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

[R1TVT]

If we all just nodded along and accepted every price hike as "inevitable," we’d be paying $100k for base trucks by next year. The market—us—decides what a product is worth, not just the manufacturer's spreadsheet.

I respect your attempt at answering J Alynn. However, I do need to correct one factual error based on your statement above. You state that the "market - us - decides what a product is worth". By all accounts reading this repetitive thread, the market has validated and determined that Scout's targeted pricing at $60K EXCEEDS or was commensurate with significant value (based on features, capability, SW, batteries, materials, build quality, innovation, range, etc.).

In this case, "we" (the majority) represent the market and "you" represent an outlier. The "we" are here on this forum because the market determined that $60K represents significant value based on what Scout has promised (what Scout is building also doesn't exist today, so it doesn't slot perfectly into many of your comparison models). Your logic seems somewhat tainted by either a refusal of reality or perhaps an infected or faulty A/I algorithm.

Scout doesn't need to produce a cheap base model out of the gate for the same reason dealers don't want to sell them - that's a BUSINESS decision. They are interested in profitability and long-term longevity and moving units. That, however, will not deter them from selling you a base model in the future, should they decide that is in the best interest of their BUSINESS.

There is no denying inflationary factors. To further help illustrate the value of the dollar, if the cost of the last Scout produced in 1980 was $15,000 and the average price of a new vehicle has increased by 540% since then, you might expect to see a price tag of $81,000 on a Scout vehicle (precisely where some of Scout's real competition is priced).

But Scout is not giving us dollar bills, they are building us trucks and SUVs. There are many factors beyond simple inflation for consideration in this case which cannot be denied and must be considered (R&D, Technology Development, increased Safety Requirements, LII+ Driving, Connectivity, Battery & BMS SW, etc. etc. etc.). Could it be that you have simply miscalculated and used the value of the dollar to produce your desired price point? If so, that would help explain where you came up with an arbitrary target of $40,000 (since $15,000 in 1980 would equate roughly to $40,000 today).

 

[tomgillotti]

I respect your attempt at answering J Alynn. However, I do need to correct one factual error based on your statement above. You state that the "market - us - decides what a product is worth". By all accounts reading this repetitive thread, the market has validated and determined that Scout's targeted pricing at $60K EXCEEDS or was commensurate with significant value (based on features, capability, SW, batteries, materials, build quality, innovation, range, etc.).

In this case, "we" (the majority) represent the market and "you" represent an outlier. The "we" are here on this forum because the market determined that $60K represents significant value based on what Scout has promised (what Scout is building also doesn't exist today, so it doesn't slot perfectly into many of your comparison models). Your logic seems somewhat tainted by either a refusal of reality or perhaps an infected or faulty A/I algorithm.

Scout doesn't need to produce a cheap base model out of the gate for the same reason dealers don't want to sell them - that's a BUSINESS decision. They are interested in profitability and long-term longevity and moving units. That, however, will not deter them from selling you a base model in the future, should they decide that is in the best interest of their BUSINESS.

There is no denying inflationary factors. To further help illustrate the value of the dollar, if the cost of the last Scout produced in 1980 was $15,000 and the average price of a new vehicle has increased by 540% since then, you might expect to see a price tag of $81,000 on a Scout vehicle (precisely where some of Scout's real competition is priced).

But Scout is not giving us dollar bills, they are building us trucks and SUVs. There are many factors beyond simple inflation for consideration in this case which cannot be denied and must be considered (R&D, Technology Development, increased Safety Requirements, LII+ Driving, Connectivity, Battery & BMS SW, etc. etc. etc.). Could it be that you have simply miscalculated and used the value of the dollar to produce your desired price point? If so, that would help explain where you came up with an arbitrary target of $40,000 (since $15,000 in 1980 would equate roughly to $40,000 today).

That’s a new one—I’ll take the "AI" comment as a compliment on my grammar. As I mentioned to someone else earlier, my entire career is built on checklists, structured flows, and precise communication. It’s a hard habit to break, even when I’m just typing on a forum. I tend to write in structured blocks because it’s clearer than the walls of text we usually get on here, but if it makes you feel better, I can try to be a bit messier next time.

Regarding your point about the "Market"—I think we need to be careful not to confuse "The Market" with "This Forum." Forums are always self-selected bubbles of enthusiasts and early adopters who are willing to pay more. If this forum was the actual market, the Ineos Grenadier would be the best-selling truck in America. The real market is currently rejecting high-priced utility vehicles, which is why Jeep dealers are drowning in unsold inventory and Ford had to slash Lightning production. The "majority" you see here is a majority of superfans, not a majority of the buying public.

As for the inflation math, I think your numbers might be double-counting the "gentrification" I’m talking about. If you plug $15,000 from 1980 into the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, you don't get $81,000—you get about $58,000. That $81,000 figure you mentioned likely comes from tracking average transaction prices, which have skyrocketed specifically because manufacturers stopped building basic trucks and started forcing everyone into luxury trims. That isn't monetary inflation; that’s exactly the "feature creep" strategy I’m arguing Scout should avoid.

Finally, on the "Business Decision" front: You are absolutely right that it is a business decision. My argument is simply that high margin multiplied by low volume (the "Niche" model) is a dangerous path for a brand that built a multi-billion dollar factory. To move 200,000 units a year, you can't just sell to the people who think $60k is a bargain; you have to sell to the people who used to buy $40k F-150s. If they abandon that base, they aren't making a smart business decision—they are just becoming another boutique brand like Rivian.

I’m getting some serious Stranger Things finale vibes here. It feels a bit like I’m arguing with a Hive Mind where the two of you are synced up to defend corporate pricing in perfect unison.

 

[THil08]

I respect your attempt at answering J Alynn. However, I do need to correct one factual error based on your statement above. You state that the "market - us - decides what a product is worth". By all accounts reading this repetitive thread, the market has validated and determined that Scout's targeted pricing at $60K EXCEEDS or was commensurate with significant value (based on features, capability, SW, batteries, materials, build quality, innovation, range, etc.).

In this case, "we" (the majority) represent the market and "you" represent an outlier. The "we" are here on this forum because the market determined that $60K represents significant value based on what Scout has promised (what Scout is building also doesn't exist today, so it doesn't slot perfectly into many of your comparison models). Your logic seems somewhat tainted by either a refusal of reality or perhaps an infected or faulty A/I algorithm.

Scout doesn't need to produce a cheap base model out of the gate for the same reason dealers don't want to sell them - that's a BUSINESS decision. They are interested in profitability and long-term longevity and moving units. That, however, will not deter them from selling you a base model in the future, should they decide that is in the best interest of their BUSINESS.

There is no denying inflationary factors. To further help illustrate the value of the dollar, if the cost of the last Scout produced in 1980 was $15,000 and the average price of a new vehicle has increased by 540% since then, you might expect to see a price tag of $81,000 on a Scout vehicle (precisely where some of Scout's real competition is priced).

But Scout is not giving us dollar bills, they are building us trucks and SUVs. There are many factors beyond simple inflation for consideration in this case which cannot be denied and must be considered (R&D, Technology Development, increased Safety Requirements, LII+ Driving, Connectivity, Battery & BMS SW, etc. etc. etc.). Could it be that you have simply miscalculated and used the value of the dollar to produce your desired price point? If so, that would help explain where you came up with an arbitrary target of $40,000 (since $15,000 in 1980 would equate roughly to $40,000 today).

CAN I GET AN AMEN!

 

[R1TVT]

Finally, on the "Business Decision" front: You are absolutely right that it is a business decision. My argument is simply that high margin multiplied by low volume (the "Niche" model) is a dangerous path for a brand that built a multi-billion dollar factory. To move 200,000 units a year, you can't just sell to the people who think $60k is a bargain; you have to sell to the people who used to buy $40k F-150s. If they abandon that base, they aren't making a smart business decision—they are just becoming another boutique brand like Rivian.

I’m getting some serious Stranger Things finale vibes here. It feels a bit like I’m arguing with a Hive Mind where the two of you are synced up to defend corporate pricing in perfect unison.

We can disagree. We also aren't living in a fictitious upsidedown world. Nobody comes out of the gate building 200,000 units immediately within a 12-month window when launching a new company. There is an evolution. Scout must begin with something, and that something doesn't seem to be what you want. You are conflating a date on the calendar with the lifecycle of a business, and that has eroded your argument. Today, Rivian may offer what you consider to be a "boutique" or higher-end model in the R1, but that does not make them a "boutique-only" company. It was a smart business decision to launch with something that the world had never seen before. You seem to be ignoring the fact that they are about to launch a more value-oriented model in the R2 to diversify and grow their business (and sell more units more profitably to a larger audience). Can Rivian (the company) offer value-priced AND higher-priced models at the same time to address the market needs of different buyers? Yes.

There is a time-space continuum effect to consider, which is multidimensional and represents a progression over time. I apologize, but your argument seems one-dimensional to me when taking these factors into consideration. But that is the beauty of a free society - we can agree to disagree. Maybe someone will come along and fill this void you see - a Ford Maverick Lariat Hybrid might be an option for your consideration (as one example of something that exists today and maybe comes closer to what you want). I think everyone here can agree that a new Scout is not for everyone - it's not supposed to be.

 

[tomgillotti]

CAN I GET AN AMEN!

Vecna...?

 

[tomgillotti]

We can disagree. We also aren't living in a fictitious upsidedown world. Nobody comes out of the gate building 200,000 units immediately within a 12-month window when launching a new company. There is an evolution. Scout must begin with something, and that something doesn't seem to be what you want. You are conflating a date on the calendar with the lifecycle of a business, and that has eroded your argument. Today, Rivian may offer what you consider to be a "boutique" or higher-end model in the R1, but that does not make them a "boutique-only" company. It was a smart business decision to launch with something that the world had never seen before. You seem to be ignoring the fact that they are about to launch a more value-oriented model in the R2 to diversify and grow their business (and sell more units more profitably to a larger audience). Can Rivian (the company) offer value-priced AND higher-priced models at the same time to address the market needs of different buyers? Yes.

There is a time-space continuum effect to consider, which is multidimensional and represents a progression over time. I apologize, but your argument seems one-dimensional to me when taking these factors into consideration. But that is the beauty of a free society - we can agree to disagree. Maybe someone will come along and fill this void you see - a Ford Maverick Lariat Hybrid might be an option for your consideration (as one example of something that exists today and maybe comes closer to what you want). I think everyone here can agree that a new Scout is not for everyone - it's not supposed to be.

I appreciate you sticking with the theme by bringing up the "time-space continuum," but I think your business physics are slightly off regarding the Rivian comparison. You are conflating the constraints of a standalone startup with the capabilities of a global giant. Rivian had to launch with a low-volume, high-price "halo" vehicle because they were building a supply chain from scratch and bleeding cash. They didn't have a choice. Scout is backed by the Volkswagen Group. They have immediate access to global logistics, massive capital, and component sharing that Rivian could only dream of. For a legacy giant to mimic the "struggling startup" pricing model isn't a smart evolution; it’s a failure to leverage their primary competitive advantage: Scale.

Regarding the factory volume, I never claimed they would hit 200,000 units on Day One. My point is about the ceiling. You don't build a factory with 200,000-unit capacity if your pricing strategy restricts you to a niche luxury audience. You don't build a stadium just to host a book club. If they price this truck at $60k+, they will never fill that factory, even in Year 5, because the pool of buyers at that price point is simply too shallow.

As for the Ford Maverick suggestion, that actually proves my "Missing Middle" argument perfectly. Your solution for someone who wants an affordable utility vehicle is to buy a unibody, front-wheel-drive-based crossover with a bed. That is exactly the problem. The industry has decided that if you want "Affordable," you get a car-based crossover (Maverick), and if you want "Real Truck" (Body-on-frame, lockers), you must pay luxury prices. I am simply asking Scout to break that binary and offer a real truck at a real price. We can agree to disagree, but please don't pretend that a Maverick is a substitute for a body-on-frame 4x4.

I was walking out of a grocery store just the other day and saw a table set up specifically for people struggling with price hikes. That is the real "market" right now—people are tapped out. Companies have realized they can use the cover of "inflation" to permanently raise the floor on pricing to protect record margins. My frustration is that the auto industry is doing the exact same thing. Scout has the power to break this cycle and offer a relief valve to that struggling market; instead, it feels like they are just deciding to join the club.

Again, if we stop looking at Scout as a "startup," we will see they *do* have the ability to be the breaker of the trend. The Hero... Eleven.

 

[R1TVT]

Your solution for someone who wants an affordable utility vehicle is to buy a unibody, front-wheel-drive-based crossover with a bed. That is exactly the problem. The industry has decided that if you want "Affordable," you get a car-based crossover (Maverick), and if you want "Real Truck" (Body-on-frame, lockers), you must pay luxury prices. I am simply asking Scout to break that binary and offer a real truck at a real price. We can agree to disagree, but please don't pretend that a Maverick is a substitute for a body-on-frame 4x4.

No, not my "solution" - this was posed as only a question. You are labeling $60K as "luxury pricing" - I can see your disconnect. Please don't misinterpret my question as suggesting that a Maverick is a Scout - certainly it is not.

 

[tomgillotti]

No, not my "solution" - this was posed as only a question. You are labeling $60K as "luxury pricing" - I can see your disconnect. Please don't misinterpret my question as suggesting that a Maverick is a Scout - certainly it is not.

If we have a disconnect, I think it lies in the definition of "luxury." You say $60,000 isn't luxury pricing, but I think that statement perfectly illustrates how effectively the auto industry has shifted the goalposts. The median household income in the US is roughly $75,000. When a vehicle costs nearly 80% of what an average family earns in an entire year, that is—by definition—a luxury purchase, regardless of whether it has massaging seats or not. Just five years ago, $60,000 was Mercedes E-Class or Corvette territory. The fact that we are now being told to accept that price tag for a "basic" utility vehicle is exactly the normalization of greed-flation I am fighting against.

As for the Maverick... even posing it as a question proves the void in the market. The fact that the only alternative you could think of to a $60k Scout is a unibody crossover shows that the actual middle ground—the $40k body-on-frame truck—has been wiped off the map. That is the vacuum I want Scout to fill, rather than just shrugging and accepting that "Real Trucks" are now reserved for the wealthy.

 

[R1TVT]

Perhaps a more noble pursuit in your crusade would be to expand beyond targeting Scout and simply conquer stagnating wage growth domestically (since not everyone wants a truck with lockers and body on frame construction)? This would increase your purchasing power.

 

[tomgillotti]

Perhaps a more noble pursuit in your crusade would be to expand beyond targeting Scout and simply conquer stagnating wage growth domestically (since not everyone wants a truck with lockers and body on frame construction)? This would increase your purchasing power.

View attachment 12568

I actually have to thank you for posting that graph because it proves my central thesis better than I ever could. Look closely at that green line—purchasing power has been effectively flat since 1978. Now, if you were to overlay a trend line for "Average Pickup Truck Price" on that same chart, it wouldn't be flat; it would be vertical. That divergence—where the product price skyrockets while the customer’s purchasing power stays flat—is exactly what I mean by the "Gentrification of Utility." You just illustrated perfectly why a $60,000 base price is disconnected from the reality of the American worker.

As for your suggestion that I should simply "conquer stagnating wage growth" domestically... that is honestly the most "Let them eat cake" argument I have heard on this forum yet. I’ll get right on fixing 40 years of complex macroeconomic policy and corporate wage suppression this afternoon. But in the meantime, while I’m busy solving the national economy, maybe Scout could just do their part by building a truck that fits the actual green line on your chart, rather than pricing it for a fantasy economy where everyone’s wages doubled. If their business plan relies on customers "increasing their purchasing power" just to buy a tool, they are going to run out of customers very quickly.

 

[R1TVT]

I’ll get right on fixing 40 years of complex macroeconomic policy and corporate wage suppression this afternoon.

Thank you. Now everyone can get what they want. Problem solved!

 

[tomgillotti]

Thank you. Now everyone can get what they want. Problem solved!

I’ll add "Fix National Economy" to the top of my checklist for tomorrow morning. But jokes aside, that graph really was the most important thing posted in this thread. It solidifies that the "market" isn't demanding $60k trucks—it is being crushed by them. We can either accept the defeatist view that "the economy is broken so trucks must be expensive," or we can ask manufacturers to innovate on cost just as hard as they innovate on screens and leather. I’m choosing the latter. If demanding a return to reality makes me the villain of this forum, I can live with that.

 

[speedrye]

To Tom's point:

 

[tomgillotti]

To Tom's point:

View attachment 12589

Thanks, Speedrye. You just visualized exactly what I’ve been trying to explain for days. That Red Line (F-150) is the "Gentrification of Utility" in a single image.

And to anticipate the counter-argument: Yes, all prices ticked up post-COVID (you can see the Purple and Green lines hook up at the end). But look at the gap that opened up before the pandemic. Between 2014 and 2019, while inflation was flat and the Camry remained affordable, the F-150 price was already going vertical. That proves this isn't just about "recent inflation" or "supply chains." It is a decade-long strategy by manufacturers to decouple truck prices from reality and turn them into luxury profit centers.

If you take that Red Line (Truck Prices) and overlay it on the "Stagnant Purchasing Power" graph posted earlier, you see the entire problem. The gap between those two lines isn't an "economic policy" to fix; it is a "corporate greed" issue for the industry to fix. That gap represents the millions of utility buyers who have been abandoned.

 

[R1TVT]

If demanding a return to reality makes me the villain of this forum, I can live with that.

Most everyone can get behind less expensive, better-equipped & more capable vehicles. But labeling people as "defeatists" when they may not be part of your crusade is just name-calling. I don't see you as a villain... I think people just share different perspectives and may not share yours precisely, nor look to Scout as being a primary target to change market dynamics. It's a bit odd, since the perspective of many here is that they actually ARE a catalyst for building high-quality vehicles at a more value-oriented entry point than some competitors, and that they have not yet announced plans for their second models, since we are so early in the company's lifecycle. Things happen incrementally. Maybe this will be an incremental step towards getting you closer to what you want.

 

[tomgillotti]

Most everyone can get behind less expensive, better-equipped & more capable vehicles. But labeling people as "defeatists" when they may not be part of your crusade is just name-calling. I don't see you as a villain... I think people just share different perspectives and may not share yours precisely, nor look to Scout as being a primary target to change market dynamics. It's a bit odd, since the perspective of many here is that they actually ARE a catalyst for building high-quality vehicles at a more value-oriented entry point than some competitors, and that they have not yet announced plans for their second models, since we are so early in the company's lifecycle. Things happen incrementally. Maybe this will be an incremental step towards getting you closer to what you want.

I think we need to distinguish between name-calling and describing a viewpoint. When I used the word "defeatist," I wasn't attacking anyone's character; I was referring to the specific willingness to shrug and accept that "this is just how things are now." That isn't an insult; it’s an observation of the exact consumer apathy that allows companies to keep raising prices. I’m not here to attack anyone personally, even though I’ve certainly been on the receiving end of plenty of actual name-calling in this thread just for suggesting a truck should be affordable.

Regarding your point about "incremental steps"—that logic works for a startup like Rivian that is learning to crawl, but it doesn't apply here. Scout is Volkswagen. They don't need a decade to "incrementally" figure out how to build a cost-effective vehicle; they literally invented the concept of the "People's Car." My frustration comes from the fact that many here seem to believe Scout is a "catalyst" for value by offering a $60k truck. The Wolf Street graph we just looked at proves that $60k isn't a disruption; it is the status quo. If Scout launches at that price, they aren't changing market dynamics; they are simply joining them. A true catalyst would be using their massive scale to drag that price curve back down to reality, not just finding a comfortable spot on the high end of it.

 

[speedrye]

I don't think the vehicle manufacturers are the main issue here, they're just following the buying trends and those trends are funding the rest of their business. I see a LOT of expensive trucks every day, being in the construction industry. The driving force here seems to be tax code and small businesses writing off their expenses. We often get calls from the accountant that we need to buy more business stuff to help out on our taxes. If I'm a small builder, I'm looking at that as an excuse to upgrade the work truck that serves double-duty as the family hauler after-hours. I don't have much equipment or many expenses otherwise, so why not splurge on my rolling office to reduce my tax liability? I really don't know if that applies to the rest of the country, but every contractor and subcontractor around here rolls up in $80k+ trucks and the construction industry is really booming in this end of the world. I see the same thing in other small businesses with luxury SUVs, cars, etc, so I suspect most of what has been driving up vehicle costs in recent years is that everybody and their brother has a small business and they're using them as tax shelters to buy nice cars.

 

[THil08]

I think we need to distinguish between name-calling and describing a viewpoint. When I used the word "defeatist," I wasn't attacking anyone's character; I was referring to the specific willingness to shrug and accept that "this is just how things are now." That isn't an insult; it’s an observation of the exact consumer apathy that allows companies to keep raising prices. I’m not here to attack anyone personally, even though I’ve certainly been on the receiving end of plenty of actual name-calling in this thread just for suggesting a truck should be affordable.

Regarding your point about "incremental steps"—that logic works for a startup like Rivian that is learning to crawl, but it doesn't apply here. Scout is Volkswagen. They don't need a decade to "incrementally" figure out how to build a cost-effective vehicle; they literally invented the concept of the "People's Car." My frustration comes from the fact that many here seem to believe Scout is a "catalyst" for value by offering a $60k truck. The Wolf Street graph we just looked at proves that $60k isn't a disruption; it is the status quo. If Scout launches at that price, they aren't changing market dynamics; they are simply joining them. A true catalyst would be using their massive scale to drag that price curve back down to reality, not just finding a comfortable spot on the high end of it.

WOW WOW WOW...

Scout Is Not Volkswagen, Volkswagen Is Not Scout. I always had a feeling you were an imposter. You most definitely work for the NADA after hearing "Scout is Volkswagen".

 

[THil08]

I don't think the vehicle manufacturers are the main issue here, they're just following the buying trends and those trends are funding the rest of their business. I see a LOT of expensive trucks every day, being in the construction industry. The driving force here seems to be tax code and small businesses writing off their expenses. We often get calls from the accountant that we need to buy more business stuff to help out on our taxes. If I'm a small builder, I'm looking at that as an excuse to upgrade the work truck that serves double-duty as the family hauler after-hours. I don't have much equipment or many expenses otherwise, so why not splurge on my rolling office to reduce my tax liability? I really don't know if that applies to the rest of the country, but every contractor and subcontractor around here rolls up in $80k+ trucks and the construction industry is really booming in this end of the world. I see the same thing in other small businesses with luxury SUVs, cars, etc, so I suspect most of what has been driving up vehicle costs in recent years is that everybody and their brother has a small business and they're using them as tax shelters to buy nice cars.

Very True!

 

[robothero]

Scout Motors, while part of the Volkswagen AG, is very specifically an independent company. It is not Volkswagen.