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

[tomgillotti]

1. Scout has been very clear on multiple occasions that their pricing it’s $20k less than their competitors (Rivian). I went to the presentation they had at Nats and heard it with my own ears.
2. Dealer markup is not a new thing. I found the window sticker from our early 2000 Xterra and there was a dealer adjustment markup back then.
3. The Land Cruiser is not Toyotas Halo car. They sold approximately 105,000 worldwide in 2024. That’s not Halo. We have a Toyota Halo car. A 2022 Supra. Ours is 1 of 4,952 that year. That’s a Halo car.
4. I have watched every video, interview of Scout staff that I come across. I read every article. I have never once heard them say “simple and analog’. Bringing back buttons does not mean simple and analog. Nowhere have they stated that their tech is “simple”.
5. What they have said is they intend to be a connection machine and they are working on cutting edge technology to do that.
6. At the end of your latest argument you said “I hope we all get the truck we want”. Exactly. We are all here because we want a Scout. We have all seen their advertised price and we looked at what the are offering for that price and are still here.

Again, in one of my earlier posts. The only answer you seem to want from
Scout is you are right, we were wrong we are lowering the price $20K. That’s just not going to happen for all the reasons Jamie stated when he responded to you.

I’m glad you brought up the specific numbers, because when you actually do the math, they prove my point, not yours.

1. The "Rivian Math" (You just proved my case). You claimed Scout promised to be "$20k less than Rivian."

• Fact: The 2025 Rivian R1T starts at $71,700.

• The Math: $71,700 minus $20,000 equals $51,700.

If Scout sticks to the promise you heard "with your own ears," the truck should start at $52k. By defending a $60,000+ price tag, you are effectively letting them off the hook for the very promise you just cited. I am the one arguing for the price ($45k–$50k) that aligns with that "$20k cheaper" claim.


2. Land Cruiser vs. 4Runner (US Sales). You cited 105,000 sales for the Land Cruiser to prove it’s not a "niche" car.

• Correction: That is the Global sales figure.

• US Reality: In the United States, Toyota sold roughly 20,000 Land Cruisers last year.

• The 4Runner: Toyota sold roughly 120,000 4Runners in the same period. In the American market, the 4Runner outsells the Land Cruiser 6 to 1. The 4Runner is the volume leader; the Land Cruiser is the niche premium toy. Scout needs to beat the 4Runner's volume, not the Land Cruiser's exclusivity.


3. "Simple and Analog" (The CEO disagrees with you). You claimed Scout never said "simple and analog" and that they are chasing "cutting edge tech."

Here is Scout CEO Scott Keogh’s exact vision:

"We want to hang onto the intuitive, mechanical spirit... That's why we chose to build something body-on-frame, where you flip a switch to turn on the lights, rather than flipping through a menu on a screen."

He explicitly contrasts their "mechanical spirit" with the screen-heavy tech of competitors. If they are marketing "switches not menus," they are selling simplicity. You can't charge a "High Tech Tax" for a vehicle explicitly designed to reduce digital clutter.


4. The "Still Here" Argument. You said we are "still here" because we accept the price. No. We are "still here" because the truck doesn't exist yet.

Being on a forum 3 years before launch doesn't mean we accept the price; it means we are the die-hards hoping they don't screw it up. If they launch at $60k, the people "still here" will be the only ones buying it, and that won't be enough to keep the lights on.


Bottom Line:

If Scout is truly "$20k less than Rivian," then you and I are actually agreeing: The price should be $52,000. Let's hold them to that.

 

[tomgillotti]

I missed SM stating their goal was to be the every person vehicle…

I have heard many times say they want to start a relationship with their customers. I’ve seen them be transparent on this forum. I’ve watched them hold their price point so far…

Time will tell if they bait and switch like Tesla and the CT or ford and the lightning. I believe they won’t, but just like both of those, I get to vote with my wallet or not. I got my money back and am trying a third time…

Why won’t you answer the questions about your industry or background?

Would it color our opinion of your criticisms?

1. "Why won't I answer?" I didn't "refuse" to answer; I likely missed the question buried in the thread. But frankly, I wouldn't answer because it is completely irrelevant. This isn't a job interview. It’s a discussion about pricing and market data. You don't need to be a Michelin Star chef to know when a steak is burnt, and you don't need to be an automotive CEO to read a spec sheet or an inflation chart.


2. "Would it color our opinion?"

If my background changes your opinion of the data, that says more about you than it does about me. Math is Math: If I say "$60k is 75% of the median household income," that fact remains true whether I am a janitor, an engineer, or an economist.

**The only reason to ask for credentials in an anonymous forum is to find a reason to dismiss the argument without actually engaging with the numbers.


Bottom Line: My arguments stand on the data I’ve presented (Rivian pricing, wages vs. inflation, volume economics). If the data is wrong, attack the data. Who I am doesn't change the price of the truck.

 

[maynard]

1. "Why won't I answer?" I didn't "refuse" to answer; I likely missed the question buried in the thread. But frankly, I wouldn't answer because it is completely irrelevant. This isn't a job interview. It’s a discussion about pricing and market data. You don't need to be a Michelin Star chef to know when a steak is burnt, and you don't need to be an automotive CEO to read a spec sheet or an inflation chart.


2. "Would it color our opinion?"

If my background changes your opinion of the data, that says more about you than it does about me. Math is Math: If I say "$60k is 75% of the median household income," that fact remains true whether I am a janitor, an engineer, or an economist.

**The only reason to ask for credentials in an anonymous forum is to find a reason to dismiss the argument without actually engaging with the numbers.


Bottom Line: My arguments stand on the data I’ve presented (Rivian pricing, wages vs. inflation, volume economics). If the data is wrong, attack the data. Who I am doesn't change the price of the truck.

That’s fair

 

[SrfnFly227]

2. The "Unseen Technology" Myth

You mentioned Scout has "features most companies don't offer."

Name them.

• Solid Rear Axle? The Jeep Wrangler has had that since the 1940s.

• Mechanical Lockers? The Bronco and Rubicon have them.

• Body-on-Frame? Every F-150 and Silverado has it.

• The "Harvester" Generator? It’s a gas engine acting as a generator. Locomotives have used this for 80 years. Ram is doing it with the Ramcharger. Scout’s entire marketing pitch is that it is "Simple, Analog, and Mechanical."

You can't charge a "High-Tech Premium" for a vehicle that explicitly markets itself on having less technology (switches instead of screens, simple axles instead of air suspension).

Cool. Wrangler isn't an EV though. Neither is the Bronco. F-150 and Silverado has EV variants so we're getting closer. Ramcharger continues to get delayed because they just can't figure out the technology. Why? Because it isn't available in a comparable personal vehicle yet (locomotives aren't the same). Find an EV that offers all of the mentioned items and compare the price to what Scout is proposing.

Scout isn't offering switches instead of screens. They are integrating the two to work together. Something no other manufacturer is doing.

And I could be wrong, but I believe Scout has confirmed air suspension, which would have nothing to do with "simple axles". Solid axle vs IFS could both be springs or air. Example would be RAM with air suspension on a solid axle.

 

[SrfnFly227]

With all due respect, what AI told you is not a valid argument when we have a physical tape measure that says otherwise. You can ask a chatbot whatever you want, but the physical specs are public, and they confirm that the Scout Traveler is ~191 inches long. For context, the new Toyota 4Runner is ~195 inches long, and an actual full-size SUV like the Chevy Tahoe is nearly 211 inches long. If an algorithm is telling you that a vehicle 20 inches shorter than a Tahoe is "Full Size," the algorithm is hallucinating. In the real world, the Scout is physically a mid-size SUV, and trying to charge full-size luxury prices for a vehicle smaller than a 4Runner is a math problem, not a difference of opinion.

Now do width. Height too while you're at it.

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

Hi all,

Let’s try and keep our Scout Community an open and welcoming place. Forums provide a place to discuss and debate things and at times that might lead to disagreement. If the topic is driving you crazy, and you can’t be objective or debate without name calling, then it may be time to ignore that post.

We want everyone to feel welcome here. Likewise, we expect people to be respectful of one another as if we were all in person discussing Scouts. There will be disagreements and that’s ok. Let’s make sure it doesn’t turn personal.

Thanks all!

 

[Mousehunter]

We are seeing Scouts initial offerings. In the future, perhaps they will make less expensive vehicles - but they need to set an image for the company first. It is easy to compare the Scout to a Bronco or Unlimited Wranger, but it is wider than those. It is full sized, within 1/2" of the wheelbase of the Tahoe (with a similar width). The real question will be what is standard at $60k - it is quite possible it will be at a trim level near the similarly priced Tahoe Z71.

Apparently, Chevy sells over 100k Tahoe's a year. I am sure Ford sells plenty of Explorers, although honestly I don't know if they have a 2 row option. Don't even want to get into the size of the 1/2 ton truck market. I don't think the price is terrible, if it is at a similar trim level as the competition. Let Scout take the cream of the margin with the initial offering, if sales are not enough after a time, then they can worry about lower margin offerings in the same market. By year 3, maybe they will be profitable enough to offer baby Scouts to get them into a 3rd price point.

 

[Moates442]

For me, spending a lot of time on FB Rivian Group ( before production), the people on there are basically like Tesla owners, and I for one, want nothing to do with that product, or to be like them.

 

[tomgillotti]

Cool. Wrangler isn't an EV though. Neither is the Bronco. F-150 and Silverado has EV variants so we're getting closer. Ramcharger continues to get delayed because they just can't figure out the technology. Why? Because it isn't available in a comparable personal vehicle yet (locomotives aren't the same). Find an EV that offers all of the mentioned items and compare the price to what Scout is proposing.

Scout isn't offering switches instead of screens. They are integrating the two to work together. Something no other manufacturer is doing.

And I could be wrong, but I believe Scout has confirmed air suspension, which would have nothing to do with "simple axles". Solid axle vs IFS could both be springs or air. Example would be RAM with air suspension on a solid axle.

1. The "Ramcharger is confused" Myth

You claimed the Ramcharger is delayed because "they just can't figure out the technology." That is demonstrably false.

Ram CEO Tim Kuniskis explicitly stated in interviews (e.g., Road & Track, June 2025) that the delays were a "strictly business decision" to prioritize high-margin ICE trucks and align with cooling EV demand.

The Tech is Old: The "Series Hybrid" (EREV) technology isn't a mystery. The Chevy Volt did it in 2011. The BMW i3 did it in 2014. Locomotives have done it since the 1940s. Ram isn't delaying it because they are confused by generators; they are delaying it because they are prioritizing profits.


2. The "Unicorn" Tax (Uniqueness ≠ Expense)

You challenged me to "Find an EV that offers all these items and compare the price." You are confusing "Rare" with "Expensive."

• Solid Rear Axle: This is cheaper to manufacture than the Independent Rear Suspension (IRS) found on a Rivian or Lightning.

• Mechanical Lockers: These are cheaper than the Torque Vectoring Quad-Motor systems found on a Rivian.

• Buttons: These are cheaper to integrate than the 50-inch "Hyperscreen" found in a Mercedes EQS.

You can't find another EV with this exact spec list because every other manufacturer decided to build Luxury Toys (Hummer, Rivian, G-Wagon) using expensive tech. Scout’s "innovation" was simply looking at the Standard Truck Parts Bin (Solid axles, lockers, buttons) and putting an electric motor on it.

That should make it cheaper, not more expensive. You shouldn't pay a "Uniqueness Tax" for a vehicle that uses simpler, older hardware than its competitors.


3. The "Switches & Screens" Trend. You claimed "no other manufacturer is doing this" (integrating buttons). VW, Hyundai, and Mercedes have all announced they are bringing buttons back due to safety regulations (Euro NCAP) and customer backlash. Scout isn't inventing this; they are just correcting a mistake the rest of the industry made 5 years ago.


Bottom Line:

I agree that Scout is building a unique package. But it is a package built from simpler, more robust components. That is why I want one. But arguing that we should pay more for a Solid Axle (old tech) than a Rivian pays for IRS (new tech) just because "it's an EV" is backwards economic logic.

 

[tomgillotti]

We are seeing Scouts initial offerings. In the future, perhaps they will make less expensive vehicles - but they need to set an image for the company first. It is easy to compare the Scout to a Bronco or Unlimited Wranger, but it is wider than those. It is full sized, within 1/2" of the wheelbase of the Tahoe (with a similar width). The real question will be what is standard at $60k - it is quite possible it will be at a trim level near the similarly priced Tahoe Z71.

Apparently, Chevy sells over 100k Tahoe's a year. I am sure Ford sells plenty of Explorers, although honestly I don't know if they have a 2 row option. Don't even want to get into the size of the 1/2 ton truck market. I don't think the price is terrible, if it is at a similar trim level as the competition. Let Scout take the cream of the margin with the initial offering, if sales are not enough after a time, then they can worry about lower margin offerings in the same market. By year 3, maybe they will be profitable enough to offer baby Scouts to get them into a 3rd price point.

You are technically correct that the Scout’s wheelbase (120.4") is nearly identical to the Chevy Tahoe’s (120.9"), but using that metric to classify it as a "Full Size" SUV is misleading. In off-road engineering, you push the wheels to the absolute corners to maximize approach and departure angles, which stretches the wheelbase without stretching the cabin. The crucial number is the overall body length: the Tahoe is roughly 211 inches long, while the Scout Traveler sits at about 191 inches. That is a 20-inch difference. Physically, the Scout is a mid-size body sitting on a long wheelbase. Comparing it to a Tahoe ignores the fact that you are getting nearly two feet less vehicle—specifically the space that would hold a third row or massive cargo capacity. You simply can't charge "Tahoe prices" for a vehicle that has the footprint of a Bronco Sasquatch just because the axles are far apart.

As for the strategy of taking the "cream of the margin" first and lowering prices later, that is a dangerous game for a mass-market factory. Scout is building a $2 billion facility in South Carolina designed to pump out 200,000+ units a year. The "skimming" strategy you describe works for low-volume luxury brands like Porsche or Lucid, but it is fatal for a massive factory that needs to run at high capacity to cover fixed costs. If Scout launches at $60,000+ to "set an image," they limit their addressable market to a fraction of that 200,000-unit capacity, leaving the factory idle and bleeding cash. They won't survive long enough to build "Baby Scouts" if the main factory is running at 15% utilization. Finally, regarding the brand image: Scout’s DNA is the "Everyman’s Utility Vehicle." If they launch as a boutique luxury toy, they aren't setting an image—they are destroying the brand's identity on Day 1. You don't build a reputation for rugged utility by pricing yourself like a Range Rover.

 

[Mousehunter]

Yes, the Traveler is a bit shorter than most "full sized" vehicles, but it is every bit as wide and I highly suspect the extra interior width is going to make it feel like full sized, even when giving us a slightly more city friendly turning radius. That extra interior width is going to make it feel like a larger vehicle than a Bronco or Wrangler Unlimited - and while I consider those mid-sized, they have gotten to the point many purchasers are probably consider them just a shorter version of a full sized SUV.

Everyone will have their own definitions of full sized, but 1/2 ton truck sized (Terra), and built on a 1/2 ton truck chassis (Traveler, even if slightly shortened) is pretty close to mine.

 

[cyure]

Yes, the Traveler is a bit shorter than most "full sized" vehicles, but it is every bit as wide and I highly suspect the extra interior width is going to make it feel like full sized, even when giving us a slightly more city friendly turning radius. That extra interior width is going to make it feel like a larger vehicle than a Bronco or Wrangler Unlimited - and while I consider those mid-sized, they have gotten to the point many purchasers are probably consider them just a shorter version of a full sized SUV.

I own a Wrangler Unlimited and have seen the Traveler in person twice now. It definitely is wider than the Wrangler, as we know, but it also just feels bigger. In Chicago I was able to put my purse in the center console and take a couple pictures so I could get an idea of the size of that console. It was a much bigger reach to put it there and get it back than it is in my Wrangler. I posed those pictures in my Chicago thread already.

Also the height. It’s much taller than my Wrangler. My Wrangler is 5’9”. The Scout is 6’1” and when you add in the roof rack or rails it’s 6’5”.

It’s definitely full size as far as I’m concerned.