Makes me wonder how much more that system weighs than a traditional suspension, and what impact that has on range. Thankfully, EVs seem to take a smaller range hit with extra weight than ICE vehicles. Either way, not worth the savings when translated to tire wear.
Help me decide BEV or EREV
- Thread starter Scoutons86
- Start date
-
From all of us at Scout Motors, welcome to the Scout Community! We created this community to provide Scout vehicle owners, enthusiasts, and curiosity seekers with a place to engage in discussion, suggestions, stories, and connections. Supportive communities are sometimes hard to find, but we're determined to turn this into one.
Additionally, Scout Motors wants to hear your feedback and speak directly to the rabid community of owners as unique as America. We'll use the Scout Community to deliver news and information on events and launch updates directly to the group. Although the start of production is anticipated in 2026, many new developments and milestones will occur in the interim. We plan to share them with you on this site and look for your feedback and suggestions.
How will the Scout Community be run? Think of it this way: this place is your favorite local hangout. We want you to enjoy the atmosphere, talk to people who share similar interests, request and receive advice, and generally have an enjoyable time. The Scout Community should be a highlight of your day. We want you to tell stories, share photos, spread your knowledge, and tell us how Scout can deliver great products and experiences. Along the way, Scout Motors will share our journey to production with you.
Scout is all about respect. We respect our heritage. We respect the land and outdoors. We respect each other. Every person should feel safe, included, and welcomed in the Scout Community. Being kind and courteous to the other forum members is non-negotiable. Friendly debates are welcomed and often produce great outcomes, but we don't want things to get too rowdy. Please take a moment to consider what you post, especially if you think it may insult others. We'll do our best to encourage friendly discourse and to keep the discussions flowing.
So, welcome to the Scout Community! We encourage you to check back regularly as we plan to engage our members, share teasers, and participate in discussions. The world needs Scouts™. Let's get going.
We are Scout Motors.
Are you saying that due to added weight or camber angles when lowered? I ask because I had a Grand Cherokee with and without air suspension and did not encounter any significant tire wear. Also, I had air suspension on my last BMW iX and my current one. Same situation. No undesirable outer tire wear. The tires stay well in line and do not lean in order to tuck.
Tire wear due to camber gain seems to be a known issue on the Rivians in Conserve mode, though I haven't paid much attention since the original quad motors. Maybe it was only using the front motors in Conserve mode that caused the issue, but I was thinking it was camber based on some of the uneven tire wear pictures on early models. Don't trust my memory though...
Interesting. But, that does make sense. They sit very low and they have big wheel and tire packages. So, there is only so much room for them to tuck. Maybe Scout will have a taller wheel well. Additionally, the rear end will be very different as it is a solid axle. We shall see. Good point though.
Tire wear from conserve mode on a Quad is simply a result of only running 2 high torque motors up front ,when daily driving around town mostly (with more turning and stopping, more acceleration and deceleration). Conserve mode is great on the Longer HWY runs, but I would never just use it for daily driving - the gains are too small and the drive quality is not as good as it is with all 4 motors, and you will get more wear and tear up-front!Tire wear due to camber gain seems to be a known issue on the Rivians in Conserve mode, though I haven't paid much attention since the original quad motors. Maybe it was only using the front motors in Conserve mode that caused the issue, but I was thinking it was camber based on some of the uneven tire wear pictures on early models. Don't trust my memory though...
Yes, with a solid axle, no issues in the rear on a Scout!
Excessive front tire wear in the R1 might be the reason the Rivian R2 will use the rear tires in conserve mode.
There are several discussions on the forum about power outages. A BEV like the Lightning (or Terra, maybe the Traveler) can provide quiet, reliable power to a home for a week or more without needing a recharge. Since you already have a home generator, you probably could go two weeks on the generator+truck and may have no need for the Harvester.
Yes, 100% - You just need to remember to charge up to 100% if you have a storm coming as part of your normal storm prep.
One other important factor to consider is that the DCFC stations are often online in nearby locations to storm-impacted areas. This was the case in NC after their hurricane and flooding, and EV's were able to charge at DCFC stations once roads were cleared. This may not always be the case, but a PURE BEV truck is also good insurance against outages if you live in one of these areas, and just b/c you don't have power at home does not mean there is not power nearby.
Yep, any time I see a storm on the forecast that looks "serious" I make sure that the EV is topped off. Even if I keep the charging limit at 80%, I want to make sure that I am at 80%, rather than at ~40-60% in an outage.
My EV can only put out 120v x 15amps, use all that much in the house, but it also means that it doesn't deplete that quickly either. And even from ~80%, I get something like 66-90hrs of time like that.
We’ve been in winter storm conditions with no sun for the past ~70 hours, with temperatures below freezing for the past 68 hours. The whole-home batteries (62 kWh) were fully charged before the storm rolled in. The Lightning is at 85% and the Mustang is being used every day but has not been charged since before the storm started. We’ve had the house and workshop on battery power for about 80% of those 70 hours and are down to about 49% state of charge on the house batteries. That gives us an estimated 114 hours on the house battery, without conserving. That’s an average of about 550 watts. If I needed to, I could use the Lightning to run the house for another 9 days, even starting at 85% state of charge.
So will you clear the snow off the panels first or switch to lightning if more power is required? Assuming the sun comes out-tomorrow, tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow-there’ll be sun….
The sun will come out when I'm on a trip, and it's not safe to climb up onto the icy roof in the 60-80 mph gusts we had today, so I'll set up the truck to provide power if necessary.
Note that it's not currently necessary to use the truck since the grid hasn't actually failed. I could charge the batteries from the grid, for example. I'm just experimenting.
Can you give us any more information than that? Inline-4? I keep pushing to use a naturally-aspirated version of the MA2.20 or MA2.22 flat-4 from the Boxster/Cayman. They've been discontinued, so the tooling should be cheap, right? Nice flat, torque curve at low RPM, very compact packaging, light weight.
I am not arguing against this specific engine, but I wanted to point out that a "flat torque curve at low RPM" is meaningless for the Harvester. As a generator in an EREV, it will run at a constant RPM to maximize efficiency. The engine doesn't need to run at different RPMs.
From what I have read on this forum so far, the main thing they are concerned with right now is cooling. Considering the location of the engine at the rear of the vehicle and the constant RPM demands of a generator, they are likely using a lightly modified engine with a custom cooling solution. I think I read they are using an engine that is currently in production, but I don't remember where I read that so I can't be sure.
I suspect any engine will be optimized for low-end grunt and generator use. I also read it was an existing engine, but when stated, the flat-4 was still in production and has since ended production. Seems easier to me to use an engine initially designed for horizontal use and modify the heads/cams as needed instead of needing an all new block and head design to allow for proper oil/coolant drainage/flow.
I am really curious what they'll do for cooling. They'll have to get creative with routing air from somewhere and I doubt they're trying to run coolant all the way to a radiator in the front bumper area, but I've been wrong before, a lot, haha.
I am really curious what they'll do for cooling. They'll have to get creative with routing air from somewhere and I doubt they're trying to run coolant all the way to a radiator in the front bumper area, but I've been wrong before, a lot, haha.
They’ll need to route heat-exchange fluid to and through the engine and back to some where they can dump the heat. That fluid could be air, but air isn’t great for moving energy, so it would not be my first choice.
I’d run pressurized CO2 or another refrigerant in a heat pump with the heat pump and associated air source heat exchanging happening at the front of the vehicle. Then I’d run the coolant lines through the frame to the engine to do the engine heat exchange using the refrigerant running through the engine. The fluid pump would also be at the front of the vehicle so there would be no “water pump” mechanism on the engine. All of the fluid pumping would be electrical and under the frunk.
The reason to run the heat-exchange fluid to the front is to provide cabin heating from the engine waste heat in the winter. And the reason to have an electric “water pump” is to run heated fluid to the engine (while on shore power) during the winter so the cabin and the engine are heated to ideal temperature before the engine is even started. This would allow winter preconditioning of the cabin, battery, and engine while the Harvester is in a garage. Running an engine in a closed garage would be unsafe, so this finds a way around that issue.
I’d run pressurized CO2 or another refrigerant in a heat pump with the heat pump and associated air source heat exchanging happening at the front of the vehicle. Then I’d run the coolant lines through the frame to the engine to do the engine heat exchange using the refrigerant running through the engine. The fluid pump would also be at the front of the vehicle so there would be no “water pump” mechanism on the engine. All of the fluid pumping would be electrical and under the frunk.
The reason to run the heat-exchange fluid to the front is to provide cabin heating from the engine waste heat in the winter. And the reason to have an electric “water pump” is to run heated fluid to the engine (while on shore power) during the winter so the cabin and the engine are heated to ideal temperature before the engine is even started. This would allow winter preconditioning of the cabin, battery, and engine while the Harvester is in a garage. Running an engine in a closed garage would be unsafe, so this finds a way around that issue.
Every-time I think hey EREV wouldn’t be too bad you bring me right back to reality Space. I mean I’m sure it will be great, but there will be more maintenance and I’m not interested in that.
Similar threads
