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

[maynard]

This is a great thread and really respectful (you don't often see that)... Thanks for all the information and viewpoints!

 

[bb00799]

Please consider that there is a $107.7BN total cost increase on imported parts going to the United States for our own Auto Industry. Despite being built in the USA, US auto manufacturers will feel real pain from Tariffs on everything from nuts to bolts to window components, to seats to aluminum.
View attachment 11937

Yes, you could argue VW already employs this strategy across their brand portfolio - offering value-oriented vehicles to drive volume, in addition to very high-end luxury brands within the VW umbrella.

Even companies like Rivian with niche (now luxury priced) vehicles can have a volume strategy underneath their own independent brand to DRIVE VOLUME & drive profits - that is what Rivan R2 launch is for, now that they are established.



Isolating the price differential based on kWh can be directly indicative of costs, but $18K is a random number. A 25 kWh delta is also arbitrary at this stage. My point is that you cannot look at EV Sedans and EV Trucks and expect EV truck pricing to be at parity. Also, and very importantly efficiency is not linear when it comes to consumption & power, impacting battery specs.


Do we? I see Scout as an independent OEM and incubator for VW to test & learn. Scout can be both. VW might also desire to break into the US Truck market. Considering that this may be part of a longer term VW Corp strategy, I see advantages to VW treating Scout like an innovation arm for their future strategy while also taking advantage of their buying power.

Treating Scout like a scrappy start-up (but one that has backing) is actually exciting. Starting with a clean sheet and not working off some unified VW platform and trying to fit the Terra or Traveler into a template is exactly what makes Scout exciting. It's one reason why Rivian was able to get traction with their R1 vehicle launch. I see pricing as having much more to do with capability. If Scout were positioning purely on value, I would argue that there would be a lot less excitement - the vehicles would not be considered as legitimate competitors for buyers cross-shopping the current line-up of EV trucks.

Lastly, it seems a bit strange for you to think that Scout would even consider changing their strategy, their pricing or their GTM plans based on your desire for a lower-priced / more value-oriented vehicle. I actually think that this "1st handshake" Scout gives the world is so critically important as they seek to re-establish the brand. As mentioned, the value play can always come later too. There's nothing stopping that from happening. I just don't see it based on the trucks we have seen, based on the builds, and I do believe that Scout has targeted a fair price point for launch, but we'll see what the configurator looks like when we get real production specs and configuration information.

Great points with the fact that even your base input costs are increasing, and if they have not yet....they will in the future no doubt.

Additionally the capital required to build the factory and R&D is astronomical. Scout has been spending cash on engineering and R&D while not selling anything yet. Their first years are going to be a "Rivian" where they just need to claw back everything they can. Hopefully the ~60k price point is enough where they can both ship products AND make a healthy product.

All that being said. Give me a great 60k car vs a meh 40k car. I have my fiancée's Outback as a backup.

 

[tomgillotti]

Please consider that there is a $107.7BN total cost increase on imported parts going to the United States for our own Auto Industry. Despite being built in the USA, US auto manufacturers will feel real pain from Tariffs on everything from nuts to bolts to window components, to seats to aluminum.
View attachment 11937

Yes, you could argue VW already employs this strategy across their brand portfolio - offering value-oriented vehicles to drive volume, in addition to very high-end luxury brands within the VW umbrella.

Even companies like Rivian with niche (now luxury priced) vehicles can have a volume strategy underneath their own independent brand to DRIVE VOLUME & drive profits - that is what Rivan R2 launch is for, now that they are established.



Isolating the price differential based on kWh can be directly indicative of costs, but $18K is a random number. A 25 kWh delta is also arbitrary at this stage. My point is that you cannot look at EV Sedans and EV Trucks and expect EV truck pricing to be at parity. Also, and very importantly efficiency is not linear when it comes to consumption & power, impacting battery specs.


Do we? I see Scout as an independent OEM and incubator for VW to test & learn. Scout can be both. VW might also desire to break into the US Truck market. Considering that this may be part of a longer term VW Corp strategy, I see advantages to VW treating Scout like an innovation arm for their future strategy while also taking advantage of their buying power.

Treating Scout like a scrappy start-up (but one that has backing) is actually exciting. Starting with a clean sheet and not working off some unified VW platform and trying to fit the Terra or Traveler into a template is exactly what makes Scout exciting. It's one reason why Rivian was able to get traction with their R1 vehicle launch. I see pricing as having much more to do with capability. If Scout were positioning purely on value, I would argue that there would be a lot less excitement - the vehicles would not be considered as legitimate competitors for buyers cross-shopping the current line-up of EV trucks.

Lastly, it seems a bit strange for you to think that Scout would even consider changing their strategy, their pricing or their GTM plans based on your desire for a lower-priced / more value-oriented vehicle. I actually think that this "1st handshake" Scout gives the world is so critically important as they seek to re-establish the brand. As mentioned, the value play can always come later too. There's nothing stopping that from happening. I just don't see it based on the trucks we have seen, based on the builds, and I do believe that Scout has targeted a fair price point for launch, but we'll see what the configurator looks like when we get real production specs and configuration information.

You raise some technically detailed points, and I appreciate the depth of the response. I want to zero in on one specific thing you said, because I think it highlights the fundamental philosophical difference in how we view this market.


1. The "Legitimacy" Trap


You wrote: "If Scout were positioning purely on value... the vehicles would not be considered as legitimate competitors."


This is exactly the mindset I’m trying to push back against. Since when does High Price = Legitimacy?


• The Ford F-150 is the most legitimate truck in history. It starts at roughly $38k.


• The original Scout was the definition of legitimate. It was cheap.


• The Willys Jeep won a war. It was cheap.


Somewhere along the line, American consumers were trained to believe that if a vehicle doesn't cost as much as a luxury German sedan, it can't possibly be a "serious" truck. That is marketing, not engineering. We shouldn't need a $60k price tag to feel "excited" about a product.


2. The Danger of the "Value Comes Later" Strategy


You mentioned Rivian’s strategy (Launch Luxury R1 first -> Launch Volume R2 later) as the template for Scout.


Here is the problem: Timing.


Rivian launched the R1 when they were the only game in town. They had zero competition.


Scout is launching in 2027.


By 2027, the Rivian R2 (targeted at $45k) will likely already be on the road.


If Scout launches a "First Handshake" vehicle at $60k into a market where their direct competitor (Rivian R2) is sitting at $45k, that isn't a "halo" launch. That is a strategic suicide.


They don't have the luxury of playing the "Start High" game because the market has already moved to the "Get Real" phase.


3. The Supply Chain & Tariff Reality


I don't deny the $107B impact on the industry. It’s real pain. But let’s do the napkin math.


Even if raw material tariffs add $3,000–$5,000 to the BOM (Bill of Materials) of a US-built car, that does not bridge the gap between a $42k high-tech vehicle and a $60k target.


We are being asked to absorb inefficiency, not just material costs. My argument is that because Scout is an "incubator" for VW (as you noted), they should be leveraging VW’s massive global logistics to solve that cost problem, not passing it 100% onto the customer.


4. Why speak up?


You asked why I think Scout would change their strategy based on a forum post.


Because corporations do listen when the noise is loud enough. (See: BMW removing subscription heated seats, or Ford reversing course on EV dealer mandates).


If we, the enthusiasts, signal that we are ready to pay $60k, they will happily charge us $65k.


But if we signal that the world has changed and we expect the efficiency of 2027 tech at a 2027 competitive price ($45k-$50k), they have to account for that demand.


I’m not asking for a discount on a luxury car. I’m asking for a utility vehicle to be priced like a utility vehicle.

 

[R1TVT]

You raise some technically detailed points, and I appreciate the depth of the response. I want to zero in on one specific thing you said, because I think it highlights the fundamental philosophical difference in how we view this market.


1. The "Legitimacy" Trap


You wrote: "If Scout were positioning purely on value... the vehicles would not be considered as legitimate competitors."


This is exactly the mindset I’m trying to push back against. Since when does High Price = Legitimacy?

I never said that high-price = legitimacy.

I stated that based specifically on the current EV Truck & SUV competition in the marketplace, AND based on what we have seen so far from Scout in terms of features, SW, innovation, capability and target production spec's, we are seeing a generally "value-forward", yet realistic target price point from Scout.

Again, comparisons to a base model For 150 (NON EV VERSION) are not helpful in this discussion. Scout has chosen not to drop a base model first, nor have they chosen to drop an ICE model.

The first Scout may not be the truck for everyone, but that doesn't mean that they won't have a truck with broader appeal in the future. You could also argue that brand reputation at launch with an under-performing, less exciting and less capable vehicle could prevent Scout from ever becoming an ongoing concern and legitimate competitor in the US OEM marketplace. Its OK though, we can agree to disagree. I'm just stating facts based on what we have seen from Scout and what we have seen from the rest of the market. Your desire for Scout to deliver a "utility vehicle to be priced like a utility vehicle" sounds like a desire for a Ford F-150 based model (ICE). Does that not work in your case?

 

[tomgillotti]

I never said that high-price = legitimacy.

I stated that based specifically on the current EV Truck & SUV competition in the marketplace, AND based on what we have seen so far from Scout in terms of features, SW, innovation, capability and target production spec's, we are seeing a generally "value-forward", yet realistic target price point from Scout.

Again, comparisons to a base model For 150 (NON EV VERSION) are not helpful in this discussion. Scout has chosen not to drop a base model first, nor have they chosen to drop an ICE model.

The first Scout may not be the truck for everyone, but that doesn't mean that they won't have a truck with broader appeal in the future. You could also argue that brand reputation at launch with an under-performing, less exciting and less capable vehicle could prevent Scout from ever becoming an ongoing concern and legitimate competitor in the US OEM marketplace. Its OK though, we can agree to disagree. I'm just stating facts based on what we have seen from Scout and what we have seen from the rest of the market. Your desire for Scout to deliver a "utility vehicle to be priced like a utility vehicle" sounds like a desire for a Ford F-150 based model (ICE). Does that not work in your case?

We can certainly agree to disagree, but I think this exchange highlights exactly why I started this thread.


You are analyzing the price based on the "Current Market" (what other overpriced EVs cost right now).


I am analyzing the price based on "Fundamental Value" (what a vehicle should cost to build and sell in a healthy economy).


1. The "Market Baseline" is Broken (The Boiling Frog)


You called the $60k target "realistic" and "value-forward." My frustration is that we have allowed the industry to shift the definition of "realistic" so far upward that we don't even recognize we are being gouged.


• In 2019, a $60,000 truck was a luxury item.


• In 2025, we are told $60,000 is "value-forward."


That isn't inflation; that is a reset of consumer expectations. We are the frogs in the boiling water, arguing that 210 degrees isn't that hot because the water next to us is 212 degrees. I’m refusing to accept that the water needs to be boiling at all.


2. The "ICE vs. EV" Parity Gap


You mentioned that comparing it to an ICE F-150 isn't helpful. I strongly disagree.


By 2027, Price Parity between ICE and EV is supposed to be the industry standard, not an anomaly.


If battery costs are dropping (which they are) and manufacturing is scaling (which it is), why are we still accepting that "Electric" automatically equals a $20,000 premium over "Gas"?


Telling me to "go buy an ICE F-150" if I want utility is accepting defeat. It’s saying, "The future is only for the wealthy; the working class can stay in the past." I don't accept that.


3. "Excitement" doesn't require "Expensive"


You argued that a lower-priced launch vehicle might be "under-performing" or "less exciting."


Since when does Capability = Luxury?


Some of the most "exciting" and capable vehicles in history (Wrangler, Scout 800, FJ40) were stripped-down, affordable, and rugged.


I’m not asking for a truck that is "less capable." I’m asking for a truck that prioritizes hardware (lockers, axles, range) over software and status.


The Bottom Line


This isn't just a Scout problem; it's an industry-wide hallucination that we are all participating in.


If we keep defending $60k as a "fair price" for a standard utility vehicle just because "everyone else is doing it," we are guaranteeing that prices will never come down.


I want Scout to be the brand that breaks the fever, not the one that capitalizes on it.

 

[R1TVT]

Your argument is really only flawed in forcing or "assigning" this value & utility task onto Scout, and in the sense that you are not acknowledging one other important variable, and that is time.

The US is behind other nations when it comes to EV development, infrastructure and adoption (which you have acknowledged by bringing China into your argument). The domestic reality that we face playing catch up is primarily due to the O&G lobby.

I see that you do acknowledge that there is an "ICE vs EV parity gap". You are asking for more value-oriented pricing based on a future time on the S-Curve (when there is actual parity). Since we have not reached that parity, trying to force a US OEM to value price ahead of parity may be where you have a disconnect.

You called the $60k target "realistic" and "value-forward." My frustration is that we have allowed the industry to shift the definition of "realistic" so far upward that we don't even recognize we are being gouged.

The industry still relatively new and needs to mature. Your lower "costs" may apply in China, but not yet here, because our costs domestically are still higher, and because EV's do not yet cost the same as ICE vehicles in the US. When they do, it will be easier to make your argument.

2. The "ICE vs. EV" Parity Gap


You mentioned that comparing it to an ICE F-150 isn't helpful. I strongly disagree.


By 2027, Price Parity between ICE and EV is supposed to be the industry standard, not an anomaly.

YES! This is my point exactly - we aren't there yet, and the US hasn't made it any easier to bridge that gap. Also *** NOTE the flattening of the line in 2025 under US NEV adoption. When the two lines meet and there is parity like there is in China, maybe we can expect to see more pricing parity between a Ford F-150 Lariat EV and a Ford F-150 Lariat ICE.

Telling me to "go buy an ICE F-150" if I want utility is accepting defeat. It’s saying, "The future is only for the wealthy; the working class can stay in the past." I don't accept that.

To be clear- I did not tell you to buy an ICE F-150, I asked if that worked for you. But now I understand - you don't want to pay any "price delta" for an EV vs an ICE vehicle today, you want to Fast-Forward pricing.

3. "Excitement" doesn't require "Expensive"


You argued that a lower-priced launch vehicle might be "under-performing" or "less exciting."


Since when does Capability = Luxury?

We agree here - I was referring to the general fact that less expensive vehicles GENERALLY have less capability and less features and could be considered less capable. I never once stated that "Capability = Luxury".

That is misconstruing the argument.

 

[tomgillotti]

Your argument is really only flawed in forcing or "assigning" this value & utility task onto Scout, and in the sense that you are not acknowledging one other important variable, and that is time.

The US is behind other nations when it comes to EV development, infrastructure and adoption (which you have acknowledged by bringing China into your argument). The domestic reality that we face playing catch up is primarily due to the O&G lobby.

I see that you do acknowledge that there is an "ICE vs EV parity gap". You are asking for more value-oriented pricing based on a future time on the S-Curve (when there is actual parity). Since we have not reached that parity, trying to force a US OEM to value price ahead of parity may be where you have a disconnect.



The industry still relatively new and needs to mature. Your lower "costs" may apply in China, but not yet here, because our costs domestically are still higher, and because EV's do not yet cost the same as ICE vehicles in the US. When they do, it will be easier to make your argument.

View attachment 11938


YES! This is my point exactly - we aren't there yet, and the US hasn't made it any easier to bridge that gap. Also *** NOTE the flattening of the line in 2025 under US NEV adoption. When the two lines meet and there is parity like there is in China, maybe we can expect to see more pricing parity between a Ford F-150 Lariat EV and a Ford F-150 Lariat ICE.

View attachment 11939


To be clear- I did not tell you to buy an ICE F-150, I asked if that worked for you. But now I understand - you don't want to pay any "price delta" for an EV vs an ICE vehicle today, you want to Fast-Forward pricing.



We agree here - I was referring to the general fact that less expensive vehicles GENERALLY have less capability and less features and could be considered less capable. I never once stated that "Capability = Luxury".

That is misconstruing the argument.

This is genuinely one of the best debates I’ve had anywhere, and I appreciate you challenging me on the timeline aspect. You’ve pinpointed the exact disconnect, but I think we are drawing opposite conclusions from it.


1. The "Time" Variable (Why 2027 Matters)


You argued that I am trying to "Fast-Forward pricing" to a future point on the S-Curve that hasn't arrived yet.


You are absolutely right. And that is exactly what Scout must do.


We aren't discussing a vehicle that is launching today in 2025. We are discussing a vehicle that starts production in 2027 and hits volume in 2028.


If Scout prices this truck based on the inefficiencies and parity gaps of 2025, they will be obsolete the moment they launch.


They need to price for the market of 2027/2028—a market where analysts (and your own charts) predict parity will finally be real. If they launch a $60k truck into a 2028 market where battery costs have settled and parity exists, they will be the "Blockbuster Video" of trucks: pricing for a world that no longer exists.


2. The "Assigning the Task" Argument


You said I’m "forcing" this value task onto Scout. I see it differently: I’m pointing out a gaping hole in the strategy.


You mentioned the US is behind due to factors like the O&G lobby. I agree. The headwinds are real.


But that is precisely why VW Group is the only one who can fix it. A startup (Rivian) can’t fight the O&G lobby or supply chain deficits. But VW Group? They are the second-largest automaker on the planet. They have the muscle to force parity in the US market ahead of schedule.


3. The "Niceties" are not Luxury Items anymore


I want to clarify my position on "Luxury vs. Capability."


I am not asking for a stripped-down vehicle. In 2027, things like great infotainment, comfortable seats, and premium touchpoints shouldn't cost a fortune. Those are commodities now.


Look at the Xiaomi example again: That car has incredible tech, Nappa leather, and flagship screens for $42k.


My argument is that $60,000 should be the destination, not the starting line.


• $40k Base: Should be a fully capable, comfortable, high-tech truck


• $60k Top Trim: Should be the monster


Right now, Scout seems to be positioning the Base at the price where the Top Trim should be. That is the disconnect. We shouldn't have to choose between "Nice" and "Affordable"—modern manufacturing allows for both.


The Bottom Line


I’m not asking them to lose money today. I’m asking them to skate to where the puck is going to be in 2027.


If they assume "Parity is impossible" and price high, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But if they bet on their own scale and aim for $40k, they force the parity to happen.

 

[R1TVT]

I do wish you luck on fast forwarding the space time continuum. To be fair and since you are new to this forum, we've had some discussion regarding whether or not Scout's 2027 price targets can hold. They have been skating toward a future target with 2027 in mind.

Hopefully they can evade a pandemic, a supply chain explosion and any global macro-economic cross-checking on their way to the puck.

I feel like I may have just escaped a battle of wits.

 

[robothero]

Unfortunately under the current US administration, the driving force is heavily against price parity by your anticipated timeline.

 

[J Alynn]

I believe many of the reservations are based on "vanity and emotions" and not on facts since much of that data is unknown for the Scouts at this time. My personal reasons for reserving a Scout was from growing up with 2 Scouts. The first was my dad's Scout 800 that I ended up driving for many years to school and college. The second is my 1979 Scout II that is the first vehicle I purchased and still hanging onto. With the news of the Scout being reborn, those emotions from the past definitely kicked in, but not because of it being an EV. That was actually a turn off for me out of my ignorance, but the reveal emphasizing "GAS" Harvester sealed the deal and I made my reservation. If the Scout w/Harvester had been available the following week, that is what I would have purchased, but why? Likely, "vanity and emotions" along with a sizable amount of ignorance. After learning my use case doesn't come close to driving my decision to go with the Harvester, I have switched to BEV. So, how many others made their reservations similarly? I don't know.
I guess my point is that an individual consumer's decision on car purchases aren't necessarily driven by fact or by value. I think in the end, that drives car prices up for all of us. It was evident after the federal tax incentives ended, that EVs were overpriced but prior to the end of those incentives there was a rush to get in on a "deal". I think many EVs are still overpriced.
I also wonder if the BEV Scout will be carrying some of the R&D cost of the Harvester. And also imagining the target base price for the Scout is the BEV and the Harvester being several thousand$ more?

Very similar but I had been on here since nearly day 1 so I knew more than I think most people did. And yes, I noted before I was frustrated when I first learned it was BEV and now that I’ve stayed active here I’ve realized BEV works for me

 

[tomgillotti]

Unfortunately under the current US administration, the driving force is heavily against price parity by your anticipated timeline.

That is a fair point, and I won't pretend the political headwinds aren't real. Tariffs, shifting regulations, and policy changes absolutely complicate the math.

But here is my counter:

A resilient business strategy cannot rely on "perfect political conditions" to succeed.

If Scout’s ability to hit a competitive price point hinges entirely on which administration is in power, then they have a fragile business model.

1. The "Global Reality" overrides "Local Politics"

While the US administration influences the speed of adoption, they cannot stop the physics of manufacturing.

Global battery prices are crashing because of global supply and demand, not because of US Executive Orders. Efficiency in manufacturing is improving everywhere.

Great companies (like Toyota in the 80s or Tesla in the 2010s) figured out how to deliver value despite hostile regulations or trade barriers. They didn't use the government as an excuse to overcharge; they innovated around the hurdles.

2. VW’s "Cheat Code"

This brings me back to the scale argument. If Scout were a tiny startup, I would agree with you—the administration’s policies might crush them.

But this is VW Group. They have the resources to localize supply chains, lobby effectively, and absorb temporary tariff hits to capture market share.

They are building the SC factory specifically to immunize themselves against these political variables.

The Bottom Line

We can't let "The Administration" become the new "Supply Chain" excuse.

There will always be a political reason to raise prices. I simply believe that Scout has the muscle to overcome those headwinds and deliver a $40k truck—if they choose to prioritize market domination over short-term margins.

 

[robothero]

I think it's better to think of the journey to price parity as a long stretch of road with a number of traffic lights. The current administration is doing their absolute best to make sure we hit every single red light. We're still going to reach out destination, but you need to temper your expectations as to how long it's going to take to get there, and weaving in between lanes isn't going to help.

American industry since the 80s has proven time and time again that unless there is an incentive to change, they're going to inch along in whatever direction is going to make them the most money, and early adoption to aggressive EV pricing isn't where the money is.

 

[robothero]

Also important to note that Tesla heavily leveraged government incentives and loopholes to allow them to aggressively price their vehicles until they gained enough market share for it to not matter anymore.

 

[tomgillotti]

I think it's better to think of the journey to price parity as a long stretch of road with a number of traffic lights. The current administration is doing their absolute best to make sure we hit every single red light. We're still going to reach out destination, but you need to temper your expectations as to how long it's going to take to get there, and weaving in between lanes isn't going to help.

American industry since the 80s has proven time and time again that unless there is an incentive to change, they're going to inch along in whatever direction is going to make them the most money, and early adoption to aggressive EV pricing isn't where the money is.

You make a fair point about the timelines, but I want to step back from the specific comparisons (Rivian, etc.) because I think they distract from the root issue.

The "New Normal" is the Problem

My hesitation to accept the $60k price point isn't because I'm comparing it to a specific competitor; it's because I’m looking at the macro-economic shift since 2020.

We are being told by the entire industry (not just Scout) that the "Floor" for a capable vehicle has permanently risen by $20,000.


• 2019: You could buy a very capable, well-equipped 4x4 for $40k-$45k.

• 2025: We are told that $60k is "Value Pricing."


Why I push back:

I don't believe the cost of manufacturing has truly risen 40-50% in five years. I believe the industry realized during the supply chain crisis that people would pay $60k if they had no other choice, and now they are refusing to lower the bar back down.

They are pricing based on "What the market will bear" (maximum pain tolerance), not "Cost plus reasonable margin."

The Scout Opportunity

This is why I am so vocal about Scout specifically.

They have a clean sheet. They have VW backing. They have a massive factory.

If anyone can break this cycle of "Artificial Inflation" and offer a $40k vehicle that resets the market to sane levels, it’s them.

If they just look at the inflated market and say, "Well, everyone else is charging $65k, so $60k is a deal," then they aren't disrupting anything. They are just joining the cartel.


*I want them to be the disruptor.*

 

[robothero]

• 2019: You could buy a very capable, well-equipped 4x4 for $40k-$45k.

This doesn't carry over to the EV space in 2019. Admittedly, SUV EVs were pretty uncommon at that point, but the ones that were available generally pushed above 75k (Audi and Tesla). There was much more in the crossover space, but I don't think I'd ever do a comparison of like... a Solterra and the Traveler.

2025's segmentation isnt much better. There are definitely more options out there, but when you're looking directly at the Traveler size-segment competitors, 60k is still on the lower end and we're looking 2-3 years in the future for that price. So it very much falls into the "Value Pricing" bucket.

 

[tomgillotti]

This doesn't carry over to the EV space in 2019. Admittedly, SUV EVs were pretty uncommon at that point, but the ones that were available generally pushed above 75k (Audi and Tesla). There was much more in the crossover space, but I don't think I'd ever do a comparison of like... a Solterra and the Traveler.

2025's segmentation isnt much better. There are definitely more options out there, but when you're looking directly at the Traveler size-segment competitors, 60k is still on the lower end and we're looking 2-3 years in the future for that price. So it very much falls into the "Value Pricing" bucket.

You make a great point about the danger of comparing specific vehicles. And frankly, I want to clarify my position because I think we are falling into a trap the industry wants us to fall into.


I’m hesitant to compare the Scout to a Rivian, or even a Bronco, because that implies that their current prices are valid. They aren't.


If we say, "Scout should cost $60k because a comparable Rivian is $70k," we are just validating a market that has become completely detached from reality.


1. The "Wool Over Our Eyes" (The Powertrain Tax)


The real trick being played on us is the idea that an Electric Powertrain is a luxury tier that automatically justifies a $15k-$20k markup over a gas engine.


We need to stop viewing "ICE" and "EV" as different species of vehicle. They are just different propulsion options.


• Heavy Duty Trucks: You pay a ~$9k premium to upgrade from Gas to Diesel. We accept that because the hardware costs more.


• EVs: They want us to pay a $20k premium to swap a Gas Engine for a Battery.


But here is the reality check: By 2027, that hardware cost delta is effectively zero.


Gartner and BloombergNEF both predict that by 2027, the cost to manufacture an EV will be lower than a comparable ICE vehicle (due to battery prices crashing and the complexity of modern emissions-compliant engines).


2. The "Bundling" Trap


The reason they get away with this is by "Bundling."


They refuse to sell us the EV powertrain without also forcing us to buy the Luxury Interior, the Glass Roof, and the 20-inch wheels.


They are telling us: "If you want the future (Electric), you have to pay for the Status Symbol package."


That is the "wool" being pulled over our eyes. They are using the powertrain as a gatekeeper to force us into higher-margin luxury trims.


3. "Powertrain Neutrality"


This is why I refuse to accept $60k as a "fair" starting price.


In a healthy market (free of this artificial inflation), a utility vehicle should cost roughly the same regardless of what fuel makes it move.


If a base 4-Door SUV costs $40k to build with a Twin-Turbo V6, 10-speed transmission, and complex emissions system... then it should cost roughly $40k to build with a battery pack and two motors in 2027.


The Bottom Line


I’m not asking Scout to be "cheap." I’m asking for Powertrain Neutrality.


Stop treating the battery like it's a diamond-encrusted luxury feature. It’s just a fuel tank. Treat it like one, and price the truck accordingly.

 

[cyure]

This doesn't carry over to the EV space in 2019. Admittedly, SUV EVs were pretty uncommon at that point, but the ones that were available generally pushed above 75k (Audi and Tesla). There was much more in the crossover space, but I don't think I'd ever do a comparison of like... a Solterra and the Traveler.

2025's segmentation isnt much better. There are definitely more options out there, but when you're looking directly at the Traveler size-segment competitors, 60k is still on the lower end and we're looking 2-3 years in the future for that price. So it very much falls into the "Value Pricing" bucket.

I’ve been following along. I appreciate the respectful nature of the dialog. Here is all I would add.

I have seen these concepts in person. I know these aren’t base, but even taking it down to a “base” trim
I don’t see these being able to go down to $40,000, especially with their size. To get down to that price you would have to take out too much and at that point I would not be interested.

Heck at this point the smallest wheel is an 18” and the smallest tire is a 33”. That alone you don’t see on a $40,000 SUV.

And one other comment. They have been consistent throughout this whole time that they are pricing these at $20,000 less than their competitors. I just don’t see how we would expect them to come in a full $40,000 less than their competitors and not lose so much in features, etc that they end up being so far off of what we have seen in the concepts that people are disappointed.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[J Alynn]

Also important to note that Tesla heavily leveraged government incentives and loopholes to allow them to aggressively price their vehicles until they gained enough market share for it to not matter anymore.

That is completely true and I was thinking the exact same thing. They also managed to work various states to allow DTC which now no longer offer it to other EV manufacturers which hey-great for them, they isolated the competition but that also allows them to hold pricing lower-though I question if they really do

 

[J Alynn]

You make a fair point about the timelines, but I want to step back from the specific comparisons (Rivian, etc.) because I think they distract from the root issue.

The "New Normal" is the Problem

My hesitation to accept the $60k price point isn't because I'm comparing it to a specific competitor; it's because I’m looking at the macro-economic shift since 2020.

We are being told by the entire industry (not just Scout) that the "Floor" for a capable vehicle has permanently risen by $20,000.


• 2019: You could buy a very capable, well-equipped 4x4 for $40k-$45k.

• 2025: We are told that $60k is "Value Pricing."


Why I push back:

I don't believe the cost of manufacturing has truly risen 40-50% in five years. I believe the industry realized during the supply chain crisis that people would pay $60k if they had no other choice, and now they are refusing to lower the bar back down.

They are pricing based on "What the market will bear" (maximum pain tolerance), not "Cost plus reasonable margin."

The Scout Opportunity

This is why I am so vocal about Scout specifically.

They have a clean sheet. They have VW backing. They have a massive factory.

If anyone can break this cycle of "Artificial Inflation" and offer a $40k vehicle that resets the market to sane levels, it’s them.

If they just look at the inflated market and say, "Well, everyone else is charging $65k, so $60k is a deal," then they aren't disrupting anything. They are just joining the cartel.


*I want them to be the disruptor.*

I can’t argue your points but the question remains-why? Why should Scout be a disrupter? It’s a business that wants to succeed and grow. Their employees took a leap of faith and will have 5 years + experience with Scout and they should prosper. You don’t see oil and gas cutting prices buy 30% (which they could) to be disruptors. I don’t like the higher prices but market will support it if it is desirable. And to be fair-not a single person at scout has said what $60K will offer. They’ve implied it won’t be stripped but who knows-it could come with 80% of the things everyone upgrades anyway and save the price gouging. Wouldn’t that be a disruption? I think so and I’d applaud them all day long for it

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

Scout Motors will always strive to make our vehicles as cost-effective as possible while maintaining a strong value proposition. The disparity between ICE and EV vehicles is still very real in this market. China subsidizes its automotive market heavily (reported $47B+ in 2025 alone) which gives Chinese manufacturers the ability to offer vehicles at very low cost. We don't have that luxury here. We have volume purchasing on our side from VW Group, where we can use it (which is great). However, only if we can localize in North America (limiting parts somewhat) and only for a certain percentage of the vehicle since our trucks are built on a brand new platform that requires a lot of unique pieces - solid-rear axles with integrated power unit, body on frame construction, EREV tech and on and on.

We remain committed to offering the best value proposition we can. But we aren't in a position to profitably sell a $40k truck at this time. As volumes go up for EV tech across the board (electric motors, inverters, control units, battery tech and chemistry and more) we expect costs to come down. We also plan to expand our vehicle portfolio in the long-term future, opening up options to a lot of interesting models and price points.