0-60 times with harvester

[mastertroll]

Hoping Scout can hold 3.5 second 0–60 with the Harvester. Even 3.8 would be nice—extended-range Lightning hits that despite its weight. Id imagine the curb weight will be similar.

Might even have a sporty model that does 2s.

 

[Chuckles]

I don't think weight is the reason why the Harvester models will be slower. It's the smaller battery pack with a different chemistry.

 

[J Alynn]

I don't think weight is the reason why the Harvester models will be slower. It's the smaller battery pack with a different chemistry.

Agree and I suspect that won’t change much

 

[THil08]

Honestly 4.5secs is a lot faster then my around town-daily driver which is my old girl that takes 10 secs to go from 0-60mph. So my soon to be Scout Traveler Harvester’s 0-60 time will be fine for me. I don’t need whiplash when getting up to speed.

 

[THil08]

I don't think weight is the reason why the Harvester models will be slower. It's the smaller battery pack with a different chemistry.

I’m still hopeful that Scout will make the battery a modular system that can be changed at a later day after taking ownership of vehicle. Because that would set Scout ahead of the US market.

Upgrading the battery chemistry would be a game changer for both EREVs and BEVs.

 

[Scoutons86]

My xc60 can hit 0-60 in 4.5 seconds with gas and electric motors running, trust me it’s still plenty fast

 

[strider]

We already have a thread for this: https://community.scoutmotors.com/threads/accelleration.2665/

As @Chuckles said, it's due to the smaller battery pack, not weight.

 

[mastertroll]

I don’t think the battery affects 0–60 times much, even with extra weight. It's more about the motors. Rivian uses four motors to handle the load, while Tesla goes with three in its high-performance models—so acceleration comes down to drivetrain design, not battery size.

 

[J Alynn]

I don’t think the battery affects 0–60 times much, even with extra weight. It's more about the motors. Rivian uses four motors to handle the load, while Tesla goes with three in its high-performance models—so acceleration comes down to drivetrain design, not battery size.

But the two are inclusive of one another to some degree

 

[strider]

I don’t think the battery affects 0–60 times much, even with extra weight. It's more about the motors. Rivian uses four motors to handle the load, while Tesla goes with three in its high-performance models—so acceleration comes down to drivetrain design, not battery size.

Except that it does. I posted this in the other thread but Tesla lost a lawsuit because they advertised the max HP of the motors except that the battery pack could not supply enough current to produce those numbers. Further, when they debuted the v3 Roadster years ago, they needed a 200kWh battery back (2 Model S/X packs stacked on top of each other) in order to get the amperage for the performance they wanted.

Also, both the Tesla Plaid (3 motors) and Rivian Quad (4 motors) produce essentially the same horsepower.

I am pretty confident that Scout will use the same motors in both BEV and EREV models so the performance difference is the pack.

 

[mastertroll]

But the two are inclusive of one another to some degree

Agree, I'm just pointing out weight shouldn't be much

Except that it does. I posted this in the other thread but Tesla lost a lawsuit because they advertised the max HP of the motors except that the battery pack could not supply enough current to produce those numbers. Further, when they debuted the v3 Roadster years ago, they needed a 200kWh battery back (2 Model S/X packs stacked on top of each other) in order to get the amperage for the performance they wanted.

Also, both the Tesla Plaid (3 motors) and Rivian Quad (4 motors) produce essentially the same horsepower.

I am pretty confident that Scout will use the same motors in both BEV and EREV models so the performance difference is the pack.

Assuming the battery is built for the correct parameters, there shouldn't be any problem moving the weight of the vehicle is my only point.

 

[BeerParty]

Hoping Scout can hold 3.5 second 0–60 with the Harvester. Even 3.8 would be nice—extended-range Lightning hits that despite its weight. Id imagine the curb weight will be similar.

I am going to reply with the same thing I said in the other thread:

Have you ever driven a 4.5 second car? More importantly, have you ever driven a 4.5 second SUV or truck the size of a Scout? I have been driving a Hyundai Ioniq 5 for over a year. The HI5 (2024 AWD) has a claimed 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds, I assure you it does not lack for acceleration.

The Scouts are not race cars, they are trucks. Expecting race car acceleration for a full sized truck is ridiculous. You say the $86K Ford Lightning (that is starting price for the extended-range Lightening) can do 0-60 is 3.8 seconds, but I bet you 99% of drivers have never done that (or only did it once, just to see if they can). If fast acceleration is even on the list of requirements for your next vehicle, I suggest you look somewhere else for your next purchase.

 

[strider]

Agree, I'm just pointing out weight shouldn't be much

Assuming the battery is built for the correct parameters, there shouldn't be any problem moving the weight of the vehicle is my only point.

It's not the weight, it's the number of battery cells and the maximum discharge rate of each cell. Once you hit that rate, the only way to get more power (current/amperage) is to add more cells. Fewer cells means less power (current/amperage), all else being equal.

 

[mastertroll]

I am going to reply with the same thing I said in the other thread:



The Scouts are not race cars, they are trucks. Expecting race car acceleration for a full sized truck is ridiculous. You say the $86K Ford Lightning (that is starting price for the extended-range Lightening) can do 0-60 is 3.8 seconds, but I bet you 99% of drivers have never done that (or only did it once, just to see if they can). If fast acceleration is even on the list of requirements for your next vehicle, I suggest you look somewhere else for your next purchase.

We do and it is a consideration. A 3.5 is a good average these days

 

[strider]

The Scouts are not race cars, they are trucks. Expecting race car acceleration for a full sized truck is ridiculous. You say the $86K Ford Lightning (that is starting price for the extended-range Lightening) can do 0-60 is 3.8 seconds, but I bet you 99% of drivers have never done that (or only did it once, just to see if they can). If fast acceleration is even on the list of requirements for your next vehicle, I suggest you look somewhere else for your next purchase.

Yes but this is one of the fun things about EVs. The massive torque can be used for work and play. Take a giant diesel truck. That thing has massive amounts of torque. But because of the narrow power band of the engine, it is geared very low in order to tow. This means it has terrible acceleration because you have to shift gears 26 times between zero and highway speeds. With an EV, there is a very wide powerband so no gears needed. You get 100% of the torque off the line for towing while also being able to carry that torque in a straight line to high speeds - no shifting required.

Besides, down here in the South, people will race anything from cars to trucks to lawnmowers. Having a fast truck that can also tow a heavy load is the perfect truck.

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

Different battery chemistries have different power densities. That power density can affect acceleration numbers. So the motors may be the same, but if the battery pack in one vehicle is NMC and the other is LFP, then performance could be different. That's without getting into the weeds on using different gear reductions to try and compensate.

 

[mastertroll]

Different battery chemistries have different power densities. That power density can affect acceleration numbers. So the motors may be the same, but if the battery pack in one vehicle is NMC and the other is LFP, then performance could be different. That's without getting into the weeds on using different gear reductions to try and compensate.

Got faith in you man

 

[oldgeeksguide]

We do and it is a consideration. A 3.5 is a good average these days

IMOSHO, anything under 5s is overkill. I don’t think I’ve ever owned a car faster than 7s.

 

[mastertroll]

IMOSHO, anything under 5s is overkill. I don’t think I’ve ever owned a car faster than 7s.

I wouldn't say Overkill. You don't have to have a 0 to 60 like that all the time. For example, Tesla has a chill mode and it used to be called ludicrous mode or sport mode. It is now but still it's nice to have when you want it

 

[cyure]

IMOSHO, anything under 5s is overkill. I don’t think I’ve ever owned a car faster than 7s.

I would assume the Scouts will have different modes. I wonder if they would put a sport mode.

All I will say is I don’t think we need launch mode. We have never used that in our Supra. I’m too afraid of being launched into something we shouldn’t be.