Is the EREV going to be a flop?

[Scoutsie]

Once you've owned an EV and tried to do a long road trip, you'll quickly realize the limitations of a BEV. On paper, the EREV addresses a lot of those issues: long charge times, multiple charge stops (300 miles per full battery is not 300 miles between charges), you have to stop on the batteries schedule not yours, potentially long wait lines to charge, potentially broken or slow charger speeds. It seriously adds hours to your trip each way. On a 2400 mile round trip road trip with my R1T, I had to stop to charge 8-10 times each way, which I would have done in 2 stops for an ICE and potentially only 3-4 stops in the EREV.

Until battery and charging technology improves, the EREV is a decent stop gap option for full BEV. For 90% (if not more) of daily driving use cases, 150 miles of battery only range is more than enough. To your point though, there are trade-offs to EREV vs BEV. I'm definitely concerned about complexity and cost of maintenance/repairs, not so concerned about performance. Luckily, there are competitors like GM that will have EREVs out before the Scout so we'll see if this tech actually works in the real world and they can take those lessons learned for their engineering/design decisions.

I’m sorry, I think I missed this. When you say 8-10 times each way, I have a couple of clarifying questions:

1. Were you charging to full/80% at each stop?
2. Were you, uh, driving with something heavy in the trunk or something to cause the usage of energy vis-a-vis the number of stops to be so frequent?
3. Was there possibly some kind of other problem with the truck?
4. Was there possibly an issue with the way you were driving (high speeds, lots of stops/starts, no cruise control, etc)?
5. As mentioned, did you encounter things like long lines and broken chargers, so some of these stops were more like missed opportunities/aborted missions than actual stops to charge?

While I’m pretty sure that I am absolutely reading as a smartass, and I apologize for not knowing any other way to ask, I am really not sure why you’d *need* to make that many stops?

 

[LastDayScout]

I'm trying to reduce as many fuel-powered devices as possible. Most all of the yard tools are now electric, the chainsaw is electric. The Kubota is diesel and I don't see a way around that, but I'm starting to eyeball options to get rid of the gas generator as well. Some EcoFlow is tempting, but the cost doesn't justify it yet, so maybe a 3-point generator to go on the back of the Kubota? If I've got diesel around anyway, at least it's serving another purpose. They're building a new substation quite close to me, so power outages likely won't be as much of a concern soon.

I've been trying to consolidate vehicles for years, but there aren't many Swiss Army Knife vehicles out there for my use case. The EREV does that for me at least, otherwise I'd have an EV and an ICE.

Kubota has electric machines almost everywhere but the US.

 

[maynard]

Kubota has electric machines almost everywhere but the US.

I have an electric Cub Cadet Zero Turn - love it! Does the whole yard with 40%, so I get 2 cuts per charge...

 

[chucchinchilla]

Flop no, however success will be highly regional dependent which Scout is fully aware of. California? Overwhelming majority will be BEV. Texas? You're in Harvester Country, partner.

 

[BeerParty]

I’m sorry, I think I missed this. When you say 8-10 times each way, I have a couple of clarifying questions:

1. Were you charging to full/80% at each stop?
2. Were you, uh, driving with something heavy in the trunk or something to cause the usage of energy vis-a-vis the number of stops to be so frequent?
3. Was there possibly some kind of other problem with the truck?
4. Was there possibly an issue with the way you were driving (high speeds, lots of stops/starts, no cruise control, etc)?
5. As mentioned, did you encounter things like long lines and broken chargers, so some of these stops were more like missed opportunities/aborted missions than actual stops to charge?

While I’m pretty sure that I am absolutely reading as a smartass, and I apologize for not knowing any other way to ask, I am really not sure why you’d *need* to make that many stops?

I am planning a long road trip next week. I will be driving my Hyundai Ioniq 5 (HI5) BEV.

1. It is a 3-day trip one way and will require 12 charging stops (including overnight charging), using ABRP to plan the trip. I am driving rather than flying because I am stopping to pick up family along the way.
2. I usually charge my HI5 to about 80% when using fast chargers. The HI5 has an 800-volt architecture so it can charge to this level very quickly. By the time I have used the bathroom and grabbed a drink, the car is usually over 80%. One stop will require charging to 90%, but all the others only require 80%. So the car is ready to go before I am.
3. I get excellent efficiency, even going fast on the highway. It is a 1,500 mile trip, and I average 2 to 2.5 hours between stops. The car can go further than that, I prefer to stop more frequently to rest. So, I plan more frequent stops. I do the same thing on long trips in a gas car (a Toyota RAV4).
4. The only time the car will get below 15% charge is at the end, and I planned the trip that way. I have access to free charging at the end of the trip, so arriving with a low charge makes sense.
5. I have only encountered "long lines and broken chargers" once in my two previous long road trips using the HI5. I almost never have to wait for a charger, and other than that one time I have never had to wait more than 10 minutes.
6. The trip is down the east coast, from New Hampshire to Mississippi. There is plenty of charging infrastructure along the route, so even if I get to a charger location that is not available (offline or overcrowded) I can move on. It is just like a gas station - if you pull in and the station is closed or there are long lines, you can just go to the next one.
7. The car has route planning and can identify charger locations nearby. I can configure preferred charging vendors, so I set it up to list the fast ones first. But it will list everything when requested. When I have had to re-route because a site wasn't available, there have always been several options within a few miles. So I would have to be really unlucky to get stuck somewhere without fast charging.
8. The car has 18,000 miles on it, and has done multiple long range trips. Only once has it gotten below 10% charge and that was a trip I had planned. I knew the car had the range I needed for the trip and I was going to end up at my house at the end, so knew I could charge as soon as I got home.

 

[bb00799]

Flop no, however success will be highly regional dependent which Scout is fully aware of. California? Overwhelming majority will be BEV. Texas? You're in Harvester Country, partner.

This is the real answer, except I wouldn't be surprised if it is also dependent on Suburb vs Rural. Rural Cali? Going to have a harvester or two, suburbs of Austin where every consultant has a 2018+ year home with Solar? Probably going to have more BEVs then average.


Overall considering how many people have ordered the EREV I do not think it is going to be a flop

 

[6-ScoutFamily]

I am planning a long road trip next week. I will be driving my Hyundai Ioniq 5 (HI5) BEV.

1. It is a 3-day trip one way and will require 12 charging stops (including overnight charging), using ABRP to plan the trip. I am driving rather than flying because I am stopping to pick up family along the way.
2. I usually charge my HI5 to about 80% when using fast chargers. The HI5 has an 800-volt architecture so it can charge to this level very quickly. By the time I have used the bathroom and grabbed a drink, the car is usually over 80%. One stop will require charging to 90%, but all the others only require 80%. So the car is ready to go before I am.
3. I get excellent efficiency, even going fast on the highway. It is a 1,500 mile trip, and I average 2 to 2.5 hours between stops. The car can go further than that, I prefer to stop more frequently to rest. So, I plan more frequent stops. I do the same thing on long trips in a gas car (a Toyota RAV4).
4. The only time the car will get below 15% charge is at the end, and I planned the trip that way. I have access to free charging at the end of the trip, so arriving with a low charge makes sense.
5. I have only encountered "long lines and broken chargers" once in my two previous long road trips using the HI5. I almost never have to wait for a charger, and other than that one time I have never had to wait more than 10 minutes.
6. The trip is down the east coast, from New Hampshire to Mississippi. There is plenty of charging infrastructure along the route, so even if I get to a charger location that is not available (offline or overcrowded) I can move on. It is just like a gas station - if you pull in and the station is closed or there are long lines, you can just go to the next one.
7. The car has route planning and can identify charger locations nearby. I can configure preferred charging vendors, so I set it up to list the fast ones first. But it will list everything when requested. When I have had to re-route because a site wasn't available, there have always been several options within a few miles. So I would have to be really unlucky to get stuck somewhere without fast charging.
8. The car has 18,000 miles on it, and has done multiple long range trips. Only once has it gotten below 10% charge and that was a trip I had planned. I knew the car had the range I needed for the trip and I was going to end up at my house at the end, so knew I could charge as soon as I got home.

Be sure to give us blow-by-blow with the actuals when you complete the trip. With an appropriate rest period beforhand of course.

 

[Cranky Canuck]

I am planning a long road trip next week. I will be driving my Hyundai Ioniq 5 (HI5) BEV.

1. It is a 3-day trip one way and will require 12 charging stops (including overnight charging), using ABRP to plan the trip. I am driving rather than flying because I am stopping to pick up family along the way.
2. I usually charge my HI5 to about 80% when using fast chargers. The HI5 has an 800-volt architecture so it can charge to this level very quickly. By the time I have used the bathroom and grabbed a drink, the car is usually over 80%. One stop will require charging to 90%, but all the others only require 80%. So the car is ready to go before I am.
3. I get excellent efficiency, even going fast on the highway. It is a 1,500 mile trip, and I average 2 to 2.5 hours between stops. The car can go further than that, I prefer to stop more frequently to rest. So, I plan more frequent stops. I do the same thing on long trips in a gas car (a Toyota RAV4).
4. The only time the car will get below 15% charge is at the end, and I planned the trip that way. I have access to free charging at the end of the trip, so arriving with a low charge makes sense.
5. I have only encountered "long lines and broken chargers" once in my two previous long road trips using the HI5. I almost never have to wait for a charger, and other than that one time I have never had to wait more than 10 minutes.
6. The trip is down the east coast, from New Hampshire to Mississippi. There is plenty of charging infrastructure along the route, so even if I get to a charger location that is not available (offline or overcrowded) I can move on. It is just like a gas station - if you pull in and the station is closed or there are long lines, you can just go to the next one.
7. The car has route planning and can identify charger locations nearby. I can configure preferred charging vendors, so I set it up to list the fast ones first. But it will list everything when requested. When I have had to re-route because a site wasn't available, there have always been several options within a few miles. So I would have to be really unlucky to get stuck somewhere without fast charging.
8. The car has 18,000 miles on it, and has done multiple long range trips. Only once has it gotten below 10% charge and that was a trip I had planned. I knew the car had the range I needed for the trip and I was going to end up at my house at the end, so knew I could charge as soon as I got home.

THAT is more like my experience with an EV.

Nice car btw!

 

[BeerParty]

So, the more I read about how the Harvester is actually playing out, the more I wish I would have reserved the BEV.

Less electric range, smaller battery, worse towing capacity, the complexities of the 4 cylinder engine. It all seems like we are getting an inferior version of what the Scout could be.

When I first heard about the Harvester concept and made my early deposit, I was imaging something more like a generator. I could drive into the mountains a few hundred miles, set up camp, turn on the generator and charge the truck for another full battery of 300-500 miles. But its just not what are we getting.

Thoughts, disappointments, disccusions?

This tells me that you and a lot of other people have/had unrealistic expectations about what an EREV can do. I don't want to be snarky here, but I have to point out that you are, by your own admission, disappointed that the reality did not match your imagination. Your description of what you expected does not match anything that was officially stated for the Harvester. It does match a lot of misconception that people have been publishing, despite people's best efforts to correct the misinformation.

If the majority of the people that reserved the Harvester believe that misinformation, then either:

• they will be disappointed when the final specifications come out (and there will be a lot of cancellations)
• they will purchase the Harvester without understanding what it can realistically do (and there will be a lot of complaining when reality hits)

So, yes, I expect there will be a lot of disappointed people.

 

[Logan]

I'm still very on the fence here.

Still reserved for Harvester, but recently (In sept) bought an Ioniq 9. So far its been great, but in almost 5k miles, we haven't yet touched a public charger.

The harvester really would allow for 99% EV use case for where I live, while retaining the gas engine for the 1%.

The harvester is potentially cheaper for long range trips in much of the USA. I just did the math on this (copilot math, I'm lazy ), and for the Washington/UT trip we do every year,

Fast charging is pretty expensive.

I think my decision will likely come down to:

• how much each of these things cost
  • Will the EREV cost more, or the BEV?
  • Will the ~350 mile BEV the only BEV option, or is the price based on some shorter range version?
• If I want a harvester to maintain/deal with (not a big deal, but it is a thing)
• How much I get used to driving the BEV/public charging
• How much charging infrastructure changes in the next few years.

Keeping my options open atm.

With the BEV's coming last, I really do wonder if that will open up some more time to get into the solid state batteries, or other better chemistries that are coming out all the time (if the BEV's launch about a year behind the EREV's, we're getting mighty close to the ~2030 timeline that everyone keeps talking about for solid state batteries).

And I really hope that whatever they do with pricing for early reservation holders stays, even if we change from harvester to BEV.

 

[R1TVT]

I'm still very on the fence here.

Still reserved for Harvester, but recently (In sept) bought an Ioniq 9. So far its been great, but in almost 5k miles, we haven't yet touched a public charger.

The harvester really would allow for 99% EV use case for where I live, while retaining the gas engine for the 1%.

The harvester is potentially cheaper for long range trips in much of the USA. I just did the math on this (copilot math, I'm lazy ), and for the Washington/UT trip we do every year,

Fast charging is pretty expensive.

View attachment 14008

Until we have all the specs for production, I hesitate to make any guesses on efficiency/consumption/ real-world driving (since its all hypothetical at this stage), BUT I'm also guessing that EREV owners who want to run 100% gasoline on a road trip (as in the above chart) might be in for another surprise when they try hitting HWY speeds at 75-85MPH and realize that the Harvester has very high demands for electricity in order to maintain a minimum SOC. With higher consumption demands, come more frequent fueling when traveling at HWY speeds (and likely with full loads for road trips). If demand outpaces power output, your frequency of stopping will increase.

That leads me to believe that EREV drivers will need to charge AND refuel in order to maximize range & be more efficient at HWY speeds when power demand is high. And it will be high in this scenario. This is where the real-world road-testing comes in for buyers to help make more informed decisions. Good news, there will be TONS of testing done on both variants pre-production to get to EPA numbers and actual published spec's.

 

[cyure]

Until we have all the specs for production, I hesitate to make any guesses on efficiency/consumption/ real-world driving (since its all hypothetical at this stage), BUT I'm also guessing that EREV owners who want to run 100% gasoline on a road trip (as in the above chart) might be in for another surprise when they try hitting HWY speeds at 75-85MPH and realize that the Harvester has very high demands for electricity in order to maintain a minimum SOC. With higher consumption demands, come more frequent fueling when traveling at HWY speeds (and likely with full loads for road trips). If demand outpaces power output, your frequency of stopping will increase.

That leads me to believe that EREV drivers will need to charge AND refuel in order to maximize range & be more efficient at HWY speeds when power demand is high. And it will be high in this scenario. This is where the real-world road-testing comes in for buyers to help make more informed decisions. Good news, there will be TONS of testing done on both variants pre-production to get to EPA numbers and actual published spec's.

I just hope we get those numbers at the same time.

 

[oldgeeksguide]

I’m all about BEV, but given the current reservation numbers, if EREV were to flop, it would be very bad news for all of us.

 

[strider]

When I first heard about the Harvester concept and made my early deposit, I was imaging something more like a generator. I could drive into the mountains a few hundred miles, set up camp, turn on the generator and charge the truck for another full battery of 300-500 miles. But its just not what are we getting.

So that is exactly what you're getting. The engine is exactly a generator (it's a series hybrid). You can absolutely drive into the boonies, set up camp, and use gasoline to run your RV and/or charge the batteries. You still have 500 total miles of range. Why does it matter if the mix of those miles are different? 150 miles of electric range is a TON of EV range such that you will likely use no fuel when daily driving.

Is it a compromise? Yes, that's literally the definition of hybrid. But people have different needs. For me personally, I only travel outside my car's range twice a year when I am dropping off and then picking my kids up from summer camp. All other times I fly (I have my own plane so I can almost always fly directly to the town I'm visiting) so for me the BEV is best but I realize that I am not typical.

 

[Logan]

Until we have all the specs for production, I hesitate to make any guesses on efficiency/consumption/ real-world driving (since its all hypothetical at this stage), BUT I'm also guessing that EREV owners who want to run 100% gasoline on a road trip (as in the above chart) might be in for another surprise when they try hitting HWY speeds at 75-85MPH and realize that the Harvester has very high demands for electricity in order to maintain a minimum SOC. With higher consumption demands, come more frequent fueling when traveling at HWY speeds (and likely with full loads for road trips). If demand outpaces power output, your frequency of stopping will increase.

That leads me to believe that EREV drivers will need to charge AND refuel in order to maximize range & be more efficient at HWY speeds when power demand is high. And it will be high in this scenario. This is where the real-world road-testing comes in for buyers to help make more informed decisions. Good news, there will be TONS of testing done on both variants pre-production to get to EPA numbers and actual published spec's.

I swear it was in one of the interviews that they said that they were targeting 70mph steady state at least, and that the 350miles of range, and that they said it was going to be gas and go, not gas/charge and go.

But, to your point, we don't know what we don't know. I was mostly just showing that depending on where you live, the harvester could easily end up being cheaper on road trips than the BEV, because DC fast charging is surprisingly expensive (especially if people mostly hear how cheap EV's are to "fuel").

Of course the harvester will also have more maintenance costs, so its all a balance. Just trying to make sure people think it through for their circumstances is all .

 

[cyure]

I swear it was in one of the interviews that they said that they were targeting 70mph steady state at least, and that the 350miles of range, and that they said it was going to be gas and go, not gas/charge and go.

But, to your point, we don't know what we don't know. I was mostly just showing that depending on where you live, the harvester could easily end up being cheaper on road trips than the BEV, because DC fast charging is surprisingly expensive (especially if people mostly hear how cheap EV's are to "fuel").

Of course the harvester will also have more maintenance costs, so its all a balance. Just trying to make sure people think it through for their circumstances is all .

There was one influencer who posted a video right after launch. She said 350 battery and 150 gas and I didn’t know the correct number of 150 battery/350 gas for quite a while. And once you get one person with incorrect info I swear AI picks it up and like a spiderweb it’s goes everywhere.

 

[Schmeegz]

Once you've owned an EV and tried to do a long road trip, you'll quickly realize the limitations of a BEV. On paper, the EREV addresses a lot of those issues: long charge times, multiple charge stops (300 miles per full battery is not 300 miles between charges), you have to stop on the batteries schedule not yours, potentially long wait lines to charge, potentially broken or slow charger speeds. It seriously adds hours to your trip each way. On a 2400 mile round trip road trip with my R1T, I had to stop to charge 8-10 times each way, which I would have done in 2 stops for an ICE and potentially only 3-4 stops in the EREV.

Until battery and charging technology improves, the EREV is a decent stop gap option for full BEV. For 90% (if not more) of daily driving use cases, 150 miles of battery only range is more than enough. To your point though, there are trade-offs to EREV vs BEV. I'm definitely concerned about complexity and cost of maintenance/repairs, not so concerned about performance. Luckily, there are competitors like GM that will have EREVs out before the Scout so we'll see if this tech actually works in the real world and they can take those lessons learned for their engineering/design decisions.

^^^ this!!!!

I dunno if it’s a good thing or a bad thing that a few companies are already claiming either new battery compositions or that they have solved solid state.

The bad:

Strictly speculation, but I would think Scout’s battery production has already been determined and/or designed around. So if the planning stages were over the last 2 years, they are designing around batteries that may be severely outdated in the next 2 years.

The Good:

Maybe I’m wrong and there is room in their facility to adjust to new battery technology in time before release.
And the EV market’s biggest shortcoming is charging. No one wants to stop for 20 minutes to “pump gas”. They want 5 min, use the rest room, and be in their way to their final destination. So maybe new battery tech can solve this problem. Additionally the EV market fails to appeal to anyone who is unable to charge at home. So someone who needs some form of public charging would like to go an entire week without stopping to recharge.

 

[strider]

With the BEV's coming last, I really do wonder if that will open up some more time to get into the solid state batteries, or other better chemistries that are coming out all the time (if the BEV's launch about a year behind the EREV's, we're getting mighty close to the ~2030 timeline that everyone keeps talking about for solid state batteries).

I'm just going to tell you that the chances of this for Scout version 1 are 0%. There is no way that solid state will be ready by 2030, much less reached volume production. It will also be much more expensive due to newer/less efficient manufacturing. Bottom line is that it is still vaporware and may remain that way.

Scout cannot take the risk of unproven technology. There is only downside for them if it goes wrong and no upside if it works. Let someone like Mercedes or the Chinese take the risk and after several years of data, then it will be trivial for Scout to change chemistries.

 

[Schmeegz]

I'm just going to tell you that the chances of this for Scout version 1 are 0%. There is no way that solid state will be ready by 2030, much less reached volume production. It will also be much more expensive due to newer/less efficient manufacturing. Bottom line is that it is still vaporware and may remain that way.

Scout cannot take the risk of unproven technology. There is only downside for them if it goes wrong and no upside if it works. Let someone like Mercedes or the Chinese take the risk and after several years of data, then it will be trivial for Scout to change chemistries.

I disagree… if they sit back and let other companies try new battery tech and it works… their launch vehicles will fail miserably. I feel like the next jump in batteries will be a giant leap (cliche, I know) so vehicles without them will lose almost all value.
Unless of course, new battery vehicles price themselves out of competition.

 

[cyure]

^^^ this!!!!

I dunno if it’s a good thing or a bad thing that a few companies are already claiming either new battery compositions or that they have solved solid state.

The bad:

Strictly speculation, but I would think Scout’s battery production has already been determined and/or designed around. So if the planning stages were over the last 2 years, they are designing around batteries that may be severely outdated in the next 2 years.

The Good:

Maybe I’m wrong and there is room in their facility to adjust to new battery technology in time before release.
And the EV market’s biggest shortcoming is charging. No one wants to stop for 20 minutes to “pump gas”. They want 5 min, use the rest room, and be in their way to their final destination. So maybe new battery tech can solve this problem. Additionally the EV market fails to appeal to anyone who is unable to charge at home. So someone who needs some form of public charging would like to go an entire week without stopping to recharge.

Two points. The first Scouts will be with current battery tech. They are testing and purchasing now. We will not see new battery tech in these initial Scouts.

Second, and I want to preface this by saying this is just my experience. I am not saying anything is right or wrong about BEV or EREV. I am glad they have both as everyone has different needs.

As I was considering if a BEV would work for me I started timing our gas stop on longer trips, to Chicago for example. By the time we stop, get gas, re park, everyone uses the facilities, we get back in, turn on music, etc etc it was anywhere between 13 and 20 minutes. The 20 minutes was when we were buying drinks or snacks. With that knowledge and our driving habits I switched from EREV to BEV. I don’t want to deal with oil changes and maintenance on an engine anymore.

Again, just me and my observations. Everyone has to determine their situation.