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

[tomgillotti]

I don't think the vehicle manufacturers are the main issue here, they're just following the buying trends and those trends are funding the rest of their business. I see a LOT of expensive trucks every day, being in the construction industry. The driving force here seems to be tax code and small businesses writing off their expenses. We often get calls from the accountant that we need to buy more business stuff to help out on our taxes. If I'm a small builder, I'm looking at that as an excuse to upgrade the work truck that serves double-duty as the family hauler after-hours. I don't have much equipment or many expenses otherwise, so why not splurge on my rolling office to reduce my tax liability? I really don't know if that applies to the rest of the country, but every contractor and subcontractor around here rolls up in $80k+ trucks and the construction industry is really booming in this end of the world. I see the same thing in other small businesses with luxury SUVs, cars, etc, so I suspect most of what has been driving up vehicle costs in recent years is that everybody and their brother has a small business and they're using them as tax shelters to buy nice cars.

You nailed a huge part of the problem. bonus depreciation absolutely distort the market by incentivizing business owners to buy the most expensive "heavy" vehicle they can find to lower their tax bill. It turns the truck from a tool into a financial instrument. But that actually reinforces my point about the "abandoned" customer.

While the contractors are writing off $80k trucks as a business expense, the rest of us—the W-2 employees, the teachers, the pilots, factory workers, the regular families—are left shopping in a market that has been artificially inflated by those tax breaks. We don't have an LLC to absorb the blow; we are paying with after-tax dollars. If manufacturers are only building trucks for people who can write them off, they have effectively gentrified the entire segment. My hope is that Scout realizes there is a massive, untapped market of regular people who need utility but don't have a "corporate fleet" excuse to pay for it. We shouldn't need a tax loophole just to afford a 4x4.

 

[tomgillotti]

WOW WOW WOW...

Scout Is Not Volkswagen, Volkswagen Is Not Scout. I always had a feeling you were an imposter. You most definitely work for the NADA after hearing "Scout is Volkswagen".

I have to laugh at the NADA accusation. I have been railing against dealer markups and the "middleman tax" the entire time in this thread. Accusing me of working for the dealer lobby is like accusing a vegan of working for a steakhouse. If I worked for NADA, I’d be arguing for franchise laws to protect dealer profits, not begging for a direct-to-consumer model that cuts them out entirely. It seems you are so eager to find a reason to call me an "imposter" that you stopped reading the actual posts.

As for "Scout is not Volkswagen"—you might want to check who signed the check for the $2 billion factory in South Carolina. Scout Motors Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group. They aren't a couple of guys in a garage running a Kickstarter; they are the strategic American off-road arm of the second-largest automaker on Earth. The fact that they operate as an independent brand doesn't mean they don't have access to the parent company's massive capital, supply chain leverage, and parts bin. Pretending they are a scrappy underdog with no resources is just ignoring reality to justify why they "need" to charge startup prices. They aren't a startup; they are a corporate division with a cool badge.

Check your facts.

 

[THil08]

Scout Motors, while part of the Volkswagen AG, is very specifically an independent company. It is not Volkswagen.

It's like calling a Lamborghini a Volkswagen. like what? That would make my Papa Ferruccio very upset to see those words in the same sentence.

 

[robothero]

It's like calling a Lamborghini a Volkswagen. like what? That would make my Papa Ferruccio very upset to see those words in the same sentence.

or your parents claiming your college degree because they paid for it...

 

[tomgillotti]

It's like calling a Lamborghini a Volkswagen. like what? That would make my Papa Ferruccio very upset to see those words in the same sentence.

You picked the absolute worst example to make your point. The Lamborghini Urus—their best-selling vehicle—literally shares the MLB Evo platform with the Volkswagen Touareg, Audi Q7, and Porsche Cayenne. They use the same chassis architecture, the same suspension hardpoints, and variations of the same Audi-derived V8. So yes, in 2024, a Lamborghini is effectively a Volkswagen with a sharper suit. That is exactly how the modern automotive industry works: platform sharing and corporate scale.

If "Papa Ferruccio" saw a Urus today, he might be upset that it has an Audi engine, but he would understand the business logic. My point remains: Scout is not an independent boutique; they are a subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group. Pretending they don't have access to that massive corporate parts bin or financial backing is just ignoring the reality of how cars are built today. They have the scale to build an affordable truck; the only question is whether they have the will.

Again, I urge you to check your facts instead of using emotions in place of logic.

 

[robothero]

This is actually a great point. Many of VW’s subsidiaries, with Audi being the clearest example, are deeply integrated into the VW. They share platforms, engineering, supply chains, and operate within tightly coupled governance and capital structures.

Scout is intentionally different. It was set up to operate independently by design. They are developing a platform from the ground up, have their own corporate structure and leadership team, and are pursuing a sales model that does not overlap with VW’s existing dealer-based brands. While they may selectively leverage VW know-how or suppliers (TBD on this one since we don't know a lot about supply chain yet), they are not embedded in VW the way Audi/Lambo/Porsche is.

VW’s investment in Scout is also structured with dedicated capital and separate financial accountability. This gives Scout startup-like autonomy and limits day-to-day integration with other VW brands. That independence is purposeful and allows Scout to pursue a new segment without being constrained by VW’s existing infrastructure. We don't have a ton of other insight into how their investment is structured but I wouldn't be surprised if there were also guardrails around how the capital can and cant be used (either by VW to cover losses by Scout or visa versa).

So while VW does have massive scale, Scout was not created to simply plug into it. VW chose to back a clean-sheet brand precisely so it could operate differently, even if that means higher early costs compared to fully integrated subsidiaries like Audi, Lambo, Porsche, etc.

 

[tomgillotti]

This is actually a great point. Many of VW’s subsidiaries, with Audi being the clearest example, are deeply integrated into the VW. They share platforms, engineering, supply chains, and operate within tightly coupled governance and capital structures.

Scout is intentionally different. It was set up to operate independently by design. They are developing a platform from the ground up, have their own corporate structure and leadership team, and are pursuing a sales model that does not overlap with VW’s existing dealer-based brands. While they may selectively leverage VW know-how or suppliers (TBD on this one since we don't know a lot about supply chain yet), they are not embedded in VW the way Audi/Lambo/Porsche is.

VW’s investment in Scout is also structured with dedicated capital and separate financial accountability. This gives Scout startup-like autonomy and limits day-to-day integration with other VW brands. That independence is purposeful and allows Scout to pursue a new segment without being constrained by VW’s existing infrastructure. We don't have a ton of other insight into how their investment is structured but I wouldn't be surprised if there were also guardrails around how the capital can and cant be used (either by VW to cover losses by Scout or visa versa).

So while VW does have massive scale, Scout was not created to simply plug into it. VW chose to back a clean-sheet brand precisely so it could operate differently, even if that means higher early costs compared to fully integrated subsidiaries like Audi, Lambo, Porsche, etc.

That is a fair distinction regarding the governance structure, and I agree that Scout is designed to have cultural independence to avoid the bureaucracy that plagues legacy auto. However, we need to be careful not to conflate "Operational Independence" with "Supply Chain Isolation."

While Scout has its own leadership and sales model, it would be fiscally irresponsible for them to ignore the purchasing power of the group. Take batteries, for example—the single most expensive component in the truck. VW is currently building massive battery plants through its PowerCo subsidiary to standardize cells and drive down costs globally. It is inconceivable that Scout would say, "No thanks, we’d rather pay a startup premium to buy cells on the open market" just to prove how independent they are.

My argument is that Scout should be targeting the "Best of Both Worlds" model: The agility and direct-sales margin of a startup, backed by the raw material pricing of a legacy giant. If they are truly operating with "higher early costs" because they refuse to leverage the VW parts bin for commodities (chips, motors, cells, raw materials), then they aren't maximizing their unique advantage. They would just be a startup with a rich uncle, rather than a strategic subsidiary. Independence should be used to cut overhead bureaucracy, not to inflate the Bill of Materials.

 

[robothero]

Just a hunch, but I'd wager that further entanglement between Scout and VW would negatively impact their position in the direct-to-consumer legal battle.

 

[THil08]

or your parents claiming your college degree because they paid for it...

Exactly

 

[THil08]

You picked the absolute worst example to make your point. The Lamborghini Urus—their best-selling vehicle—literally shares the MLB Evo platform with the Volkswagen Touareg, Audi Q7, and Porsche Cayenne. They use the same chassis architecture, the same suspension hardpoints, and variations of the same Audi-derived V8. So yes, in 2024, a Lamborghini is effectively a Volkswagen with a sharper suit. That is exactly how the modern automotive industry works: platform sharing and corporate scale.

If "Papa Ferruccio" saw a Urus today, he might be upset that it has an Audi engine, but he would understand the business logic. My point remains: Scout is not an independent boutique; they are a subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group. Pretending they don't have access to that massive corporate parts bin or financial backing is just ignoring the reality of how cars are built today. They have the scale to build an affordable truck; the only question is whether they have the will.

Again, I urge you to check your facts instead of using emotions in place of logic.

Maybe check before you use AI to type. because that is false. Jamie has said that they are using the parts bin for the Harvester. and they are all greatly appreciative about having the backing. Trust me no one is ignoring anything. They are working off a clean slate/startup to rebuild and revive the legacy that the IH Scout has built.

 

[tomgillotti]

Maybe check before you use AI to type. because that is false. Jamie has said that they are using the parts bin for the Harvester. and they are all greatly appreciative about having the backing. Trust me no one is ignoring anything. They are working off a clean slate/startup to rebuild and revive the legacy that the IH Scout has built.

You actually just walked right into the point I’ve been making. You can’t have it both ways. If, as you admit, they are using the VW parts bin for the Harvester engine, and they are leveraging the massive corporate backing for components, then the "clean slate startup" defense for high pricing completely evaporates.

A "clean slate" implies they have to engineer every bolt from scratch, which costs billions and justifies a high price tag. But if they are grabbing an engine off the shelf, sourcing batteries from the group’s PowerCo plants, and using the new software architecture from the VW/Rivian joint venture, then they are drastically reducing their R&D overhead compared to a true startup. My entire argument is that those savings—born from being a VW subsidiary—should be passed down to the consumer in the form of a competitive price, rather than pocketed as "luxury startup" margin. You just confirmed they have the efficiency; now they need to offer the value.

But look, I get it. It's human nature to defend our positions, and many of us—myself included—have died on the wrong hill just because we couldn't allow ourselves to be seen backing down. For anyone to admit that a $60k+ truck is a luxury purchase rather than a "necessary tool" is a hard pill to swallow. I'm not here to tell you how to spend your money; I don't know your personal financial situation. I'm simply making points that every potential buyer outside of this passionate forum is going to vote on with their wallet.

Our pride often tells us to stick to our position even when the facts (like the VW parts bin) show otherwise. There is actually a medical term that sort of describes this phenomenon: Anosognosia. It’s a condition where a person is unable to recognize their own deficit or conflicting reality. We see a lot of that in the current car market—people convincing themselves that paying luxury prices for basic utility is normal because the alternative is admitting we’re getting squeezed.

 

[robothero]

A "clean slate" implies they have to engineer every bolt from scratch, which costs billions and justifies a high price tag.

It absolutely does not imply that.

There is actually a medical term that sort of describes this phenomenon: Anosognosia. It’s a condition where a person is unable to recognize their own deficit or conflicting reality.

 

[tomgillotti]

It absolutely does not imply that.

back at ya

 

[THil08]

A "clean slate" implies they have to engineer every bolt from scratch, which costs billions and justifies a high price tag.

Which they have in a sense. Totally new platform. Body on frame. With parts being bidded out to other suppliers to build for Scout.

And PowerCo is a company any car company can work with. Just happened they were the lowest bidder.

 

[THil08]

back at ya

Im gonna give it back to!

 

[tomgillotti]

Which they have in a sense. Totally new platform. Body on frame. With parts being bidded out to other suppliers to build for Scout.

And PowerCo is a company any car company can work with. Just happened they were the lowest bidder.

"Just happened to be the lowest bidder"? That is a wild reimagining of corporate history.

PowerCo isn't some random third-party supplier that Scout discovered on the open market. It is a 100% wholly-owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group, founded in 2022 specifically to "bundle the global battery business of the Volkswagen Group".

Saying PowerCo won the contract because they were the "lowest bidder" is like saying the iPhone uses an Apple processor because Apple Silicon happened to submit the cheapest invoice. It’s not a bid; it’s vertical integration. Scout is using PowerCo cells because VW is spending billions building a factory in Ontario specifically to supply its North American brands.

As for "bidding out parts"—every automaker on earth does that. Ford bids out seats to Lear; GM bids out electronics to Bosch. That doesn't make them "startups," and it doesn't make their platforms "clean slate." It just makes them car companies. If Scout is sharing the single most expensive component of the vehicle (the battery) with the VW Group to save money, they are not a "clean slate" independent—they are a smart subsidiary leveraging corporate scale. And that scale should lower the price.

 

[strider]

Good grief. Are we still arguing about this? To the OP, you are no longer discussing in good faith. You are a Troll. You do not understand inflation, economics, manufacturing, or really much of anything as far as I can tell. You are just throwing a tantrum like a 2 year old. Boo-hoo I want 2019 pricing to come back..... Guess what? The world changed in 2020. We went from 40 years of disinflation to an inflationary regime. Prices are not going back to 2019 no matter how much you cry. Just stop.

I say again, if automakers are gouging their customers, this would show up in their profits and it is not doing so. You cherry-picked a small part of the COVID era where production was down but they were still selling inventory so margins went up. Not to mention, inflation is additive and had yet to really get rolling in 2021. Look at 2024 and 2025 numbers. Margins are nowhere. So please tell me where this gouging is occurring?

Here's GM:

Here's Ford:

VW has nothing to do with this. What's the line (I think from Seinfeld) that they will lose money on every truck but they'll make it up in volume?

Scout has taken on a bunch of debt in order to design the cars, build the factory, etc. Starting a car company is not for the faint of heart. There is a reason that Tesla, Rivian, et al followed the path that they did. They brought out the higher margin vehicles first so they could pay down some of the debt and give themselves some runway so they can make cheaper vehicles. Tesla was 14 years old before the Model 3 came out. Assuming the R2 comes out this year it will have been 15 years for Rivian. Are you telling me that all of these people are idiots or crooks? Wow, if only they had your genius they could have come out with $14,000 cars that went 500 miles!

Look, I get it. These last few years have been insane. But you act like Scout is able to rewrite the laws of economics. That's just not going to happen.

The last thing I will say is that one year ago, if you had taken the $40k that you want to spend on a truck and bought 15 ounces of gold, it would now be worth $67,500, orr pretty much right where Scout is planning to release the trucks. So if you want to be mad at someone, call your Congresscritter. It's their fault.....

 

[robothero]

If anything I'm mad at myself for not buying 15 ounces of gold!

 

[tomgillotti]

Good grief. Are we still arguing about this? To the OP, you are no longer discussing in good faith. You are a Troll. You do not understand inflation, economics, manufacturing, or really much of anything as far as I can tell. You are just throwing a tantrum like a 2 year old. Boo-hoo I want 2019 pricing to come back..... Guess what? The world changed in 2020. We went from 40 years of disinflation to an inflationary regime. Prices are not going back to 2019 no matter how much you cry. Just stop.

I say again, if automakers are gouging their customers, this would show up in their profits and it is not doing so. You cherry-picked a small part of the COVID era where production was down but they were still selling inventory so margins went up. Not to mention, inflation is additive and had yet to really get rolling in 2021. Look at 2024 and 2025 numbers. Margins are nowhere. So please tell me where this gouging is occurring?

Here's GM:
View attachment 12610

Here's Ford:
View attachment 12611

VW has nothing to do with this. What's the line (I think from Seinfeld) that they will lose money on every truck but they'll make it up in volume?

Scout has taken on a bunch of debt in order to design the cars, build the factory, etc. Starting a car company is not for the faint of heart. There is a reason that Tesla, Rivian, et al followed the path that they did. They brought out the higher margin vehicles first so they could pay down some of the debt and give themselves some runway so they can make cheaper vehicles. Tesla was 14 years old before the Model 3 came out. Assuming the R2 comes out this year it will have been 15 years for Rivian. Are you telling me that all of these people are idiots or crooks? Wow, if only they had your genius they could have come out with $14,000 cars that went 500 miles!

Look, I get it. These last few years have been insane. But you act like Scout is able to rewrite the laws of economics. That's just not going to happen.

The last thing I will say is that one year ago, if you had taken the $40k that you want to spend on a truck and bought 15 ounces of gold, it would now be worth $67,500, orr pretty much right where Scout is planning to release the trucks. So if you want to be mad at someone, call your Congresscritter. It's their fault.....

First, I’m not going to trade insults with you. Calling me a "troll" or a "toddler" because I cited data you dislike doesn't make the economic reality go away.

Regarding the charts you posted: You are looking at the blended corporate margins, which actually proves my point about why truck prices are so high. We know for a fact that the F-Series and Silverado are cash cows. Ford’s own financial reporting shows that "Ford Pro" (commercial/trucks) has massive margins, while "Ford Model e" (EVs) loses billions of dollars a year.

• The Translation: The company overall shows low margins because they are using the massive profits gouged from truck buyers to subsidize the billions they are losing on EVs and legacy pensions.

• The Scout Reality: You say Scout is a "clean slate." If that is true, they don't have an unprofitable EV division or 50 years of pension debt to subsidize. They shouldn't need to overcharge the truck buyer to balance the books like Ford does. If they price the truck at $60k, they aren't "surviving"—they are just pocketing the difference that Ford usually wastes.

As for your Gold analogy—you just perfectly argued my side. You said: "If you bought gold, it would be up." Exactly. Assets (Gold, Trucks, Real Estate) have inflated massively. Wages (as shown in the previous chart) have not.

Most Americans didn't buy 15 ounces of gold in 2019; they went to work. And their paycheck didn't appreciate 60% like gold did. That gap between "Asset Prices" (the truck) and "Real Wages" (the customer) is exactly what I am fighting for. You are telling people to "stop crying" about the fact that their labor is worth less than it was four years ago. I’m asking Scout to build a product that respects the reality of that paycheck.

Check your emotions.

 

[THil08]

If anything I'm mad at myself for not buying 15 ounces of gold!

Rosland Capital