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

[Mousehunter]

What was the range on that $60k Lightning? Was that the $40k Lightning they promised us selling at $60k. Or was that the $60k Lightning that the dealers were asking $100k for and nobody gave a second chance to because they did not think Ford removed that disastrous initial market adjustment

But regardless - I did not want the Lightning because it did not replace my Superduty. The Traveler could replace virtually any of my SUV's or cars.

 

[Horn of Gabriel]

My career spans 25+ years in product research, marketing, product management and strategy, and pricing. I consult with Fortune 50 companies (including some in automotive) on pricing. This isn't a brag, it's to illustrate that when it comes to pricing products, I know what I'm talking about, and companies trust me to help them get it right.

The AI-bot (likely Chinese in origin spreading agitprop) makes claims about how Scout should price at X because he values the product at Y and the Chinese companies price their cars at Z. This illustrates a few fundamental misunderstandings of good pricing practices:

• Price is not based on cost.

You should never - EVER - price a product based on cost, unless forced to by the government or regulatory regime. The market doesn't know your true cost, and never should. The cost you incur to ship a product is not the value you deliver to the buyer when they receive it: they are two separate things. Examples in hardware, software, and services are easy to find: the cost of the diamond for your wife's engagement ring has zero to do with DeBeers cost to get it out of the ground and onto a ring in the store. The price you or your business pays for one incremental copy of Office365 delivered to your laptop has zero to do with Microsoft's incremental cost to deliver it (which is close to zero). McKinsey's or Bain's report they develop for your CEO and sell for $10MM has nothing to do with their cost to develop it, in fact it was 75% developed before they walk through the door. And in tech, Nvidia's cost to build the next version of their latest AI-chip to power our fun AI-bots like in this thread have nothing to do with what they will charge.

Pricing based on cost does not optimize profit. Because we are in a capitalistic society, and Scout isn't a non-profit, they and VW both have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and investors to optimize their return on their investments. You may not like that, you may prefer that it was another way, or pine for yesteryear when things were "better," but that is how it is today.

Finally on the cost point, even if they did price on cost, comparing vs. a Chinese company is false equivalency. Chinese companies are often quasi-governmental bodies, with investment from and and a controlling interest by the Chinese Communist Party. Their financials are not transparent, and the Communist Party often will choose to massively subsidize certain industries as a way to flood and then corner the market with predatory pricing.

Also, many companies in China use slave-labor from ethnic minorities like the Uighur population, which they don't pay and force to live in squalor and sterilize while sending to re-education camps. Something to consider whenever doing a side by side comparison of a Chinese product vs. a product manufactured in the U.S. or Europe.

• Price is based on what people are willing-to-pay for the product.

Good pricing is based on what the buyer of the product is willing to pay. If a company attempts to price the product beyond the value that the buyer feels they are receiving, they either won't purchase, or they will negotiate if that is an available option.

The beauty is that value is in the eye of the beholder. The AI-bot says that $60K price is too high for the value received, which may be perfectly true for him and maybe he would max out at $40K to match price:value. But for the next buyer down the road, $75K might be perfectly acceptable.

• When a company prices below the value the buyer feels they are receiving, it's called "deal value."

The easiest way to think about it is when you see a product and the price is lower than expected and you say "wow, that is a really good deal!" There are many reasons that a company might want to create the perception of deal value, but the foremost is capturing market share.

• In a supply-constrained environment, use price segmentation to serve those with the highest willingness to pay.

You get out of a concert and 10,000 people all want an Uber. What happens? Surge pricing kicks in. Those with a higher willingness to pay get a car first (aka "the rich" lol), and others can either wait 30 minutes and get a beer at the bar, or walk 5 blocks out of the surge pricing zone.

Scout is in a supply-constrained environment and will be for years. They have tens of thousands of reservation holders. They aren't trying to capture share: they are going to sell out their first several years of vehicles already. Again, Scout is a for-profit business with a fiduciary obligation to its investors. It would be grounds for removal by the board of directors if the CEO approved a pricing strategy that did not optimize for those with a higher willingness to pay.

If you don't like that choice, you can either 1) not purchase because the price charged does not align to the value you feel you receive, 2) wait and hope that the price will decrease based on saturation and market-forces. It suppose the AI-bot shows us a third option: get on the company's community site and complain about the price. Maybe the 4th option is to start an anti-capitalist revolution and get the government to impose price controls based on your ideals about what the correct price:value ratio should be? I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Mousehunter]

I can agree with a lot of what the prior poster has expressed. There are a couple other things that come to mind.

How will Scout deal with initial market adjustments? They will only be able to fulfill reservations at certain rates. In a free market, the market will find ways to allow people who give the product higher value the ability to get the product faster. In a dealer model, we see market adjustment surcharges. Even in direct marketing, we generally see companies releasing products with a higher margin first. Absent of the dealer or manufacturer addressing the issue, aftermarket will. Some early buyers will treat their early delivery like winning the lotto - and cash in, reselling for profit. Many who see adjustment surcharges might decide to drop reservations and just look elsewhere rather than waiting more years with fingers crossed.

The second issue is that early adopters will have somewhat limited information to base their value judgements on. Some will add value due to the hope they will be one of the above lotto winners. Others will add value because they don't want to wait. But as more information becomes available (like the actual transfer rate of reservations to orders, like the actual user experience) - the market will change it's perceived value. Too often with EV's, that is a not a possessive thing - real world ranges not coming close to expectations, real world performance and durability not meeting expectations, quality control not meeting expectations. Hopefully Scout will not have those types of issues. Under promise, over deliver - and then reservations might actually increase rather than having a 1 out of 10 conversion rate.

 

[R1TVT]

It would be grounds for removal by the board of directors if the CEO approved a pricing strategy that did not optimize for those with a higher willingness to pay.

Agreed on all of this, and in terms of the above, the DTC model sets a price that we (the collective buyers) are willing to pay.

That pricing may be adjusted over time. Think of it as group pricing, with no need for any individual "market adjustments". The company realizes a significant benefit and efficiency gain with this model, offsetting any minor losses for customers who might want to bypass the line.

There is significantly less overhead and greater operational simplicity with a DTC model than with a dealer model. It's basically staggered grouped pricing and might be adjusted with upgrades to the current model, or new models.

We are the first group willing to pay ~$60K'ish for the first drop (based on the perceived value that Scout will deliver).

 

[tomgillotti]

My career spans 25+ years in product research, marketing, product management and strategy, and pricing. I consult with Fortune 50 companies (including some in automotive) on pricing. This isn't a brag, it's to illustrate that when it comes to pricing products, I know what I'm talking about, and companies trust me to help them get it right.

The AI-bot (likely Chinese in origin spreading agitprop) makes claims about how Scout should price at X because he values the product at Y and the Chinese companies price their cars at Z. This illustrates a few fundamental misunderstandings of good pricing practices:

• Price is not based on cost.

You should never - EVER - price a product based on cost, unless forced to by the government or regulatory regime. The market doesn't know your true cost, and never should. The cost you incur to ship a product is not the value you deliver to the buyer when they receive it: they are two separate things. Examples in hardware, software, and services are easy to find: the cost of the diamond for your wife's engagement ring has zero to do with DeBeers cost to get it out of the ground and onto a ring in the store. The price you or your business pays for one incremental copy of Office365 delivered to your laptop has zero to do with Microsoft's incremental cost to deliver it (which is close to zero). McKinsey's or Bain's report they develop for your CEO and sell for $10MM has nothing to do with their cost to develop it, in fact it was 75% developed before they walk through the door. And in tech, Nvidia's cost to build the next version of their latest AI-chip to power our fun AI-bots like in this thread have nothing to do with what they will charge.

Pricing based on cost does not optimize profit. Because we are in a capitalistic society, and Scout isn't a non-profit, they and VW both have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and investors to optimize their return on their investments. You may not like that, you may prefer that it was another way, or pine for yesteryear when things were "better," but that is how it is today.

Finally on the cost point, even if they did price on cost, comparing vs. a Chinese company is false equivalency. Chinese companies are often quasi-governmental bodies, with investment from and and a controlling interest by the Chinese Communist Party. Their financials are not transparent, and the Communist Party often will choose to massively subsidize certain industries as a way to flood and then corner the market with predatory pricing.

Also, many companies in China use slave-labor from ethnic minorities like the Uighur population, which they don't pay and force to live in squalor and sterilize while sending to re-education camps. Something to consider whenever doing a side by side comparison of a Chinese product vs. a product manufactured in the U.S. or Europe.

• Price is based on what people are willing-to-pay for the product.

Good pricing is based on what the buyer of the product is willing to pay. If a company attempts to price the product beyond the value that the buyer feels they are receiving, they either won't purchase, or they will negotiate if that is an available option.

The beauty is that value is in the eye of the beholder. The AI-bot says that $60K price is too high for the value received, which may be perfectly true for him and maybe he would max out at $40K to match price:value. But for the next buyer down the road, $75K might be perfectly acceptable.

• When a company prices below the value the buyer feels they are receiving, it's called "deal value."

The easiest way to think about it is when you see a product and the price is lower than expected and you say "wow, that is a really good deal!" There are many reasons that a company might want to create the perception of deal value, but the foremost is capturing market share.

• In a supply-constrained environment, use price segmentation to serve those with the highest willingness to pay.

You get out of a concert and 10,000 people all want an Uber. What happens? Surge pricing kicks in. Those with a higher willingness to pay get a car first (aka "the rich" lol), and others can either wait 30 minutes and get a beer at the bar, or walk 5 blocks out of the surge pricing zone.

Scout is in a supply-constrained environment and will be for years. They have tens of thousands of reservation holders. They aren't trying to capture share: they are going to sell out their first several years of vehicles already. Again, Scout is a for-profit business with a fiduciary obligation to its investors. It would be grounds for removal by the board of directors if the CEO approved a pricing strategy that did not optimize for those with a higher willingness to pay.

If you don't like that choice, you can either 1) not purchase because the price charged does not align to the value you feel you receive, 2) wait and hope that the price will decrease based on saturation and market-forces. It suppose the AI-bot shows us a third option: get on the company's community site and complain about the price. Maybe the 4th option is to start an anti-capitalist revolution and get the government to impose price controls based on your ideals about what the correct price:value ratio should be? I wouldn't recommend it.

I usually ignore the personal attacks, but I’m going to stop you right there.

I am a US Air Force Veteran and a single father living in Texas.

Calling a fellow reservation holder "Chinese Agitprop" because you disagree with their economic outlook is not "product expertise"—it is delusional and disrespectful. You might want to recalibrate your sensors; they are way off target.

Now, let’s address your lecture on pricing. You wrote a lot of words to say: "Price is determined by Willingness to Pay, not Cost."

I agree. That is Econ 101.

But then you based your entire conclusion on this premise:

"Scout is in a supply-constrained environment... they have tens of thousands of reservation holders."

This is where your 25 years of experience is failing you.

You are applying 2021 logic to the 2027 market.

• 2021 (Rivian/Ford Launch): Supply Constrained. Willingness to Pay was infinite. MSRP didn't matter.

• Today: The EV truck market is Oversupplied. Ford has a 100+ day supply of Lightnings. Rivian is burning cash to move metal.

• The Reality: The "Willingness to Pay" for an electric truck has dropped like a rock. That is why Rivian is terrified and pivoting to the $45k R2.

If Scout prices based on "Willingness to Pay" in a saturated market, they cannot price at $65k—because the buyers aren't there anymore. They are all driving Mavericks or waiting for the R2.

You are arguing for a "Skimming Strategy" (high price/low volume) in a market that has already moved to "Market Penetration" (low price/high volume). That isn't "Fortune 50 strategy"; that is how you become Fisker.

 

[Horn of Gabriel]

I usually ignore the personal attacks, but I’m going to stop you right there.

I am a US Air Force Veteran and a single father living in Texas.

Calling a fellow reservation holder "Chinese Agitprop" because you disagree with their economic outlook is not "product expertise"—it is delusional and disrespectful. You might want to recalibrate your sensors; they are way off target.

Now, let’s address your lecture on pricing. You wrote a lot of words to say: "Price is determined by Willingness to Pay, not Cost."

I agree. That is Econ 101.

But then you based your entire conclusion on this premise:

"Scout is in a supply-constrained environment... they have tens of thousands of reservation holders."

This is where your 25 years of experience is failing you.

You are applying 2021 logic to the 2027 market.

• 2021 (Rivian/Ford Launch): Supply Constrained. Willingness to Pay was infinite. MSRP didn't matter.

• Today: The EV truck market is Oversupplied. Ford has a 100+ day supply of Lightnings. Rivian is burning cash to move metal.

• The Reality: The "Willingness to Pay" for an electric truck has dropped like a rock. That is why Rivian is terrified and pivoting to the $45k R2.

If Scout prices based on "Willingness to Pay" in a saturated market, they cannot price at $65k—because the buyers aren't there anymore. They are all driving Mavericks or waiting for the R2.

You are arguing for a "Skimming Strategy" (high price/low volume) in a market that has already moved to "Market Penetration" (low price/high volume). That isn't "Fortune 50 strategy"; that is how you become Fisker.

Sir, if you're going to repeat talking points from the CCP, expect to get called out on it. That's not a personal attack, it's facts. I think upthread you told another user that they conveniently didn't respond to aspects of your argument, which means you inferred they had no response. I note that you also did not respond to the CCPs massive subsidies and control of major companies, or their usage of slave labor. I wholly stand by my assertion that any comparison of a product made in the U.S. or Europe, where we have labor laws and unions and a free market economy, to a product made in China is a false equivalence. It's also rich to see you call a post a "lecture" when you have 50,000+ words on this thread: pot meet kettle.

Regarding your assertion that the WtP for an EV truck has "dropped like a rock," I do not see evidence of this for Scout. Maybe you have presented hard data indicating that reservation holders are cancelling en masse? The Scout market at launch is not the Rivian market, or the Ford Lightning market, or the "Generic EV truck" market. It's an early adopter market, powered not only by EV enthusiasts but also by Scout nostalgics. These are the people who, like me, will happily pay $60K+ for a Scout, appropriately apportioned.

You're only half-right on skimming. Scout is going to sell out at a $60K launch price just as they would at a $40K launch price. I don't have access to their price elasticity data but I'm guessing they'd sell out their initial run at a $70K launch price. The volume for the launch price is not relevant until they hit a price that won't allow them to sell out their run. Scout is a niche product, it's a lot closer to Fisker than Ford. Rivian is terrified because they've burned through their tech-enthusiast early adopters with higher willingness to pay. As a result they have to pivot to a lower-priced vehicle that could appeal to a more mass market with lower WtP. Scout has already teased a lower-priced 3rd vehicle coming to the lineup down the road, which I suspect will meet many of your needs for a lower price and allow Scout to take their learnings from the early adopters who are buying Terra and Traveller to a more mass market. You seem to be advocating that Scout should underprice their halo launch products to appeal to joe everyone when they haven't even hit their early adopters yet. That's bad business.

 

[R1TVT]

Scout is a niche product, it's a lot closer to Fisker than Ford. Rivian is terrified because they've burned through their tech-enthusiast early adopters with higher willingness to pay. As a result they have to pivot to a lower-priced vehicle that could appeal to a more mass market with lower WtP.

Rivian announced their intent to launch R2 in 2022 (in conjunction with their LAUNCH of R1)... This was not a scheme concocted in 2024, it was an intentional and strategic plan to bring a more attractive and appealing "mass market EV" to a broader base of buyers. The intention being to increase profitability and also introduce younger buyers with less disposable income to the brand. It will serve as a critical part of their future viability if they can pull it off and if they develop solid brand affinity with R2 buyers (who could become future premium buyers based on that affinity). It's not different than having an umbrella like VW does with both premium and more value-oriented offerings, and it will not be surprising to see Scout do the same with a future product release. Maybe we should debate if that product should cost ~$40K? No, just kidding, let's not do that.

 

[strider]

-<sigh>- Around and around it goes.....

As I said back on page 1 - Scout is following the path of Tesla and Rivian, the only successful new car companies in the US in like 100 years. Start with the high margin vehicles first to start paying back the immense amount of debt that they have accumulated to design the vehicles and build the factory. They will then also use that money to design lower priced models. That was always Tesla's and Rivian's (and Scout's) plan.

VW can't really help them as they do not have any body on frame vehicles from which Scout can borrow. These are clean sheet designs and require all new tooling.

Because of that you cannot compare margins between Scout and the Big 3. Ford, Ram, and Chevy have been building body on frame vehicles for decades and have depreciated huge amounts of design, tooling, and the factories themselves. This allows their margins to be higher than Scout's.

Separately, there are absolutely a group of (relatively) price-insensitive buyers that will pay a premium to get an early Scout. None of us know what the size of that group is. But assuming Scout has some margin cushion, they can adjust the pricing down to attract buyers after the initial group. Tesla has been doing this for 10 or so years now - they change pricing constantly to adjust demand - one benefit of the DTC model. I bought my Model X Plaid in March, 2022. Within months of taking delivery they dropped the price $20k (after they had exhausted all of the reservations and demand was low). Did that suck for me? Sure. It decimated my resale value. But I still have the car and it was worth it to me at the time (and I sold my 2010 Roadster w/ 70k miles on it for the same price as the MXP so it wasn't real cash leaving my pocket) so I just had bad timing.

Honestly, a full size EV/EREV truck/SUV for under $60k is stupendous. The cheapest R1T is $71k, cheapest Cybertruck is $80k, Ford and Chevy have stripped models in the $55k range but I'm guessing based on what we've seen from Scout they will compete more with the Lariat which is $76k.

If you want a bargain truck, get a Silverado WT, Ford Lightning Pro, or honestly, you seem like a Slate customer. You assign no value to creature comforts so the Slate should be right up your alley. If you want creature comforts but don't want to pay for them, then you're a hypocrite.

Lastly, you refuse to accept that we have entered a new inflationary regime. Unlike 1980-2020, prices are only going up (technically the dollar is only going down) from here. Why don't you check out a chart of aluminum or copper and what it's done over the last few years. Scout is trying to forecast their costs based on charts that look like that and then try to estimate MSRP from there. Not an easy thing to do.

 

[Mousehunter]

I think the last I saw is Scout is planning to move up to 100k vehicles per year in 3 years. But it is hard to say where the starting point of that will be and what the curve will be. But I highly suspect they will not be meeting demand for both models the first year, and they will probably be balancing out that sometimes the second year.

Meanwhile they have already hinted at a third model - which might be scheduled by year 3, plus VW has mentioned an Audi SUV that might also be built in the Scout factory (or with components of the Scout design). Now if you look at Lightning sales and Rivian sales - it is entirely possibly they might be able to have a sustained demand of 100k vehicles a year with a 4 vehicle line by year 3.

 

[smc2023]

I have one simple response -(after reading the lengthy comments back and forth) I think the Scout is appropriately priced.

tomgilotti stated - The original Jeep was superior off-road, but it was priced for soldiers and workers.

He is correct, the Jeep new price in 1945 was approximately the equivalent of one year of salary of a blue collar worker in 1945.

Likewise, the Scout anticipated price is approximately the equivalent of one year of salary of a blue collar worker in 2025.

Let capitalism do what it does best, if you think it's too expensive, take your purchasing power elsewhere.

 

[tomgillotti]

Sir, if you're going to repeat talking points from the CCP, expect to get called out on it. That's not a personal attack, it's facts. I think upthread you told another user that they conveniently didn't respond to aspects of your argument, which means you inferred they had no response. I note that you also did not respond to the CCPs massive subsidies and control of major companies, or their usage of slave labor. I wholly stand by my assertion that any comparison of a product made in the U.S. or Europe, where we have labor laws and unions and a free market economy, to a product made in China is a false equivalence. It's also rich to see you call a post a "lecture" when you have 50,000+ words on this thread: pot meet kettle.

Regarding your assertion that the WtP for an EV truck has "dropped like a rock," I do not see evidence of this for Scout. Maybe you have presented hard data indicating that reservation holders are cancelling en masse? The Scout market at launch is not the Rivian market, or the Ford Lightning market, or the "Generic EV truck" market. It's an early adopter market, powered not only by EV enthusiasts but also by Scout nostalgics. These are the people who, like me, will happily pay $60K+ for a Scout, appropriately apportioned.

You're only half-right on skimming. Scout is going to sell out at a $60K launch price just as they would at a $40K launch price. I don't have access to their price elasticity data but I'm guessing they'd sell out their initial run at a $70K launch price. The volume for the launch price is not relevant until they hit a price that won't allow them to sell out their run. Scout is a niche product, it's a lot closer to Fisker than Ford. Rivian is terrified because they've burned through their tech-enthusiast early adopters with higher willingness to pay. As a result they have to pivot to a lower-priced vehicle that could appeal to a more mass market with lower WtP. Scout has already teased a lower-priced 3rd vehicle coming to the lineup down the road, which I suspect will meet many of your needs for a lower price and allow Scout to take their learnings from the early adopters who are buying Terra and Traveller to a more mass market. You seem to be advocating that Scout should underprice their halo launch products to appeal to joe everyone when they haven't even hit their early adopters yet. That's bad business.

I stated I am a Veteran to give you context on who you are talking to, and your response was to double down and tell me that I'm spreading "talking points from the CCP"?
That says far more about your character than it does about my "ideology."

Moving away from your unnecessary second personal attack... let's stick to the data, since you claim you "do not see evidence" that the Willingness to Pay for EV trucks has dropped.
You must not be looking very hard.

• Ford Lightning: Ford cut production by 50% in 2024 because inventory was piling up on dealer lots. They had to introduce thousands in incentives to move metal. That is the definition of "WTP dropping."
• Rivian: Their stock is down 90% from highs because they cannot find enough buyers at the current price point to scale profitably, forcing them to bet the company on the cheaper R2.
• Tesla: They slashed the price of the Model Y and Model 3 repeatedly to sustain demand.
You call my comparison to the global market "False Equivalence" because of labor laws.
The Consumer does not care about your labor law dissertation.

When a buyer looks at a $60-70k Scout, they vote with their wallet (as a reminder, we are a small representation of the enthusiast target market for Scout--the majority of the buyer are not on forums).

The market is brutal and efficient. It doesn't pay a premium for "Fortune 50" slide decks. You can scream "CCP Propaganda" into the void all you want, but the inventory reports from Ford and GM are written in English, and they all say the same thing: The $70k EV truck market is dead.

 

[Coyle70]

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.

I agree but I’d be okay with 50-60. I am categorically blue collar and very proud of it.
Unfortunately I believe that even with tariffs on overseas,?the incentives on American goods still don’t make up enough differences in cost of manufacturing in the states.

***just a note so I don’t again ruffle feathers.
I don’t look at the titles blue or white collar as a financial class. I know many blue collar millionaires.
Proud Blue collar take pride in working with their hands, in getting dirty.
“DIRTY JOBS”
Thanks Mike Rowe

 

[tomgillotti]

I came across this report from the Financial Times today and thought it was relevant to our discussion about where the truck market is actually heading (versus where it was in 2021).

Don't think I can link the specific article but you can search the title if curious. Ford held talks with China’s Xiaomi over EV partnership: A deal would open US market to Chinese carmakers

The key takeaway isn't just the politics of it, but the economic reasoning Ford is giving. According to the report, Ford is exploring this because they have identified that the "mass market" segment is where the battle will be fought, and they currently have a gap in their portfolio until their low-cost platform arrives in 2027.

The CEO explicitly mentions that Chinese cost efficiency is an "existential threat".
To me, this reinforces the idea that we are moving out of the "Early Adopter / Premium" phase and into a ruthless "Price / Value" phase. If a giant like Ford is worried enough about price competition to consider partnering with a rival for tech, it suggests the market appetite for high-margin, expensive EVs is shrinking faster than expected.

Just something to consider when we talk about Scout "targeting" a specific price point. The market might be making that decision for them.

--
On another note, I was spending some time on the Scout product page earlier today—honestly just admiring it. They really nailed the design.

However, I noticed something interesting in the pricing language that relates to our discussion here. They list the starting price as $60,000, but they still carry the disclaimer that the price could be "as low as $50,000 with state and federal incentives."

This seems like a legacy holdover. As we know, the Federal Clean Vehicle Credit effectively sunset in September 2025. The fact that Scout is still anchoring their marketing to that $50,000 number—even though the math no longer works under current law—is telling. It suggests that internally, they know $60,000 is a psychological barrier for the mass market. They are trying to show a $50k price tag because they know that is where the volume buyers are, even if the subsidies to get there are gone.

It’s just a subtle signal that perhaps even Scout realizes the $60k price point is going to be a heavy lift in this current market.

Not trying to ruffle feathers, either. Just highlighting things I take notice of.

 

[Mousehunter]

Hard to tell. Ford initially planned for a 25k annual production, but they then went all in and built facilities for 100k per year. Throughout it's production, they hit their 25k sales number, but that was not great in a 100k per year factory.

Now Scout is planning for 200k per year - but they are essentially starting with 4 models (Harvester and EV). In addition to that, they have mentioned the possibility of building other vehicles (from the VW group) at their plant (and given Audi might be planning on doing that), and they have mentioned adding other Scout models as well. Went you start looking at maybe 10 models or more being produced on the line, it is not nearly as ambitious as the Ford plan for 100k per year off of a single model.

Mass marketing the Traveler and Scout at >$60k is probably going to be difficult. There will be limited demand. It might take time for them to meet demand while ramping up production. That will give them a year or 2. After that, other models might keep the factory profitable while maintaining the Traveler and Terra as flagship products. Or perhaps, they will release other flagships and eventually try to make cheaper Travelers and Terra's increase sales numbers. But honestly, we could look at Wrangler and Bronco numbers to see how well that works. Google indicates it might be a 40/30/30 ratio - with Sports having the largest individual share, but the premium Saharas and Rubicons making up 60%ish of sales. Given Wrangler production numbers - they are probably selling over 100k of the premium models per year. So again, it might work out for Scout - if the base Scout is considered a premium model.

 

[N Wilson]

Key words: STATE and federal incentives.

There are several states that have their own incentive programs that are still available regardless of the federal incentive going away. For example, MA has an EV truck rebate of $7,500 that the Terra will likely qualify for.

I think it's fine for them to leave that language up because it encompasses the state programs too.

Also, the federal incentive could come back depending on the outcome of the next presidential election in the early days of Scouts hitting the market.

 

[tomgillotti]

The news of Canada lowering its tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles to 6.1%—with an initial cap of 49,000 units—is a significant development for the North American market. This agreement effectively replaces the previous 100% surtax, and as reported by The Drive, it has triggered a "full panic mode" within the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA).

The industry reaction is telling. While NADA leadership frames this as a threat to the country, others in the industry view the panic as a "wake-up call". The reality is that as affordable options disappear from U.S. lineups, consumers are increasingly open-minded about any manufacturer that can provide a compelling, high-utility vehicle at a fair price.

This development, combined with the current administration's signaled openness to Chinese automakers building factories on American soil—specifically the "let China come in" sentiment expressed in Detroit—suggests we are entering a much more competitive era. This is reinforced by reports from the Financial Times that Ford has held preliminary talks with Xiaomi regarding an EV partnership to address its own mass-market vulnerabilities, as it currently has no replacements for several discontinued SUV segments until at least 2027.

For those of us closely following Scout, this external pressure is a positive signal. It means the "Early Adopter" phase of high-margin luxury EVs is being forced to evolve into a "Pragmatist" phase where value and utility are the primary metrics. If competition from abroad is what it takes to ensure domestic manufacturers prioritize the "rugged utility" and <$50k price points they originally promised, then it is a win for the consumer.

The "choice" sought by the market often comes from being forced to respond to reality rather than ideology.

I also read an article about Ford and their future lineup of more affordable vehicle options. I firmly believe the industry is in a bubble that is about to burst.

 

[strider]

This development, combined with the current administration's signaled openness to Chinese automakers building factories on American soil—specifically the "let China come in" sentiment expressed in Detroit—suggests we are entering a much more competitive era. This is reinforced by reports from the Financial Times that Ford has held preliminary talks with Xiaomi regarding an EV partnership to address its own mass-market vulnerabilities, as it currently has no replacements for several discontinued SUV segments until at least 2027.

Well, that will be the test. If the Chinese can MAKE (not just assemble a bunch of Chinese parts made by slaves with no environmental controls by state-owned companies that never have to make a profit) fully-featured cars in the US or Canada for the same prices they can in China, then you are right and we are being screwed. Let's just say my money is on the slaves, pollution, and state ownership and not some heretofore unknown manufacturing genius.

Have you heard of the K-shaped economy? The idea is that the top 20% are doing very well due to owning financial assets that have appreciated rapidly in recent years. It is said that they are responsible for 50% of consumer spending. So there are a large chunk of people with disposable income to afford higher end cars. The other 80% is not doing as well. In that I agree with you that the market pendulum is swinging towards making cars more affordable. We are seeing it with Slate. I hope Slate knocks it out of the park. Heck I may look into one for a truck - I have reservations for a Terra and a Traveller but I really don't need a full-size truck. A Maverick would do what I need (haul hay, compost, tow a small goat trailer, etc.) but I want an EV. I am done with getting filthy working on my cars, changing oil, spark plugs, brakes etc.

That being said, we absolutely cannot allow the Chinese to flood the market with cheap cars and displace our workers. They have already done this with so many industries, when are we going to get the message that China is a Mercantilist nation and that they will use the government to intervene and allow their industries to sell products at below cost in order to destroy competition. Further, if everyone in America loses their job because it's been moved to China, how will they be able to afford even a cheap Chinese car? Do you understand the problem here? You are advocating for further hollowing out our industrial base so you can have a cheap car. Very short-sighted of you......

 

[RodorW]

Well, that will be the test. If the Chinese can MAKE (not just assemble a bunch of Chinese parts made by slaves with no environmental controls by state-owned companies that never have to make a profit) fully-featured cars in the US or Canada for the same prices they can in China, then you are right and we are being screwed. Let's just say my money is on the slaves, pollution, and state ownership and not some heretofore unknown manufacturing genius.

RJ talked about some of this in an interview recently