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.

 

[tomgillotti]

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.

Fair enough. When I refer to "we," I am speaking to the segment of the market that is looking for the utility value that was promised, but I understand that doesn't include every individual buyer.

Regarding the Lightning: My point wasn't about whether you personally like or would buy the Ford. It was about manufacturing feasibility.

The existence of a $40k Lightning Pro proves that it is financially possible to build and sell a full-size electric truck at that price point. That data point is relevant to Scout's pricing strategy regardless of brand preference.

Finally, let's keep the personal jabs ("if you can't understand logic") out of this. We can disagree on market dynamics without attacking each other’s intelligence. This is the second time I've had to ask this of you.

 

[tomgillotti]

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.

You hit the nail on the head with the "US assembly is the killer" comment, but I think it goes deeper than just minimum wage or parts costs.

1. The "Jobs Program" Tax: The uncomfortable truth we have to face is that the US often treats manufacturing as a "Jobs Program" first and a production process second. We tend to celebrate "creating jobs" even if it means baking inefficiencies into the line.

If you look at the Chinese manufacturing model (which is currently eating the global auto industry’s lunch), they don't make that mistake. They automate relentlessly. They don't keep three guys on a station just to hit a headcount quota; they install a casting machine to drop the cost. The reason their EVs are terrifyingly cheap isn't just lower wages—it's that they don't manufacture for the sake of employment; they manufacture for output.


2. The Resto-Mod Fallacy. Respectfully, I have to disagree with the Resto-Mod logic. The entire point of Mass Production is to beat the price of "Hand Built."

• A hand-made custom table might cost $5,000.

• A factory-made table costs $500.

That is the promise of the assembly line. If a mass-produced vehicle costs the same as a guy hand-building a Resto-Mod in his garage over 6 months, then the factory has failed at its primary economic purpose: Scale.

We shouldn't accept "Custom Shop Prices" for "Assembly Line Products."

 

[pwrofgrayskull]

Maybe, but for that there is a "dealer adjustment" of an additional $10K.

The optional driver's door already has glass etching on it, so there will be an additional charge for that too.

Oh man…this one got me bad. Thank you. Thank you for that. I guess that one hit pretty close to home based on my dealership experiences. Well done.

 

[J Alynn]

You hit the nail on the head with the "US assembly is the killer" comment, but I think it goes deeper than just minimum wage or parts costs.

1. The "Jobs Program" Tax: The uncomfortable truth we have to face is that the US often treats manufacturing as a "Jobs Program" first and a production process second. We tend to celebrate "creating jobs" even if it means baking inefficiencies into the line.

If you look at the Chinese manufacturing model (which is currently eating the global auto industry’s lunch), they don't make that mistake. They automate relentlessly. They don't keep three guys on a station just to hit a headcount quota; they install a casting machine to drop the cost. The reason their EVs are terrifyingly cheap isn't just lower wages—it's that they don't manufacture for the sake of employment; they manufacture for output.


2. The Resto-Mod Fallacy. Respectfully, I have to disagree with the Resto-Mod logic. The entire point of Mass Production is to beat the price of "Hand Built."

• A hand-made custom table might cost $5,000.

• A factory-made table costs $500.

That is the promise of the assembly line. If a mass-produced vehicle costs the same as a guy hand-building a Resto-Mod in his garage over 6 months, then the factory has failed at its primary economic purpose: Scale.

We shouldn't accept "Custom Shop Prices" for "Assembly Line Products."

You’ve misconstrued my my point about resto-mod. It wasn’t a comparison about production nor should it be. It’s a point about perceived value and what market will bear for those who want a Scout for Scout sake and not for the EV tech lover or gotta have it first crowd-which are still part of sales success don’t get me wrong-but this is a product that by design is intended to use nostalgia, otherwise VWAG could have just rebranded a Touraeg, made it meet US standards and started selling them 6 months ago. SM chose a different path and that nostalgia is key to their success no matter how much you argue it the other way. And when looking for a Scout experience you have two choices. By a Scout resto-mod (or keep it in mint rusted condition) or buy one of the new versions by SM. And by comparison the new model at $60K, mass produced or not-is the only viable option to an original scout if that is a buyer’s desire. And if it isn’t then the entire SUV market is now fair game with prices from mid $30K to nearly $200K. Your arguments are flawed because you are arguing over cost of good as though it’s a commodity item. In basic theory it is, however the majority of buyers choose based on emotion which is where pricing can play the role it does. Otherwise they’d be 2 companies making today’s version of the Model T in black and only black. And two so they keep each other honest. No frills, no color choices, no heaters (we all own a blanket) no A/C-drive in your shorts and tank top and so on…. The current market exists today because everyone in some shape or form wants to be recognized and acknowledged based on status such as vehicle or home. If not, there wouldn’t be 10 year old cars rolling on brand new $4,000 rims. When boiled down vehicle sales are about vanity, otherwise you buy a white sedan-more layers of paint when white and a car has less margin than an SUV and the world raised most of us successfully with cars. So in my belief, to succeed in your arguments the big 2 vehicle manufactures need to reduce model choice to (1) and (1) color and no amenities and force prices down to $15K per vehicle. But they won’t-because they know vanity sells and they will fail with that model. So grab the 3 or 4 folks here that maybe want to grab their pitch forks and follow your cause and start your march to the front doors of the Big 3 and tell them to change. However, until other nonsensical items and dress up clothes for pets and plastic surgeons and make -up companies and diet programs cease to exist vanity won’t allow car companies to reduce their prices by the 25% you think they should.
I see it daily where people are driving 10year old BMWs out of warranty with expensive rims and tint and $1,000’s of dollars of crap when thy could drive a 4 year old Honda civic or Toyota Corolla and spend less on service and repairs. Problem is-image matters to most and there is the problem that manufactures have to overcome. I shop at Costco for shirts, coats, etc and don’t care about brands so short of the Scouts, I’m the ideal client for this mindset change-but I can afford a Scout and I want one and sometimes that’s the simplest way to see things-because logic doesn’t matter-if it did we wouldn’t have leased cars-you’d buy what you can afford and drive it until it was no longer repairable or safe-much like the original Scouts