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

[R1TVT]

If Rivian launches R2 successfully this year with solid conversion numbers (as Phase II of their GTM efforts), we can make this entire ludicrous thread go away. We will see a highly capable, value-oriented, American-made EV that could be a major catalyst in the electrification movement in the US from a company that started from scratch as an OEM (without any tentacles into a pre-existing supply chain or parts bin). This is of course, TBD.

Scout can (and will) have a lower-priced/more value-oriented variant following their debut, and will likely use a similar playbook to expand their footprint. In fact, Scout has already indicated this in earlier discussions. One of those discussions involved a lower-priced spec with a removable roof.

Scout NEVER had the intention to launch a truck & SUV with ~$40K entry point as the first objective.

Again, what is missing in this entire debate is the vision & understanding of Scout's strategic plan that includes more than one truck and SUV, and perhaps an opportunity to deliver additional capabilities for other brands underneath VW Group's portfolio in the future. Patience grasshopper.

 

[THil08]

@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.

You've been caught. Drop the Mic and leave. This isn't a one and done deal. All of your responses are AI. Im not gonna sit around and watch real human responses get taken down by some AI hack!

 

[THil08]

If Rivian launches R2 successfully this year with solid conversion numbers (as Phase II of their GTM efforts), we can make this entire ludicrous thread go away. We will see a highly capable, value-oriented, American-made EV that could be a major catalyst in the electrification movement in the US from a company that started from scratch as an OEM (without any tentacles into a pre-existing supply chain or parts bin). This is of course, TBD.

Scout can (and will) have a lower-priced/more value-oriented variant following their debut, and will likely use a similar playbook to expand their footprint. In fact, Scout has already indicated this in earlier discussions. One of those discussions involved a lower-priced spec with a removable roof.

Scout NEVER had the intention to launch a truck & SUV with ~$40K entry point as the first objective.

Again, what is missing in this entire debate is the vision & understanding of Scout's strategic plan that includes more than one truck and SUV, and perhaps an opportunity to deliver additional capabilities for other brands underneath VW Group's portfolio in the future. Patience grasshopper.

And this is 100% Human made! Well done @R1TVT! Keeping it real and not making AI do the work!

 

[N Wilson]

@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.

Since you seem to have an answer for everything and already know everything there is to know about, well, everything, the solution is crystal clear.

You should start your own car company and sell $45k vehicles. You've already laid out the roadmap to doing it, so go ahead. You have the benefit of not being encumbered by investors who demand profits or executives who command outrageous compensation packages.

You can call the company TomGPT Motors (credit to Tim for that name) and your first two models can be the GPTraveler and GPTerra.

Tell you what. I'll be your first reservation holder as soon as your reservation system goes live. Seriously, if you can pull this off (and I have utmost confidence that you can) I will gladly buy one from you and cancel my Scout reservation.

 

[robothero]

yall got baited again

 

[tomgillotti]

View attachment 12895
You've been caught. Drop the Mic and leave. This isn't a one and done deal. All of your responses are AI. Im not gonna sit around and watch real human responses get taken down by some AI hack!

Congratulations, detective. You caught me... using a tool to help format my arguments? Stop the presses.

Let’s be clear: I use AI to help organize my thoughts, clean up my grammar, and structure my posts because I value clarity. I feed it my specific points (like the Maverick data), my arguments, and my logic, and it helps me present them concisely. It’s 2026—using an LLM to draft your thoughts is no different than using a calculator to check your math.

But notice what you didn't do in that post?

You didn't refute a single thing I said.

• You didn't disprove the Maverick demand.

• You didn't counter the dealer margin argument.

• You didn't address the "Bundling" problem.


You ignored the substance entirely to attack the syntax. That is the definition of a logical fallacy. You can't beat the argument, so you’re trying to disqualify the author.

That isn't a "mic drop." That is a forfeit.

If you have a legitimate counter-point to the economic reality I laid out, I’m right here and ready to hear it. But if you’re just going to post screenshots from detection tools because you don't have an actual argument, then you’re just proving that my points are unassailable.

The mic stays right here.

 

[tomgillotti]

If Rivian launches R2 successfully this year with solid conversion numbers (as Phase II of their GTM efforts), we can make this entire ludicrous thread go away. We will see a highly capable, value-oriented, American-made EV that could be a major catalyst in the electrification movement in the US from a company that started from scratch as an OEM (without any tentacles into a pre-existing supply chain or parts bin). This is of course, TBD.

Scout can (and will) have a lower-priced/more value-oriented variant following their debut, and will likely use a similar playbook to expand their footprint. In fact, Scout has already indicated this in earlier discussions. One of those discussions involved a lower-priced spec with a removable roof.

Scout NEVER had the intention to launch a truck & SUV with ~$40K entry point as the first objective.

Again, what is missing in this entire debate is the vision & understanding of Scout's strategic plan that includes more than one truck and SUV, and perhaps an opportunity to deliver additional capabilities for other brands underneath VW Group's portfolio in the future. Patience grasshopper.

I think you are giving the R2 way too much credit. Let’s be real about what the R2 is: It’s a small, unibody crossover. It is essentially an electric RAV4 or CR-V.

Celebrating a $45,000 price tag for a compact crossover isn't a victory; it’s proof of how warped this market has become. A vehicle of that size and utility should be $30,000. The fact that we are cheering for $45k shows how low our standards have fallen.

And that brings me back to Scout. You are comparing apples to watermelons. The R2 is a "lifestyle crossover." Scout is supposed to be a Body-on-Frame Truck.

If Rivian (a self-proclaimed "Premium Adventure Brand") is desperate enough to target an entry price of $45k just to survive, why on earth should Scout (a "Rugged Utility Brand") be arrogant enough to start at $60k?

Rivian is moving down market because they realized the luxury air is thin. Scout is trying to launch into that same thin air.

As for "Patience, grasshopper": Telling customers to "wait for the cheaper version later" is a losing strategy when competitors are hungry now. If Scout launches with a greedy price tag, they might not be around long enough to release those "future variants." You don't build a volume brand by telling the volume buyers to wait in the parking lot while the rich folks eat first.

 

[tomgillotti]

View attachment 12895
You've been caught. Drop the Mic and leave. This isn't a one and done deal. All of your responses are AI. Im not gonna sit around and watch real human responses get taken down by some AI hack!

THil08 said:
"Everyone here ignore tom toms post. let him sit there."

How's that going for you, by the way?

 

[tomgillotti]

Since you seem to have an answer for everything and already know everything there is to know about, well, everything, the solution is crystal clear.

You should start your own car company and sell $45k vehicles. You've already laid out the roadmap to doing it, so go ahead. You have the benefit of not being encumbered by investors who demand profits or executives who command outrageous compensation packages.

You can call the company TomGPT Motors (credit to Tim for that name) and your first two models can be the GPTraveler and GPTerra.

Tell you what. I'll be your first reservation holder as soon as your reservation system goes live. Seriously, if you can pull this off (and I have utmost confidence that you can) I will gladly buy one from you and cancel my Scout reservation.

I step away for one Sunday to enjoy the real world, and I come back to find the fan club holding an emergency meeting. I’m flattered by the attention.

Regarding your "Start your own car company" argument:

That is the intellectual equivalent of saying, "If you don't like the food, go into the kitchen and cook it yourself."

I don't need to be a Michelin-star chef to know when a steak is burnt. And I don't need to be a CEO to know that pricing a volume vehicle like a niche luxury toy is a failing strategy. We have historical data (Ford Lightning, Rivian R1) that proves it. Pointing out that cliff isn't "arrogance"—it's reading the map.

As for "TomGPT Motors"—I actually like the ring of it. A company run on logic, efficiency, and data-driven decision-making instead of ego and "legacy tax"? That sounds exactly like what the industry needs.

I’ll eagerly accept your reservation. But while you wait for my IPO, I noticed you spent 3 paragraphs writing fan-fiction about my imaginary company and 0 paragraphs refuting the actual data I posted about Dealer Margins.

If you want to debate the economics of the EV market, I’m right here. But if you’re just here to write bad comedy because you can't handle a dissenting opinion, you might want to keep that day job.

 

[THil08]

THil08 said:
"Everyone here ignore tom toms post. let him sit there."

How's that going for you, by the way?

Great actually because I can tell we all have gotten under your skin.

Therefore my job is done.

#CheckYourAI

 

[N Wilson]

yall got baited again

Yeah, I know. I shouldn't feed the trolls (or bots).

I'll stop now. He's letting his emotions get the better of him

 

[N Wilson]

I step away for one Sunday to enjoy the real world, and I come back to find the fan club holding an emergency meeting. I’m flattered by the attention.

Regarding your "Start your own car company" argument:

That is the intellectual equivalent of saying, "If you don't like the food, go into the kitchen and cook it yourself."

I don't need to be a Michelin-star chef to know when a steak is burnt. And I don't need to be a CEO to know that pricing a volume vehicle like a niche luxury toy is a failing strategy. We have historical data (Ford Lightning, Rivian R1) that proves it. Pointing out that cliff isn't "arrogance"—it's reading the map.

As for "TomGPT Motors"—I actually like the ring of it. A company run on logic, efficiency, and data-driven decision-making instead of ego and "legacy tax"? That sounds exactly like what the industry needs.

I’ll eagerly accept your reservation. But while you wait for my IPO, I noticed you spent 3 paragraphs writing fan-fiction about my imaginary company and 0 paragraphs refuting the actual data I posted about Dealer Margins.

If you want to debate the economics of the EV market, I’m right here. But if you’re just here to write bad comedy because you can't handle a dissenting opinion, you might want to keep that day job.

 

[THil08]

Everyone, set him to ignore on his profile. It will make him go “B B B bye bye bang bang.” And this thread disappears! See y’all on the other side!

 

[R1TVT]

If Rivian (a self-proclaimed "Premium Adventure Brand") is desperate enough to target an entry price of $45k just to survive, why on earth should Scout (a "Rugged Utility Brand") be arrogant enough to start at $60k?

What a strange interpretation! A US OEM that is looking to improve viability, profitability & gain more market share by launching an entirely new product is defined as "desperate" by your AI argument engine?

I would try to inject your bot with a dose of capitalism and alter its core algorithm in such a way that it is afforded more credibility here, particularly since we operate in a free market society.

Rivian is moving down market because they realized the luxury air is thin. Scout is trying to launch into that same thin air.

Thank you for this important statement. Instead of having your AI agent respond to these forum posts, you might consider teaching your agent to better respond to domestic forum inquiries by absorbing the teachings of certain books like the Competitive Advantage of Nations, by Michael Porter. There are interesting concepts that offer various GTM options for different business - many of which are taught in business school, and many of which are put into practice by some of the most successful companies in the world. One such concept is launching with a more expensive product first to intentionally target early adopters who might be willing to save a little more (and pay a little more) to help Scout become viable and build out their brand. The brand-building part will be crucial for Scout, and this is more easily achieved with a more complete product offering that can further differentiate itself from competitors and increase brand reputation. This is a strategy that has been deployed in the USA to foster and develop a culture of innovation and advancement, which can result in the development of new products and improve business operations over time (something I am sure Scout would aim for). Rivian has evolved past the point of its initial launch of a more premium-level truck and SUV. So thank you again for helping to reinforce this strategy!

 

[tomgillotti]

What a strange interpretation! A US OEM that is looking to improve viability, profitability & gain more market share by launching an entirely new product is defined as "desperate" by your AI argument engine?

I would try to inject your bot with a dose of capitalism and alter its core algorithm in such a way that it is afforded more credibility here, particularly since we operate in a free market society.


Thank you for this important statement. Instead of having your AI agent respond to these forum posts, you might consider teaching your agent to better respond to domestic forum inquiries by absorbing the teachings of certain books like the Competitive Advantage of Nations, by Michael Porter. There are interesting concepts that offer various GTM options for different business - many of which are taught in business school, and many of which are put into practice by some of the most successful companies in the world. One such concept is launching with a more expensive product first to intentionally target early adopters who might be willing to save a little more (and pay a little more) to help Scout become viable and build out their brand. The brand-building part will be crucial for Scout, and this is more easily achieved with a more complete product offering that can further differentiate itself from competitors and increase brand reputation. This is a strategy that has been deployed in the USA to foster and develop a culture of innovation and advancement, which can result in the development of new products and improve business operations over time (something I am sure Scout would aim for). Rivian has evolved past the point of its initial launch of a more premium-level truck and SUV. So thank you again for helping to reinforce this strategy!

I love that we are debating the "validity" of using modern tools to organize thoughts in a forum about Future Transportation. The irony of demanding we use quill and ink to discuss electric vehicles is palpable. The future is here; you can either use the tools to be efficient, or you can yell at the clouds.

But let’s talk about your "Business School" reading list. Since we are assigning homework, you might want to swap out Michael Porter (1990) for Geoffrey Moore’s "Crossing the Chasm." You are arguing that Scout should target "Early Adopters" with a high price point to "build the brand."

That ship sailed in 2021.

• Rivian R1 was for Early Adopters.

• Hummer EV was for Early Adopters.

• Cybertruck was for Early Adopters.

The "Early Adopter" phase of the EV truck market is over. We are now in the "Early Majority" phase. Early Adopters buy based on novelty and are price-insensitive (Tesla 2012).

The Majority buys based on Utility and Value (Ford Maverick 2024).

Scout is not launching into a blue ocean; they are launching into a parking lot full of unsold $70k Lightnings. Trying to run a "Skimming Strategy" (high price/low volume) five years late to the party isn't "Capitalism"—it’s bankruptcy.

As for Rivian: If you think pivoting to a "cheaper" platform ($45k R2) to avoid running out of cash is "evolution" and not "survival," I have some WeWork stock to sell you.

 

[R1TVT]

But let’s talk about your "Business School" reading list. Since we are assigning homework, you might want to swap out Michael Porter (1990) for Geoffrey Moore’s "Crossing the Chasm." You are arguing that Scout should target "Early Adopters" with a high price point to "build the brand."

Your engine appears stuck in first gear - a very common problem when using AI. As you continue with your argument your engine may hallucinate causing issues with complexity and past relevant posts in a thread like this. While I applaud your attempt at utulizing AI for your efforts here, your prompts may actually be leading you to incoherent outputs, or failing to recognize previous discussions within this thread, resulting in misaligned responses that do not take into consideration the previous posts.

The chasm that Scout will face and the Rivian faces was already referenced early in this discussion. The teachings of Moore and Porter are not mutually exclusive.

 

[eunichron]

This thread really reinforces the idea that the Internet was a mistake.

That is not directed at any particular person.

 

[dreamweaver]

This thread really reinforces the idea that the Internet was a mistake.

That is not directed at any particular person.

Much like illicit drugs.

 

[N Wilson]

This thread really reinforces the idea that the Internet was a mistake.

That is not directed at any particular person.

 

[tomgillotti]

Your engine appears stuck in first gear - a very common problem when using AI. As you continue with your argument your engine may hallucinate causing issues with complexity and past relevant posts in a thread like this. While I applaud your attempt at utulizing AI for your efforts here, your prompts may actually be leading you to incoherent outputs, or failing to recognize previous discussions within this thread, resulting in misaligned responses that do not take into consideration the previous posts.

The chasm that Scout will face and the Rivian faces was already referenced early in this discussion. The teachings of Moore and Porter are not mutually exclusive.

You are spending a lot of energy reviewing the "engine" because you can't debunk the economics.

You claim the "Chasm" was already referenced. Great. Then you should understand what it actually means."Crossing the Chasm" isn't just a buzzword; it is the brutal transition from Visionaries (who will pay any price for novelty) to Pragmatists (who compare features and price). Scout is launching in 2027. The "Visionaries" have already bought Rivian R1s and Cybertrucks. The novelty is gone. Scout is launching directly into the Pragmatist market.

And here is the hard truth your "Business School" theory misses: Pragmatists do not pay a "Brand Building" tax. If you try to apply a Michael Porter "Premium Differentiation" strategy (high price) to a Geoffrey Moore "Pragmatist" audience (value shoppers), you don't build a legacy. You build a museum piece.

You can call it "hallucination" if it makes you feel better about the price tag, but the inventory data calls it "Market Saturation." If you want to keep grading my syntax, be my guest. But until you can explain how Scout plans to sell a $65k truck to a customer base that is currently refusing to buy $60k F-150s, you’re just arguing with the spell-checker.