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

[tomgillotti]

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.

I really appreciate the "boots on the ground" perspective. Since you’ve seen the metal in person and I haven't, I definitely defer to you on the physical presence of the truck. It sounds massive, which is exactly what we want.


But I do want to push back gently on the idea that "Size" and "Tires" are what drive the price to $60k.


1. The "Big Tire" Fallacy


You mentioned that the smallest tire is a 33" and the wheel is 18", and that "you don't see that on a $40k SUV."


Actually, you do.


• Jeep Wrangler Willys: Comes standard with 33-inch tires (LT285/70R17). Starting Price? ~$40,000.


• Ford Bronco Big Bend: Comes with 32s (very close). Starting Price? ~$40,000.


The cost difference for an OEM to buy a 33" tire vs. a 30" tire is negligible—maybe $20-$40 per corner at their volume. It’s a design choice, not a major cost driver. We shouldn't let them convince us that "Big Tires" = "Luxury Price."


2. Sheet Metal is Cheap; Batteries are Expensive


You noted the sheer size of the vehicle as a reason it can't be $40k.


Here is the manufacturing secret: Air and Steel are cheap.


Making a vehicle physically larger (a few inches wider/longer) costs pennies in stamped steel. The real cost drivers are the Battery, Motors, and Electronics.


If Scout uses a standard-range LFP battery (cheaper/durable) in a large body, there is no engineering reason it can't hit $40k-$45k. They don't have to shrink the truck to lower the price; they just have to restrain the "tech bloat."


3. The "$20k Less" Trap


You brought up Scout’s claim that they will be "$20,000 less than competitors."


This is the marketing trap I’m worried about.


If the "Competitor" is a $80,000 Rivian R1T, then Scout pricing at $60,000 fulfills their promise.


But is an $80k Rivian a valid baseline? I argue it isn't.


Rivian is priced as a luxury boutique item. If Scout benchmarks themselves against an inflated luxury product, they will just offer us a "slightly cheaper luxury product."


I want them to benchmark against the Ford F-150 and Toyota 4Runner (the real volume leaders), not the Rivian.


The Bottom Line


I’m with you—I don't want a "gutted" vehicle either. I don't want manual windows.


But I believe we can have a large, 33-inch-tire-wearing, modern truck for $45k if Scout focuses on hardware scale rather than software gimmicks. The Wrangler proves the math is possible; Scout just has to choose to do it.

 

[cyure]

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.

Thanks Jamie!

 

[tomgillotti]

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.

First off, I want to say thank you for your response! I genuinely appreciate the transparency. It proves that Scout is listening, which is why we are all here.

I accept your point about China’s subsidies ($47B is a staggering number) and I understand that you are fighting with one hand tied behind your back regarding US supply chains.

However, I want to respectfully push back on the strategy regarding the Platform and the Volume Paradox, because I fear there is a circular logic here that puts the brand at risk.

1. The "Unique Platform" Cost Paradox

You mentioned that the localized, unique platform (Solid Rear Axle, BoF) drives up the cost.

As an enthusiast, I love that you chose a Solid Rear Axle (SRA). But historically, SRA technology is simpler and cheaper to manufacture than the complex Independent Rear Suspension (IRS) found on nearly every other $60k EV.

• The Flaw: If we are using "simple, robust, heritage technology" (Body-on-Frame, Solid Axle), why is the result a higher price tag?

• We shouldn't be paying a "Complexity Premium" for hardware that is prized for its simplicity. If the platform is unique, it should be uniquely efficient, not uniquely expensive.

2. The Volume Chicken-and-Egg

You stated: "As volumes go up... we expect costs to come down."

This is the core of my concern.

• You need High Volume to get Low Costs.

• But you are setting a High Price ($60k), which guarantees Low Volume.


You cannot achieve the economies of scale needed to lower battery/motor pricing if you launch as a niche luxury product. Ford F-150s are cheap to build because they sell 700,000 of them.

If Scout launches at $60k, you limit your volume to the top 10% of earners. That limits your purchasing power, which keeps your costs high.

The only way to break that cycle is to price for Volume on Day 1 ($40k-$45k) and force the scale to happen.


3. The "Long-Term" Risk

You mentioned expanding the portfolio to interesting price points in the "long-term future."

The danger is that the market moves fast. By the time the "Long-Term Affordable Scout" arrives, Rivian (R2), Ford (Skunkworks EV), and others will have already captured the $40k volume segment.

Scout has the brand equity to own that segment now. I’d hate to see you cede the "People's Truck" territory to competitors while chasing margins in the luxury tier.


Bottom Line:

We are rooting for you. We want this factory in SC to be humming 24/7. But we believe the path to that "humming factory" is a price point that fills the order books, not one that maximizes margin per unit.

Thanks again for chiming in.

 

[cyure]

I really appreciate the "boots on the ground" perspective. Since you’ve seen the metal in person and I haven't, I definitely defer to you on the physical presence of the truck. It sounds massive, which is exactly what we want.


But I do want to push back gently on the idea that "Size" and "Tires" are what drive the price to $60k.


1. The "Big Tire" Fallacy


You mentioned that the smallest tire is a 33" and the wheel is 18", and that "you don't see that on a $40k SUV."


Actually, you do.


• Jeep Wrangler Willys: Comes standard with 33-inch tires (LT285/70R17). Starting Price? ~$40,000.


• Ford Bronco Big Bend: Comes with 32s (very close). Starting Price? ~$40,000.


The cost difference for an OEM to buy a 33" tire vs. a 30" tire is negligible—maybe $20-$40 per corner at their volume. It’s a design choice, not a major cost driver. We shouldn't let them convince us that "Big Tires" = "Luxury Price."


2. Sheet Metal is Cheap; Batteries are Expensive


You noted the sheer size of the vehicle as a reason it can't be $40k.


Here is the manufacturing secret: Air and Steel are cheap.


Making a vehicle physically larger (a few inches wider/longer) costs pennies in stamped steel. The real cost drivers are the Battery, Motors, and Electronics.


If Scout uses a standard-range LFP battery (cheaper/durable) in a large body, there is no engineering reason it can't hit $40k-$45k. They don't have to shrink the truck to lower the price; they just have to restrain the "tech bloat."


3. The "$20k Less" Trap


You brought up Scout’s claim that they will be "$20,000 less than competitors."


This is the marketing trap I’m worried about.


If the "Competitor" is a $80,000 Rivian R1T, then Scout pricing at $60,000 fulfills their promise.


But is an $80k Rivian a valid baseline? I argue it isn't.


Rivian is priced as a luxury boutique item. If Scout benchmarks themselves against an inflated luxury product, they will just offer us a "slightly cheaper luxury product."


I want them to benchmark against the Ford F-150 and Toyota 4Runner (the real volume leaders), not the Rivian.


The Bottom Line


I’m with you—I don't want a "gutted" vehicle either. I don't want manual windows.


But I believe we can have a large, 33-inch-tire-wearing, modern truck for $45k if Scout focuses on hardware scale rather than software gimmicks. The Wrangler proves the math is possible; Scout just has to choose to do it.

Having had a Wrangler for 12 going on 13 years and having test driven multiple Wranglers in the last couple years and spending hours with the Scout concepts at Nats the Scout just feels different.

I’m all in at their stated price.

 

[tomgillotti]

Having had a Wrangler for 12 going on 13 years and having test driven multiple Wranglers in the last couple years and spending hours with the Scout concepts at Nats the Scout just feels different.

I’m all in at their stated price.

I love that you brought this up, because I relate to this more than you know.

I used to own a 2013 Rubicon, lifted on 35s. I absolutely loved that thing. It was a beast.

But here is the important context: In 2013, a Rubicon Unlimited had an MSRP of around $35,000.

Even adjusted for inflation, that is roughly $48,000 in today’s money.

1. The "Jeep Warning"

You mentioned that you are "all in" at the current price because the Scout feels premium.

But Jeep is actually the perfect cautionary tale for exactly what I am worried about.

• In 2013, Jeeps were attainable, rugged, and sold like hotcakes because the value was undeniable.

• In 2024/2025, Jeep tried to push the Wrangler into the "Luxury Tier" (pricing them at $60k-$70k).

• The Result: Jeep sales have cratered. They alienated their core base to chase "Premium Margins," and now they are drowning in unsold inventory.

2. "Premium Feel" vs. "Premium Tax"

I agree with you—the Scout concepts feel amazing.

But I would argue that Great Design shouldn't cost $20k more than Lazy Design.

It costs the same amount of money to stamp a beautiful fender as it does to stamp an ugly one. We shouldn't confuse "It looks/feels amazing" with "It must be expensive to build." That is the mental trap they want us in.


The Bottom Line

I’m glad you are ready to buy—seriously, we need early adopters to launch the brand.

But I don't want Scout to become the 2025 Jeep (overpriced, sitting on lots). I want them to be the 2013 Jeep (attainable, beloved, everywhere).

I want a truck I can use, not just one I have to "stomach" the payment for.

 

[cyure]

I love that you brought this up, because I relate to this more than you know.

I used to own a 2013 Rubicon, lifted on 35s. I absolutely loved that thing. It was a beast.

But here is the important context: In 2013, a Rubicon Unlimited had an MSRP of around $35,000.

Even adjusted for inflation, that is roughly $48,000 in today’s money.

1. The "Jeep Warning"

You mentioned that you are "all in" at the current price because the Scout feels premium.

But Jeep is actually the perfect cautionary tale for exactly what I am worried about.

• In 2013, Jeeps were attainable, rugged, and sold like hotcakes because the value was undeniable.

• In 2024/2025, Jeep tried to push the Wrangler into the "Luxury Tier" (pricing them at $60k-$70k).

• The Result: Jeep sales have cratered. They alienated their core base to chase "Premium Margins," and now they are drowning in unsold inventory.

2. "Premium Feel" vs. "Premium Tax"

I agree with you—the Scout concepts feel amazing.

But I would argue that Great Design shouldn't cost $20k more than Lazy Design.

It costs the same amount of money to stamp a beautiful fender as it does to stamp an ugly one. We shouldn't confuse "It looks/feels amazing" with "It must be expensive to build." That is the mental trap they want us in.


The Bottom Line

I’m glad you are ready to buy—seriously, we need early adopters to launch the brand.

But I don't want Scout to become the 2025 Jeep (overpriced, sitting on lots). I want them to be the 2013 Jeep (attainable, beloved, everywhere).

I want a truck I can use, not just one I have to "stomach" the payment for.

Consumers know what the starting price is and they have 130,000 reservations and that number was from a while ago. It’s certainly more by now.

 

[tomgillotti]

Consumers know what the starting price is and they have 130,000 reservations and that number was from a while ago. It’s certainly more by now.

I hear you on the reservation count, but we need to be careful not to confuse "Interest" with "Commitment."

The Conversion Reality:
History shows that a $100 refundable deposit converts at a surprisingly low rate once the final price is revealed.

• Tesla Cybertruck: Had 1M+ reservations. Estimates show a tiny fraction actually converted to orders once the $39k promise turned into a $60k-$100k reality.

• Ford Lightning: Saw similar drop-offs when prices hiked.


$100 is "Curiosity," not a Sale.
Asking people to put down the cost of a nice dinner ($100) is easy. Asking them to sign a $60,000 finance contract is a different story.

 

[robothero]

One thing that you are conveniently skipping over in this entire discussion is that the modern ICE engine has had over 100 years of incremental progress, improvements, and manufacturing efficiency gains.

Electric Vehicles don’t even have a quarter of that, and no two are manufactured the same way.

This may not seem like a huge deal to you, but I’d wager that this creates a sizable price discrepancy right off the bat, which is why multiple people in this thread have been trying to illuminate that you need to stop comparing EVs to ICEs when it comes to price.


As a complete aside, and I don’t mean this to be crass, but are you using a GPT to write your messages?

 

[tomgillotti]

One thing that you are conveniently skipping over in this entire discussion is that the modern ICE engine has had over 100 years of incremental progress, improvements, and manufacturing efficiency gains.

Electric Vehicles don’t even have a quarter of that, and no two are manufactured the same way.

This may not seem like a huge deal to you, but I’d wager that this creates a sizable price discrepancy right off the bat, which is why multiple people in this thread have been trying to illuminate that you need to stop comparing EVs to ICEs when it comes to price.


As a complete aside, and I don’t mean this to be crass, but are you using a GPT to write your messages?

I don’t take the question as crass at all—it’s a fair question given the length of these replies! (More on that in a second).

First, on the "100 Years of ICE" point:

You are absolutely right that ICE has had a century of refinement. But I would argue that "100 years of progress" has actually become a financial liability, not an asset.

• ICE has hit the wall: To squeeze that last 5% of efficiency out of a gas engine to meet modern emissions standards, manufacturers have to add turbos, direct injection, 10-speed transmissions, and complex exhaust scrubbers. ICE manufacturing has peaked in complexity.

• EVs are structurally simple: An EV powertrain has roughly 20 moving parts compared to 2,000+ in an ICE.

• The "Newness" Myth: We aren't in 2012 anymore. Tesla, BYD, and others have proven that with Gigacasting and vertical integration, you can build an EV faster and cheaper than a gas car today.

My point remains: If Scout (backed by VW) claims they can't match the manufacturing efficiency of a legacy ICE line, that is a failure of their process, not a limitation of the physics.


As for the "GPT" comment:

No, I'm not a bot. But I can see why you’d think that with the formatting.

To be honest, I write this way because I’ve spent the last few years in intense family court battles fighting for my son (US and foreign court... Long story). When you are in that environment, you learn very quickly that if you aren't precise, structured, and thorough with your arguments, you lose.

That "mode" just sort of bleeds over into how I write about everything now—even trucks.

 

[J Alynn]

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.

Thanks for chiming in @Jamie@ScoutMotors

 

[J Alynn]

I don’t take the question as crass at all—it’s a fair question given the length of these replies! (More on that in a second).

First, on the "100 Years of ICE" point:

You are absolutely right that ICE has had a century of refinement. But I would argue that "100 years of progress" has actually become a financial liability, not an asset.

• ICE has hit the wall: To squeeze that last 5% of efficiency out of a gas engine to meet modern emissions standards, manufacturers have to add turbos, direct injection, 10-speed transmissions, and complex exhaust scrubbers. ICE manufacturing has peaked in complexity.

• EVs are structurally simple: An EV powertrain has roughly 20 moving parts compared to 2,000+ in an ICE.

• The "Newness" Myth: We aren't in 2012 anymore. Tesla, BYD, and others have proven that with Gigacasting and vertical integration, you can build an EV faster and cheaper than a gas car today.

My point remains: If Scout (backed by VW) claims they can't match the manufacturing efficiency of a legacy ICE line, that is a failure of their process, not a limitation of the physics.


As for the "GPT" comment:

No, I'm not a bot. But I can see why you’d think that with the formatting.

To be honest, I write this way because I’ve spent the last few years in intense family court battles fighting for my son (US and foreign court... Long story). When you are in that environment, you learn very quickly that if you aren't precise, structured, and thorough with your arguments, you lose.

That "mode" just sort of bleeds over into how I write about everything now—even trucks.

Well ultimately you can see @Jamie@ScoutMotors posted a response as a rep for SM and head entertainer in this hunger games battle field so at least you have a better sense on SM’s stance on the matter. I enjoy the debate but seeing Jamie’s response is enough for me to know where they stand so I’ll bow out of this debate gracefully. On to more enjoyable topics like Christmas trees-Why is nobody posting their Christmas trees.

 

[cyure]

Well ultimately you can see @Jamie@ScoutMotors posted a response as a rep for SM and head entertainer in this hunger games battle field so at least you have a better sense on SM’s stance on the matter. I enjoy the debate but seeing Jamie’s response is enough for me to know where they stand so I’ll bow out of this debate gracefully. On to more enjoyable topics like Christmas trees-Why is nobody posting their Christmas trees.

I concur. I already posted mine. Christmas trees. Outdoor light shows. Kwanza, Hanukkah. Post your holiday decor.

 

[J Alynn]

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.

I will simply state that with some of the longest tenure on this forum, having been to the reveal, been active in MANY conversations here and having @Jamie@ScoutMotors who represents a multi-billion dollar company and does so with more transparency than I’ve ever seen in an automotive company as well as many other companies I want to believe they are holding true to keeping the vehicle starting price under $60K and I fully believe they are skating to the puck. The tariff impact has yet to hit. Prices will continue to climb and we haven’t seen the full impact yet-but we will know it by 2027 and if SM’s swat team approach of being nimble and making decisions in weeks vs months/years holds steady we will see the scouts hit at around $60K while other vehicles will be up in price.

 

[THil08]

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.

Thanks Uncle J. It really clears the air. And is pretty much what all us long term scout members have most likely had in mind!

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

1. The "Unique Platform" Cost Paradox

You mentioned that the localized, unique platform (Solid Rear Axle, BoF) drives up the cost.

As an enthusiast, I love that you chose a Solid Rear Axle (SRA). But historically, SRA technology is simpler and cheaper to manufacture than the complex Independent Rear Suspension (IRS) found on nearly every other $60k EV.

• The Flaw: If we are using "simple, robust, heritage technology" (Body-on-Frame, Solid Axle), why is the result a higher price tag?

• We shouldn't be paying a "Complexity Premium" for hardware that is prized for its simplicity. If the platform is unique, it should be uniquely efficient, not uniquely expensive.

2. The Volume Chicken-and-Egg

You stated: "As volumes go up... we expect costs to come down."

This is the core of my concern.

• You need High Volume to get Low Costs.

• But you are setting a High Price ($60k), which guarantees Low Volume.


You cannot achieve the economies of scale needed to lower battery/motor pricing if you launch as a niche luxury product. Ford F-150s are cheap to build because they sell 700,000 of them.

If Scout launches at $60k, you limit your volume to the top 10% of earners. That limits your purchasing power, which keeps your costs high.

The only way to break that cycle is to price for Volume on Day 1 ($40k-$45k) and force the scale to happen.


3. The "Long-Term" Risk

You mentioned expanding the portfolio to interesting price points in the "long-term future."

The danger is that the market moves fast. By the time the "Long-Term Affordable Scout" arrives, Rivian (R2), Ford (Skunkworks EV), and others will have already captured the $40k volume segment.

Scout has the brand equity to own that segment now. I’d hate to see you cede the "People's Truck" territory to competitors while chasing margins in the luxury tier.


Bottom Line:

We are rooting for you. We want this factory in SC to be humming 24/7. But we believe the path to that "humming factory" is a price point that fills the order books, not one that maximizes margin per unit.

Thanks again for chiming in.

To preface this, I don't have nearly enough time to go into every detail but broadly speaking, a couple of points:

One of the big pieces you haven't factored in is that this all-new platform has significant R&D costs that need to be recouped. There is no existing body-on-frame light-duty truck platform in the VW Group that we could borrow or cherry-pick from. Nor an existing factory.

1. In our case we aren't using old technology - the solid beam rear axle with an integrated electric motor is brand new technology and has no volume scale to lean into.

2. When I said "As volumes go up... we expect costs to go down." I was referring to the automotive industry as a whole since we are all scaling up battery and electric motor components from various suppliers.

If merely chasing profit margins was our goal (as you mention) then our starting price would be significantly higher. We will offer value where and when we can, without sacrificing product quality.

Our goal isn't to rest on our laurels, and we will continue to push for the best value and quality we can offer. But we have to start from a point of profitability and recoup (over time) the significant investments we are making to get the Scout brand off the ground. We have tremendous adaptability in our platform to integrate new technology in the future and take advantage of further cost savings. Trust that we are collectively pushing hard on this. We love the passion in this forum as it propels us every day.

 

[dreamweaver]

To preface this, I don't have nearly enough time to go into every detail but broadly speaking, a couple of points:

One of the big pieces you haven't factored in is that this all-new platform has significant R&D costs that need to be recouped. There is no existing body-on-frame light-duty truck platform in the VW Group that we could borrow or cherry-pick from. Nor an existing factory.

1. In our case we aren't using old technology - the solid beam rear axle with an integrated electric motor is brand new technology and has no volume scale to lean into.

2. When I said "As volumes go up... we expect costs to go down." I was referring to the automotive industry as a whole since we are all scaling up battery and electric motor components from various suppliers.

If merely chasing profit margins was our goal (as you mention) then our starting price would be significantly higher. We will offer value where and when we can, without sacrificing product quality.

Our goal isn't to rest on our laurels, and we will continue to push for the best value and quality we can offer. But we have to start from a point of profitability and recoup (over time) the significant investments we are making to get the Scout brand off the ground. We have tremendous adaptability in our platform to integrate new technology in the future and take advantage of further cost savings. Trust that we are collectively pushing hard on this. We love the passion in this forum as it propels us every day.

Well said Jamie. Thank You. ....and we love the passion in Scout Motors! It is what brings us all together.

 

[THil08]

To preface this, I don't have nearly enough time to go into every detail but broadly speaking, a couple of points:

One of the big pieces you haven't factored in is that this all-new platform has significant R&D costs that need to be recouped. There is no existing body-on-frame light-duty truck platform in the VW Group that we could borrow or cherry-pick from. Nor an existing factory.

1. In our case we aren't using old technology - the solid beam rear axle with an integrated electric motor is brand new technology and has no volume scale to lean into.

2. When I said "As volumes go up... we expect costs to go down." I was referring to the automotive industry as a whole since we are all scaling up battery and electric motor components from various suppliers.

If merely chasing profit margins was our goal (as you mention) then our starting price would be significantly higher. We will offer value where and when we can, without sacrificing product quality.

Our goal isn't to rest on our laurels, and we will continue to push for the best value and quality we can offer. But we have to start from a point of profitability and recoup (over time) the significant investments we are making to get the Scout brand off the ground. We have tremendous adaptability in our platform to integrate new technology in the future and take advantage of further cost savings. Trust that we are collectively pushing hard on this. We love the passion in this forum as it propels us every day.

Jamie you are killing it! Keeping it real!

LFG Scout Motors!