I am so much more city driving I’m hopeful that will help my range.I'm hoping, but with 90% of my driving on 35-50mph roads with very little highway, there's a chance!
I am so much more city driving I’m hopeful that will help my range.I'm hoping, but with 90% of my driving on 35-50mph roads with very little highway, there's a chance!
For sure. We/she will be doing an end of summer update soon then tracking as weather gets colderOh I would love to know. If you can have your wife provide an update on her winter driving I sure would appreciate it.
Yes, and I would be ecstatic as well, but that would also mean a bigger battery than was originally "targeted" by Scout:If I got 2 miles per kWh on the Traveler with the 35's I'd be ecstatic.
I'm hoping, but with 90% of my driving on 55-65 mph roads being all highway, there's very little chance!I'm hoping, but with 90% of my driving on 35-50mph roads with very little highway, there's a chance!
And if they ARE on the forum and she's single: I have this son in TN..... He's a chemical engineer, likes to work on cars, take long walks on the beach... (well, 2 out of 3).
Well, Jamie did mention something, perhaps anecdotally perhaps not, about maybe needed a little bigger battery for a specific model. Maybe that's the Harvester with 35's? Give me my hope. It's all I have.Yes, and I would be ecstatic as well, but that would also mean a bigger battery than was originally "targeted" by Scout:
View attachment 19737
While I'm on the subject, Does anyone know why Scout chose the smaller battery for the Harvester (maybe space due to the need for the generator and gas tank? I want the best of both worlds. 350 miles of EV range with the range extender. I sure would like to see Scout have battery pack sizes to choose from on the Harvester because I'd happily pay good money for an upgrade in all electric range.Well, Jamie did mention something, perhaps anecdotally perhaps not, about maybe needed a little bigger battery for a specific model. Maybe that's the Harvester with 35's? Give me my hope. It's all I have.
Just to clarify, you are asking for 350 miles of range from the battery in the Harvester?While I'm on the subject, Does anyone know why Scout chose the smaller battery for the Harvester (maybe space due to the need for the generator and gas tank? I want the best of both worlds. 350 miles of EV range with the range extender. I sure would like to see Scout have battery pack sizes to choose from on the Harvester because I'd happily pay good money for an upgrade in all electric range.
Purely a guess here, but I'm thinking they had a target range of 500 miles and worked backwards from there, knowing the basic output they could get from a simple, naturally-aspirated, 4-cylinder genset. 150 miles was a nice round number, close enough to their math and they set off to engineering the systems with those target goals in mind. That number was also high enough to cover the average family's use for a day or three between charges.While I'm on the subject, Does anyone know why Scout chose the smaller battery for the Harvester (maybe space due to the need for the generator and gas tank? I want the best of both worlds. 350 miles of EV range with the range extender. I sure would like to see Scout have battery pack sizes to choose from on the Harvester because I'd happily pay good money for an upgrade in all electric range.
I suspect cost wise regarding materials they will be similar but it’s always the question of the added engineering and who absorbs those costs-everybody or just the EREV buyers which would add a premium to those vehicles. Guess that is the true guessing game right nowPurely a guess here, but I'm thinking they had a target range of 500 miles and worked backwards from there, knowing the basic output they could get from a simple, naturally-aspirated, 4-cylinder genset. 150 miles was a nice round number, close enough to their math and they set off to engineering the systems with those target goals in mind. That number was also high enough to cover the average family's use for a day or three between charges.
I seem to be the only one that read this, but there was a subtle hint (years ago on the forum) that the Harvester would be around the same price as the BEV, or a little less. I'm curious if that's held true as battery costs have come down and engineering costs have added up.
Scout: Okay, we'll only sell in California via authorized dealers. FYI, we aren't authorizing any dealers in California. (If it's not obvious, I'm NOT a lawyer)
Gotta love California.Scout: Okay, we'll only sell in California via authorized dealers. FYI, we aren't authorizing any dealers in California. (If it's not obvious, I'm NOT a lawyer)
Clickbait. Look at the title! LOL...
IIRC the issue is space. As you can see in the pic below, they shorten the battery pack up front to make room for a gas tank sacrificing some of the EV range. With battery tech improving and energy density increasing, it's entirely possible they'll drop a 350mi range battery in that smaller space, but that's probably a mid cycle refresh or second gen thing.While I'm on the subject, Does anyone know why Scout chose the smaller battery for the Harvester (maybe space due to the need for the generator and gas tank? I want the best of both worlds. 350 miles of EV range with the range extender. I sure would like to see Scout have battery pack sizes to choose from on the Harvester because I'd happily pay good money for an upgrade in all electric range.
I dug into this. BTW, I would not suggest reading the court's order. It's not terribly interesting.Scout: Okay, we'll only sell in California via authorized dealers. FYI, we aren't authorizing any dealers in California. (If it's not obvious, I'm NOT a lawyer)
Thanks for this. I doubt we will get anything official on here from Jamie or anyone at SM regarding the lawsuits. So it’s nice to have someone explain what’s actually happening.I dug into this. BTW, I would not suggest reading the court's order. It's not terribly interesting.
This order is a nothingburger and has no effect on the case going forward other than it'll go forward.
I'm going to try to keep this short and in plain English. Laws typically have several elements a plaintiff needs to prove to win. Like if 1, 2, 3, and 4 happened, you violated the law. When the plaintiff drafts their complaint (the document that starts a civil lawsuit), they have to have enough facts that, if true, prove a violation of the law. That's what Scout's motion to dismiss asked: did the plaintiff's complaint have enough facts that, if true, prove a violation? The court said yes, there's enough facts there but made no determination about whether those facts are actually true.
The case now proceeds to testing whether those facts are actually true. And it's not uncommon for them not to be true. It's not that the plaintiff lied or misled anyone, but sometimes the facts don't work out for the plaintiff.
If I had to guess, the case is going to come down to how much and to what extent VW controls or has say in Scout. We won't know that for months, if not years. Scout will be selling cars before this gets decided (unless it settles).
I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that both Scout and Volkswagen's legal council and ELT have already analyzed and pressure tested this exact lawsuit well before deciding on a direct model. The dealers probably know they have no case but feel obliged to put up a fight anyway, plus you know their legal council won't mind the billable hours.I dug into this. BTW, I would not suggest reading the court's order. It's not terribly interesting.
This order is a nothingburger and has no effect on the case going forward other than it'll go forward.
I'm going to try to keep this short and in plain English. Laws typically have several elements a plaintiff needs to prove to win. Like if 1, 2, 3, and 4 happened, you violated the law. When the plaintiff drafts their complaint (the document that starts a civil lawsuit), they have to have enough facts that, if true, prove a violation of the law. That's what Scout's motion to dismiss asked: did the plaintiff's complaint have enough facts that, if true, prove a violation? The court said yes, there's enough facts there but made no determination about whether those facts are actually true.
The case now proceeds to testing whether those facts are actually true. And it's not uncommon for them not to be true. It's not that the plaintiff lied or misled anyone, but sometimes the facts don't work out for the plaintiff.
If I had to guess, the case is going to come down to how much and to what extent VW controls or has say in Scout. We won't know that for months, if not years. Scout will be selling cars before this gets decided (unless it settles).