world (and Ford) pivots hard to actual affordability, they are going to get left behind.

Show me just 1 quote from Scout Motors where they indicated that they wanted to launch into a saturated "$60K luxury segment" LOL.

...I didn't think so.

 

[tomgillotti]

Designing a $30K highly capable midsized EV truck as an established OEM

Designing a $60K highly capable, off road-ready fullsized EV truck as a brand new OEM



Show me just 1 quote from Scout Motors where they indicated that they wanted to launch into a saturated "$60K luxury segment" LOL.

...I didn't think so.

@R1TVT, your analogy relies on a completely false premise.

First, Scout Motors is not a "brand new OEM" operating out of a garage. They are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group. They are backed by an initial $2 billion (now reportedly $3 billion) investment from VW, plus a $1.3 billion incentive package from South Carolina taxpayers. They are using the electrical architecture from the VW-Rivian joint venture, and the gas engine for the Harvester comes straight from VW's existing lineup. This is an established, legacy OEM wearing a retro mask. If Ford can leverage their supply chain to build a $30k truck, VW absolutely has the capital, scale, and parts bin to do the same with Scout. They are choosing not to.

Second, demanding a quote in which a PR department uses the exact words "saturated luxury segment" is just a lazy straw man. No corporate marketing team talks like that. However, VW executives have explicitly stated on the record that their primary goal with Scout is to gain a foothold in the US "high-margin truck and SUV segment".

When a legacy automaker targets "high-margin" vehicles and sets the absolute floor at $60,000 (which we all know means $75,000+ out the door), they are defining themselves as a luxury product. You don't need a PR quote to prove it; you just have to look at their actual corporate strategy.

 

[R1TVT]

I'm glad to see you have refuted your own AI post with an AI post. Well done.

 

[tomgillotti]

I'm glad to see you have refuted your own AI post with an AI post. Well done.

@R1TVT, yes, I use AI tools to help organize my writing and workflow—both professionally and personally. But fixating on how my posts are formatted is a pretty transparent way to avoid addressing the actual data.

It seems that when the math gets too difficult to refute, attacking the messenger is the only move left.

The reality of the $60,000 price floor, the collapse of legacy automakers' margins, and the global shift toward affordable EVs are all happening in real time. If focusing on my writing style is easier for you than debating those macroeconomic facts, you are welcome to keep screaming into the void.

I am going to keep focusing on the actual auto market and the reality of this vehicle's pricing. Let me know if you ever want to join that conversation.

 

[robothero]

I posted this article a few weeks ago in the news thread, but just going to reshare it here to reiterate something I have said multiple times: Stop comparing the American (or European) auto industries with China. China's industry is propped up and completely subsidized by the government to push out foreign competition and saturate the market.

That will not happen in the US and you cannot expect Scout to sell their vehicles at a loss the way Chinese automakers do because they don't have the government bailing them out on every vehicle sold.

https://www.autoblog.com/features/chinas-ev-price-war-was-built-on-cars-sold-at-a-loss

 

[strider]

Western legacy automakers love to use "software and screens" as the excuse for a $70k MSRP, but China has proven this to be completely false. The Chinese EV market shows us every single day that you can have a fully loaded, tech-heavy vehicle for a fraction of what US and European automakers are charging. We are being asked to subsidize bloated, legacy corporate margins, not the actual cost of goods. If legacy automakers can't adapt to modern manufacturing and get with the times, they deserve to go bankrupt.

Thank you @robothero for posting that Article. @tomgillotti you have now moved from ignorance to being a troll as we have pointed this out to you numerous time.

The price that China charges for their cars is NOT the price of the car plus a profit margin. They are selling these cars at a loss in order to take market share and destroy their competition. They have done this in every industry they have entered and it has worked. You used to be in the military. Do you realize that the US military is completely dependent on Chinese rare earth materials to produce weapons and vehicles? We cannot ever go to war with China because they could cut off our supply of rare earths and it's over for us (I'm not saying we should go to war but the bloviating from the US about Taiwan is hilarious because the Chinese have all the cards). They can strangle our entire economy any time they want.

It is giving into the "cheap stuff" narrative that got us here. Folding on cars will be another nail in the coffin. So go ahead and mortgage tomorrow for cheap stuff today. From your profile pic it looks like you have children. Please tell us what living wage jobs will be available for our children if we move even more jobs to China?

 

[tomgillotti]

@robothero, that is a fair point and a valid piece of context. You're right that the heavy level of state bailing and subsidies in that market makes a direct line-by-line manufacturing cost comparison to Western OEMs imperfect. I leaned too heavily into the China factor in my last post to make a point about tech pricing, and I'm happy to own that overemphasis—that wasn't my intent.

However, pulling back the global comparison doesn't change the domestic reality we are discussing. My core argument regarding the Western market still stands: Average Transaction Prices (ATP) have aggressively outpaced inflation for reasons tied to margin-padding rather than raw material costs. Legacy auto builders have systematically squeezed out affordable, basic options in favor of high-margin luxury trims. We don't need to look abroad to see alternatives; Ford’s domestic $30k EV truck skunkworks project proves that legacy builders can find domestic architectural efficiencies to target affordability when they choose to.


@strider, we can disagree on macroeconomic policies and corporate strategies all day long, but this isn't the first time you have tried to make it personal when the debate isn't going your way. For the record, I am still a serving member of the US military, not "used to be"—though the opinions I express here are strictly my own and do not represent anyone's viewpoint but my own.

Dragging my background, service, and family into a discussion about truck pricing completely crosses the line. Healthy debate is what makes forums great, but repeated personal attacks will not be tolerated here. Let's keep the focus strictly on the vehicles and the market data moving forward.

 

[R1TVT]

It seems that when the math gets too difficult to refute, attacking the messenger is the only move left.

Perfect example of an AI Fail, since there was no math involved.

Regardless, simply pointing out that you stated that "Scout insisted on launching into a saturated $60K luxury market" (when Scout never said that) is hardly "an attack". It's clarity for those reading this board. It's also factual. I would suggest you stick to the facts here and in other threads on this forum.

 

[strider]

@tomgillotti in no way did I disparage your family or service. I simply asked you to consider the ramifications of what it sounded like you were proposing (losing yet another domestic industry to unfair Chinese trade practices).

The question remains (leaving out the inflation aspect). Have prices moved up because consumers want fancier vehicles, or is it because manufacturers have forced it by only producing fancy models? Slate (and Ford's cheap truck) will be the canary in the coal mine. If it flops, then that will be proof that customers do not want a stripped down truck. If they sell like crazy, then that will be a gap in the market that will be filled. That's the beauty of free markets no?

Bottom line is that you are tilting at windmills here. The V1 Scouts are going to be what they're going to be. It is too late to change them now. The plan all along has been to follow Tesla, Lucid, and Rivian and make a larger, higher margin, expensive model first, then follow it with a smaller, cheaper, lower margin offering second. I do not think the economics make the inverse much of an option - Scout has spent a ton of money on the design, factory, testing, etc. and need to start paying that back as quickly as they can. Unlike when the other manufacturers did this, Scout cannot simply refinance their debt at ever lower rates (allowing them to borrow more money for the same payment). The regime has changed and now each refinancing comes with a HIGHER payment.