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

[tomgillotti]

By “us,” do you mean yourself and the spirit of Christmas or something else?

Also: are you going to actually join this community or only post to your own thread? If you spent this energy getting informed and learning more about the community and the vehicles, it’d be much easier for people to take you seriously.

"The Spirit of Christmas?" No, just the Spirit of Solvency.

By "us," I mean the millions of Americans who built this country’s car culture but are currently being priced out of it. If you want to shrink that group down to just the people in this thread who are happy to pay $60k, go ahead. But don't be surprised when the brand shrinks with it.


As for "Joining the Community":

I am here because I want to be a customer. But real community isn't about blind agreement; it's about holding the things you love to a higher standard.

• If "joining" means nodding along while a brand drifts into luxury obscurity, then no, I won't be joining that.

• But if "joining" means engaging in honest debate to make sure Scout actually lives up to its "Everyman" legacy, then I’ve been here the whole time. You just don't like what I have to say.

I’ve done my research. That’s why I’m critical. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be typing this.

 

[THil08]

AMEN and say it again!

AMEN!

 

[tomgillotti]

Well your idea will collapse Scout on day one. Scouts are built up from the ground, with parts that aren’t on the market yet. EREV like Harvester aren’t popularized or as advanced. The E axle is also a custom part designed for Scout.

But good luck finding your truck bud. Go get a SLATE.

"Bud."

You can keep the condescension. I’m not your "bud"—I’m the customer this brand needs if it wants to sell more than 50,000 units a year.

1. The "Collapse" Theory vs. Economic Reality

You claim my idea (Target Pricing) would "collapse Scout on Day 1."

• Reality: High volume is what keeps car companies alive, not boutique pricing.

• Tesla Model Y: It costs ~$38k to build and sells for $45k. It is the best-selling car on earth. Did Tesla collapse? No, they became the most valuable car company in history because they chased Volume, not exclusivity.

• If Scout chases "Day 1 Profit" by pricing at $60k, they guarantee low volume. That is how you collapse a new factory—by having it run at 30% capacity because you priced yourself out of the volume segment.

2. The EREV/Harvester Ignorance

You said EREVs "aren't popularized or as advanced."

• Fact Check: The EREV concept (Series Hybrid) is over 100 years old. It is used in locomotives, mining trucks, and submarines because it is more reliable than direct mechanical drive.

• Current Market: Li Auto (China) sells 300,000+ EREVs a year. The Ramcharger is launching with it. It isn't "unproven magic"; **it's a generator.** It’s actually simpler than the parallel hybrid system in a Prius.


3. The "Slate" Insult (The False Choice)

Telling me to "Go get a SLATE" is a lazy argument.

You are presenting a false choice: "Either pay $60,000 for a Scout or go buy a $20k stripped-out kit car with crank windows."

I am asking for the middle ground—the $45k–$50k segment that Ford, Chevy, and Toyota have dominated for decades.

I don't want a "Slate." I want a Scout that honors its history as a tool for the common man, not a jewelry piece for the country club.


Bottom Line:

If you think demanding fair value is going to "collapse" the company, you have zero faith in VW's engineering ability. I believe they can build a great truck for $45k. You apparently think they are too incompetent to pull it off.

 

[THil08]

"The Spirit of Christmas?" No, just the Spirit of Solvency.

By "us," I mean the millions of Americans who built this country’s car culture but are currently being priced out of it. If you want to shrink that group down to just the people in this thread who are happy to pay $60k, go ahead. But don't be surprised when the brand shrinks with it.


As for "Joining the Community":

I am here because I want to be a customer. But real community isn't about blind agreement; it's about holding the things you love to a higher standard.

• If "joining" means nodding along while a brand drifts into luxury obscurity, then no, I won't be joining that.

• But if "joining" means engaging in honest debate to make sure Scout actually lives up to its "Everyman" legacy, then I’ve been here the whole time. You just don't like what I have to say.

I’ve done my research. That’s why I’m critical. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be typing this.

I don’t know what planet you are on, but $60k isn’t considered luxury pricing, I would consider $60k more of a midrange price bordering standard entry new car pricing. Luxury pricing would be $80k+.

AND! let’s remember that ScoutMotors is a new brand with a lot of developed parts that haven’t yet come to mainstream, along with technologies, and features that most companies don’t offer, on a $80k vehicle.

 

[tomgillotti]

I don’t know what planet you are on, but $60k isn’t considered luxury pricing, I would consider $60k more of a midrange price bordering standard entry new car pricing. Luxury pricing would be $80k+.

AND! let’s remember that ScoutMotors is a new brand with a lot of developed parts that haven’t yet come to mainstream, along with technologies, and features that most companies don’t offer, on a $80k vehicle.

"What planet am I on?" Planet Earth.

And on this planet, the data disagrees with you entirely.

1. $60k is NOT "Entry Level" (The Data). You claim $60k is "midrange bordering on standard entry."

• Fact Check: The Average Transaction Price (ATP) for a new vehicle in the US is roughly $48,000 (Kelley Blue Book).

• Fact Check: The Median Household Income in the US is roughly $80,000.

• A $60,000 vehicle represents 75% of the gross annual income for the average American family. Calling that "entry-level" suggests you are operating in a bubble where everyone earns $200k. For the vast majority of this country, $60k is absolutely a luxury purchase.


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).


3. The "New Brand" Tax

You argued that because Scout is new, they should cost more.

That is backwards.

In every other industry, the "New Guy" has to undercut the established players to earn trust.

Why should I pay a premium for an unproven "Startup" truck when I can buy a Rivian (proven) or a Ford (established) for the same price or less? Trust is earned with value, not surcharges.


Bottom Line:

If you think $60,000 is "cheap," congratulations on your success. But don't tell the rest of us that water isn't wet. $60k is a lot of money, and demanding it deliver $60k worth of value isn't unreasonable—it's basic consumer protection.

 

[THil08]

"What planet am I on?" Planet Earth.

And on this planet, the data disagrees with you entirely.

1. $60k is NOT "Entry Level" (The Data). You claim $60k is "midrange bordering on standard entry."

• Fact Check: The Average Transaction Price (ATP) for a new vehicle in the US is roughly $48,000 (Kelley Blue Book).

Hmm what 48k for? A new Mini Countryman?

Fact Check: Scout is a full size SUV RUV(Rugged Utility Vehicle). And Full Size SUV pricing average is $59-70k (My Sources from places you have zero access to.)

 

[J Alynn]

"The Spirit of Christmas?" No, just the Spirit of Solvency.

By "us," I mean the millions of Americans who built this country’s car culture but are currently being priced out of it. If you want to shrink that group down to just the people in this thread who are happy to pay $60k, go ahead. But don't be surprised when the brand shrinks with it.


As for "Joining the Community":

I am here because I want to be a customer. But real community isn't about blind agreement; it's about holding the things you love to a higher standard.

• If "joining" means nodding along while a brand drifts into luxury obscurity, then no, I won't be joining that.

• But if "joining" means engaging in honest debate to make sure Scout actually lives up to its "Everyman" legacy, then I’ve been here the whole time. You just don't like what I have to say.

I’ve done my research. That’s why I’m critical. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be typing this.

Not to be snarky, legit question. Are you on every other car forum telling them to lower prices or just feel as though Scout should suffer as a start up (backed by VWAG) and lose money for longer than necessary so you can be satisfied seeing a company make concessions for your needs? I noted early on but never heard you say what industry you are in? Are you willing to take a loss of your pay every year because a handful of people think you should? (Like 35%)

I’m sure if Scout can lower the prices a little bit they will but I want them fairly compensated because well treated employees do better work and hopefully that translates to better cars.

That said, Jamie has said $40K isn’t happening and he works for the company and yet you continue to challenge that. Are you asking the richest man on earth to lower the price of Teslas as well? I’m sure Mr Musk would love to subsidize his company with his Billions of $$$. it just doesn’t work. You’re asking SM to reduce the vehicle by nearly 35%.

It’s simply not the way a successful company operates if it wants to reduce its debt and have money for R&D to develop more models and last more than 5 years. I let myself get sucked back into this thread because I saw many members who were commenting and have been here and support this company but yet you all but continue to demand we all stand by you to get the industry to change.

Maybe you have the secrets to enlighten us since we appear to all be lemmings-tell us how SM cuts 35% and remains profitable and able to grow and perhaps you’ll convince me to stand beside or behind you. You have asked/demanded change over and over but haven’t suggested how -now please tell us how it happens?
OR
Maybe it’s simply a case of you caring and none or very few of us actually do. As others have said-I see the value of the legacy, the new innovations by Scout, their transparency thus far, there passion and the amazing product they produced and I accept that for $60K or $70K or $80K fully loaded. Interestingly thus far, nobody has come on this thread to state they are ready to stand by you which leads me to believe that most active members see the value and aren’t willing to demand a 35% cut in price only to see this brand and this Scout community wither away and die.

 

[THil08]

Not to be snarky, legit question. Are you on every other car forum telling them to lower prices or just feel as though Scout should suffer as a start up (backed by VWAG) and lose money for longer than necessary so you can be satisfied seeing a company make concessions for your needs? I noted early on but never heard you say what industry you are in? Are you willing to take a loss of your pay every year because a handful of people think you should? (Like 35%)

I’m sure if Scout can lower the prices a little bit they will but I want them fairly compensated because well treated employees do better work and hopefully that translates to better cars.

That said, Jamie has said $40K isn’t happening and he works for the company and yet you continue to challenge that. Are you asking the richest man on earth to lower the price of Teslas as well? I’m sure Mr Musk would love to subsidize his company with his Billions of $$$. it just doesn’t work. You’re asking SM to reduce the vehicle by nearly 35%.

It’s simply not the way a successful company operates if it wants to reduce its debt and have money for R&D to develop more models and last more than 5 years. I let myself get sucked back into this thread because I saw many members who were commenting and have been here and support this company but yet you all but continue to demand we all stand by you to get the industry to change.

Maybe you have the secrets to enlighten us since we appear to all be lemmings-tell us how SM cuts 35% and remains profitable and able to grow and perhaps you’ll convince me to stand beside or behind you. You have asked/demanded change over and over but haven’t suggested how -now please tell us how it happens?
OR
Maybe it’s simply a case of you caring and none or very few of us actually do. As others have said-I see the value of the legacy, the new innovations by Scout, their transparency thus far, there passion and the amazing product they produced and I accept that for $60K or $70K or $80K fully loaded. Interestingly this far, nobody has come on this thread to state they are ready to stand by you which leads me to believe that most active members see the value and aren’t willing to demand a 35% cut in price only to see this brand and this Scout community wither away and die.

This deserves a massive A Fkin’ MEN!

 

[tomgillotti]

Hmm what 48k for? A new Mini Countryman?

Fact Check: Scout is a full size SUV RUV(Rugged Utility Vehicle). And Full Size SUV pricing average is $59-70k (My Sources from places you have zero access to.)

You don't need "sources from places I have zero access to" to understand vehicle segments; you just need a tape measure and the specs listed right on the Scout website. You are claiming this is a "Full Size SUV" to justify the luxury pricing, but the math simply doesn't support that. The Chevy Tahoe is over 210 inches long and the Ford Expedition is 210 inches. Even the Rivian R1S is over 200 inches. The Scout Traveler? It sits at roughly 191 inches long. That is nearly 20 inches shorter than an actual full-size SUV. In fact, the Scout is shorter than the new Toyota 4Runner. By definition, Scout is building a Mid-Size off-roader, squarely in the Bronco and 4Runner segment. If you try to charge Full-Size Luxury prices for a Mid-Size footprint, the value proposition collapses immediately.

As for your comment asking if $48k only buys a "Mini Countryman," that shows a fundamental disconnect with the current market. $48,000 today gets you a fully loaded Kia Telluride SX, a Toyota Grand Highlander, a highly capable Ford Bronco Black Diamond, or a Tesla Model Y Long Range. These are not entry-level compacts; they are capable, high-tech, family haulers. If you truly believe $48k is "scraping the bottom of the barrel," you have normalized "Luxury Inflation" to the point where you’ve lost track of what money is actually worth to the average consumer. Ultimately, the "I know things you don't" routine falls flat when the physical dimensions are public knowledge. We are looking at a mid-size truck with a full-size price tag, and no amount of insider posturing changes that math.

Crucially, we need to stop pretending that $48,000 for a mid-size SUV is a "deal" in the first place. That price point itself is a symptom of the post-2020 price gouging we discussed earlier. We are suffering from collective "price amnesia," where we look at a $50k Bronco and think it’s normal just because it’s cheaper than a $90k Wagoneer. It isn’t normal. The entire market has been artificially anchored high because manufacturers realized during the supply chain crisis that they could charge luxury prices for commodity vehicles and we would just take it. My frustration isn't just that Scout is expensive; it's that they are looking at this bloated, overpriced market and deciding to join the "New Normal" rather than disrupting it. We shouldn't be grateful for a $60k truck just because the rest of the industry has lost its mind.

 

[tomgillotti]

Not to be snarky, legit question. Are you on every other car forum telling them to lower prices or just feel as though Scout should suffer as a start up (backed by VWAG) and lose money for longer than necessary so you can be satisfied seeing a company make concessions for your needs? I noted early on but never heard you say what industry you are in? Are you willing to take a loss of your pay every year because a handful of people think you should? (Like 35%)

I’m sure if Scout can lower the prices a little bit they will but I want them fairly compensated because well treated employees do better work and hopefully that translates to better cars.

That said, Jamie has said $40K isn’t happening and he works for the company and yet you continue to challenge that. Are you asking the richest man on earth to lower the price of Teslas as well? I’m sure Mr Musk would love to subsidize his company with his Billions of $$$. it just doesn’t work. You’re asking SM to reduce the vehicle by nearly 35%.

It’s simply not the way a successful company operates if it wants to reduce its debt and have money for R&D to develop more models and last more than 5 years. I let myself get sucked back into this thread because I saw many members who were commenting and have been here and support this company but yet you all but continue to demand we all stand by you to get the industry to change.

Maybe you have the secrets to enlighten us since we appear to all be lemmings-tell us how SM cuts 35% and remains profitable and able to grow and perhaps you’ll convince me to stand beside or behind you. You have asked/demanded change over and over but haven’t suggested how -now please tell us how it happens?
OR
Maybe it’s simply a case of you caring and none or very few of us actually do. As others have said-I see the value of the legacy, the new innovations by Scout, their transparency thus far, there passion and the amazing product they produced and I accept that for $60K or $70K or $80K fully loaded. Interestingly thus far, nobody has come on this thread to state they are ready to stand by you which leads me to believe that most active members see the value and aren’t willing to demand a 35% cut in price only to see this brand and this Scout community wither away and die.

I appreciate the "legit question," so let me give you a legit answer.

1. The "Employee Pay" Straw Man

You asked: "Are you willing to take a loss of your pay every year...?"

This is a classic false equivalence. Lowering the price of a product does not require lowering the wages of the people building it.

• Toyota builds affordable cars and pays excellent wages.

• Tesla slashed prices by ~25% last year and didn't slash factory wages; they optimized manufacturing.

• The Real Risk to Jobs: Pricing the vehicle so high that inventory sits on the lot, leading to production cuts and layoffs.

I want Scout employees to be secure. The best job security is a factory running at 100% capacity because the product is priced to sell. The quickest way to get people fired is to build a niche luxury toy that only sells 20,000 units a year.


2. The Tesla/Musk Self-Own

You asked: "Are you asking the richest man on earth to lower the price of Teslas as well?" Yes. And he did. You might have missed it, but Tesla aggressively cut prices on the Model Y and Model 3 over the last 18 months—dropping the Model Y from nearly $67k to under $45k.

• Why? Because Elon understands Price Elasticity. He knew that to keep the factories running, he had to lower the price to meet the market.

• He didn't "subsidize" it with his billions; he used Volume and Efficiency to make the numbers work.

That is exactly what I am asking Scout to do. If Tesla can drop prices by $20k to stay competitive, why is Scout immune to that economic reality?


3. The "How" (Since you asked)

You challenged me to explain how they cut costs by 35% without bankrupting the company. It isn't magic; it's Scale.

• VW Group Leverage: Scout isn't a lonely startup buying parts at AutoZone. They are backed by the second-largest automaker on earth. They should be getting the best pricing on Bosch motors, batteries, and chips in the industry.

• Amortization Strategy: If you try to pay off the R&D in Year 1, the truck costs $80k. If you amortize it over a 10-year production run (aiming for 200k units/year), the per-unit cost drops dramatically.

• Target Pricing: You don't build a truck and ask "What does it cost?" You look at the market, see that the sweet spot is $45k, and say "Build it to cost $38k."


4. Standing Alone

You noted that "nobody has come on this thread to stand by you."

That’s fine. Forums are often echo chambers for the most dedicated enthusiasts—the people willing to pay anything.

But if you think I’m alone, go look at the sales charts for $70,000 trucks right now. They are rotting on dealer lots. The "Silent Majority" agrees with me. They just aren't posting here; they are buying Toyotas.


Bottom Line: I'm not asking for Scout to "suffer." I'm asking them to be smart. High prices kill new brands. High volume builds empires. I want Scout to be an empire, not a boutique.

 

[J Alynn]

I appreciate the "legit question," so let me give you a legit answer.

1. The "Employee Pay" Straw Man

You asked: "Are you willing to take a loss of your pay every year...?"

This is a classic false equivalence. Lowering the price of a product does not require lowering the wages of the people building it.

• Toyota builds affordable cars and pays excellent wages.

• Tesla slashed prices by ~25% last year and didn't slash factory wages; they optimized manufacturing.

• The Real Risk to Jobs: Pricing the vehicle so high that inventory sits on the lot, leading to production cuts and layoffs.

I want Scout employees to be secure. The best job security is a factory running at 100% capacity because the product is priced to sell. The quickest way to get people fired is to build a niche luxury toy that only sells 20,000 units a year.


2. The Tesla/Musk Self-Own

You asked: "Are you asking the richest man on earth to lower the price of Teslas as well?" Yes. And he did. You might have missed it, but Tesla aggressively cut prices on the Model Y and Model 3 over the last 18 months—dropping the Model Y from nearly $67k to under $45k.

• Why? Because Elon understands Price Elasticity. He knew that to keep the factories running, he had to lower the price to meet the market.

• He didn't "subsidize" it with his billions; he used Volume and Efficiency to make the numbers work.

That is exactly what I am asking Scout to do. If Tesla can drop prices by $20k to stay competitive, why is Scout immune to that economic reality?


3. The "How" (Since you asked)

You challenged me to explain how they cut costs by 35% without bankrupting the company. It isn't magic; it's Scale.

• VW Group Leverage: Scout isn't a lonely startup buying parts at AutoZone. They are backed by the second-largest automaker on earth. They should be getting the best pricing on Bosch motors, batteries, and chips in the industry.

• Amortization Strategy: If you try to pay off the R&D in Year 1, the truck costs $80k. If you amortize it over a 10-year production run (aiming for 200k units/year), the per-unit cost drops dramatically.

• Target Pricing: You don't build a truck and ask "What does it cost?" You look at the market, see that the sweet spot is $45k, and say "Build it to cost $38k."


4. Standing Alone

You noted that "nobody has come on this thread to stand by you."

That’s fine. Forums are often echo chambers for the most dedicated enthusiasts—the people willing to pay anything.

But if you think I’m alone, go look at the sales charts for $70,000 trucks right now. They are rotting on dealer lots. The "Silent Majority" agrees with me. They just aren't posting here; they are buying Toyotas.


Bottom Line: I'm not asking for Scout to "suffer." I'm asking them to be smart. High prices kill new brands. High volume builds empires. I want Scout to be an empire, not a boutique.

Wow, you produced all that info in 11 minutes. I’m obviously out of my league talking with you since you said you don’t use AI. I’m too impressed and overwhelmed to challenge your knowledge. Hopefully someone else here will play your game

 

[tomgillotti]

Wow, you produced all that info in 11 minutes. I’m obviously out of my league talking with you since you said you don’t use AI. I’m too impressed and overwhelmed to challenge your knowledge. Hopefully someone else here will play your game
View attachment 12055

It isn't a game. It’s my wallet.

And regarding the speed: It doesn't take long to type this stuff out when you live it every day. I didn't have to Google the Tesla price drops or the median income numbers—I know them cold because I’m the guy out here trying to make the math work for my family. I’m not trying to "overwhelm" you. I’m just putting the reality of the market on the table. If the facts feel overwhelming, maybe that’s a sign that the current pricing environment truly is disconnected from reality.

Thanks for the debate. No hard feelings.

 

[cyure]

To respond to your comments to @thi08 and @jalynn, AI clearly states the Scout traveler is a full sized SUV and the fact that it is only a two row provides more storage and intrinsic value to the market looking to overland, camp and escape the grid. Additionally comparing the Scout to Chevy, etc… which are ICE is a skewed perspective. And if you are comparing them as EV please justify the Hummer’s cost.

I respect you have your opinion and I have mine. I also hope everyone else uses their opinions and good choices and decides to let this continuous diatribe lie. There is so much that Scout and its members offer on this forum which is positive and educational.

 

[THil08]

"Bottom Line"
Lets conpare apples to apples:

Rivian is still around and they started in Covid, with high prices starting back in 2019, R1T for 69k and R1S for 72.5k. And mind you they are pretty much the same now even higher. And to reserve it costed 10x more than what Scout is asking for.

And oh my god Toyota Land Cruisers are even Expensive an MSRP of 56-58k with out all the dealership markups thats probably 60k+ at the end of the day.

Scout is DTC so no markups. Seems they are still the better deal even at 60k in my mind.

And I'm sure @cyure can check me on these prices, considering shes been out there testing driving vehicles for the past month of two.

 

[tomgillotti]

To respond to your comments to @thi08 and @jalynn, AI clearly states the Scout traveler is a full sized SUV and the fact that it is only a two row provides more storage and intrinsic value to the market looking to overland, camp and escape the grid. Additionally comparing the Scout to Chevy, etc… which are ICE is a skewed perspective. And if you are comparing them as EV please justify the Hummer’s cost.

I respect you have your opinion and I have mine. I also hope everyone else uses their opinions and good choices and decides to let this continuous diatribe lie. There is so much that Scout and its members offer on this forum which is positive and educational.

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.

Regarding your request to "justify the Hummer’s cost," I don’t have to, because the Hummer EV is a 9,000-lb, 1,000-horsepower "super truck" built as a toy for the ultra-wealthy. Scout’s entire brand identity is supposed to be "Rugged, Simple, and Analog." If your best defense of Scout’s pricing is that it’s cheaper than a six-figure GMC halo truck, we have completely lost the plot. We should be comparing Scout to its actual competitors—the Bronco and 4Runner—not a crab-walking super-EV. Furthermore, arguing that having fewer rows of seats provides more "intrinsic value" is marketing spin, not economics; in manufacturing terms, removing a row of seats lowers the cost, so you shouldn't be asked to pay more for less hardware.

Finally, while I understand the desire to keep the forum "positive," I believe the most positive thing we can do for this brand is ensure it actually survives. Blindly cheering for a pricing strategy that alienates 80% of the potential market isn't positive—it's dangerous. I want Scout to succeed, which is why I’m fighting for a price point that actually moves metal rather than one that turns the brand into a niche boutique. We aren't "mincing words" here; we are looking at the specs. It’s a mid-size truck that needs a mid-size price, and no amount of AI queries or Hummer comparisons changes that physical reality.

 

[tomgillotti]

"Bottom Line"
Lets conpare apples to apples:

Rivian is still around and they started in Covid, with high prices starting back in 2019, R1T for 69k and R1S for 72.5k. And mind you they are pretty much the same now even higher. And to reserve it costed 10x more than what Scout is asking for.

And oh my god Toyota Land Cruisers are even Expensive an MSRP of 56-58k with out all the dealership markups thats probably 60k+ at the end of the day.

Scout is DTC so no markups. Seems they are still the better deal even at 60k in my mind.

And I'm sure @cyure can check me on these prices, considering shes been out there testing driving vehicles for the past month of two.

If we are going to compare "apples to apples," we need to look at the whole orchard, not just the two most expensive fruits you could find. You mention Rivian is "still around," but that is a very low bar for success. Rivian is a luxury lifestyle brand that is still burning billions of dollars and losing money on every vehicle they sell. They survive on investor cash, not sustainable volume. Scout is a subsidiary of Volkswagen; they aren't looking to burn cash for a decade like a startup—they need to sell volume immediately. Furthermore, Rivian offers quad-motor performance, air suspension, and cutting-edge tech. Scout is marketing itself as "simple and analog." If Scout wants to charge Rivian prices for "simple" tech, that isn't a deal; it's a rip-off.

Regarding your Toyota comparison, pointing to the $58k Land Cruiser is classic cherry-picking. The Land Cruiser is a low-volume, niche halo vehicle. The actual competitor to the Scout—and the vehicle that dominates the sales charts—is the Toyota 4Runner, which starts around $43,000. By pricing the Scout at $60k, you are ignoring the market leader (4Runner) to compare it to a niche luxury toy (Land Cruiser). Finally, the argument that "DTC means no markups" is a fallacy. If the factory sets the MSRP at $60k, they have effectively "baked in" the markup permanently. I would rather buy a $45k truck and fight a dealer over a $5k markup (total $50k) than simply hand the factory $60k and thank them for the privilege. That isn't a "better deal"—it's just a more efficient way to overpay.

Finally, your relief about "No Dealer Markups" completely misses the historical context and brings us right back to the artificial inflation I mentioned earlier. Dealer markups on mass-market vehicles are almost entirely a post-COVID phenomenon driven by artificial scarcity. For decades prior to 2020, the standard was paying below MSRP (Invoice pricing). When you say Scout is a "better deal" because you pay "only" $60k with no markup, you are normalizing a temporary market distortion. You are effectively cheering for the privilege of paying a factory-inflated price just to avoid a dealer-inflated price, rather than demanding we return to the pre-2020 reality where vehicles were sold based on actual value, not fear of missing out. The "DTC Model" doesn't save you money if the factory just decides to keep the scalper's profit for themselves.

I’m not fighting this battle to be a downer or an enemy of the community. I’m fighting it because I want the Scout community to be big enough for everyone—not just the folks who have accepted the "New Normal" of luxury pricing. I hope we all get the truck we want.

 

[Chuckles]

Everyone is wasting their time with this back-and-forth arguing. OP thinks Scout should be $45k, and Scout says that's not a realistic price point. Agree to disagree and move on.

 

[cyure]

If we are going to compare "apples to apples," we need to look at the whole orchard, not just the two most expensive fruits you could find. You mention Rivian is "still around," but that is a very low bar for success. Rivian is a luxury lifestyle brand that is still burning billions of dollars and losing money on every vehicle they sell. They survive on investor cash, not sustainable volume. Scout is a subsidiary of Volkswagen; they aren't looking to burn cash for a decade like a startup—they need to sell volume immediately. Furthermore, Rivian offers quad-motor performance, air suspension, and cutting-edge tech. Scout is marketing itself as "simple and analog." If Scout wants to charge Rivian prices for "simple" tech, that isn't a deal; it's a rip-off.

Regarding your Toyota comparison, pointing to the $58k Land Cruiser is classic cherry-picking. The Land Cruiser is a low-volume, niche halo vehicle. The actual competitor to the Scout—and the vehicle that dominates the sales charts—is the Toyota 4Runner, which starts around $43,000. By pricing the Scout at $60k, you are ignoring the market leader (4Runner) to compare it to a niche luxury toy (Land Cruiser). Finally, the argument that "DTC means no markups" is a fallacy. If the factory sets the MSRP at $60k, they have effectively "baked in" the markup permanently. I would rather buy a $45k truck and fight a dealer over a $5k markup (total $50k) than simply hand the factory $60k and thank them for the privilege. That isn't a "better deal"—it's just a more efficient way to overpay.

Finally, your relief about "No Dealer Markups" completely misses the historical context and brings us right back to the artificial inflation I mentioned earlier. Dealer markups on mass-market vehicles are almost entirely a post-COVID phenomenon driven by artificial scarcity. For decades prior to 2020, the standard was paying below MSRP (Invoice pricing). When you say Scout is a "better deal" because you pay "only" $60k with no markup, you are normalizing a temporary market distortion. You are effectively cheering for the privilege of paying a factory-inflated price just to avoid a dealer-inflated price, rather than demanding we return to the pre-2020 reality where vehicles were sold based on actual value, not fear of missing out. The "DTC Model" doesn't save you money if the factory just decides to keep the scalper's profit for themselves.

I’m not fighting this battle to be a downer or an enemy of the community. I’m fighting it because I want the Scout community to be big enough for everyone—not just the folks who have accepted the "New Normal" of luxury pricing. I hope we all get the truck we want.

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.

 

[maynard]

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?

 

[tomgillotti]

Everyone is wasting their time with this back-and-forth arguing. OP thinks Scout should be $45k, and Scout says that's not a realistic price point. Agree to disagree and move on.

With respect, treating a corporation's opening statement on pricing as absolute truth is a strategic mistake for any consumer. Of course Scout says $45k isn't realistic right now; they are a business trying to anchor expectations high to maximize their initial margins. It is their job to tell us it costs more, but it is our job as the market to tell them what we are actually willing to pay. History is full of manufacturers—from Ford to Tesla—claiming that lower price points were "impossible" until market pressure forced them to find a way. "Realistic" is often just corporate-speak for "we prefer higher profit margins," and accepting that at face value is just negotiating against yourself.

Furthermore, I strongly disagree that this discussion is a waste of time. These forums are one of the few places where manufacturers actively gauge sentiment and enthusiasm. If we simply "agree to disagree and move on," we are signaling consent. We are effectively telling Scout, "We don't like the price, but we'll accept it." That is exactly how permanent price creep happens. The only way prices ever come down is if enough potential buyers make it clear that the current numbers don't work. I’m not arguing for the sake of arguing; I’m arguing because I want to buy this truck, and I know that politely "accepting reality" is just a guarantee that the price will never improve.