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

[tomgillotti]

Personally, I would assign a much higher value score to a Scout Terra, than to a Ford Lightening. They are just very different trucks to me.

So, consider that not all buyers are falling into traps - they likely think about capability, use cases, and ownership requirements differently.

The trap some of you are falling into is believing that this is "Scout's only chance" and that to win, they must "capture the equivalent marketshare to one of the big 3's ICE truck marketshare" straight out of the gate. That is an incorrect way to think about their re-launch, and has never been part of Scout's narrative. There can be multiple steps and multiple trucks with different entry points. Sorry - they just aren't going to be launched all at once, which likely makes some people unhappy.

I think the "trap" is actually the opposite. The trap is believing that a capable, electric utility truck has to cost $60,000+ because that’s what the current market dictates.

You mentioned the Lightning. That is actually the perfect example of why some of us are skeptical of the "Value" argument.

We have to remember that Ford proved they could sell a full-size electric truck for $40k just three years ago.

• May 2022: F-150 Lightning Pro launched at $39,974.

• The Reality: It wasn't a "lesser" truck. It was a 452hp, 4x4, Crew Cab.

Ford didn't kill that price point because the truck lacked capability or "use cases." They killed it because they realized they could force buyers into $70k+ trims if they simply removed the affordable option.

So when we say we want Scout to avoid the games, we aren't asking them to "capture 50% of the market" or defy physics. We are asking them to offer the value that the industry has proven is possible, but refuses to sell us.

 

[cyure]

Personally, I would assign a much higher value score to a Scout Terra, than to a Ford Lightening. They are just very different trucks to me.

So, consider that not all buyers are falling into traps - they likely think about capability, use cases, and ownership requirements differently.

The trap some of you are falling into is believing that this is "Scout's only chance" and that to win, they must "capture the equivalent marketshare to one of the big 3's ICE truck marketshare" straight out of the gate. That is an incorrect way to think about their re-launch, and has never been part of Scout's narrative. There can be multiple steps and multiple trucks with different entry points. Sorry - they just aren't going to be launched all at once, which likely makes some people unhappy.

Okay your post got me thinking. Something has to come first. Not only Terra or Traveler but trims. And I know I’ve been saying BEV needs to come first and the right trim and blah blah blah, but honestly I’m in this for the long haul and I would rather wait and get what I want and have been waiting for, then just pick something to go “first”. Now if they want to have an off road appearance package in PBY with 33s and a glass roof be one of the first offerings who am I to argue.

 

[R1TVT]

I think the "trap" is actually the opposite.

If you want to believe the opposite, that's fine - everyone has a right to believe whatever they want about price & value individually (which was my point)

You referenced the Lightning. I was not referencing price, and I (personally) would not be cross-shopping or referencing the Lightning when considering the Terra. If you can't understand that logic & that shoppers may be different, that's fine.

I'm telling you that you cannot assign me to the "we" that you reference, nor should you assume that everyone else agrees with your logic.

 

[socalscout]

I for one do not want an extended range ev. Especially in CA where even the generator on a vehicle requires smog testing.

Get me a BEV using solid state batteries with a 600+ mile range. If Mercedes and BMW can prototype these today, we should have them in 2 years globally.

 

[J Alynn]

I think the "trap" is actually the opposite. The trap is believing that a capable, electric utility truck has to cost $60,000+ because that’s what the current market dictates.

You mentioned the Lightning. That is actually the perfect example of why some of us are skeptical of the "Value" argument.

We have to remember that Ford proved they could sell a full-size electric truck for $40k just three years ago.

• May 2022: F-150 Lightning Pro launched at $39,974.

• The Reality: It wasn't a "lesser" truck. It was a 452hp, 4x4, Crew Cab.

Ford didn't kill that price point because the truck lacked capability or "use cases." They killed it because they realized they could force buyers into $70k+ trims if they simply removed the affordable option.

So when we say we want Scout to avoid the games, we aren't asking them to "capture 50% of the market" or defy physics. We are asking them to offer the value that the industry has proven is possible, but refuses to sell us.

But again to your points and my poll-the majority are OK with the price. And those that aren’t have the Slate as an option. This feels like the circular argument as before. The hang up -IMHO is Scout made an AMAZING F’ING truck that everybody likes. But not everybody can afford-plain and simple and again-Jamie has noted they are at the price point SM wants to be at. I LOVE the Mercedes AMG 63 -design wise it speaks to me. I CANT afford $200K. I am 100% sure Mercedes can lower that price-but they won’t because it’s a business decision. And ultimately as eluded to earlier in these debates-it’s SM prerogative to set the price and see what the market will bear. In the meanwhile they will surely be developing other models. Back to my house analogy-large builders don’t market or supply many spec homes at entry level unless they are an entry level builder. The margins are in the premium versions and the business success relies on that. They aren’t making more land so there is inherent value, somewhat different from vehicles but not really. Parts costs are part of this equation and we haven’t touched on that topic-should they all reduce their margins? Perhaps minimum wage and US assembly is the killer here as costs go? The other hurdle is this is a retro vehicle but it’s based on a simple machine from years ago and because of that people feel this should be as well-but it isn’t. You can’t resto-mod an original Scout for under $50-$60K so why should the new versions be the same price while being far superior in every way. So let’s look at if from that perspective. I can resto-mod a scout to reasonable levels and be in it for $60K with very little bells and whistles or for same money with a new Scout I get efficiency, fuel savings, better environmental impact, safety, tech, etc…. So are the Scout resto guys prepared to lower their prices? Most of this is a buyer’s decision and what they find to be a tolerable pain point to making a purchase. Prices will only continue to increase in this segment-across all brands and it will be what it will be but to date-the buyer market has not revolted and until it does it’s capitalism at its finest.

 

[rvburdge]

I think the "trap" is actually the opposite. The trap is believing that a capable, electric utility truck has to cost $60,000+ because that’s what the current market dictates.

You mentioned the Lightning. That is actually the perfect example of why some of us are skeptical of the "Value" argument.

We have to remember that Ford proved they could sell a full-size electric truck for $40k just three years ago.

• May 2022: F-150 Lightning Pro launched at $39,974.

• The Reality: It wasn't a "lesser" truck. It was a 452hp, 4x4, Crew Cab.

Ford didn't kill that price point because the truck lacked capability or "use cases." They killed it because they realized they could force buyers into $70k+ trims if they simply removed the affordable option.

So when we say we want Scout to avoid the games, we aren't asking them to "capture 50% of the market" or defy physics. We are asking them to offer the value that the industry has proven is possible, but refuses to sell us.

If I remember correctly that price list included the $7,500 rebate, and the <$40k starting price was for the Pro trim, which was initially only available for fleet sales. The XLT trim started at a little over $52k, and if you wanted the extended range battery that required another $15-20k in add-on options.
Taking that into account, the real starting price of a Lightning at launch- what you could actually go into a dealership and purchase as an individual, and without rebates or incentives- was right around $60k.