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

[tomgillotti]

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.

 

[dreamweaver]

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.

Scout Motors. “People. Connections. Community. Authenticity." Welcome to the Scout community. Enjoy the ride.
Remember the built in search on the forums is a great place to start getting answers to your many questions.

 

[THil08]

welcome to Scout!

 

[cyure]

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.

Welcome to the community.

 

[R1TVT]

While I agree with your general sentiment I find it somewhat unrealistic to have this expectation of a new OEM that will be judged based on units sold and whether they can be profitable, here, in the United States of America.

Your $40K target probably has the same equivalency of Scout's targeted $60K in Scout's mind and in their own financial framework. Scout doesn't control an entire market (even with excellent leverage and buying power). I would not expect any ongoing concern looking at establishing itself after considerable investments to reduce its margins if they don't have to (and if they have demand). Scout already has demand based on reservations, but we'll have to wait and see when reservations can be converted to orders. You could also argue that Scout is already riding the value-train hard by building such capable and well-equipped trucks targeted at a $60K price point (when comparing them to current EV trucks and SUV's). You can't really compare a Xiaomi car with a much smaller battery to a Scout SUV or Truck with a much larger battery (which will cost much more).

Then there are the TARIFFS. Consider the cost of imported parts, materials & components, then consider the subsequent duties:

OEMs face financial losses as tariffs bite - July 25, 2025​

VW Group​

VW reported a €1.3 billion (US $1.5 billion) hit to operating profit in H1 2025. Audi and Porsche divisions were notably affected, with profit drops of about 64% and 91%, respectively. As a result, the two brands lowered their full-year margin forecast to 4–5 percent from 5.5–6.5 percent.

(https://www.automotivelogistics.med...mportant-changes-for-the-auto-industry/663875)

 

[THil08]

While I agree with your general sentiment I find it somewhat unrealistic to have this expectation of a new OEM that will be judged based on units sold and whether they can be profitable, here, in the United States of America.

Your $40K target probably has the same equivalency of Scout's targeted $60K in Scout's mind and in their own financial framework. Scout doesn't control an entire market (even with excellent leverage and buying power). I would not expect any ongoing concern looking at establishing itself after considerable investments to reduce its margins if they don't have to (and if they have demand). Scout already has demand based on reservations, but we'll have to wait and see when reservations can be converted to orders. You could also argue that Scout is already riding the value-train hard by building such capable and well-equipped trucks targeted at a $60K price point (when comparing them to current EV trucks and SUV's). You can't really compare a Xiaomi car with a much smaller battery to a Scout SUV or Truck with a much larger battery (which will cost much more).

Then there are the TARIFFS. Consider the cost of imported parts, materials & components, then consider the subsequent duties:

OEMs face financial losses as tariffs bite - July 25, 2025​

VW Group​

VW reported a €1.3 billion (US $1.5 billion) hit to operating profit in H1 2025. Audi and Porsche divisions were notably affected, with profit drops of about 64% and 91%, respectively. As a result, the two brands lowered their full-year margin forecast to 4–5 percent from 5.5–6.5 percent.

(https://www.automotivelogistics.med...mportant-changes-for-the-auto-industry/663875)

And beside the small amount (mainly because Scout Motors seems to be bring all of their suppliers to the US and to SC) of tariffs, they are also building a factory which isn’t cheap, even with the state money donation. But the 25% tariff was a bit much, and hopefully will be lowered going into next year. And if it doesn’t I’m sure the auto makers will be at the White House showing numbers and the Auto Market Collapsing.

Mind you the price of Scouts raised only because the federal tax rebate. When tariffs went into effect the Scout price didn’t change, it changed when the federal tax rebate went away. Just wanted to state that fact. I remember clear as day.

And VW needs to make profit somehow, so might as well get the money from the “Rich Americans” as I’m sure they call us over in Germany.

Here’s a KBB article on auto prices. The only source to trust when it comes to prices. And mind you their sole investor own a decent amount of Rivian.

https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/when-will-car-prices-drop/

 

[tomgillotti]

While I agree with your general sentiment I find it somewhat unrealistic to have this expectation of a new OEM that will be judged based on units sold and whether they can be profitable, here, in the United States of America.

Your $40K target probably has the same equivalency of Scout's targeted $60K in Scout's mind and in their own financial framework. Scout doesn't control an entire market (even with excellent leverage and buying power). I would not expect any ongoing concern looking at establishing itself after considerable investments to reduce its margins if they don't have to (and if they have demand). Scout already has demand based on reservations, but we'll have to wait and see when reservations can be converted to orders. You could also argue that Scout is already riding the value-train hard by building such capable and well-equipped trucks targeted at a $60K price point (when comparing them to current EV trucks and SUV's). You can't really compare a Xiaomi car with a much smaller battery to a Scout SUV or Truck with a much larger battery (which will cost much more).

Then there are the TARIFFS. Consider the cost of imported parts, materials & components, then consider the subsequent duties:

OEMs face financial losses as tariffs bite - July 25, 2025​

VW Group​

VW reported a €1.3 billion (US $1.5 billion) hit to operating profit in H1 2025. Audi and Porsche divisions were notably affected, with profit drops of about 64% and 91%, respectively. As a result, the two brands lowered their full-year margin forecast to 4–5 percent from 5.5–6.5 percent.

(https://www.automotivelogistics.med...mportant-changes-for-the-auto-industry/663875)

You make some solid points about the reality of doing business in the US, and I appreciate you bringing actual data to the table regarding the VW Group's financials.


However, I think that exact data actually proves my point, not the case for a $60k vehicle.


1. The "Tariff" Argument is exactly why they are building in South Carolina.


You mentioned import tariffs biting into margins. You are absolutely right—if they were importing these from Germany or China. But they aren't. Scout is building a massive $2B+ factory in Blythewood, SC, specifically to bypass those tariffs and qualify for US incentives.


If they are building locally with a localized supply chain (which is the plan), the tariff argument holds significantly less water. They are playing by the rules to get the costs down; they should pass those savings to the consumer, not just the shareholders.


2. The VW Financials actually support a Volume Strategy ($40k), not Niche Luxury ($60k).


You cited the drop in operating profit for Audi and Porsche (64% and 91% drops!). This is the smoking gun.


VW’s "high margin / luxury" strategy is failing right now. The premium market is softening because people are tapped out.


If Scout tries to be another "Porsche" (niche, high margin, low volume), they will walk right into the same buzzsaw that is currently shredding Audi’s profits.


To survive, VW needs a massive hit—a volume seller that moves 200,000+ units a year. You don't get that volume at $60k. You get that at $40k.


3. The Battery/Tech Gap


You're right that a Scout truck needs a bigger battery than a Xiaomi sedan. But let's look at the math. A 100kWh battery (truck) costs more than a 75kWh battery (sedan), sure. But does it cost $18,000 more? Absolutely not. Battery prices have plummeted to record lows in the last 12 months.


The difference in raw materials between a $42k sedan and a truck is arguably $5k-$7k, not $20k. The rest is margin padding.


4. The "New OEM" Defense


We have to stop treating Scout like a scrappy startup. They are a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the largest automakers on earth. They have the buying power of VW Group. They aren't Rivian trying to figure out how to buy door handles; they have the parts bin of an empire. They can afford to price aggressively to capture the market—the question is whether we, the customers, demand it.


If we accept $60k as "fair" before the first truck even rolls off the line, we are just giving them permission to overcharge us.

 

[tomgillotti]

And beside the small amount (mainly because Scout Motors seems to be bring all of their suppliers to the US and to SC) of tariffs, they are also building a factory which isn’t cheap, even with the state money donation. But the 25% tariff was a bit much, and hopefully will be lowered going into next year. And if it doesn’t I’m sure the auto makers will be at the White House showing numbers and the Auto Market Collapsing.

Mind you the price of Scouts raised only because the federal tax rebate. When tariffs went into effect the Scout price didn’t change, it changed when the federal tax rebate went away. Just wanted to state that fact. I remember clear as day.

And VW needs to make profit somehow, so might as well get the money from the “Rich Americans” as I’m sure they call us over in Germany.

Here’s a KBB article on auto prices. The only source to trust when it comes to prices. And mind you their sole investor own a decent amount of Rivian.

https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/when-will-car-prices-drop/

You nailed it with the "Rich Americans" comment. That is exactly how they view us—as a piggy bank to be smashed open (I lived in Germany from 2018-2024, just as an aside). But that’s exactly why we shouldn't just roll over and accept it.


1. The "Factory Cost" Excuse


I understand that building a factory is expensive, but let's not confuse Capital Expenditure (Capex) with Unit Cost. They are amortizing that $2B factory over 20-30 years of production, not just the first batch of trucks.


If they are trying to pay off the entire building with the margins from the first two model years, that isn't "business"—that's price gouging early adopters.


2. The Rebate "Smoking Gun"


You brought up a critical point: The price changed when the rebate went away.


If that’s true, it proves my point entirely. It means their pricing isn't based on the cost to build; it’s based on "Monthly Payment Targeting." They looked at the $7,500 rebate and said, "Great, we can charge $7,500 more and the customer won't feel it."


That is the definition of subsidy capture. Now that the subsidy is gone, they are just leaving the price high because they think we are trained to pay it.


3. The VW-Rivian Joint Venture


You mentioned their investment in Rivian. That should actually be an argument for lower prices, not higher ones.


VW pumped $5B into Rivian to share architecture and software costs. That is supposed to create massive efficiencies and scale. If they are sharing tech to save billions in R&D, why are we seeing a price increase? We should be seeing the savings passed down to us.


The Bottom Line:


We can't keep making excuses for a multi-national conglomerate. They are building in SC to avoid tariffs and partnering with Rivian to cut costs. They can hit $40k-$45k. They just won't do it unless we stop acting like "Rich Americans" willing to pay whatever they ask.

 

[THil08]

You nailed it with the "Rich Americans" comment. That is exactly how they view us—as a piggy bank to be smashed open (I lived in Germany from 2018-2024, just as an aside). But that’s exactly why we shouldn't just roll over and accept it.


1. The "Factory Cost" Excuse


I understand that building a factory is expensive, but let's not confuse Capital Expenditure (Capex) with Unit Cost. They are amortizing that $2B factory over 20-30 years of production, not just the first batch of trucks.


If they are trying to pay off the entire building with the margins from the first two model years, that isn't "business"—that's price gouging early adopters.


2. The Rebate "Smoking Gun"


You brought up a critical point: The price changed when the rebate went away.


If that’s true, it proves my point entirely. It means their pricing isn't based on the cost to build; it’s based on "Monthly Payment Targeting." They looked at the $7,500 rebate and said, "Great, we can charge $7,500 more and the customer won't feel it."


That is the definition of subsidy capture. Now that the subsidy is gone, they are just leaving the price high because they think we are trained to pay it.


3. The VW-Rivian Joint Venture


You mentioned their investment in Rivian. That should actually be an argument for lower prices, not higher ones.


VW pumped $5B into Rivian to share architecture and software costs. That is supposed to create massive efficiencies and scale. If they are sharing tech to save billions in R&D, why are we seeing a price increase? We should be seeing the savings passed down to us.


The Bottom Line:


We can't keep making excuses for a multi-national conglomerate. They are building in SC to avoid tariffs and partnering with Rivian to cut costs. They can hit $40k-$45k. They just won't do it unless we stop acting like "Rich Americans" willing to pay whatever they ask.

Heres my view coming from a student at a school that partners with BMW.

EV technology is expensive, people can say it's cheaper to develop an EV than it is a Gas Car but they are wrong.

SLATE is a glorified golf cart, thats putting it nicely.

SCOUT MOTORS aims at a very specific market that has no competition in it. Rivian is over priced and is competing in the luxury EV market. Scout will ultimately set the price bar for off road oriented EVs. And that gives them the ability to change the market to favor them. All Scout would need is for a EV to come and compete with what they are offering at a lower price and then Scout will have to match it or come in lower. But with that said, I think Scouts pricing is on the money for what they are offering.

But all the points you made are correct!

 

[J Alynn]

While I agree with your general sentiment I find it somewhat unrealistic to have this expectation of a new OEM that will be judged based on units sold and whether they can be profitable, here, in the United States of America.

Your $40K target probably has the same equivalency of Scout's targeted $60K in Scout's mind and in their own financial framework. Scout doesn't control an entire market (even with excellent leverage and buying power). I would not expect any ongoing concern looking at establishing itself after considerable investments to reduce its margins if they don't have to (and if they have demand). Scout already has demand based on reservations, but we'll have to wait and see when reservations can be converted to orders. You could also argue that Scout is already riding the value-train hard by building such capable and well-equipped trucks targeted at a $60K price point (when comparing them to current EV trucks and SUV's). You can't really compare a Xiaomi car with a much smaller battery to a Scout SUV or Truck with a much larger battery (which will cost much more).

Then there are the TARIFFS. Consider the cost of imported parts, materials & components, then consider the subsequent duties:

OEMs face financial losses as tariffs bite - July 25, 2025​

VW Group​

VW reported a €1.3 billion (US $1.5 billion) hit to operating profit in H1 2025. Audi and Porsche divisions were notably affected, with profit drops of about 64% and 91%, respectively. As a result, the two brands lowered their full-year margin forecast to 4–5 percent from 5.5–6.5 percent.

(https://www.automotivelogistics.med...mportant-changes-for-the-auto-industry/663875)

You make some solid points about the reality of doing business in the US, and I appreciate you bringing actual data to the table regarding the VW Group's financials.


However, I think that exact data actually proves my point, not the case for a $60k vehicle.


1. The "Tariff" Argument is exactly why they are building in South Carolina.


You mentioned import tariffs biting into margins. You are absolutely right—if they were importing these from Germany or China. But they aren't. Scout is building a massive $2B+ factory in Blythewood, SC, specifically to bypass those tariffs and qualify for US incentives.


If they are building locally with a localized supply chain (which is the plan), the tariff argument holds significantly less water. They are playing by the rules to get the costs down; they should pass those savings to the consumer, not just the shareholders.


2. The VW Financials actually support a Volume Strategy ($40k), not Niche Luxury ($60k).


You cited the drop in operating profit for Audi and Porsche (64% and 91% drops!). This is the smoking gun.


VW’s "high margin / luxury" strategy is failing right now. The premium market is softening because people are tapped out.


If Scout tries to be another "Porsche" (niche, high margin, low volume), they will walk right into the same buzzsaw that is currently shredding Audi’s profits.


To survive, VW needs a massive hit—a volume seller that moves 200,000+ units a year. You don't get that volume at $60k. You get that at $40k.


3. The Battery/Tech Gap


You're right that a Scout truck needs a bigger battery than a Xiaomi sedan. But let's look at the math. A 100kWh battery (truck) costs more than a 75kWh battery (sedan), sure. But does it cost $18,000 more? Absolutely not. Battery prices have plummeted to record lows in the last 12 months.


The difference in raw materials between a $42k sedan and a truck is arguably $5k-$7k, not $20k. The rest is margin padding.


4. The "New OEM" Defense


We have to stop treating Scout like a scrappy startup. They are a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the largest automakers on earth. They have the buying power of VW Group. They aren't Rivian trying to figure out how to buy door handles; they have the parts bin of an empire. They can afford to price aggressively to capture the market—the question is whether we, the customers, demand it.


If we accept $60k as "fair" before the first truck even rolls off the line, we are just giving them permission to overcharge us.

Ultimately every buyer has the option to choose a vehicle. Be it new or used, we all need to be responsible adults and purchase based on what we can financially afford or financially stomach (if you are a high earner). The overall problem is competition sets the market. No different than going into a local diner and getting a steak dinner for $18 or a steakhouse for $65. (And pay extra for the sides). I’ve been in Homebuilding for nearly 30 years-there was a time in the early 2000’s when people were paying $80 a SF for granite. The material cost was $8. Fast forward to 2025 and granite is still roughly the same price. More small shops opened and competition brought prices down. You/we can argue a vehicle “should” be $42K but the market competition is doing fine with inflated numbers. At this point and time EVs cost more to manufacturer-how much is hard to say realistically but for a large mid-sized SUV $60K (and Scouts are nearly large m/3-row sized-not mid-sized) is a fair price within the market. 3 years ago when Scout was announced the original goal was to be in the $40k’s (which any realistic person knew wouldn’t hold) but it isn’t realistic to think a company would under price their products when all their competition is making 50% more.
I posted a few days ago after my wife did some research, most overseas car manufactures have taken a 35% hit in Q3 due to tariffs. I’ve also noted over past couple months-from the construction side of things, steel has climbed 10-15% solid and still jumps up and down another 5% at any given time. These are realistic concerns that SM has to plan for and price in-whether we like it or not. I’m not sure of your given career but my hunch is many of us could argue your product cost or service fees are over-priced as well. Sure-SM can ultimately lower prices but until 60-70% of reservations holders all speak up and say it’s $42K or we walk, the price will stay where it is or SM will pivot. So to your original point-the average new car cost is $50K and cheapest cars are roughly $25-$30K and also noting “rich” Americans want big vehicles that for sure means the average price will continue to grow. To SM’s credit, they have held the under $60k price since announcing the vehicles at the reveal which in fairness is impressive considering all the added tariff costs. The joy of tariffs is their prices go up then our prices rise both due to to the “tax” as well as US manufactures realizing they can creep their prices.
And my final point-SM has never announced these as starter vehicles-and as you noted, you started blue collar, climbed and now can-if you choose afford a Scout. To be fair-not everyone should be able to afford a vehicle of this size and capability-not an elitist opinion but a reality check. It’s capitalism and market bearing response. I built our home (custom) 10 years ago on a 3/4 acre lot and paid $500K. If I tried to build it today, it would be $1.05 million (doubled in 10 years). So if you/we are concerned about a vehicle that is a privilege -at least at the level of a Scout vehicle than imagine how many people are suffering at not being able to own a home-which in theory is a basic necessity.
This is essentially SM’s halo vehicle and they need to establish their worth. And as these sell (with higher margins) it produces capital that allows SM to continue R&D to build smaller more flexible vehicles to serve more of the masses. But to come on here after 3 years of development and tell them it is wrong, IMHO, is no different that new members who start by saying if it isn’t a V-8 diesel SM will fail immediately. And hey, if midterms go the right way perhaps electric vehicles will again get support in one form or another and help reduce the price of the Scouts.

 

[tomgillotti]

Heres my view coming from a student at a school that partners with BMW.

EV technology is expensive, people can say it's cheaper to develop an EV than it is a Gas Car but they are wrong.

SLATE is a glorified golf cart, thats putting it nicely.

SCOUT MOTORS aims at a very specific market that has no competition in it. Rivian is over priced and is competing in the luxury EV market. Scout will ultimately set the price bar for off road oriented EVs. And that gives them the ability to change the market to favor them. All Scout would need is for a EV to come and compete with what they are offering at a lower price and then Scout will have to match it or come in lower. But with that said, I think Scouts pricing is on the money for what they are offering.

But all the points you made are correct!

I really appreciate the insight—especially coming from someone seeing the industry from the inside (via the BMW partnership). And honestly, I agree with you on the product itself.


1. You are right: The Scout is in a league of its own.


I agree that comparing a body-on-frame Scout to a unibody crossover (or the "Slate" golf cart) isn't apples-to-apples regarding capability. The Scout is a dedicated tool; the others are appliances.


2. But that is exactly the trap.


My concern is that we are letting manufacturers weaponize that capability to justify abusive pricing.


Since 2020, the auto industry has been running a masterclass in consumer conditioning. They realized during the supply chain crisis that if they starve the market of affordable options, people will eventually just "accept" that a standard truck costs $60k-$80k.


3. "Capability" shouldn't equal "Luxury."


This is the core of my frustration. A vehicle being "superior" off-road shouldn't automatically relegate it to the luxury pricing tier.


• The original Scout was superior off-road, but it was priced for farmers.


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


Somewhere along the line—specifically post-COVID—we allowed companies to convince us that if a vehicle is "cool" or "capable," it must be expensive. That is a false correlation. They are charging for the status of the capability, not just the cost of the hardware.


4. The "Should Be" Market


If we strip away the "Greedflation" of the last four years, where should this market be?


With battery costs plummeting (as you know) and manufacturing scale increasing, a body-on-frame EV truck should be the modern equivalent of the F-150 work truck—accessible, rugged, and ubiquitous.


If we let them set the bar at $60k because "it has no competition," we are effectively agreeing that the working class is no longer allowed to own capable vehicles. I refuse to accept that as the new normal.

 

[J Alynn]

You nailed it with the "Rich Americans" comment. That is exactly how they view us—as a piggy bank to be smashed open (I lived in Germany from 2018-2024, just as an aside). But that’s exactly why we shouldn't just roll over and accept it.


1. The "Factory Cost" Excuse


I understand that building a factory is expensive, but let's not confuse Capital Expenditure (Capex) with Unit Cost. They are amortizing that $2B factory over 20-30 years of production, not just the first batch of trucks.


If they are trying to pay off the entire building with the margins from the first two model years, that isn't "business"—that's price gouging early adopters.


2. The Rebate "Smoking Gun"


You brought up a critical point: The price changed when the rebate went away.


If that’s true, it proves my point entirely. It means their pricing isn't based on the cost to build; it’s based on "Monthly Payment Targeting." They looked at the $7,500 rebate and said, "Great, we can charge $7,500 more and the customer won't feel it."


That is the definition of subsidy capture. Now that the subsidy is gone, they are just leaving the price high because they think we are trained to pay it.


3. The VW-Rivian Joint Venture


You mentioned their investment in Rivian. That should actually be an argument for lower prices, not higher ones.


VW pumped $5B into Rivian to share architecture and software costs. That is supposed to create massive efficiencies and scale. If they are sharing tech to save billions in R&D, why are we seeing a price increase? We should be seeing the savings passed down to us.


The Bottom Line:


We can't keep making excuses for a multi-national conglomerate. They are building in SC to avoid tariffs and partnering with Rivian to cut costs. They can hit $40k-$45k. They just won't do it unless we stop acting like "Rich Americans" willing to pay whatever they ask.

They never changed the price. At reveal they announced With incentives it was just over $50K. That means they were figuring about $60K. Now the EV rebate is gone so it’s back to retail-so that statement is not truly accurate in your post. And reference to Rivian again you mention increase-there hasn’t been an increase in the EV rebates were killed early-that isn’t a SM decision-.their price has held consistent since the reveal last October.
And to @THil08 ‘s point, EV cost money and so does R&D. This is ground up. Sure they are sharing hidden parts from VW but the fundamental vehicle type is completely new and that requires R&D. Should the SW be cheaper because of JV with Rivian-sure but integrating all that with the functions of the Scout requires more cost and still requires R and D. Not to mention the added complexity of the EREV requires more engineering that was accounted for when original cost projections were developed

 

[tomgillotti]

Ultimately every buyer has the option to choose a vehicle. Be it new or used, we all need to be responsible adults and purchase based on what we can financially afford or financially stomach (if you are a high earner). The overall problem is competition sets the market. No different than going into a local diner and getting a steak dinner for $18 or a steakhouse for $65. (And pay extra for the sides). I’ve been in Homebuilding for nearly 30 years-there was a time in the early 2000’s when people were paying $80 a SF for granite. The material cost was $8. Fast forward to 2025 and granite is still roughly the same price. More small shops opened and competition brought prices down. You/we can argue a vehicle “should” be $42K but the market competition is doing fine with inflated numbers. At this point and time EVs cost more to manufacturer-how much is hard to say realistically but for a large mid-sized SUV $60K (and Scouts are nearly large m/3-row sized-not mid-sized) is a fair price within the market. 3 years ago when Scout was announced the original goal was to be in the $40k’s (which any realistic person knew wouldn’t hold) but it isn’t realistic to think a company would under price their products when all their competition is making 50% more.
I posted a few days ago after my wife did some research, most overseas car manufactures have taken a 35% hit in Q3 due to tariffs. I’ve also noted over past couple months-from the construction side of things, steel has climbed 10-15% solid and still jumps up and down another 5% at any given time. These are realistic concerns that SM has to plan for and price in-whether we like it or not. I’m not sure of your given career but my hunch is many of us could argue your product cost or service fees are over-priced as well. Sure-SM can ultimately lower prices but until 60-70% of reservations holders all speak up and say it’s $42K or we walk, the price will stay where it is or SM will pivot. So to your original point-the average new car cost is $50K and cheapest cars are roughly $25-$30K and also noting “rich” Americans want big vehicles that for sure means the average price will continue to grow. To SM’s credit, they have held the under $60k price since announcing the vehicles at the reveal which in fairness is impressive considering all the added tariff costs. The joy of tariffs is their prices go up then our prices rise both due to to the “tax” as well as US manufactures realizing they can creep their prices.
And my final point-SM has never announced these as starter vehicles-and as you noted, you started blue collar, climbed and now can-if you choose afford a Scout. To be fair-not everyone should be able to afford a vehicle of this size and capability-not an elitist opinion but a reality check. It’s capitalism and market bearing response. I built our home (custom) 10 years ago on a 3/4 acre lot and paid $500K. If I tried to build it today, it would be $1.05 million (doubled in 10 years). So if you/we are concerned about a vehicle that is a privilege -at least at the level of a Scout vehicle than imagine how many people are suffering at not being able to own a home-which in theory is a basic necessity.
This is essentially SM’s halo vehicle and they need to establish their worth. And as these sell (with higher margins) it produces capital that allows SM to continue R&D to build smaller more flexible vehicles to serve more of the masses. But to come on here after 3 years of development and tell them it is wrong, IMHO, is no different that new members who start by saying if it isn’t a V-8 diesel SM will fail immediately. And hey, if midterms go the right way perhaps electric vehicles will again get support in one form or another and help reduce the price of the Scouts.

I really appreciate the thoughtful response, and I actually think your background in homebuilding provides the perfect analogy for why I’m frustrated—though I draw a different conclusion from it.


1. The "Granite" Analogy Proves My Point


You mentioned that granite used to be $80/sf until competition forced the market to "get real," bringing prices down closer to the actual material cost.


That is exactly what I am asking Scout to do.


Right now, the US auto market is the "Granite Market of the early 2000s." Prices are artificially high not because of raw costs, but because the few major players (the "cartel" of legacy auto) have silently agreed to keep them there.


You are absolutely right that competition sets the market. My frustration is that Scout has the opportunity to be the "new shop" that disrupts the granite pricing, but instead, they seem content to join the established players at $80/sf just because "that’s what the market bears."


2. The "Steakhouse" Fallacy


I like your steakhouse comparison, but here is where it breaks down:


If I go to a Steakhouse and pay $65, I expect better service, better cuts, and a better atmosphere than the diner.


But right now, the "Diner" (global competitors like Xiaomi/BYD) is serving Wagyu beef for $18, while the "Steakhouse" (US Market) is serving a standard burger for $65 and telling us it’s a "privilege" to eat there.


When the "cheaper" option is technologically superior to the "expensive" option, the market is broken.


3. "Not Everyone Should Afford It" vs. Brand Heritage


You mentioned that "not everyone should be able to afford a vehicle of this size" and that it’s a "reality check," not elitism.


If we were discussing Porsche or Range Rover, I would agree with you. Those are status symbols.


But this is a Scout. The original International Scout was essentially a tractor with seats. It was a tool for farmers, mail carriers, and blue-collar workers. It was the definition of democratic utility.


To take a badge that represents "The Everyman" and turn it into a "Halo Vehicle" for the wealthy is a betrayal of the brand's soul. It shifts the Scout from being a Tool to being a Toy.


4. The "Halo Car" Strategy is Outdated


You argued that they need to sell high-margin trucks first to fund cheaper ones later (the Tesla model). That logic worked in 2012 when batteries cost $1,000/kWh.


In 2027, batteries will be dirt cheap (relatively). The "Trickle Down" manufacturing strategy isn't necessary anymore; it's just a choice to prioritize short-term investor returns over market share.


The Bottom Line


I’m not asking them to lose money. I’m asking them to read the room. You mentioned housing prices have doubled. Groceries have doubled. The American middle class is being squeezed from every side.


Scout has a choice: They can be just another expense that people have to "stomach," or they can be the relief we’ve been waiting for.


I want them to be the relief.

 

[J Alynn]

I really appreciate the thoughtful response, and I actually think your background in homebuilding provides the perfect analogy for why I’m frustrated—though I draw a different conclusion from it.


1. The "Granite" Analogy Proves My Point


You mentioned that granite used to be $80/sf until competition forced the market to "get real," bringing prices down closer to the actual material cost.


That is exactly what I am asking Scout to do.


Right now, the US auto market is the "Granite Market of the early 2000s." Prices are artificially high not because of raw costs, but because the few major players (the "cartel" of legacy auto) have silently agreed to keep them there.


You are absolutely right that competition sets the market. My frustration is that Scout has the opportunity to be the "new shop" that disrupts the granite pricing, but instead, they seem content to join the established players at $80/sf just because "that’s what the market bears."


2. The "Steakhouse" Fallacy


I like your steakhouse comparison, but here is where it breaks down:


If I go to a Steakhouse and pay $65, I expect better service, better cuts, and a better atmosphere than the diner.


But right now, the "Diner" (global competitors like Xiaomi/BYD) is serving Wagyu beef for $18, while the "Steakhouse" (US Market) is serving a standard burger for $65 and telling us it’s a "privilege" to eat there.


When the "cheaper" option is technologically superior to the "expensive" option, the market is broken.


3. "Not Everyone Should Afford It" vs. Brand Heritage


You mentioned that "not everyone should be able to afford a vehicle of this size" and that it’s a "reality check," not elitism.


If we were discussing Porsche or Range Rover, I would agree with you. Those are status symbols.


But this is a Scout. The original International Scout was essentially a tractor with seats. It was a tool for farmers, mail carriers, and blue-collar workers. It was the definition of democratic utility.


To take a badge that represents "The Everyman" and turn it into a "Halo Vehicle" for the wealthy is a betrayal of the brand's soul. It shifts the Scout from being a Tool to being a Toy.


4. The "Halo Car" Strategy is Outdated


You argued that they need to sell high-margin trucks first to fund cheaper ones later (the Tesla model). That logic worked in 2012 when batteries cost $1,000/kWh.


In 2027, batteries will be dirt cheap (relatively). The "Trickle Down" manufacturing strategy isn't necessary anymore; it's just a choice to prioritize short-term investor returns over market share.


The Bottom Line


I’m not asking them to lose money. I’m asking them to read the room. You mentioned housing prices have doubled. Groceries have doubled. The American middle class is being squeezed from every side.


Scout has a choice: They can be just another expense that people have to "stomach," or they can be the relief we’ve been waiting for.


I want them to be the relief.

I think we all do but as I noted -until everyone (and I mean everyone) stands up and says we are done-it can’t happen. Unfortunately we lack quality mass transit (unlike Japan and Europe) so we don’t have alternatives. We are also a vast country where people want to escape and therefore need max range and comfortable vehicles for large families.
As for Range Rover-I think they are POS to be fair and believe the Scouts will be more capable and therefore do/will command a higher price. The scouts will be capable. No different than sneakers-unless it exceeds expectations and needs, it’s just another name brand on an average product.
As for heritage-while it was the every man’s vehicle it was also an innovator. And I’m sure the original scouts weren’t that much cheaper than their competitors at the time which were limited. And at least the 70’s scouts weren’t plagued with rust and materials (other than the engines) that failed the average buyer. I’m not seeing the vehicle as halo like I see a limited edition sports car from Lexus but this is (short of a future Travelall-3-row) scouts Halo vehicle. Common sense shows, no different than Broncos that majority of these vehicles won’t leave the road but will be used for their space when traveling and pulling in the gravel parking lots at parks across the country. One could argue that stripping the off road capability out of the scouts would save costs but the large population of Scout fans on this forum and the outsiders hating on an EV power train would riot-even though most will rarely ever push these vehicles to their limits.
As for heritage-it’s there but this is a marketing play on emotions (and it works). The competitors today-be it ICE or EV are all fighting for the same slice of pie and until this country hits rock bottom (which is feasible at this point) unless you can organize millions of people to refuse buying a new car-prices will be what they are. Manufactures have a right to be successful and if these two vehicles are as good as we all hope-to me they are worth the premium. My wife is in banking and has a hell of an experienced career so I get this issues but I also think it’s buyer’s choice. If in two years you can go out and buy an equivalent vehicle for less money it is each consumers choice. When I crave a greasy burger I go to Chilis. For 10.99 I get a reasonably good burger, fries, an app (soup for me) and a Coke. Five guys is same difference. Better fries and similar burger but I’m spending damn near $18. WHY? Same argument-until we as a society say enough is enough the costs will be. As stated earlier- it’s capitalism and until the economy or the public masses say otherwise-it’s “fair” market value. We call the slate a “joke” but it serves the same purpose as the Scout. It’s EV, gets you to and from and is called a truck/SUV and is under half the price and yet we all criticize it. I believe at $25K that is a reasonable price for a new EV yet we all dismiss it as junk-therefore making us all elitists. Cars and homes are -at their core-commodities yet the marketing world has convinced us (using our vanity and emotions) that various vehicles are worthy of twice the price. A Nissan Leaf offers essentially the same product though I’m guessing most members on here and in general public turn their noses up to it because it isn’t “good enough” for them.
Don’t get me wrong-I’m anticipating spending $80-$85K for a car when I can get a larger SUV for nearly half the price. My reasoning-nostalgia and 40 year desire to have another Scout, coupled with my wife refusing to pay $50K + to resto an original Scout. -which is fair because $50K + for a rusting box with little safety features and modern conveniences makes no sense to me personally-but my emotional voice is telling me it’s worth it-if I controlled our finances.
So like others, I will make trade offs. I will judge sports on more weekends than I prefer to stash more cash. I will cut back on dining out-because I will also never believe a cheeseburger is worth $20. And hen the day arrives I get to drive my Scout home from SC I pray it lives up to everything I’ve come to believe over the 5 year period since I learned the scouts were coming back.
And thank you for challenging the common expectations-perhaps you will start a new movement.