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

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

First, I want to say thank you again for engaging. It is incredibly rare for an OEM team member to step into the ring like this, and I genuinely appreciate the transparency.

However, I want to address something that I see happening in the replies here. There is a lot of nodding along because we are all enthusiasts who want this to work. But we need to be careful not to confuse "Forum Sentiment" with "Market Reality."

The people in this thread (myself included) represent the top 1% of passion for this brand. Many here will pay whatever price is on the sticker because of that passion.

But you cannot fill a 200,000-unit factory with just us.

To succeed, Scout needs to sell to the thousands of silent customers who aren't on this forum—the ones who vote with their wallets, not their comments. And for them, the "Business Case" explanations don't matter. Only the value matters.


1. The "New Tech" Paradox (Solid Axles shouldn't cost more)

You mentioned that the solid rear axle (e-Beam) is "new technology" and therefore expensive.

I have to push back on this respectfully but firmly. While the application is new for VW Group, the engineering reality is that an e-Beam axle is fundamentally simpler and cheaper to manufacture than the complex Independent Rear Suspension (IRS) found on competitors like Rivian or the Lightning.

• IRS: Requires control arms, half-shafts, CV joints, complex multi-link geometry, and a dedicated subframe.

• e-Beam: Is a rigid beam with a motor integrated.

Suppliers like Magna and AAM market e-Beams specifically as a way to reduce complexity. If we are paying a premium for a "simpler" solution just because it’s "new to VW," that is a hard pill to swallow. We shouldn't be paying a "Complexity Tax" for hardware that is prized for its simplicity.


2. The "Recoup" Trap

You mentioned needing to start with profitability to "recoup" the significant R&D investments. This suggests a strategy of Short-Term Amortization—trying to pay off a 20-year factory and a 10-year platform with the margins from the first 2 years of sales. This is the death spiral of legacy auto.

• The "Startup" approach is to price for the volume you want to have in Year 5, not the costs you have in Year 1.

• If you price high to "recoup costs," you guarantee low volume. If you have low volume, your component costs stay high.


The Bottom Line

I’m not trying to be a contrarian. I’m trying to be the voice of the customer who isn't here—the one who will look at a $60,000 Scout next to a $45k Ford/Rivian/Toyota and walk away.

I want your factory to be humming 24/7. But the path to a humming factory is a price point that fills the order books with regular buyers, not just a price point that makes the spreadsheet look safe for the first batch of enthusiasts.

Thanks again,

Tom

Respectfully, Tom, I'm not pulling these examples out of thin air or making them up. An e-beam rear axle is a new technology that must integrate an electric motor, integrated driveline components, cooling, and the necessary electrical support equipment. It is much more expensive than a typical solid rear axle with no motor or necessary accessories. IRS (simplified) has upper/lower control arms but still has springs and shocks that we have to integrate into our setup as well (ignoring bushings and more). Trust that our rear setup is more expensive than your example and we pushed it through the typical supplier pool and negotiations as we always do. I brought up the R&D costs because you didn't factor them into your previous calculations. Naturally, we aren't going to try and recoup these costs in two years as you suggest - there is a long-term financial plan.

More than 1,400 people (currently) are working on this project, plus hundreds of contractors, suppliers, and more. A C-suite with collectively hundreds of years of experience, backed by thousands of years of expertise among employees scattered across the company. We have been fortunate to hire some of the best and sharpest minds in the business because they wanted to be part of this journey. The amount of data we have available today to look at competitor offerings, price spectrums, trends and more is staggering. Every decision is scrutinized and thought through.

I hear you on rising automotive costs. We are acutely aware of this and continue to fight to drive costs down and deliver compelling value in the segments we compete in.

 

[R1TVT]

Here is the uncomfortable truth: The Rivian R2 is overpriced at $45k. It is a mid-size unibody crossover. If the industry has convinced us that $45k is the "floor" for a mid-size crossover, we have lost the plot.

Is the R2 overpriced at $45?

We'll have to wait and see what production brings, but i'm not uncomfortable saying that the Rivian R2 crossover priced at $45K is MUCH closer to reaching parity on the S-Curve with the ICE crossover market than the R1 with the ICE Truck & SUV market. This is a progression. There is a playbook. There is intentionality in positioning Scout as a new brand with a quality first product that will likely take a bit more time on the assembly line and require more attention to detail. Scout has chosen to take that path, and I would say many people that are here are appreciative of their intentionality, attention to detail & vision for the future - not just for cranking a factory 24X7. This will also tie into service (and incurred costs for Scout) based on how well the Terra & Traveler are executed. There is no doubt that they will spend more on these first trucks and make less margin to firmly establish the brand - comes with the territory of being "high quality" (which to be clear, does not equal luxury).

Consider that a Nissan Rogue Platinum with a Tech Package (the trim more equivalent to the R2) has a MSRP of $50K.

The R2 will likely offer better tech, better U/I, lower maintenance and a better driving experience as an EV. This is not a bad playbook for Rivian (and for Scout), if they can execute:

My argument is that if Scout brings a full-size, body-on-frame, highly capable truck to market at $45k, they don't just "compete"—they eliminate the competition.

I think Jaimie already answered this, stating the following "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."

Eliminating the competition is highly aspirational & unrealistic at this stage. Scout has found an opening and will drive a wedge into the market, but you will have lots of different buyers for trucks and SUV's cutting across many demographics, with pre-existing brand affinity, different budgets and with differing requirements. The competition will remain, but Scout does have a unique opportunity.

 

[tomgillotti]

Respectfully, Tom, I'm not pulling these examples out of thin air or making them up. An e-beam rear axle is a new technology that must integrate an electric motor, integrated driveline components, cooling, and the necessary electrical support equipment. It is much more expensive than a typical solid rear axle with no motor or necessary accessories. IRS (simplified) has upper/lower control arms but still has springs and shocks that we have to integrate into our setup as well (ignoring bushings and more). Trust that our rear setup is more expensive than your example and we pushed it through the typical supplier pool and negotiations as we always do. I brought up the R&D costs because you didn't factor them into your previous calculations. Naturally, we aren't going to try and recoup these costs in two years as you suggest - there is a long-term financial plan.

More than 1,400 people (currently) are working on this project, plus hundreds of contractors, suppliers, and more. A C-suite with collectively hundreds of years of experience, backed by thousands of years of expertise among employees scattered across the company. We have been fortunate to hire some of the best and sharpest minds in the business because they wanted to be part of this journey. The amount of data we have available today to look at competitor offerings, price spectrums, trends and more is staggering. Every decision is scrutinized and thought through.

I hear you on rising automotive costs. We are acutely aware of this and continue to fight to drive costs down and deliver compelling value in the segments we compete in.

Jamie, fair points all around. If the business plan is to start as a low-volume, high-quality manufacturer to ensure stability, I can respect that as a business decision.

But that brings me to the pivotal question—one that goes beyond just Scout and speaks to why so many are frustrated with the entire industry right now:

Who defines what is "acceptable" for a low-volume vehicle?

1. The "2020 Counterfactual" (The Greedflation Hangover)

You mentioned that current market data supports your pricing. But we have to acknowledge that the "Market Data" is poisoned. Since 2020, the auto industry has collectively decided that the "New Normal" is a 30-40% price hike across the board.

• If the supply chain crisis and the subsequent "Greedflation" era hadn't happened, where would a vehicle like this naturally sit?

• Based on pre-2020 trends, a capable, body-on-frame truck would likely be sitting in the $45,000–$50,000 range today. My frustration—and the frustration of many silent buyers—is that by accepting $60,000 as the "starting point" for a quality vehicle, we are essentially codifying the "Emergency Pricing" of 2022 as the "Standard Pricing" of 2027.


2. The Industry-Wide Gaslighting

To be clear: This isn't just a Scout problem. It is an industry-wide problem. We are being conditioned to believe that "Quality" has suddenly become a luxury feature that costs $60k.

• In 2019, you could buy a high-quality, low-volume enthusiast vehicle for $45k.

• In 2025, we are told that math is impossible. I don't believe the physics of manufacturing changed that much. I believe the profit expectations changed. The industry realized consumers would pay "panic prices" during the shortage, and now they refuse to lower the bar back to sanity.


3. The Challenge

I acknowledge that Scout is entering a market that has already been distorted. You didn't break the market; you're just living in it. But you have the chance to fix it. Scout has the unique opportunity to be the brand that rejects the "New Normal." If you launch at $60k, you are just another manufacturer playing by the post-2020 rules. But if you find a way to hit $45k–$50k, you aren't just selling a truck—you are proving that the last four years of price hikes were a choice, not a necessity.

That is the legacy I want for Scout. Not just "Another Premium EV," but the brand that finally broke the fever.

 

[THil08]

Respectfully, Tom, I'm not pulling these examples out of thin air or making them up. An e-beam rear axle is a new technology that must integrate an electric motor, integrated driveline components, cooling, and the necessary electrical support equipment. It is much more expensive than a typical solid rear axle with no motor or necessary accessories. IRS (simplified) has upper/lower control arms but still has springs and shocks that we have to integrate into our setup as well (ignoring bushings and more). Trust that our rear setup is more expensive than your example and we pushed it through the typical supplier pool and negotiations as we always do. I brought up the R&D costs because you didn't factor them into your previous calculations. Naturally, we aren't going to try and recoup these costs in two years as you suggest - there is a long-term financial plan.

More than 1,400 people (currently) are working on this project, plus hundreds of contractors, suppliers, and more. A C-suite with collectively hundreds of years of experience, backed by thousands of years of expertise among employees scattered across the company. We have been fortunate to hire some of the best and sharpest minds in the business because they wanted to be part of this journey. The amount of data we have available today to look at competitor offerings, price spectrums, trends and more is staggering. Every decision is scrutinized and thought through.

I hear you on rising automotive costs. We are acutely aware of this and continue to fight to drive costs down and deliver compelling value in the segments we compete in.

Can I Get An AMEN?!! Preach it Jamie!

 

[THil08]

Is the R2 overpriced at $45?

We'll have to wait and see what production brings, but i'm not uncomfortable saying that the Rivian R2 crossover priced at $45K is MUCH closer to reaching parity on the S-Curve with the ICE crossover market than the R1 with the ICE Truck & SUV market. This is a progression. There is a playbook. There is intentionality in positioning Scout as a new brand with a quality first product that will likely take a bit more time on the assembly line and require more attention to detail. Scout has chosen to take that path, and I would say many people that are here are appreciative of their intentionality, attention to detail & vision for the future - not just for cranking a factory 24X7. This will also tie into service (and incurred costs for Scout) based on how well the Terra & Traveler are executed. There is no doubt that they will spend more on these first trucks and make less margin to firmly establish the brand - comes with the territory of being "high quality" (which to be clear, does not equal luxury).

Consider that a Nissan Rogue Platinum with a Tech Package (the trim more equivalent to the R2) has a MSRP of $50K.

The R2 will likely offer better tech, better U/I, lower maintenance and a better driving experience as an EV. This is not a bad playbook for Rivian (and for Scout), if they can execute:

View attachment 11959



I think Jaimie already answered this, stating the following "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."

Eliminating the competition is highly aspirational & unrealistic at this stage. Scout has found an opening and will drive a wedge into the market, but you will have lots of different buyers for trucks and SUV's cutting across many demographics, with pre-existing brand affinity, different budgets and with differing requirements. The competition will remain, but Scout does have a unique opportunity.

Preach it R1TVT! Can I Get An AMEN?!!!

 

[robothero]

Thanks for your insight @Jamie@ScoutMotors. Speaking at least for myself, I am keenly aware of general "R&D" costs, as well as other expenses that a manufacturer like Ford or Toyota generally dont face (you know, like building a factory and assembly lines from literally nothing), but having some additional context into the specifics is really helpful!

 

[maynard]

...

I’m not trying to be a contrarian. I’m trying to be the voice of the customer who isn't here—the one who will look at a $60,000 Scout next to a $45k Ford/Rivian/Toyota and walk away.
...

I like most of your points through this series - I'm still trying to wrap my head around the $45K ford - seems like the Lightnings are starting at $55K (for the Pro which is few and far between). Most that are available are $63K and up...

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

3. The Challenge

I acknowledge that Scout is entering a market that has already been distorted. You didn't break the market; you're just living in it. But you have the chance to fix it. Scout has the unique opportunity to be the brand that rejects the "New Normal." If you launch at $60k, you are just another manufacturer playing by the post-2020 rules. But if you find a way to hit $45k–$50k, you aren't just selling a truck—you are proving that the last four years of price hikes were a choice, not a necessity.

That is the legacy I want for Scout. Not just "Another Premium EV," but the brand that finally broke the fever.

Trust that we are pushing hard. But we're also leading with technology, which comes at an additional cost compared to simple legacy setups in the market. In the long term, those costs will continue to decline, and we can pass those savings on to customers. No question, we are always looking at opportunities and value.

 

[strider]

But I didn't start here. I grew up in a blue-collar town. I worked my way up from nothing, and because of that, I deeply respect the value of a dollar. Just because I can afford a $60k truck doesn’t mean I’m willing to throw my hard-earned money away on inflated margins.

I want to spend that money on experiences with my family—road trips, camping, and investing in our future—not on a bloated car payment for a status symbol. I suspect many of you feel the same: we want a tool to enjoy life, not a luxury tax.

The Data: It’s Not Just "Inflation," It’s a Shift in Strategy

Before anyone says "prices went up for everyone," let’s look at the actual numbers.

• 2019 Average New Car Price: ~$37,000

• 2025 Average New Car Price: ~$50,000+

That is a 35% increase in just six years. Wages haven't risen 35%. This isn't just inflation; it's a systematic removal of affordable, quality options. Manufacturers have abandoned the $35k-$45k segment to chase six-figure customers. Scout has the chance to fix this.

I respectfully disagree. Further, I will say that while you may respect the value of a dollar, you do not know just how much the value of the dollar has been destroyed in the past few years. Look at this chart:

2019 Average New Car Price in ounces of gold: 26.56 (using 2019 average price of $1,393/oz)
2025 Average New Car Price in ounces of gold: 11.86 (using 2025 average price of $4,215/oz)

So in fact, the average price of a new car has gone DOWN in the past 6 years when measured against a non-depreciating asset.

This is not "artificial" inflation. It is REAL inflation. You can thank your congressperson and the parade of idiots we've elected over the past few decades. The US is spending $2 Trillion more than we take in every year. That is ~7% of GDP. This means that inflation is literally 7%, not 3% or whatever the government is telling us. We can feel it when we buy groceries or cars or whatever. Get out Excel and see what 7% inflation does to prices over time......

Please do not bring the Chinese into this. They literally build cars using slave labor and they have ZERO environmental controls. If Scout could use slaves and dump all of their waste in the river then they could build $20,000 cars too. There is nothing special about the Chinese - they are not "better" at building things. Their government has specifically chosen a mercantilist path in order to corner whatever market they want to at a given time.

Bottom line is that this is not Scout's fault. They are dealing with the realities on the ground as we all are.

Further, Scout is following Tesla's path, who is the first new car company we've had in the past several decades. They will start with lower volume, higher margin vehicles in order to start paying back the debt they've taken on the do R&D and build the factory and work out the kinks in the manufacturing process. Then they will introduce lower margin vehicles as the debt burden comes down and they find efficiencies in their production process. Rivian, Lucid, et al are doing the same thing.

All that to say, if you want a "cheap" Scout, you're going to have to wait.

 

[maynard]

I respectfully disagree. Further, I will say that while you may respect the value of a dollar, you do not know just how much the value of the dollar has been destroyed in the past few years. Look at this chart:

View attachment 11960
2019 Average New Car Price in ounces of gold: 26.56 (using 2019 average price of $1,393/oz)
2025 Average New Car Price in ounces of gold: 11.86 (using 2025 average price of $4,215/oz)

So in fact, the average price of a new car has gone DOWN in the past 6 years when measured against a non-depreciating asset.

This is not "artificial" inflation. It is REAL inflation. You can thank your congressperson and the parade of idiots we've elected over the past few decades. The US is spending $2 Trillion more than we take in every year. That is ~7% of GDP. This means that inflation is literally 7%, not 3% or whatever the government is telling us. We can feel it when we buy groceries or cars or whatever. Get out Excel and see what 7% inflation does to prices over time......

Please do not bring the Chinese into this. They literally build cars using slave labor and they have ZERO environmental controls. If Scout could use slaves and dump all of their waste in the river then they could build $20,000 cars too. There is nothing special about the Chinese - they are not "better" at building things. Their government has specifically chosen a mercantilist path in order to corner whatever market they want to at a given time.

Bottom line is that this is not Scout's fault. They are dealing with the realities on the ground as we all are.

Further, Scout is following Tesla's path, who is the first new car company we've had in the past several decades. They will start with lower volume, higher margin vehicles in order to start paying back the debt they've taken on the do R&D and build the factory and work out the kinks in the manufacturing process. Then they will introduce lower margin vehicles as the debt burden comes down and they find efficiencies in their production process. Rivian, Lucid, et al are doing the same thing.

All that to say, if you want a "cheap" Scout, you're going to have to wait.

Great post - thanks!

 

[bb00799]

Thanks for your insight @Jamie@ScoutMotors. Speaking at least for myself, I am keenly aware of general "R&D" costs, as well as other expenses that a manufacturer like Ford or Toyota generally dont face (you know, like building a factory and assembly lines from literally nothing), but having some additional context into the specifics is really helpful!

The costs alone for large scale production tooling is mind-blowing. Not to mention the time you will need to spend on training techs and assembly of the tools.

 

[speedrye]

What I'm hearing is that the OP wants Scout to be a disrupter, much like Toyota was when they came to US shores, and much like Kia/Hyundai have done in recent years. Offering value for a reliable vehicle, just in the large SUV/truck game. That worked out very well for the aforementioned car companies, to say the least. Despite some early teething issues and missteps, selling pedestrian vehicles gave them the cash flow to offer niche/halo vehicles.

I support that idea, but I also support being a disrupter on the technological front with the Harvester specifically, and that does not come cheap. It does offer the market something new, a full-size vehicle that you can drive economically, especially for those not ready or able to jump on the EV train. It's still leaving out a LOT of the car-buying public that doesn't have access to home charging, so I'd love to see a cheaper version with a smaller battery that's more hybrid than EV to drive up sales volume for those that can't charge at home.

 

[tomgillotti]

I respectfully disagree. Further, I will say that while you may respect the value of a dollar, you do not know just how much the value of the dollar has been destroyed in the past few years. Look at this chart:

View attachment 11960
2019 Average New Car Price in ounces of gold: 26.56 (using 2019 average price of $1,393/oz)
2025 Average New Car Price in ounces of gold: 11.86 (using 2025 average price of $4,215/oz)

So in fact, the average price of a new car has gone DOWN in the past 6 years when measured against a non-depreciating asset.

This is not "artificial" inflation. It is REAL inflation. You can thank your congressperson and the parade of idiots we've elected over the past few decades. The US is spending $2 Trillion more than we take in every year. That is ~7% of GDP. This means that inflation is literally 7%, not 3% or whatever the government is telling us. We can feel it when we buy groceries or cars or whatever. Get out Excel and see what 7% inflation does to prices over time......

Please do not bring the Chinese into this. They literally build cars using slave labor and they have ZERO environmental controls. If Scout could use slaves and dump all of their waste in the river then they could build $20,000 cars too. There is nothing special about the Chinese - they are not "better" at building things. Their government has specifically chosen a mercantilist path in order to corner whatever market they want to at a given time.

Bottom line is that this is not Scout's fault. They are dealing with the realities on the ground as we all are.

Further, Scout is following Tesla's path, who is the first new car company we've had in the past several decades. They will start with lower volume, higher margin vehicles in order to start paying back the debt they've taken on the do R&D and build the factory and work out the kinks in the manufacturing process. Then they will introduce lower margin vehicles as the debt burden comes down and they find efficiencies in their production process. Rivian, Lucid, et al are doing the same thing.

All that to say, if you want a "cheap" Scout, you're going to have to wait.

I appreciate the detailed response and the chart. You’ve laid out the "Hard Money" argument perfectly, and strictly in terms of currency devaluation, your math on gold is correct.

But here is why that argument fails in the real world: *We don't buy cars with gold. We buy them with wages.* Unless your employer has been adjusting your salary based on the spot price of gold since 2019, your purchasing power has effectively collapsed while car prices have skyrocketed.

1. Gold vs. Wages (The Real Metric)

You argued that cars are "cheaper" now because they cost fewer ounces of gold. That is academically interesting, but practically useless for a family budgeting for a vehicle.

• The Reality: In 2019, the average car cost roughly 50% of the median household income. In 2025, it’s pushing 65-70%.

• That isn't "Government Spending." That is an industry outpacing the wages of its customers.

• If Scout prices their truck based on the "Gold Standard" while their customers are paid in the "Dollar Standard," they will have a lot of unsold inventory.


2. The "Slave Labor" Distraction

On the China point: I am not defending their human rights record or labor practices. Those are serious issues. But it is dangerous and lazy to dismiss their $20,000 cost advantage entirely as "slave labor and pollution."

• Automation: The Xiaomi factory is over 90% automated. Robots don't get paid wages, whether they are in Beijing or South Carolina.

• Supply Chain: They control the battery minerals and processing. That is a strategic advantage, not just a labor one.

• If we dismiss their $42k EVs as just "cheating," we blind ourselves to the fact that they have vertically integrated better than we have. Scout needs to match that efficiency (via VW Group scale), not just complain about it.


3. The "Tesla Path" is a Trap

You mentioned Scout has to follow the Tesla path (High Price -> Low Price).

• Tesla (2012): Launched into a vacuum. They had zero competition, so they could charge an "Early Adopter Tax."

• Scout (2027): Launches into a shark tank. Rivian, Ford, and Chevy will already be fighting for the $45k space.

• If Scout tries to charge a "2012 Tesla Premium" in a "2027 Commoditized Market," the market won't care about their debt burden. Consumers don't pay extra just to help a company pay off its R&D loans; they pay for value.


The Bottom Line

I’m not asking for magic. I’m asking Scout to read the room. You can blame Congress, the Fed, or the gold standard all you want. But if the average American guy—the guy the Scout brand was built for—can’t afford the truck because his wages didn't go up 7% a year, he isn't going to buy it. And Scout needs him to buy it.

 

[6-ScoutFamily]

@tomgillotti I appreciate your desire for a $45K Scout. I would love that too, but I don’t think it will happen. What you have not factored into your thinking (as I see it) is the cost of labor. Having been self-employed twice—and failed miserably—I submit that the single, biggest expense in ANY business is wages and its associated fees/taxes/EE benefits. I think this is particularly true of manufacturing. I’m old and getting cranky (er) and having owned two original Scouts, a ‘66 and a ‘73—I want something that rides and drives really nice. I’m willing to pay for that, to a point. Think of the Better/Faster/Cheaper triangle—choose two.

 

[tomgillotti]

@tomgillotti I appreciate your desire for a $45K Scout. I would love that too, but I don’t think it will happen. What you have not factored into your thinking (as I see it) is the cost of labor. Having been self-employed twice—and failed miserably—I submit that the single, biggest expense in ANY business is wages and its associated fees/taxes/EE benefits. I think this is particularly true of manufacturing. I’m old and getting cranky (er) and having owned two original Scouts, a ‘66 and a ‘73—I want something that rides and drives really nice. I’m willing to pay for that, to a point.

I'll defer to my comment above this one as a pseudo response.

"To a point." I think there's more to that subtle statement than you might realize!

 

[Scoutsie]

Jamie, fair points all around. If the business plan is to start as a low-volume, high-quality manufacturer to ensure stability, I can respect that as a business decision.

But that brings me to the pivotal question—one that goes beyond just Scout and speaks to why so many are frustrated with the entire industry right now:

Who defines what is "acceptable" for a low-volume vehicle?

1. The "2020 Counterfactual" (The Greedflation Hangover)

You mentioned that current market data supports your pricing. But we have to acknowledge that the "Market Data" is poisoned. Since 2020, the auto industry has collectively decided that the "New Normal" is a 30-40% price hike across the board.

• If the supply chain crisis and the subsequent "Greedflation" era hadn't happened, where would a vehicle like this naturally sit?

• Based on pre-2020 trends, a capable, body-on-frame truck would likely be sitting in the $45,000–$50,000 range today. My frustration—and the frustration of many silent buyers—is that by accepting $60,000 as the "starting point" for a quality vehicle, we are essentially codifying the "Emergency Pricing" of 2022 as the "Standard Pricing" of 2027.


2. The Industry-Wide Gaslighting

To be clear: This isn't just a Scout problem. It is an industry-wide problem. We are being conditioned to believe that "Quality" has suddenly become a luxury feature that costs $60k.

• In 2019, you could buy a high-quality, low-volume enthusiast vehicle for $45k.

• In 2025, we are told that math is impossible. I don't believe the physics of manufacturing changed that much. I believe the profit expectations changed. The industry realized consumers would pay "panic prices" during the shortage, and now they refuse to lower the bar back to sanity.


3. The Challenge

I acknowledge that Scout is entering a market that has already been distorted. You didn't break the market; you're just living in it. But you have the chance to fix it. Scout has the unique opportunity to be the brand that rejects the "New Normal." If you launch at $60k, you are just another manufacturer playing by the post-2020 rules. But if you find a way to hit $45k–$50k, you aren't just selling a truck—you are proving that the last four years of price hikes were a choice, not a necessity.

That is the legacy I want for Scout. Not just "Another Premium EV," but the brand that finally broke the fever.

Okay, Tom: I am with you on wanting a lesser-priced Scout. I am a low-income person and I want one real bad. My divorce sure wasn’t cheap and probably ended up costing about as much as what we put into what was supposed to be our intimate, quasi-casual wedding. Yes, it sucks to have something you want out of reach, but these aren’t necessities for living. They’re luxuries. It is what it is.

You’ve gone from a place that could be seen as raising some debate and curiosity—which is respectable—into a place of insistence and fallacy. It reads as pertinacious. You’ve received an answer. What you’re asking for isn’t going to happen, definitely not with the initial releases. Maybe later, maybe with different models. Answer received. Do not debate me or anyone else. Give it a rest.

 

[THil08]

Okay, Tom: I am with you on wanting a lesser-priced Scout. I am a low-income person and I want one real bad. My divorce sure wasn’t cheap and probably ended up costing about as much as what we put into what was supposed to be our intimate, quasi-casual wedding. Yes, it sucks to have something you want out of reach, but these aren’t necessities for living. They’re luxuries. It is what it is.

You’ve gone from a place that could be seen as raising some debate and curiosity—which is respectable—into a place of insistence and fallacy. It reads as pertinacious. You’ve received an answer. What you’re asking for isn’t going to happen, definitely not with the initial releases. Maybe later, maybe with different models. Answer received. Do not debate me or anyone else. Give it a rest.

Yes! Scoutsie!

Everyone Can We Get An AMEN!!!??

 

[tomgillotti]

Okay, Tom: I am with you on wanting a lesser-priced Scout. I am a low-income person and I want one real bad. My divorce sure wasn’t cheap and probably ended up costing about as much as what we put into what was supposed to be our intimate, quasi-casual wedding. Yes, it sucks to have something you want out of reach, but these aren’t necessities for living. They’re luxuries. It is what it is.

You’ve gone from a place that could be seen as raising some debate and curiosity—which is respectable—into a place of insistence and fallacy. It reads as pertinacious. You’ve received an answer. What you’re asking for isn’t going to happen, definitely not with the initial releases. Maybe later, maybe with different models. Answer received. Do not debate me or anyone else. Give it a rest.

First off, I want to say I genuinely empathize with the personal side of your post. I mentioned earlier that I’ve been through the wringer of family court myself. I know exactly what it feels like to have your financial future drained by lawyers and life circumstances. It’s brutal, and I’m sorry you went through that.

However, I have to respectfully disagree with the philosophy of "It is what it is."

1. Transportation is not a "Luxury"

You mentioned that these vehicles are "luxuries," not necessities. In a country with almost no mass transit (as previously mentioned, I've lived outside of the US as well, for context) infrastructure outside of a few mega-cities, a reliable, capable vehicle is absolutely a necessity for maintaining a job and raising a family.

My entire argument is that the Scout (historically) was the vehicle for the person who needed a tool, not a toy. By accepting that a standard SUV is now a "Luxury Item" reserved for the wealthy, we are effectively saying that the working class no longer deserves access to quality tools. I refuse to accept that premise.


2. Why I won't "Give it a rest"

You called me "pertinacious" (stubborn). I’ll accept that label. But look at history. Every consumer win in the last 20 years—from the right to repair, to better warranties, to the removal of "subscription" heated seats—happened because people were stubborn. They didn't ask once, get a corporate "No," and say "Answer received." They kept pushing until the math changed for the manufacturer.


3. The Danger of Silence

If we all adopt the attitude of "It sucks, but it is what it is," then the price will go to $70k. Then $80k. Corporations will always charge the maximum amount that the market will tolerate. My goal in this thread isn't to be annoying; it's to lower the market's tolerance for inflated pricing. I respect that you are done with the debate, and I won't debate you specifically if you don't want to engage. But I’m not going to stop advocating for the thousands of people who want this brand to return to its roots, rather than becoming just another status symbol for the few.

 

[Iguy]

Tom, with respect, you speak on this like I hear many people who have no idea what the industry is like speak on this subject. I didn’t read the whole thing because there is way too much to jump in an unpack 4 pages in so I’ll say this.

I want a cheaper scout, but not at the expensive of a minimum standard of quality. I agree that purchasing power has been eroded terribly. That is due to poor government decisions and greed. There are many other things that have been said that I agree with, but the reality is the company has to operate in the current market and be profitable. So all that other crap that’s happened doesn’t matter.

I am a suspension design engineer for an OEM and deal with designing and sourcing castings, stamping, bushings, electrical components and all sorts of other stuff. You said the tariff doesn’t impact Scout because it’s being made in the US. That’s just flat out wrong. Tariffs aren’t just on the final vehicle, they are on the materials to make the vehicle, the parts made from the raw material, and more. Because of tariffs, companies are either paying that additional cost in buying the part overseas or they are paying the cost to have it done in the USA. Most of the time it’s honestly cheaper to buy outside and pay the tariff than it is to make in the US. US labor is just that expensive. We did a study and found making a vehicle in Mexico and paying a 25% tariff was cheaper than making in the US.

Which brings me to your other point, comparison to a Chinese vehicle. If you take into account tariff impact, labor cost, and all the other impacts of building in china, that Xiaomi built in the US with parts sourced like Scout has to source them would likely be 70-100k. China is cheaper than Mexico in nearly every way so at minimum add 25% to the cost of a xiaomi to get USA built price and that’s very underestimated!

When I have recently quoted some castings I’ve found a 25-50% higher piece part cost for US parts vs China. I’ve also found at least a 5x higher tooling cost. So for one part it was ~10k for tooling for the Chinese supplier and 50k+ for the USA supplier.

There is so much that goes into part sourcing that people just don’t understand. Raw material cost increased which increases the part cost not also the cost of the tooling to make the parts. The parts get machined and that labor increases cost. The parts often get shipped multiple places which has a higher cost now and then the final part sometimes gets a tariff on top of the tariff already applied to the raw material. It stacks.

I agree with your desire for lower cost vehicle. Many people want them though by and large people buy the top trims. But how we do that is not by boycotting or pressuring a single company, but changing the environment in which they work. Voting for policies that help the working class, eliminating these ridiculous tariffs which have proven time and time again to harm the USA, and dealing in the wealthy elite for the benefit of the country as a whole instead of the top .1%.

That’s my two cents based on my experience in the industry.

 

[J Alynn]

I appreciate the detailed response and the chart. You’ve laid out the "Hard Money" argument perfectly, and strictly in terms of currency devaluation, your math on gold is correct.

But here is why that argument fails in the real world: *We don't buy cars with gold. We buy them with wages.* Unless your employer has been adjusting your salary based on the spot price of gold since 2019, your purchasing power has effectively collapsed while car prices have skyrocketed.

1. Gold vs. Wages (The Real Metric)

You argued that cars are "cheaper" now because they cost fewer ounces of gold. That is academically interesting, but practically useless for a family budgeting for a vehicle.

• The Reality: In 2019, the average car cost roughly 50% of the median household income. In 2025, it’s pushing 65-70%.

• That isn't "Government Spending." That is an industry outpacing the wages of its customers.

• If Scout prices their truck based on the "Gold Standard" while their customers are paid in the "Dollar Standard," they will have a lot of unsold inventory.


2. The "Slave Labor" Distraction

On the China point: I am not defending their human rights record or labor practices. Those are serious issues. But it is dangerous and lazy to dismiss their $20,000 cost advantage entirely as "slave labor and pollution."

• Automation: The Xiaomi factory is over 90% automated. Robots don't get paid wages, whether they are in Beijing or South Carolina.

• Supply Chain: They control the battery minerals and processing. That is a strategic advantage, not just a labor one.

• If we dismiss their $42k EVs as just "cheating," we blind ourselves to the fact that they have vertically integrated better than we have. Scout needs to match that efficiency (via VW Group scale), not just complain about it.


3. The "Tesla Path" is a Trap

You mentioned Scout has to follow the Tesla path (High Price -> Low Price).

• Tesla (2012): Launched into a vacuum. They had zero competition, so they could charge an "Early Adopter Tax."

• Scout (2027): Launches into a shark tank. Rivian, Ford, and Chevy will already be fighting for the $45k space.

• If Scout tries to charge a "2012 Tesla Premium" in a "2027 Commoditized Market," the market won't care about their debt burden. Consumers don't pay extra just to help a company pay off its R&D loans; they pay for value.


The Bottom Line

I’m not asking for magic. I’m asking Scout to read the room. You can blame Congress, the Fed, or the gold standard all you want. But if the average American guy—the guy the Scout brand was built for—can’t afford the truck because his wages didn't go up 7% a year, he isn't going to buy it. And Scout needs him to buy it.

I think Scout has read the room. I also think blaming the car manufacturer is incorrect just as blaming home builders. Businesses all deserve to be successful and it doesn’t start at the top but rather from the bottom. Lumber prices spike-tariffs, whatever, so the commodity price goes up. Then there is back and forth negotiating by the builders. There is over 6,000 components to an average house so if/when every supplier raises their prices the builder only absorbs so much. Once prices go up they rarely come down-that is historic trend. Surely the auto industry suffers the same process. And steel is all over the price. So now the vehicle manufacturer is at the mercy of every supplier while they buffer and hedge their pricing. Scout is looking to lock costs and materials now and won’t really need them for a year. A month or so ago my steel supplier wouldn’t hold their quote more than 48 hours because their wholesaler was doing same to them. Imagine what is happening with all these parts and pieces as vendors are holding their prices a year out. Of course things are inflated but I think you are looking to take the head of the messenger rather than the sender.
I’m also now believing you just like debating and will argue every point offered just to be right. Ultimately sparring partners like me are simply blocking you as I’d rather interact with the members on this forum and learn new info over reacting to a member who has chosen to challenge every single person who offers their opinion. I enjoy a good debate but this has just become repetitive with no divergence in sight.