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

[maynard]

I’m definitely susceptible to the emotional part of a vehicle purchase/ownership. Vanity isn’t my kind of thing. Getting attached to vehicles though? Absolutely. Yes, that’s me. Especially if it’s a vehicle that gives me the freedom to do the things I love and spend time with those I love.

I have a hard time keeping the emotional side of vehicles in check sometimes. Luckily my practical and budget-awareness sides gang up and beat that side of me to death. Most of the time, not 100% of the time. I have my moments.

Love this - it’s like I’m looking into a mirror!
Well, except you probably have hair…

 

[Moates442]

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.

Is it every bit as wide? Because when I saw the Terra and Traveler in person they look narrower than the traditional full size truck/suv's. They wouldn't let me measure it, but that's what it looked like. Could be wrong though.

 

[cyure]

Is it every bit as wide? Because when I saw the Terra and Traveler in person they look narrower than the traditional full size truck/suv's. They wouldn't let me measure it, but that's what it looked like. Could be wrong though.

They are as wide as a Ford F-150. 79.9 inches wide. The Traveler and Terra are the same width.

 

[Moates442]

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.

Maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly, but $60k isn't what it used to be, and $60k is cheap compared to what's out there. It's also about value. Both the technical and perceived. With Scout putting so much into this truck, even on a base trim, there is a lot of value there. From the more upscale interior to the the solid axle, the RE engine, the body on frame design, etc. If I want absolute cheap, I will get a Slate. Well, maybe I will get one anyway just cause it looks fun. I hope that makes sense though?

Well thought out designs, and quality will sell themselves. And for $60k, if they deliver what they are claiming, I think they have a winner.

 

[maynard]

Maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly, but $60k isn't what it used to be, and $60k is cheap compared to what's out there. It's also about value. Both the technical and perceived. With Scout putting so much into this truck, even on a base trim, there is a lot of value there. From the more upscale interior to the the solid axle, the RE engine, the body on frame design, etc. If I want absolute cheap, I will get a Slate. Well, maybe I will get one anyway just cause it looks fun. I hope that makes sense though?

Well thought out designs, and quality will sell themselves. And for $60k, if they deliver what they are claiming, I think they have a winner.

Agreed - 60K is not what it used to be - for fun overlay the price of gold, the national debt, and the value of a dollar on a spreadsheet - I think it illustrates your point...

 

[J Alynn]

Is it every bit as wide? Because when I saw the Terra and Traveler in person they look narrower than the traditional full size truck/suv's. They wouldn't let me measure it, but that's what it looked like. Could be wrong though.

I’m surprised to hear that because I feel it is very wide. I think the current vertical height set up proportionally against the width makes it seem a bit less wide than it truly is. Seeing it at the reveal at the end of the night mixed among some cars in the lot it drove through it showed as bigger

 

[Mousehunter]

I am not overly worried about it being as wide of body as the F150. Scout is not putting on huge fender flares and probably not towing mirrors (although I do enjoy towing mirrors). I had an F150 before my F250, and it felted almost dainty in comparison (the F150 was my 3rd 1/2 ton). Moving to the 3/4 ton at that point was a bit of a change for me. Now I guess the mirrors are the biggest difference in size (that and not many F150's are made with the 6.5' beds that are pretty much standard on the F250's).

The Scout does have more shoulders than the F150 as well, so that will make it a bit smaller inside - a couple inches anyway. It will feel smaller anyway.

 

[tomgillotti]

Maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly, but $60k isn't what it used to be, and $60k is cheap compared to what's out there. It's also about value. Both the technical and perceived. With Scout putting so much into this truck, even on a base trim, there is a lot of value there. From the more upscale interior to the the solid axle, the RE engine, the body on frame design, etc. If I want absolute cheap, I will get a Slate. Well, maybe I will get one anyway just cause it looks fun. I hope that makes sense though?

Well thought out designs, and quality will sell themselves. And for $60k, if they deliver what they are claiming, I think they have a winner.

First, I appreciate the respectful tone. It is refreshing to discuss the actual merits of the vehicle rather than attacking each other.

I see your point about "Relative Value"—compared to an $80k Rivian or a $100k Hummer, yes, $60k looks "cheap."

But I think the Slate comparison you made actually highlights exactly what is broken in the current market.

We are being told we only have two choices:


1. The "Toy": A $20k–$25k bare-bones neighborhood cruiser (Slate).

2. The "Luxury Lounge": A $60k+ high-tech, luxury off-roader (Scout, Rivian, Lariat F-150).


Where is the Middle Ground?

Whatever happened to the legitimate, full-size utility truck for $40k–$45k?

That is the "Missing Middle" that the Lightning Pro momentarily filled before Ford got greedy. That is the segment Scout explicitly targeted with their "Work hard, play hard" marketing.

My frustration isn't that the $60k Scout shouldn't exist—it’s that they seem to be abandoning the "Utility" customers to chase the "Lifestyle" customers, leaving the rest of us with no option between a golf cart and a second mortgage.

 

[J Alynn]

First, I appreciate the respectful tone. It is refreshing to discuss the actual merits of the vehicle rather than attacking each other.

I see your point about "Relative Value"—compared to an $80k Rivian or a $100k Hummer, yes, $60k looks "cheap."

But I think the Slate comparison you made actually highlights exactly what is broken in the current market.

We are being told we only have two choices:


1. The "Toy": A $20k–$25k bare-bones neighborhood cruiser (Slate).

2. The "Luxury Lounge": A $60k+ high-tech, luxury off-roader (Scout, Rivian, Lariat F-150).


Where is the Middle Ground?

Whatever happened to the legitimate, full-size utility truck for $40k–$45k?

That is the "Missing Middle" that the Lightning Pro momentarily filled before Ford got greedy. That is the segment Scout explicitly targeted with their "Work hard, play hard" marketing.

My frustration isn't that the $60k Scout shouldn't exist—it’s that they seem to be abandoning the "Utility" customers to chase the "Lifestyle" customers, leaving the rest of us with no option between a golf cart and a second mortgage.

I think you kinda just answered it-nobody from the manufacturing side is making money in that space. So they abandoned it. Plain and simple. You either make a super cheap starter vehicle or you price yourself in a position to make money. Let the Koreans and Chinese fill the middle spot because they can. They build much cheaper, have very little restrictions on pollution, etc… and can justify putting 600 of them on a vessel and shipping them here even with tariffs. I continue to be confused by your stance as there are SUVs under $45K. We own a fully loaded, with towing 3-row SUV-a honda pilot, and it was $44K and change. Has everything you could need (other than EV-but your posturing and debate have involved all vehicles so I am too). So to me-it sounds like you are interested in a Scout based on emotion, though you argue that and similar other points with every post you make. The reality is-your can get a loaded SUV that is capable (for 98%+ drivers) and be under $45K. I’ve finally realized reading these posts that I just don’t think you care to have one. So I feel like you are either emotionally attached which you’ve argued isn’t the case, or you just find joy in debating any/everyone here on the forum that will engage you.
So I offer this final thought.
Mashed potatoes!

 

[tomgillotti]

I think you kinda just answered it-nobody from the manufacturing side is making money in that space. So they abandoned it. Plain and simple. You either make a super cheap starter vehicle or you price yourself in a position to make money. Let the Koreans and Chinese fill the middle spot because they can. They build much cheaper, have very little restrictions on pollution, etc… and can justify putting 600 of them on a vessel and shipping them here even with tariffs. I continue to be confused by your stance as there are SUVs under $45K. We own a fully loaded, with towing 3-row SUV-a honda pilot, and it was $44K and change. Has everything you could need (other than EV-but your posturing and debate have involved all vehicles so I am too). So to me-it sounds like you are interested in a Scout based on emotion, though you argue that and similar other points with every post you make. The reality is-your can get a loaded SUV that is capable (for 98%+ drivers) and be under $45K. I’ve finally realized reading these posts that I just don’t think you care to have one. So I feel like you are either emotionally attached which you’ve argued isn’t the case, or you just find joy in debating any/everyone here on the forum that will engage you.
So I offer this final thought.
Mashed potatoes!

I think the Honda Pilot comparison actually illustrates exactly the gap I am talking about.

1. The "Crossover" vs. "Utility" Error

You are right—there are plenty of SUVs under $45k. But a Honda Pilot is a unibody family hauler. It is excellent for school runs, but it is mechanically closer to a minivan than a Scout.

When I ask for the "Missing Middle," I am asking for Utility Capability (Body-on-frame, lockers, solid axles) at a reasonable price.

Case in point: In 2013—just 12 years ago—I bought a fully loaded Jeep Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited for $35,000 ($38k sticker).

That wasn't a stripped base model; that was the pinnacle of off-road capability at the time.

Even if you adjust that $38k sticker for inflation, it should be about $51,000 today. Instead, a comparable loaded Rubicon is now pushing $70,000+.


2. The "Market Rejection" Reality

Some might argue that makes a $60k Scout a "deal" by comparison, but look at what happened to Jeep. They chased those higher margins, and now their sales have plummeted and inventory is rotting on dealer lots. The market has rejected the "Luxury Price for Utility Vehicle" concept.

I don't want Scout to copy Jeep’s mistake; I want them to copy the model that actually sells in volume.

And yes, mashed potatoes... And turkey..... And, now I'm hungry.