Higher Range

[ejwl]

I saw the expected range is 350 miles and up 500 with the range extender. I would be nice to have a higher base range like 400 or 450. The rivian r1s range is 410 and the lucid gravity range is estimated at 450. In order to keep up with the competition the amount of range should be matched or exceeded. 400 base range and 500 with the extender is a good start.

 

[mastertroll]

Not necessarily - It all depends, although that would be a good sized battery for this truck, for sure. Depends on final battery size & spec's, depends on wheels and tires, depends on final coefficient of drag, depends on WX, depends on testing, etc, etc, etc,...

But, what we do know is this:

With a 130 kWh battery at 2.7 mi/kWh, the truck would have an estimated range of:
130 × 2.7 = 351 miles

Could a Scout get 2.7 mi/kWh? That is really the question (if that is the final spec on the battery based on AVG .current EV truck efficiency). Again, NO PRODUCTION SPEC's yet, so we need to wait.

All of that said, I think a well appointed Scout on 20's with AT's will likely see closer to 2.0-2.5 mi/kWh.

Going down a hill. You can use the Lightning as a good example for comparison because I've been told many times it's the same size which is a good thing. With that being said, this truck does not get 300 miles unless you like to see if you'll make it.

Load some people up.. do some truck stuff.. Factor in wind or cold.. let's say you get closer to 1.. that's a 130 miles lol.

 

[Logan]

Not necessarily - It all depends, although that would be a good sized battery for this truck, for sure. Depends on final battery size & spec's, depends on wheels and tires, depends on final coefficient of drag, depends on WX, depends on testing, etc, etc, etc,...

But, what we do know is this:

With a 130 kWh battery at 2.7 mi/kWh, the truck would have an estimated range of:
130 × 2.7 = 351 miles

Could a Scout get 2.7 mi/kWh? That is really the question (if that is the final spec on the battery based on AVG .current EV truck efficiency). Again, NO PRODUCTION SPEC's yet, so we need to wait.

All of that said, I think a well appointed Scout on 20's with AT's will likely see closer to 2.0-2.5 mi/kWh.

My Ioniq 9 has 5k miles on it right now. And our average efficiency is ~2.9 miles/kwh. My buddy has an identical model, with 6k miles on it, and they have a lifetime avg of 2.7miles/kwh.

Given that the Ioniq 9 is on street tires, is lower to the ground, lighter weight (likely, it has a smaller battery at 110kwh) and is more aerodynamic, I'd expect the Scouts to get worse efficiency.

However, it is worth noting, that both of these efficiency averages have been been over the winter (purchased in September). In the summer time, our average was more like 3.2 - 3.4miles/kwh.

Still, I think 2.0 - 2.4 miles/kwh is about where we'll see the scouts, unless something changes dramatically.

 

[cyure]

My Ioniq 9 has 5k miles on it right now. And our average efficiency is ~2.9 miles/kwh. My buddy has an identical model, with 6k miles on it, and they have a lifetime avg of 2.7miles/kwh.

Given that the Ioniq 9 is on street tires, is lower to the ground, lighter weight (likely, it has a smaller battery at 110kwh) and is more aerodynamic, I'd expect the Scouts to get worse efficiency.

However, it is worth noting, that both of these efficiency averages have been been over the winter (purchased in September). In the summer time, our average was more like 3.2 - 3.4miles/kwh.

Still, I think 2.0 - 2.4 miles/kwh is about where we'll see the scouts, unless something changes dramatically.

I keep seeing all these posts and I go , no idea what is even good or bad yet. There’s for sure going to be a learning curve when I get my Scout.

 

[mastertroll]

My Ioniq 9 has 5k miles on it right now. And our average efficiency is ~2.9 miles/kwh. My buddy has an identical model, with 6k miles on it, and they have a lifetime avg of 2.7miles/kwh.

Given that the Ioniq 9 is on street tires, is lower to the ground, lighter weight (likely, it has a smaller battery at 110kwh) and is more aerodynamic, I'd expect the Scouts to get worse efficiency.

However, it is worth noting, that both of these efficiency averages have been been over the winter (purchased in September). In the summer time, our average was more like 3.2 - 3.4miles/kwh.

Still, I think 2.0 - 2.4 miles/kwh is about where we'll see the scouts, unless something changes dramatically.

Hoping man.. I'd like to see nothing more than a true 350 and not cutting it down for every choice you make. Want to go a little faster? Buffer is nice. I really think it's going to take 150kw+.. And a Extended Range 400+

 

[mastertroll]

I keep seeing all these posts and I go , no idea what is even good or bad yet. There’s for sure going to be a learning curve when I get my Scout.

When your guess-o-meter says you have 280 miles and the maps says you have 160 miles but when you're getting closer the range dips and then you wonder if you can even make it.. Something is wrong with that lol. I would like to see Scout avoid those same problems.. It's one thing for someone who is always near the fast chargers on highways to say I'm cool with 200 miles or 300 miles.. but that doesn't work everyone. That's when it matters to have more range. We've had so called 300 mile range for a long time now. Lets make a real 400 mile range standard.

 

[Chaz26]

I'm thinking (for the Terra since that's what I'm going for) it'll be around 2.0 mi/kWh which is why I'm hoping for a 150 kWh battery to get a real world 300 miles.

 

[mastertroll]

I'm thinking (for the Terra since that's what I'm going for) it'll be around 2.0 mi/kWh which is why I'm hoping for a 150 kWh battery to get a real world 300 miles.

I often drive a state over and stop to charge at the ripoff chargers (Not Telsa or Rivian) The ability to get true 350 miles is a good start.. Might be enough but still pushing it. 375 could do it. 400 would just be exactly perfect. Agree 150kw should be the minimum. Anyways the trip is 283 miles.. You'd think you can get that with a 320 mile range.. Then you start watching the actual range overtake the vehicle range. I will plan to take pics of my next trip to show efficiency.

 

[R1TVT]

We've had so called 300 mile range for a long time now. Lets make a real 400 mile range standard.

Oh, and don't forget! Make the MSRP $40K for 400 miles of range in any weather with any condition with any accessories at 90MPH! LFG!

Why is this unreasonable? Because SCIENCE. Scout isn't going to break the laws of physics anytime soon. Sure, you can go buy a truck that has 450 miles of range, but then you trade something off. The cost is more, the battery is heavier, the off-road capability goes away, etc. etc. etc.

This is not an EV problem - its the same problem for any vehicle. Scout's answer for solving this particular "range" demand is the Harvester. If Scout wanted to give up other things, sure, it could build something like a Silverado, for example. But people aren't here b/c they want a Silverado - at least I'm not.

I would much prefer to DIRECTLY buy a PURE BEV Terra with 350 miles of range from a company that is truly dedicated to electrification (along with everything else that Scout will offer), over a GM Silverado with 450 miles of range. I'm guessing that most other people that are here probably feel the same way, otherwise, they would just go buy a long range Silverado.

 

[mastertroll]

Oh, and don't forget! Make the MSRP $40K for 400 miles of range in any weather with any condition with any accessories at 90MPH! LFG!

Why is this unreasonable? Because SCIENCE. Scout isn't going to break the laws of physics anytime soon. Sure, you can go buy a truck that has 450 miles of range, but then you trade something off. The cost is more, the battery is heavier, the off-road capability goes away, etc. etc. etc.

This is not an EV problem - its the same problem for any vehicle. Scout's answer for solving this particular "range" demand is the Harvester. If Scout wanted to give up other things, sure, it could build something like a Silverado, for example. But people aren't here b/c they want a Silverado - at least I'm not.

I would much prefer to DIRECTLY buy a PURE BEV Terra with 350 miles of range from a company that is truly dedicated to electrification (along with everything else that Scout will offer), over a GM Silverado with 450 miles of range. I'm guessing that most other people that are here probably feel the same way, otherwise, they would just go buy a long range Silverado.

It would have to be a real 350 mile range or it's just words. I'll pay more for extended range

 

[LastDayScout]

Oh, and don't forget! Make the MSRP $40K for 400 miles of range in any weather with any condition with any accessories at 90MPH! LFG!

Why is this unreasonable? Because SCIENCE. Scout isn't going to break the laws of physics anytime soon. Sure, you can go buy a truck that has 450 miles of range, but then you trade something off. The cost is more, the battery is heavier, the off-road capability goes away, etc. etc. etc.

This is not an EV problem - its the same problem for any vehicle. Scout's answer for solving this particular "range" demand is the Harvester. If Scout wanted to give up other things, sure, it could build something like a Silverado, for example. But people aren't here b/c they want a Silverado - at least I'm not.

I would much prefer to DIRECTLY buy a PURE BEV Terra with 350 miles of range from a company that is truly dedicated to electrification (along with everything else that Scout will offer), over a GM Silverado with 450 miles of range. I'm guessing that most other people that are here probably feel the same way, otherwise, they would just go buy a long range Silverado.

 

[R1TVT]

The Delorean will ride again!

 

[J Alynn]

Oh, and don't forget! Make the MSRP $40K for 400 miles of range in any weather with any condition with any accessories at 90MPH! LFG!

Why is this unreasonable? Because SCIENCE. Scout isn't going to break the laws of physics anytime soon. Sure, you can go buy a truck that has 450 miles of range, but then you trade something off. The cost is more, the battery is heavier, the off-road capability goes away, etc. etc. etc.

This is not an EV problem - its the same problem for any vehicle. Scout's answer for solving this particular "range" demand is the Harvester. If Scout wanted to give up other things, sure, it could build something like a Silverado, for example. But people aren't here b/c they want a Silverado - at least I'm not.

I would much prefer to DIRECTLY buy a PURE BEV Terra with 350 miles of range from a company that is truly dedicated to electrification (along with everything else that Scout will offer), over a GM Silverado with 450 miles of range. I'm guessing that most other people that are here probably feel the same way, otherwise, they would just go buy a long range Silverado.

Make mine a traveler but exactly to your point. There are also packaging limitations unless everyone wants 6” lifts but no gain in ground clearance because a drop tub full of batteries gets added

 

[J Alynn]

It would have to be a real 350 mile range or it's just words. I'll pay more for extended range

How much? That’s been my internal debate. How much driving (long haul) does a given driver do in a year to justify an additional $8K for the extra 3 hours you might spend a year stopping to charge your vehicle. To @R1TVT point it’s a science thing +a packaging thing plus a realistic take rate for an extended range battery upgrade. Would I love 400-425 miles-sure but is the added time each year to stop and charge worth $400/hour of my time. Not for me but I guess others would pay that-but I suspect not enough to make it worth SM time when they already offer an EREV that solves the problem

 

[mastertroll]

How much? That’s been my internal debate. How much driving (long haul) does a given driver do in a year to justify an additional $8K for the extra 3 hours you might spend a year stopping to charge your vehicle. To @R1TVT point it’s a science thing +a packaging thing plus a realistic take rate for an extended range battery upgrade. Would I love 400-425 miles-sure but is the added time each year to stop and charge worth $400/hour of my time. Not for me but I guess others would pay that-but I suspect not enough to make it worth SM time when they already offer an EREV that solves the problem

There's also a clock running against you with battery degradation.

I haven't checked the statistics in a while of how many people came to EVS and went back to ice vehicles due to stuff like this.
First, people need to understand that you don't actually get the rated range. Doesn't matter if it's 300, 350, real-world driving rarely hits the sticker number.

Even then, you'll have to wonder: Is that 350 miles with AC or heat? At highway speeds? Under specific parameters like no wind, flat roads, moderate temps?

Add in the real kicker: If there's a charger not working (or the only fast one around is down, occupied, or too slow), then what? can you even make it?

For me, the answer to range is simple: How can I charge the least amount of time to get where I need to go? Or.. same scenario but added 4 people, a dog and the bed is full. How much buffer do I have now? Does the total range drop in half? These will be important questions for people who think they're going to get a real 350 mi out of an EV.

This stuff makes sense real quick when you don't have a Supercharger (or any reliable fast charger) anywhere near you—especially in rural spots. Ever charged for 4 or 5 hours or longer because there is no supercharger? It can really ruin your plans, especially when people aren't happy about it. I mean a 5-hour trip taking a whole day not fun.

Suddenly, you're obsessively checking apps for chargers, planning buffers, and prioritizing efficiency over max range claims. Even then, there's no guarantee something doesn't go wrong by the time you reach a charger. I've seen four chargers go offline at once while in line. You'll know you arrived when the actual range is not making sense to the vehicle range and then you're turning off the AC/heat and driving 50 mph hoping you'll balance it out. I wonder how many first-time buyers of EVS will experience this? The answer is pretty straightforward. There needs to be a buffer. The mileage needs to be a real mileage like what you would expect with an ice vehicle. I can use the RAV4 hybrid for example. I think they claimed something like 475 mi if you drove it to completely empty. But I can reliably get 400 to 425 when it hits empty. Take the same logic over to an electric vehicle and those are the actual miles you may expect. It really comes down to how the vehicle is designed but I can tell you quiet positively that 130 KW is never going to get you 350 MI and if you're cool with that, awesome. But I would like to see Scout do something interesting here and not follow suit on some of these other EV manufacturers who have misrepresented mileage. More IS better when it comes to range.

 

[J Alynn]

There's also a clock running against you with battery degradation.

I haven't checked the statistics in a while of how many people came to EVS and went back to ice vehicles due to stuff like this.
First, people need to understand that you don't actually get the rated range. Doesn't matter if it's 300, 350, real-world driving rarely hits the sticker number.

Even then, you'll have to wonder: Is that 350 miles with AC or heat? At highway speeds? Under specific parameters like no wind, flat roads, moderate temps?

Add in the real kicker: If there's a charger not working (or the only fast one around is down, occupied, or too slow), then what? can you even make it?

For me, the answer to range is simple: How can I charge the least amount of time to get where I need to go? Or.. same scenario but added 4 people, a dog and the bed is full. How much buffer do I have now? Does the total range drop in half? These will be important questions for people who think they're going to get a real 350 mi out of an EV.

This stuff makes sense real quick when you don't have a Supercharger (or any reliable fast charger) anywhere near you—especially in rural spots. Ever charged for 4 or 5 hours or longer because there is no supercharger? It can really ruin your plans, especially when people aren't happy about it. I mean a 5-hour trip taking a whole day not fun.

Suddenly, you're obsessively checking apps for chargers, planning buffers, and prioritizing efficiency over max range claims. Even then, there's no guarantee something doesn't go wrong by the time you reach a charger. I've seen four chargers go offline at once while in line. You'll know you arrived when the actual range is not making sense to the vehicle range and then you're turning off the AC/heat and driving 50 mph hoping you'll balance it out. I wonder how many first-time buyers of EVS will experience this? The answer is pretty straightforward. There needs to be a buffer. The mileage needs to be a real mileage like what you would expect with an ice vehicle. I can use the RAV4 hybrid for example. I think they claimed something like 475 mi if you drove it to completely empty. But I can reliably get 400 to 425 when it hits empty. Take the same logic over to an electric vehicle and those are the actual miles you may expect. It really comes down to how the vehicle is designed but I can tell you quiet positively that 130 KW is never going to get you 350 MI and if you're cool with that, awesome. But I would like to see Scout do something interesting here and not follow suit on some of these other EV manufacturers who have misrepresented mileage. More IS better when it comes to range.

Then why not the EREV? It solves all your wants and is already being offered so if Scout has provided the alternative there isn’t a reason to create a third alternative. And this circles right back to “where do you put the extra batteries?” No way SM shelves it for 5 more years in the hopes of SS batteries
I don’t need to argue the points but if the two solutions don’t work for your needs then the Scout just might not be the right vehicle for your needs

 

[mastertroll]

Then why not the EREV? It solves all your wants and is already being offered so if Scout has provided the alternative there isn’t a reason to create a third alternative. And this circles right back to “where do you put the extra batteries?” No way SM shelves it for 5 more years in the hopes of SS batteries
I don’t need to argue the points but if the two solutions don’t work for your needs then the Scout just might not be the right vehicle for your

Comes with compromises

 

[J Alynn]

Comes with compromises

Every idea does. And I’m guessing early on SM came to the same conclusions so what is offered is what makes sense for the possibility, costs, sales ability, etc… and so-on…..

 

[mastertroll]

Every idea does. And I’m guessing early on SM came to the same conclusions so what is offered is what makes sense for the possibility, costs, sales ability, etc… and so-on…..

It's actually very simple. There needs to be a higher range EV. No more misleading range

 

[Chaz26]

It's actually very simple. There needs to be a higher range EV. No more misleading range

The problem is they have to follow the EPA cycle so range will always be misleading against that. The cycle they do in Europe is different and that tends to give even bigger ranges. On Tesla's website, the range for the Model 3 AWD Premium is 346 miles EPA. If you go on the UK site it's 410 miles WLTP. Range is always misleading unless you do a worst case scenario of high head winds, -30 temperature and driving at 80 mph. I just try and follow some of the range tests places like out of spec do as a rough guide (granted they are at 70mph so might be even worse if you go faster on highways than that).

 

[mastertroll]

The problem is they have to follow the EPA cycle so range will always be misleading against that. The cycle they do in Europe is different and that tends to give even bigger ranges. On Tesla's website, the range for the Model 3 AWD Premium is 346 miles EPA. If you go on the UK site it's 410 miles WLTP. Range is always misleading unless you do a worst case scenario of high head winds, -30 temperature and driving at 80 mph. I just try and follow some of the range tests places like out of spec do as a rough guide (granted they are at 70mph so might be even worse if you go faster on highways than that).

I think the better thing to do for them to do is be realistic about the range. They box themselves in with the 350 and 130kw. I'm not saying Scout can't turn it around cuz I know they can. And it's one thing for me to be on these forms saying this stuff. And another thing, when they have a bunch of people come and complain about it. I would say it's possible to avoid that