Extra, Extra....Read All About It!

[THil08]

I feel almost identically.

I understand why Scout made the decision they did. And maybe if the Harvester works out, it’ll convince some fence-sitters to move over to all-EV. But in the end, it is, to me, a distraction from the ultimate vehicle. I couldn’t imagine going back to gas. It’s too nice to have minimal maintenance, significantly lower costs, always having a full charge for around town driving, never having to listen to the drone of an engine, never having to smell gasoline, etc., etc., etc.

I hope Scout doesn’t fall into the trap Stellantis has with the RAM EREV fiasco. RAM could have had a decent competitor to the Lightning and Sliverado EV out by now if they had gone with pure EV. The added complexity from both an engineering and from a maintenance standpoint don’t make any sense to me.

RAM Cancelled the EREV to bring back the Hemi. Thats on stellantis.

Scout is Scout, and from what ive Watched and have Read, it seems Scout is the only one who will figured it out, besides the ol BMW i3.

 

[Chuckles]

RAM Cancelled the EREV to bring back the Hemi. Thats on stellantis.

Scout is Scout, and from what ive Watched and have Read, it seems Scout is the only one who will figured it out, besides the ol BMW i3

I thought the Ramcharger was only delayed, not cancelled? The large battery Ram REV was definitely cancelled.

 

[THil08]

I thought the Ramcharger was only delayed, not cancelled? The large battery Ram REV was definitely cancelled.

They keep delaying, at some point they will admit that they canceled to focus on the rebirth of the Hemi.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I thought the Ramcharger was only delayed, not cancelled? The large battery Ram REV was definitely cancelled.

That’s part of the problem. They have been entirely unclear with everyone what they’re doing. As of today, they have both vehicles still listed on their site. The RAM Charger has an “expected in 2026” note and the BEV has no expected date, so I think your understanding is correct.

I will be surprised if the RAM Charger makes it out of the factory.

Again, I hope Scout figures it out. The engineering is no small thing. I hope they have imported a few BYD Shark EREV pickups to play with to learn the issues they’ll face with the engineering complexity, with warranty work, with setting expectations properly, and with what not to do.

 

[R1TVT]

I think my original negative viewpoint of EVs was primarily due to misinformation (and never did care for Elon, even then).

I felt (and feel) the same way. I give credit where credit is due for the early innovation that Tesla helped to drive, but I would NEVER own a Tesla, and have no interest in Elon as a person (or crazed lunatic fleecing shareholders and customers, or making wild promises that are untrue or never delivered). I can get behind RJ and his vision, no problem... And Scout seems to be acting in good faith to help convert a generally "more reluctant" gasser truck audience to the benefits of EV's. The Scout brand and ethos is all about the outdoors and that ties directly into the environment and being conscious of the tangible impact humans have had (in a relatively compressed timeframe since the industrial revolution to present).

 

[J Alynn]

Two new stories on the stories page of the community section. Sorry I’m not posting the links tonight. But maybe @Chavannigans will be cooler than me and post them

 

[J Alynn]

They keep delaying, at some point they will admit that they canceled to focus on the rebirth of the Hemi.

Sadly-the hemi is a dinosaur as technology is considered but kudos to Dodge for knowing their audience. That said-their inability to adopt toward EV or better efficiency will ultimately end them as a subsidiary of Stellantis and they’ll find the same fate-just as Plymouth faded then got buried

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I felt (and feel) the same way. I give credit where credit is due for the early innovation that Tesla helped to drive, but I would NEVER own a Tesla, and have no interest in Elon as a person (or crazed lunatic fleecing shareholders and customers, or making wild promises that are untrue or never delivered). I can get behind RJ and his vision, no problem... And Scout seems to be acting in good faith to help convert a generally "more reluctant" gasser truck audience to the benefits of EV's. The Scout brand and ethos is all about the outdoors and that ties directly into the environment and being conscious of the tangible impact humans have had (in a relatively compressed timeframe since the industrial revolution to present).

And all of the credit is due to the fantastic engineers who did the actual work, most of whom have moved on to better places to work.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Sadly-the hemi is a dinosaur as technology is considered but kudos to Doge for knowing their audience. That said-their inability to adopt toward EV or better efficiency will ultimately end them as a subsidiary of Stellantis and they’ll find the same fate-just as Plymouth faded then got buried

The hemispherical combustion chamber has been in use since no later than 1901. It’s almost literally the least interesting arrangement of a combustion chamber one could possibly imagine. It’s out-performed by almost every other kind of “new” technology like overhead cams, multi-valve engines, and many other technologies. The “Hemi” is not just a dinosaur, but also a marketing miracle. Even the modern “Hemi” isn’t truly hemispherical and had to be flattened into a half oblate spheroid because its predecessor was so inefficient at combustion.

 

[strider]

I understand why Scout made the decision they did. And maybe if the Harvester works out, it’ll convince some fence-sitters to move over to all-EV. But in the end, it is, to me, a distraction from the ultimate vehicle. I couldn’t imagine going back to gas. It’s too nice to have minimal maintenance, significantly lower costs, always having a full charge for around town driving, never having to listen to the drone of an engine, never having to smell gasoline, etc., etc., etc.

I hope Scout doesn’t fall into the trap Stellantis has with the RAM EREV fiasco. RAM could have had a decent competitor to the Lightning and Sliverado EV out by now if they had gone with pure EV. The added complexity from both an engineering and from a maintenance standpoint don’t make any sense to me.

I disagree. The TAM for BEVs is too small. You can see it in manufacturers constantly falling short of sales expectations, projects being cancelled, etc. How do you grow the TAM? The 2 biggest hangups people have are cost and range anxiety. Cost is improving as battery costs come down. That leave range anxiety and you have 2 options there. 1) Crank the range really high so people aren't worried but then that makes the cost too high 2) Make a PHEV/EREV and let people have that as a security blanket.

My old boss did this. He had range anxiety going to a full BEV so he bought a Chevy Volt. Drove that for a few years and after realizing he almost never used the gas engine (and that a BEV would have way more than 40 miles of electric range) he bought a BEV. It also solves the towing problem for those that need to tow long distances.

I plug in my Lightning and Mustang every night and charge to 95% and 85%, respectively (because I’m too lazy to change the Mustang’s value up to 95%). If you can, you should always be charging. There’s no reason not to.

The old myth of not charging above 80% is misunderstood and incorrect for home charging. When on a road trip, it often makes sense not to charge once the charge rate drops significantly, which happens around 80% for most EVs. But there’s no reason not to charge higher while at home. And there’s no reason not to come home with less than 5%. Though most people will very rarely do so. You have more like 90-95% of the battery readily available to you while commuting and doing around-town errand-running.

So I am not a battery engineer but I'm going to push back on this. What I'm about to say may have improved with newer chemistries; I am only familiar with NCA cells used in the Tesla Roadster, S, and X. Li-Ion batteries degrade in 2 ways: cycle degradation (charge/discharge cycles) and calendar degradation (cell age). Calendar degradation is minimized when the cells are at 50% SOC. Calendar degradation increases exponentially the closer you get to 0% or 100%. 80% was chosen by the community to minimize calendar degradation long before DCFCs existed so it is not related to home vs road trip. The reason 80% was chosen was because this was the lowest SOC that would allow the BMS to balance the pack.

That being said, there is variation among manufacturers. All manufacturers reserve some amount of the pack at the very high and very low end. You will sometimes see this listed as 1 value for pack size and another value for usable capacity. The charge percentage that you set is based on usable capacity. So for example, if the manufacturer reserves the top 10%, then if you charge to 90% the battery is actually at 80%. Tesla has historically given their customers access to more of the pack than their competitors. They do that both to increase their EPA range on the sticker and also they trust the user to not wreck the pack by leaving it at 100% or 0% for long periods. Legacy manufacturers have historically reserved more of the pack - they tend to be more conservative in their approach to pack usage.

All that to say, newer chemistries may not degrade as much at high SOC and depending on how much of the actual pack capacity is reserved, it may be fine to regularly charge to higher SOCs.

To sum up, calendar degradation is based on time spent at very high or very low SOC. It is a bad idea to charge to 100% and let it sit for days/weeks or park it near 0% and leave it there for days/weeks. This will increase calendar degradation. But if you charge to 100% for a trip and depart a few hours later, there will be very little time spent at the high SOC so you won't incur very much calendar degradation. The daily charge on my Model S and X are set to 80%. If I have a long drive the ext day I will do a 100% charge the night before. It is simple to set that in the car or via your phone.

The last thing I'll say is that for those of you that are new to BEVs, all of the above will become common knowledge. It's no different than how everyone knows that ICEs lose power at high altitudes, you need to change the oil and spark plugs periodically, you use fuel stabilizer if you're going to store a car for long periods, etc. It's not more complicated than ICEs, we've just grown up with them so all of these details are common knowledge. BEVs are WAY simpler than ICEs.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

RAM Cancelled the EREV to bring back the Hemi. Thats on stellantis.

Scout is Scout, and from what ive Watched and have Read, it seems Scout is the only one who will figured it out, besides the ol BMW i3.

BYD has a working example in the Shark. But, yeah, nobody shipping or building in the US has an in-production example at this date. The issue isn’t really having a serial hybrid. Honda did that long ago, Chevy did it in its Volt*, Mazda did it with their MX-30, and others have done it as well.

The issue is having a high-performance ICE in a series hybrid.

*The Chevy Volt had the option to run as series or parallel hybrid, depending on the needs.

 

[J Alynn]

The hemispherical combustion chamber has been in use since no later than 1901. It’s almost literally the least interesting arrangement of a combustion chamber one could possibly imagine. It’s out-performed by almost every other kind of “new” technology like overhead cams, multi-valve engines, and many other technologies. The “Hemi” is not just a dinosaur, but also a marketing miracle. Even the modern “Hemi” isn’t truly hemispherical and had to be flattened into a half oblate spheroid because its predecessor was so inefficient at combustion.

Never knew that. And here I only gave you credit as a knowledgeable EV guy. Now to add irrelevant ICE to your list. Thanks for sharing

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

So I am not a battery engineer but I'm going to push back on this. What I'm about to say may have improved with newer chemistries; I am only familiar with NCA cells used in the Tesla Roadster, S, and X. Li-Ion batteries degrade in 2 ways: cycle degradation (charge/discharge cycles) and calendar degradation (cell age). Calendar degradation is minimized when the cells are at 50% SOC. Calendar degradation increases exponentially the closer you get to 0% or 100%. 80% was chosen by the community to minimize calendar degradation long before DCFCs existed so it is not related to home vs road trip. The reason 80% was chosen was because this was the lowest SOC that would allow the BMS to balance the pack.

That being said, there is variation among manufacturers. All manufacturers reserve some amount of the pack at the very high and very low end. You will sometimes see this listed as 1 value for pack size and another value for usable capacity. The charge percentage that you set is based on usable capacity. So for example, if the manufacturer reserves the top 10%, then if you charge to 90% the battery is actually at 80%. Tesla has historically given their customers access to more of the pack than their competitors. They do that both to increase their EPA range on the sticker and also they trust the user to not wreck the pack by leaving it at 100% or 0% for long periods. Legacy manufacturers have historically reserved more of the pack - they tend to be more conservative in their approach to pack usage.

All that to say, newer chemistries may not degrade as much at high SOC and depending on how much of the actual pack capacity is reserved, it may be fine to regularly charge to higher SOCs.

To sum up, calendar degradation is based on time spent at very high or very low SOC. It is a bad idea to charge to 100% and let it sit for days/weeks or park it near 0% and leave it there for days/weeks. This will increase calendar degradation. But if you charge to 100% for a trip and depart a few hours later, there will be very little time spent at the high SOC so you won't incur very much calendar degradation. The daily charge on my Model S and X are set to 80%. If I have a long drive the ext day I will do a 100% charge the night before. It is simple to set that in the car or via your phone.

The last thing I'll say is that for those of you that are new to BEVs, all of the above will become common knowledge. It's no different than how everyone knows that ICEs lose power at high altitudes, you need to change the oil and spark plugs periodically, you use fuel stabilizer if you're going to store a car for long periods, etc. It's not more complicated than ICEs, we've just grown up with them so all of these details are common knowledge. BEVs are WAY simpler than ICEs.

I was responding to a comment that claimed you couldn’t use more than 60% of the battery on a daily basis (charge cap at 80% and don’t drive below 20%). That’s nonsense.

Charging to 100% daily and then driving daily to use 10-20-30% will not harm the battery. Charging to high SOC won’t harm the battery unless you then leave it at very high (>50 ºC) or very low (< 0 ºC) temperatures for very long periods of time (weeks+). Charging to 100% won’t even charge to 100%, as you note.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Never knew that. And here I only gave you credit as a knowledgeable EV guy. Now to add irrelevant ICE to your list. Thanks for sharing

I grew up building frankenstein’s monster gas vehicles. I’m a car/motorcycle guy. I just found that these days I am much more excited about EV technology than internal combustion technology.

The chemistry and physics of internal combustion is fun, but it’s been done. and done. and done. and done. Yawn.

 

[J Alynn]

I disagree. The TAM for BEVs is too small. You can see it in manufacturers constantly falling short of sales expectations, projects being cancelled, etc. How do you grow the TAM? The 2 biggest hangups people have are cost and range anxiety. Cost is improving as battery costs come down. That leave range anxiety and you have 2 options there. 1) Crank the range really high so people aren't worried but then that makes the cost too high 2) Make a PHEV/EREV and let people have that as a security blanket.

My old boss did this. He had range anxiety going to a full BEV so he bought a Chevy Volt. Drove that for a few years and after realizing he almost never used the gas engine (and that a BEV would have way more than 40 miles of electric range) he bought a BEV. It also solves the towing problem for those that need to tow long distances.

So I am not a battery engineer but I'm going to push back on this. What I'm about to say may have improved with newer chemistries; I am only familiar with NCA cells used in the Tesla Roadster, S, and X. Li-Ion batteries degrade in 2 ways: cycle degradation (charge/discharge cycles) and calendar degradation (cell age). Calendar degradation is minimized when the cells are at 50% SOC. Calendar degradation increases exponentially the closer you get to 0% or 100%. 80% was chosen by the community to minimize calendar degradation long before DCFCs existed so it is not related to home vs road trip. The reason 80% was chosen was because this was the lowest SOC that would allow the BMS to balance the pack.

That being said, there is variation among manufacturers. All manufacturers reserve some amount of the pack at the very high and very low end. You will sometimes see this listed as 1 value for pack size and another value for usable capacity. The charge percentage that you set is based on usable capacity. So for example, if the manufacturer reserves the top 10%, then if you charge to 90% the battery is actually at 80%. Tesla has historically given their customers access to more of the pack than their competitors. They do that both to increase their EPA range on the sticker and also they trust the user to not wreck the pack by leaving it at 100% or 0% for long periods. Legacy manufacturers have historically reserved more of the pack - they tend to be more conservative in their approach to pack usage.

All that to say, newer chemistries may not degrade as much at high SOC and depending on how much of the actual pack capacity is reserved, it may be fine to regularly charge to higher SOCs.

To sum up, calendar degradation is based on time spent at very high or very low SOC. It is a bad idea to charge to 100% and let it sit for days/weeks or park it near 0% and leave it there for days/weeks. This will increase calendar degradation. But if you charge to 100% for a trip and depart a few hours later, there will be very little time spent at the high SOC so you won't incur very much calendar degradation. The daily charge on my Model S and X are set to 80%. If I have a long drive the ext day I will do a 100% charge the night before. It is simple to set that in the car or via your phone.

The last thing I'll say is that for those of you that are new to BEVs, all of the above will become common knowledge. It's no different than how everyone knows that ICEs lose power at high altitudes, you need to change the oil and spark plugs periodically, you use fuel stabilizer if you're going to store a car for long periods, etc. It's not more complicated than ICEs, we've just grown up with them so all of these details are common knowledge. BEVs are WAY simpler than ICEs.

Thanks for that. I’ve been pondering this and it’s a bit anecdotal but a good spot. As a “start up” I think SM was smart to hit their first two vehicles where they landed them-best opportunity to maximize sales based on demand. They nailed the design cues as 98% (my estimate-from thin air) of people reserved or watching love the look. And I wonder this often if these aren’t SM’s gateway drugs. They really aren’t the most emotional vehicles-bigger than originals, no actual life style uses or quirky designs (like an urban Metro model for businesses or parts companies to drive around in) and they’ve taken a relatively safe approach to skateboard to maximize batteries within a reasonable price point. All this with an EREV that brings in a large swath of buyers who aren’t BEV yet but believe they would LIKE to be EV drivers. So now we all get on the gateway drug and the 3-5 years after sales start-SM starts introducing the designer drugs, unique styles, longer range batteries, removable tops and lifestyle vehicles-and by then we are hooked. Not only do we love scouts and crave the more “potent “ stuff but we’ve also had 2-3 years of driving experience to realize as @strider mentioned that we are comfortable with full BEV. Smaller niche vehicles won’t have the room for a gen and it will be ways less necessary to offer it. So while I’m gambling on BEV out of the gate-because I’ve learned a lot here and know my use cases. I’ll still be wanting the elusive high of a lifestyle vehicle and my SM “dealer” will have the goods to satisfy my needs/wants.
I think it is a brilliant strategy to bring the masses to the other side.

 

[dreamweaver]

I grew up building frankenstein’s monster gas vehicles. I’m a car/motorcycle guy. I just found that these days I am much more excited about EV technology than internal combustion technology.

The chemistry and physics of internal combustion is fun, but it’s been done. and done. and done. and done. Yawn.

there it goes, wayback....and it's gone!

 

[cyure]

This is the one thing that has me really considering a BEV. So much less maintenance.

Ford's $30,000 EV Truck Could Save Americans Thousands in Maintenance. And They Need To Know it

Ford's $30,000 electric pickup could be a hit so long as the company highlights the simplicity and cost of EV maintenance.

www.motor1.com

 

[dreamweaver]

This is the one thing that has me really considering a BEV. So much less maintenance.

Ford's $30,000 EV Truck Could Save Americans Thousands in Maintenance. And They Need To Know it

Ford's $30,000 electric pickup could be a hit so long as the company highlights the simplicity and cost of EV maintenance.

www.motor1.com

I especially like this part in the article.

"The first major maintenance interval for either of Ford's EVs is at 200,000 miles, and even then, there’s not much to do. Many owners may not bring in their EV for its first major service for over a decade after purchase.."

 

[cyure]

I especially like this part in the article.

"The first major maintenance interval for either of Ford's EVs is at 200,000 miles, and even then, there’s not much to do. Many owners may not bring in their EV for its first major service for over a decade after purchase.."

No wonder dealerships want to keep you buying ICE engines.

 

[dreamweaver]

No wonder dealerships want to keep you buying ICE engines.

Right on the nose.