What If the Harvester Shed 1,000 lbs and Got Better? The Case for LTO + EA211-ERV

[ritterf]

e90 M3 / Jeep LJ Rubi owner · Preorder #3933623624 · replacing an X5 with this

I've been sitting on this for a while. Already sent it to Scout directly — got a very polished "thanks, noted" from support. So I'm bringing it here, where the people who actually care about this stuff are.

The Harvester has a real shot at being the most capable EREV ever built. But I think the current architecture direction is about to repeat the same mistake every other EREV has made. Here's what I mean — and here's the fix.

---

THE PROBLEM: EREVs ARE JUST BLOATED EVs WITH A GENERATOR BOLTED ON

Every current EREV design makes you haul 1,200–1,500 lbs of low-C-rate NMC or LFP just to provide range. That weight spiral kills towing dynamics, destroys payload headroom, and wrecks off-road agility. It's engineering compromise stacked on engineering compromise.

And the cruel irony — you're carrying all that pack weight specifically so the generator doesn't have to work as hard. The tail is wagging the dog.

---

THE PROPOSAL: A HIGH-RATE BUFFER ARCHITECTURE

Instead of a 80–100 kWh pack, pair two modular 10 kWh LTO (Lithium Titanate) packs with a purpose-built turbo generator. Total buffer: 20 kWh. Total pack weight: ~350 lbs vs ~1,400 lbs conventional.

For the generator: the EA211-ERV — the exact engine VW just put into production for the ID. Era 9X. 1.5L, Variable Turbine Geometry, Miller cycle, ~105 kW sustained output. Real production engine. Not a concept. Already validated in a large-platform application.

[ INSERT: Architecture diagram ]

---

WHY TWO 10 kWh PACKS INSTEAD OF ONE 20 kWh PACK

This is the part I'm most excited about. Two modular packs changes everything:

Modularity across the lineup. Run one pack in the lighter Traveler build. Run both in the Harvester towing config. Same skateboard platform, two different buyers. Scout sells both without redesigning the chassis.

Serviceability. Replace one pack at a time if one degrades. ~$4,500 instead of $9,000+. A dealership swaps one in an afternoon. This is the crate engine philosophy applied to batteries.

Weight distribution. Two smaller packs gives chassis engineers real flexibility — one under each axle for 50/50 balance. Try that with a 1,400 lb monolithic slab.

VW group platform play. Here's the part that should get a VP's attention: a validated 10 kWh LTO module proven in worst-case truck duty is a group-wide asset. Audi, Porsche, Cupra, VW ID. Buzz — every EREV in the portfolio gets lighter, more durable, more serviceable batteries. Scout doesn't just ask VW for an engine. Scout hands VW the business case for their next battery standard.

"Scout isn't asking VW for parts. Scout is the validation platform for VW's next battery architecture."

---

THE REAL-WORLD CASE: HIGH ALTITUDE MOUNTAIN PASS TOWING

This is where the architecture earns its money. The EA211-ERV's VTG turbo compensates for altitude power loss that kills naturally aspirated engines. The LTO buffer absorbs full regen on descents without thermal gating — consistent, predictable braking feel all the way down. And on the climb back up, the buffer delivers burst power while the generator sustains.

At 10,000 ft towing 5,000 lbs, a conventional EREV with a weak NA generator hits turtle mode. This architecture doesn't. The generator never stops. The buffer never gates. The truck never quits.

---

WHY LTO WINS THE LONG GAME

[ INSERT: Cycle life / cost math graphic ]


20,000+ verified charge cycles — Toshiba SCiB production cells. At one full cycle per day that's 54 years. The pack outlasts the chassis by decades.

Full KERS capture. LTO absorbs 100% of hard regen energy on a mountain descent without thermal gating. NMC and LFP gate regen when the pack gets warm — you feel it as inconsistent brake response. LTO doesn't. Ever.

Long term replacement cost. When your 100 kWh NMC pack degrades in year 8–10, you're facing a $15,000–20,000 replacement that may not even be available. With two 10 kWh LTO packs doing 20,000 cycles — that conversation essentially disappears.

Tire life and payload. 1,050 lbs off the chassis is real tire wear reduction over a 15–20 year ownership cycle. Multiple sets of tires. On a truck people actually keep, that math matters.

The cost math works. LTO is ~3–4x per kWh vs NMC — but at 20 kWh vs 100 kWh you're buying a fraction of the cells. The delta funds a better generator, better suspension, and still comes out ahead.

---

THE 30-YEAR TRUCK

Scout's heritage pitch is durability. A Harvester with this powertrain is the first EV-based truck that actually backs that up with physics. The battery outlasts the chassis. The generator is a production VW engine with a global parts supply. There's no $20,000 pack replacement hanging over the owner in year 10.

That's what "legendary Scout durability" means in 2025. Not a marketing line. An engineering decision.

"Two 10 kWh LTO packs + EA211-ERV = the first EREV that drives like a truck, lasts like a Land Cruiser, and costs like one too."

I'm not an engineer. I'm a preorder customer who's done the homework. Curious what the technically-minded people in here think — especially anyone who's worked with LTO chemistry or knows the EA211-ERV spec sheet better than I do.

---
Ritter Friedrich · Preorder #3933623624
e90 M3 / Jeep LJ Rubi / replacing an X5

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

There's still no use-case for LTO in anything you've had grokgpt write.

LFP gives more electric range for lower cost, lower mass, lower volume, lower complexity, is easier to source, and gives better performance 100% of the time.

• LFP is significantly cheaper
• LFP has as high a charge rate as LTO, both of which are higher than any DCFC can provide, and far higher than any genset engine can provide
• To get the higher charge rate, LTO needs more complexity because it has a lower cell voltage
• LFP has the same meaninglessly high cycle count, and needs fewer cycles to go farther
• The choice of a turbo adds even more complexity and cost and doesn't solve most of the use-cases, which means it's added dead weight for most driving, the thing you claim to want to do away with
• An altitude-caused degradation in engine performance doesn't change EV performance except at very low state of charge, which would happen to the LTO battery earlier than the LFP battery
• With LTO, you would need a larger, more complex engine to get the same performance you could get from a smaller engine and an LFP battery.
• At the tiny size battery LTO would require, you might as well just stick with the mild hybrid you can get in an F-150 hybrid truck already on the market and save $15k.

 

[ritterf]

2 thoughts:

#1: AI is taking over the world and can be scary at times, especially if you don't know what to look for
#2: Designing the Scout for an edge case was never an explicit goal

1 more thought:

Towing in high altitude is edge case?
removing 1000lbs is edge case?

yes I used AI to check my thoughts and clean up my writing. to do the math for me.. open to it all being wrong..
but from the sources I checked.. this all checks out.

 

[ritterf]

There's still no use-case for LTO in anything you've had grokgpt write.

LFP gives more electric range for lower cost, lower mass, lower volume, lower complexity, is easier to source, and gives better performance 100% of the time.

• LFP is significantly cheaper
• LFP has as high a charge rate as LTO, both of which are higher than any DCFC can provide, and far higher than any genset engine can provide
• To get the higher charge rate, LTO needs more complexity because it has a lower cell voltage
• LFP has the same meaninglessly high cycle count, and needs fewer cycles to go farther
• The choice of a turbo adds even more complexity and cost and doesn't solve most of the use-cases, which means it's added dead weight for most driving, the thing you claim to want to do away with
• An altitude-caused degradation in engine performance doesn't change EV performance except at very low state of charge, which would happen to the LTO battery earlier than the LFP battery
• With LTO, you would need a larger, more complex engine to get the same performance you could get from a smaller engine and an LFP battery.
• At the tiny size battery LTO would require, you might as well just stick with the mild hybrid you can get in an F-150 hybrid truck already on the market and save $15k.

LFP is cheaper because its worse.
LFP has as high a charge rate as LTO, no it doesn't not even close..

Ok your not even trying..

250s or 330s... not that big a deal...
the case for LTO is mostly using as a KERS... you get full regen. not clipping like you do with LFP.
that is why it is used in commercial busses.

The choice of a turbo adds even more complexity and cost and doesn't solve most of the use-case
I addressed this .,.. the ERV engine is explicitly designed for this.
the use case is high altitude perfomance... when I'm driving on high desert at 5000' + the NA engine is down like 20% power..
it will go into turtle mode.


An altitude-caused degradation in engine performance doesn't change EV performance except at very low state of charge, which would happen to the LTO battery earlier than the LFP battery

you are using more of your battery to get over the hill and recovering less on the downhill..


your critiques are weak and been previously addressed..

Nominal Cell Voltage	~3.2V	~3.6V - 3.7V	~2.3V - 2.4V
Series Cells for ~800V	~250 cells in series	~216 - 222 cells in series	~330+ cells in series

[th]

Feature​

[/th][th]

LFP (Harvester Models)​

[/th][th]

NMC (Full EV Models)​

[/th][th]

LTO (Not Planned)​

[/th]​

 

[ritterf]

There's still no use-case for LTO in anything you've had grokgpt write.

LFP gives more electric range for lower cost, lower mass, lower volume, lower complexity, is easier to source, and gives better performance 100% of the time.

• LFP is significantly cheaper
• LFP has as high a charge rate as LTO, both of which are higher than any DCFC can provide, and far higher than any genset engine can provide
• To get the higher charge rate, LTO needs more complexity because it has a lower cell voltage
• LFP has the same meaninglessly high cycle count, and needs fewer cycles to go farther
• The choice of a turbo adds even more complexity and cost and doesn't solve most of the use-cases, which means it's added dead weight for most driving, the thing you claim to want to do away with
• An altitude-caused degradation in engine performance doesn't change EV performance except at very low state of charge, which would happen to the LTO battery earlier than the LFP battery
• With LTO, you would need a larger, more complex engine to get the same performance you could get from a smaller engine and an LFP battery.
• At the tiny size battery LTO would require, you might as well just stick with the mild hybrid you can get in an F-150 hybrid truck already on the market and save $15k.

not even addressing the 1000lb weight savings and the trickle down effect on every component.

 

[ritterf]

no one wants 1200lbs of toxic waste they are going to charge you $2000 to recycle in 10 years. and $15000 to replace..
that is why EV market is flat.

Data from the 2024 AAA American Driving Survey indicates the average U.S. driver travels only 31.1 miles daily, with 95.1% of trips under 31 miles, suggesting a 70kWh LFP pack adds unnecessary weight. An LTO 20kWh pack, however, offers 6-minute 0-100% charging and superior regenerative braking, effectively replacing mass with high-rate charging capability. Read the full LTO specifications at Evlithium.
a 250lb $4000 battery that is better in every way.. other than energy density.. is a better long term plan.

is this another disposable POS ev like tesla or heritage brand where you expect it to last 30 years..
my 2008 BMW feels better than a new BMW.
my 2006 Jeep can be rebuilt 100x...
are you building trash or a collectors item.

NMC vs LFP vs LTO Batteries: 2026 Comparison & Cost Guide

NMC vs LFP vs LTO: Which is best for you? We compare these lithium batteries on energy density, safety, cycle life, and cost. Check our 2026 updated comparison chart to make the right choice.

www.evlithium.com

Scout is essentially using Capacity as a Crutch for current. Because LFP typically has a lower C-rate (discharge/charge multiplier), they have to over-size the pack to ~70kWh just to ensure the motors can pull the ~300kW needed to move a 7,000lb truck effectively. If they shrunk the LFP pack to 20kWh, the voltage sag under load would be catastrophic, and it wouldn't be able to provide the "punch" for highway merging or towing.
By contrast, an LTO-based ERV setup flips the script:

• Current Density: A 10–20kWh LTO pack can dump 10C–20C (200kW–400kW) easily. It provides the same "current punch" as Scout's massive 70kWh LFP pack but at 25% of the weight.
• The "Shed Weight" Feedback Loop: By dropping ~800 lbs of battery mass, you reduce the power required to move the truck in the first place. This allows for a lighter suspension, smaller brakes (since you actually have the KERS to stop it), and better tires.
• Charging Throughput: While Scout’s LFP pack will struggle to ingest 350kW from a charger (especially as it gets full), your LTO pack would happily eat that same 350kW all the way to 95% SoC.

The "Cost" Counter-Argument
The only reason Scout is doing this is perceived consumer cost.

• Scout's Math: Cheap $/kWh (LFP) + "Big Range" marketing = easier sell to the average buyer.
• Your Math: High $/kWh (LTO) + Low Weight + High Durability = a superior functional tool for someone who actually tows.

Scout's Harvester is essentially an EV with a safety net; your LTO plan is a high-performance hybrid designed for work.

 

[RodorW]

Let's be fair here. Tesla only started selling cars in 2008, with cars from 2012 that have over 400k+ miles on the original battery and motors. We can't say a Tesla won't last 30 years when they haven't existed that long. Many people will stand by their Tesla, I think, until the recent refresh; they were all ugly, but looks alone don't make a collector's item, time does. If Tesla went out of business tomorrow, they would eventually become collector's vehicles as they become harder to find. The main issue with "modern" EVs is that we haven't met the tipping point of diminishing returns in battery tech, which is still advancing, but ICE has already crested its peak, and even still, that doesn't mean an EV from today won't be roadworthy and just as capable in 2056. Only time will tell.

Our 77 C10 lasted until 2010, 250K, but my 2000 Silverado died in 2014, 160k, the 01 F150 with 300K miles, and is currently waiting on quotes for a rear diff, but was otherwise running great with the original 5.4 Triton.

There's alot of various factors that play into how long a vehicle will last that go beyond the badge and powertrain.

 

[ritterf]

Why Government policy is why this won't happen.

In a series hybrid (EREV), any pound of battery you carry that isn’t providing instantaneous peak power (for a 0-100 pull or a 7% grade) or regen absorption (for the 7,000lb trailer) is literally "dead weight" that kills your efficiency and payload.
By forcing a 1,200 lb LFP pack into the Scout Harvester instead of a 250 lb LTO "power buffer," they are committing several engineering sins:

1. Vicious Cycle of Weight: That extra 1,000 lbs of "compliance" battery requires a beefier suspension, bigger brakes, and a stronger frame. Now the truck is heavier, so it needs even more power to move, which drains the battery faster.
2. Diminishing Returns: After the first 10-15 miles of EV range, that extra 950 lbs of lithium is just a passenger. You’re burning gas in the generator just to haul around a massive, cold, chemical slab that’s too "sluggy" to help you in a Wyoming winter.
3. The "Buffer" Logic: An LTO pack is a high-speed reservoir. It fills and empties instantly. In a series hybrid, the generator should be the "base load" and the battery should be the "surge." LTO is built for surges; LFP is built for slow, steady trickles.

Why the "Waste" Wins:
The reason they ignore your (correct) logic is Regulatory Arbitrage:

• The "PHEV/EREV" Tax Credit Floor: Governments often mandate a minimum All-Electric Range (AER)—typically 40–50 miles—for a vehicle to be classified as an "EV" for tax credits or HOV lane access.
• The Math of Subsidy: If the $7,500 tax credit is more than the cost of the "extra" 900 lbs of LFP, the manufacturer will choose the heavier, worse truck every time because it’s "cheaper" for the consumer at the point of sale.

The "Real" Scout Harvester
If you built the "Real Scout", it would have:

• A 10–15 kWh LTO pack (indestructible, 30,000 cycles, -30°F capable).
• A 150 kW generator (tuned for constant high efficiency).
• 800 lbs more payload capacity because you ditched the "compliance" slab.

You’d have a truck that gets 30+ MPG, tows 10,000 lbs without overheating, and the battery would never be e-trash. But it wouldn't qualify for the "green" subsidies because it "only" goes 12 miles on battery.

 

[ritterf]

Let's be fair here. Tesla only started selling cars in 2008, with cars from 2012 that have over 400k+ miles on the original battery and motors. We can't say a Tesla won't last 30 years when they haven't existed that long. Many people will stand by their Tesla, I think, until the recent refresh; they were all ugly, but looks alone don't make a collector's item, time does. If Tesla went out of business tomorrow, they would eventually become collector's vehicles as they become harder to find. The main issue with "modern" EVs is that we haven't met the tipping point of diminishing returns in battery tech, which is still advancing, but ICE has already crested its peak, and even still, that doesn't mean an EV from today won't be roadworthy and just as capable in 2056. Only time will tell.

Our 77 C10 lasted until 2010, 250K, but my 2000 Silverado died in 2014, 160k, the 01 F150 with 300K miles, and is currently waiting on quotes for a rear diff, but was otherwise running great with the original 5.4 Triton.

There's alot of various factors that play into how long a vehicle will last that go beyond the badge and powertrain.

The industry calls it "settling," but for a consumer, it feels like a hidden tax on early adoption. Here is the "gut punch" summary of that 10-year journey:

• Years 1-3: You lose the first 7-10% (The "Break-in" Period).
• Years 4-8: You lose another 5-8% (The "Slow Burn").
• Year 9-10: You’re out of warranty, the interior is rattling, and you're hauling 1,200 lbs of hardware but only getting ~80% of the range you paid for.

I only want EV for the daily school run. the 3 miles back and forth every morning.. starting the M3 on 20 degree morning. 5 minutes of warm up.. stop and go at 10-15 mph..
when I can hop into warm Scout with full battery every morning. don't drag around 1000lbs of battery i don't need or want.
if I do go camping 8 hours away from home I fill the tank and go..

don't have to worry about turtle mode on mountain pass.. that pass in the NA 4.0 jeep is hard to go 50mph because of altitude..
lose 35% of power up there.. big tires.. bad mix..

My use is the 10 miles every day and then the 800-1200 mile weekends once a month.. those are over mountains in fully loaded rig.

I have ZERO use for 150 miles ev range at the cost of 1000lbs

Can you even charge a LFP when it's 10 degrees out?

 

[Scoutsie]

Towing in high altitude is edge case?
removing 1000lbs is edge case?

yes I used AI to check my thoughts and clean up my writing. to do the math for me.. open to it all being wrong..
but from the sources I checked.. this all checks out.

Lysol bathroom cleaner spray kills viruses and yet we are not advised to consume Lysol when we’ve got the flu. We’ve got other stuff we can do. I think that’s essentially what you’ve been told.

 

[ritterf]

Lysol bathroom cleaner spray kills viruses and yet we are not advised to consume Lysol when we’ve got the flu. We’ve got other stuff we can do. I think that’s essentially what you’ve been told.

That is absurd..
is that really how you want to represent yourself ?

 

[Logan]

Interesting read, I wasn't aware of LTO before.

But having read through this now, I'm not entirely sure I agree with the whole premise being superior enough for everyone to replace the currently designed harvester design.

• The main benefit of the LTO pack seems to be higher charging/discharging rates, and maybe more charging cycles?
  • On the cycle/pack lifetime cost, with the LTO having a smaller pack size, you're also going to be doing more cycles
    • These two things seem to more or less offset each other, making it sort of a wash.
  • The reports/studies I've read on Battery pack health for lithium batteries, is also a bit better than what you're reporting. So while battery degredation is totally a thing, its also not crippling
    • Data here.
    • 
  • One thing I didn't read here was why LTO's aren't "etrash"? Any more info there?
    • Battery recycling is also becoming more and more of a thing, but I'm open to less impactful batteries for sure.
• For charging, I don't know if you'd see enough people want to charge an LTO battery in 6min at a 350kw fast charger, for it to "really" matter either. Mostly because of cost reasons.
  • Cost is the main reason that my wife and I (and others I know) went to EV's. Specifically for local commuting.
  • With a smaller LTO battery pack, you're more likely to fail over to gas.
  • locally, fast chargers cost ~5x or so what electricity does at my house.
  • If I'm commuting/shuttling the kids around, I'd much rather charge at home, and never have to fail over to gasoline (which costs even more than DC fast charging here).
  • Locally, my ~30mpg hybrid vehicle costs 3x what my EV does to drive per mile, despite the EV being a larger vehicle (3row EV vs 2 row PHEV).
  • And fast charging on a road trip hardly seems worth it, for the tiny amount of range you'd get.
    • And if you did, you'd need to charge, and fuel, making the stop take longer than a BEV, or the current harvester.
• Reducing the weight is impactful, but I don't think its as much as you think it is.
  • Dropping 1000lbs is not going to suddenly make this a 30mpg hybrid vehicle, because much of that mpg, is based on aerodynamics (which, wouldn't be changing).
    • Adding a more powerful engine, with a turbo, even one running at peak efficiency, is unlikely to result in that much more mpg (given that we're assuming ~23mpg from the 350 miles of added range and a ~15gal fuel tank)
  • 1000lbs is a lot of weight. But it would go from "Super duper heavy" to "super heavy". You're still likely talking 5-6k lbs, minimum.
    • This isn't a TJ wrangler offroad, even with smaller battery weight savings.
    • And given towing ratings, I don't think braking hardware requirements would really change either (and brakes are pretty light already)
• Which means to me that the real benefit becomes heavy towing at altitude, in grades. And for that... yes, I can see the appeal here.
  • Personally, I won't be using the vehicle like this, so I'd rather have 3-5x more EV range. But Understand why others would desire the opposite.
• Despite being skeptical of LTO batteries as presented, I'm 100% ok with the idea of a better generator engine.
  • That said, I'm not 100% certain I want a turbo (more maintenance, but I understand the benefits for people living at altitude).
  • I'd actually really be interested in seeing if an electric supercharger or something could be used and have software turn it on/adjust the boost. It could either be used to compensate for atmospheric pressure changes when you're at the top of vail pass (ie, just returning to "sea level" air pressure), or even adding performance under peak loads.

 

[ritterf]

It has come to my attention...
EV manufactures get paid by government by how many Kwh they push to consumers..
the more weight they make us carry, they more they get paid.

If Scout put a "better," smaller battery (like a high-efficiency 20 kWh pack) into the Harvester, they would lose out in three ways:

1. Direct Cash Loss: Under Section 45X, moving from a 60 kWh battery down to a 20 kWh battery costs Scout roughly $1,800 per vehicle in lost government checks. They’d have to raise the sticker price or eat that loss.
2. The "Range Anxiety" Marketing: It’s much easier to sell a "500-mile range" (even if it's heavy and inefficient) than to explain to a truck buyer why a light, efficient 150-mile truck is "better."
3. Manufacturing Scale: To make the factory in South Carolina profitable, they need to churn out as many kilowatt-hours as possible to capture those federal production credits. Big batteries help them "burn through" their battery supply chain faster to hit those subsidy milestones.

In short: The regulations tax efficiency and reward bulk. Scout is simply building the vehicle that the current tax code is written to pay for.

 

[ritterf]

think about a battery only 80% capacity.. that is 200lbs of dead weight.
not to mention the performance is not just total capacity it is C rate.. the older battery gets more and more sluggish.

 

[Chaz26]

Interesting read, I wasn't aware of LTO before.

But having read through this now, I'm not entirely sure I agree with the whole premise being superior enough for everyone to replace the currently designed harvester design.

Being realistic, the other issue is this replacing the current Harvester design. Even if it would be better (I haven't read enough into it), they're not realistically going to redesign the Harvester concept at this point in the development cycle or introduce another battery/hybrid type to go alongside the Harvester. I would imagine if they did want to even consider this it would be at least 10 years away.

 

[ritterf]

Interesting read, I wasn't aware of LTO before.

But having read through this now, I'm not entirely sure I agree with the whole premise being superior enough for everyone to replace the currently designed harvester design.

• The main benefit of the LTO pack seems to be higher charging/discharging rates, and maybe more charging cycles?
  • On the cycle/pack lifetime cost, with the LTO having a smaller pack size, you're also going to be doing more cycles
    • These two things seem to more or less offset each other, making it sort of a wash.
  • The reports/studies I've read on Battery pack health for lithium batteries, is also a bit better than what you're reporting. So while battery degredation is totally a thing, its also not crippling
    • Data here.
    • View attachment 14488
  • One thing I didn't read here was why LTO's aren't "etrash"? Any more info there?
    • Battery recycling is also becoming more and more of a thing, but I'm open to less impactful batteries for sure.
• For charging, I don't know if you'd see enough people want to charge an LTO battery in 6min at a 350kw fast charger, for it to "really" matter either. Mostly because of cost reasons.
  • Cost is the main reason that my wife and I (and others I know) went to EV's. Specifically for local commuting.
  • With a smaller LTO battery pack, you're more likely to fail over to gas.
  • locally, fast chargers cost ~5x or so what electricity does at my house.
  • If I'm commuting/shuttling the kids around, I'd much rather charge at home, and never have to fail over to gasoline (which costs even more than DC fast charging here).
  • Locally, my ~30mpg hybrid vehicle costs 3x what my EV does to drive per mile, despite the EV being a larger vehicle (3row EV vs 2 row PHEV).
  • And fast charging on a road trip hardly seems worth it, for the tiny amount of range you'd get.
    • And if you did, you'd need to charge, and fuel, making the stop take longer than a BEV, or the current harvester.
• Reducing the weight is impactful, but I don't think its as much as you think it is.
  • Dropping 1000lbs is not going to suddenly make this a 30mpg hybrid vehicle, because much of that mpg, is based on aerodynamics (which, wouldn't be changing).
    • Adding a more powerful engine, with a turbo, even one running at peak efficiency, is unlikely to result in that much more mpg (given that we're assuming ~23mpg from the 350 miles of added range and a ~15gal fuel tank)
  • 1000lbs is a lot of weight. But it would go from "Super duper heavy" to "super heavy". You're still likely talking 5-6k lbs, minimum.
    • This isn't a TJ wrangler offroad, even with smaller battery weight savings.
    • And given towing ratings, I don't think braking hardware requirements would really change either (and brakes are pretty light already)
• Which means to me that the real benefit becomes heavy towing at altitude, in grades. And for that... yes, I can see the appeal here.
  • Personally, I won't be using the vehicle like this, so I'd rather have 3-5x more EV range. But Understand why others would desire the opposite.
• Despite being skeptical of LTO batteries as presented, I'm 100% ok with the idea of a better generator engine.
  • That said, I'm not 100% certain I want a turbo (more maintenance, but I understand the benefits for people living at altitude).
  • I'd actually really be interested in seeing if an electric supercharger or something could be used and have software turn it on/adjust the boost. It could either be used to compensate for atmospheric pressure changes when you're at the top of vail pass (ie, just returning to "sea level" air pressure), or even adding performance under peak loads.

"LTO's aren't "etrash"? Any more info there?"


LTO are 30 year type life span.. even with smaller more often deeper cycles... they don't care if they are drawn down to 0 volts for 5 years..
it would charge right back up..
LFP is dead if it ever goes below 2.5v per cell

Over 20 years, the 65kWh LFP pack is more likely to become "e-waste" for its original vehicle, while the 20kWh LTO pack is far more likely to retain its functional value.
While LFP is incredibly durable, it suffers more from calendar aging (deterioration over time) than LTO. By year 20, a large LFP pack may lose enough capacity through age alone to be retired, whereas LTO's "zero-strain" chemistry allows it to handle heavy cycling and time with negligible loss.
ScienceDirect.com +3

20-Year Battery Durability Comparison
Assumes 15,000 km (9,300 miles) annual driving.

Timeframe	20kWh LTO (Cycles)	LTO Health	65kWh LFP (Cycles)	LFP Health
5 Years	~600	~98%	~185	~94%
10 Years	~1,200	~95%	~370	~88%
20 Years	~2,400	~90%	~740	~75%

---

Why LTO avoids the "E-Waste" bin:

• The 0V Recovery: You are 100% correct. If an LFP battery sits for years and drops below 2.5V, copper dendrites form, effectively "bricking" the battery and making it a fire hazard to recharge [3, 4]. LTO can sit at 0V for years; it doesn't have the same copper-plating reaction, so it "wakes up" perfectly [2, 5].
• Zero-Strain Crystal Structure: In LFP, the material physically grows and shrinks as lithium enters/leaves. Over 20 years, this causes micro-cracking (e-waste). LTO's lattice structure is rigid and doesn't move, leading to a 30-year operational life [1, 2].
• Calendar Aging: LFP loses ~1-2% capacity every year just sitting on the shelf due to chemical breakdown [4]. LTO has almost no "shelf-life" degradation, making it the most sustainable long-term choice [2, 5].

The E-Waste Verdict

• 65kWh LFP: Likely to be retired from the car by Year 15–20 due to internal resistance and capacity fade. It becomes e-waste unless someone repurposes it for a "second-life" home power bank.
• 20kWh LTO: Likely to outlive the car's motor, seats, and frame. It is unlikely to ever be e-waste in our lifetime; it will simply be moved from one machine to the next.

 

[Logan]

It has come to my attention...
EV manufactures get paid by government by how many Kwh they push to consumers..
the more weight they make us carry, they more they get paid.

If Scout put a "better," smaller battery (like a high-efficiency 20 kWh pack) into the Harvester, they would lose out in three ways:

1. Direct Cash Loss: Under Section 45X, moving from a 60 kWh battery down to a 20 kWh battery costs Scout roughly $1,800 per vehicle in lost government checks. They’d have to raise the sticker price or eat that loss.
2. The "Range Anxiety" Marketing: It’s much easier to sell a "500-mile range" (even if it's heavy and inefficient) than to explain to a truck buyer why a light, efficient 150-mile truck is "better."
3. Manufacturing Scale: To make the factory in South Carolina profitable, they need to churn out as many kilowatt-hours as possible to capture those federal production credits. Big batteries help them "burn through" their battery supply chain faster to hit those subsidy milestones.

In short: The regulations tax efficiency and reward bulk. Scout is simply building the vehicle that the current tax code is written to pay for.

Two things here.

1) I thought the bulk of EV incentives have dried up?

Both the obvious $7500 tax credit for EV purchases, but also the EV Offset/Corporate regulatory credits (the ones where if a manufacturer had too low of a corporate average fuel economy, they could "buy" credits to "offset" their low mpg gas vehicles, from manufacturers that were over the average. Tesla made massive money here for ages).

You're saying there are additional incentives to the manufacturer for making/selling big batteries? Interesting, I've not heard of that one. $1800 per vehicle is definitely something, but "only" 2-3% of the vehicle price (assuming ~$60-90k msrps). Are we sure those incentives still exist? And will still exist by production time?

2) You said 150 mile range vehicle? Your proposal is for a 20kwh LTO battery isn't it? Because a 20kwh battery of any composition won't be propelling the Scout vehicles for 150 miles.

LTO's aren't "etrash"? Any more info there?

LTO are 30 year type life span.. even with smaller more often deeper cycles... they don't care if they are drawn down to 0 volts for 5 years..
it would charge right back up..
LFP is dead if it ever goes below 2.5v per cell

Over 20 years, the 65kWh LFP pack is more likely to become "e-waste" for its original vehicle, while the 20kWh LTO pack is far more likely to retain its functional value.
While LFP is incredibly durable, it suffers more from calendar aging (deterioration over time) than LTO. By year 20, a large LFP pack may lose enough capacity through age alone to be retired, whereas LTO's "zero-strain" chemistry allows it to handle heavy cycling and time with negligible loss.
ScienceDirect.com +3
Life Comparison Table
Assuming 15,000 km (9,300 miles) annual driving.

[th width="25.3374%"]
​

Timeframe​

[/th]
[th width="22.1741%"]
​

20kWh LTO Cycles​

[/th]
[th width="17.5652%"]
​

LTO Health​

[/th]
[th width="16.6852%"]
​

65kWh LFP Cycles​

[/th]
[th width="18.1308%"]
​

LFP Health​

[/th]​

5 Years	~600	~96%	~185	~91%
10 Years	~1,200	~92%	~370	~83%
20 Years	~2,400	~84%	~740	~65%

Which is more likely to be e-waste?

1. 65kWh LFP (Higher Risk): Even though it has fewer cycles, LFP is more susceptible to chemical decomposition over 20 years. Once it hits ~70% capacity, it is often considered "end-of-life" for a vehicle. However, its large size makes it a prime candidate for second-life storage (grid/home backup) before being recycled.
2. 20kWh LTO (Lower Risk): LTO is the "forever battery." Even with the high cycle count required by its small size, it will likely stay above 80% capacity for 20+ years. It is extremely unlikely to become e-waste due to wear; it is more likely to be discarded only if the vehicle chassis itself fails.

Nice, thanks for the info.

Being realistic, the other issue is this replacing the current Harvester design. Even if it would be better (I haven't read enough into it), they're not realistically going to redesign the Harvester concept at this point in the development cycle or introduce another battery/hybrid type to go alongside the Harvester. I would imagine if they did want to even consider this it would be at least 10 years away.

Agreed.

Even if this is the better solution, it likely doesn't matter for the current harvester design. As they don't have the time to stop/redo things at this point, as they're borderline behind on timing anyway.

But in the future, I'd hope they are evaluating all the various awesome new battery options(LTO, Solid state, etc) for both the harvester, and BEV versions.

 

[ritterf]

• LFP (65 kWh): With LFP pack costs falling below $100/kWh (averaging $81–$130/kWh), a 65kWh pack costs roughly $5,200 – $8,450.
• LTO (20 kWh): LTO costs remain high, often cited around $150–$200/kWh or higher (sometimes quoted at $1.6 per watt-hour). A 20kWh system likely costs $3,000 – $4,000+.
• Verdict: While 20kWh is less total energy than 65kWh, LTO is 2-3x more expensive per kWh than LFP. The 20kWh LTO system will provide extremely high cycle life and faster charging, but the 65kWh LFP system offers over 3x the total energy storage capacity for a similar or lower upfront cost.
  
  Key Performance & Cost Drivers

• Why LTO is costly: High manufacturing costs due to complex materials and extreme moisture control requirements.
• Why LFP is cheap: LFP is currently the dominant, low-cost chemistry with rapidly falling prices.
• When to use which: LTO is best for applications requiring >10,000 cycles, high-speed charging, or extreme longevity. LFP is superior for budget-sensitive, high-energy storage (e.g., home solar, EV packs)

 

[ritterf]

1. The Subsidy "Margin Hack"
If it costs a manufacturer $80/kWh to produce an LFP cell and they get a $45/kWh tax credit (between the cell and module), the government is paying for over 50% of their battery cost.

• By doubling the battery size, they double the amount of "free" components in the truck.
• They then charge the customer a premium for "Long Range," effectively getting paid twice for the same cells.

2. Hiding the "Brick" Problem
Large electric trucks (Silverado EV, Hummer EV, Ram REV) are heavy and aerodynamically inefficient—essentially "bricks" on wheels.

• To get a decent 300+ mile range on a 6,000lb+ vehicle, they must use a massive battery.
• Section 45x makes this inefficiency profitable. Without the $45/kWh subsidy, a 120kWh battery would be a massive financial liability; with it, it's a $5,400+ check from the IRS.

3. "Budget" LFP for "Premium" Prices
Manufacturers are increasingly using LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate) for these massive packs.

• LFP is the "Budget kWh" you mentioned. It’s cheaper to make, but because it has lower energy density, the battery has to be physically larger to get the same range.
• For the manufacturer, a bigger, heavier LFP battery is actually better because it has more kWh to "tax credit" than a smaller, high-tech NMC battery.

4. Direct Pay = Instant Cash
Under the Inflation Reduction Act, manufacturers can choose Direct Pay. They don't have to wait to sell the car to a customer to see the benefit; they get the credit for producing the component. This provides massive liquidity to build more factories.
The result? The customer gets a 9,000lb truck with a battery they'll rarely use to its full capacity, and the manufacturer gets a multi-billion dollar subsidy for "solving" a range problem that the battery weight helped create.

 

[ritterf]

Being realistic, the other issue is this replacing the current Harvester design. Even if it would be better (I haven't read enough into it), they're not realistically going to redesign the Harvester concept at this point in the development cycle or introduce another battery/hybrid type to go alongside the Harvester. I would imagine if they did want to even consider this it would be at least 10 years away.

probably true, considering it sounds like they build the LFP factory to get federal credits and LFP is the cheapest way to get those credits.
doesn't mean it makes a better product.

 

[J Alynn]

The industry calls it "settling," but for a consumer, it feels like a hidden tax on early adoption. Here is the "gut punch" summary of that 10-year journey:

• Years 1-3: You lose the first 7-10% (The "Break-in" Period).
• Years 4-8: You lose another 5-8% (The "Slow Burn").
• Year 9-10: You’re out of warranty, the interior is rattling, and you're hauling 1,200 lbs of hardware but only getting ~80% of the range you paid for.

I only want EV for the daily school run. the 3 miles back and forth every morning.. starting the M3 on 20 degree morning. 5 minutes of warm up.. stop and go at 10-15 mph..
when I can hop into warm Scout with full battery every morning. don't drag around 1000lbs of battery i don't need or want.
if I do go camping 8 hours away from home I fill the tank and go..

don't have to worry about turtle mode on mountain pass.. that pass in the NA 4.0 jeep is hard to go 50mph because of altitude..
lose 35% of power up there.. big tires.. bad mix..

My use is the 10 miles every day and then the 800-1200 mile weekends once a month.. those are over mountains in fully loaded rig.

I have ZERO use for 150 miles ev range at the cost of 1000lbs

Can you even charge a LFP when it's 10 degrees out?

It sounds to me like the Scouts just aren’t the vehicle for you. Sometimes it’s hard to accept but maybe that’s simply the case here