We certainly don't discount the need for BEV and in fact would have BOTH if they'd fit in the garage side by side. We'll likely cash in our r2 reservation in November.
Is there anything SM could offer to get you to switch from EREV to BEV?
- Thread starter cyure
- Start date
-
From all of us at Scout Motors, welcome to the Scout Community! We created this community to provide Scout vehicle owners, enthusiasts, and curiosity seekers with a place to engage in discussion, suggestions, stories, and connections. Supportive communities are sometimes hard to find, but we're determined to turn this into one.
Additionally, Scout Motors wants to hear your feedback and speak directly to the rabid community of owners as unique as America. We'll use the Scout Community to deliver news and information on events and launch updates directly to the group. Although the start of production is anticipated in 2026, many new developments and milestones will occur in the interim. We plan to share them with you on this site and look for your feedback and suggestions.
How will the Scout Community be run? Think of it this way: this place is your favorite local hangout. We want you to enjoy the atmosphere, talk to people who share similar interests, request and receive advice, and generally have an enjoyable time. The Scout Community should be a highlight of your day. We want you to tell stories, share photos, spread your knowledge, and tell us how Scout can deliver great products and experiences. Along the way, Scout Motors will share our journey to production with you.
Scout is all about respect. We respect our heritage. We respect the land and outdoors. We respect each other. Every person should feel safe, included, and welcomed in the Scout Community. Being kind and courteous to the other forum members is non-negotiable. Friendly debates are welcomed and often produce great outcomes, but we don't want things to get too rowdy. Please take a moment to consider what you post, especially if you think it may insult others. We'll do our best to encourage friendly discourse and to keep the discussions flowing.
So, welcome to the Scout Community! We encourage you to check back regularly as we plan to engage our members, share teasers, and participate in discussions. The world needs Scouts™. Let's get going.
We are Scout Motors.
I think you are going to love your EREV when Scout delivers. Your use case is a perfect example of what a EREV can do better than a BEV and better than an ICE. EV around town when you don't need the range, gas for the extended trips where fast charging isn't an option. Extra range to accommodate the loss in efficiency when the truck is loaded up. The battery in the EREV may be smaller, but it will be plenty big enough to run a camp for a few days. So you don't need a noisy gas generator or a separate portable power station (the Scout is your portable power station).
Absolutely. I'll have 2 years in the bag of mental planning almost daily on how best to use the setup. One thing that I do plan on is still having a separate power supply of sufficient amperage to run things off-grid because utilizing good UPS capability is important. I really don't want to rely on the vehicle fully as this seems to be an area other manufacturers have really struggled with as far as reliability and consistency of power delivery. At least the power supply can be significantly smaller and less costly.
Sounds like a good plan. You should be able to make due with a fairly small power station. When the power station runs low, you can charge it from the Scout's V2L if grid power isn't available. That is what I do with my EcoFlow and Ioniq 5 V2L.
Do we have enough information on the proposed engine for the Harverster? I recall hearing it will be a 4-cyclnder VW sourced unit. I ask because I am genuinely curious how that engine will perform in the scenario outlined by @ROMR_Casey. Let's assume a fully armored Scout on 35's with a roof top tent and all the related gear required for an extended back country adventure. That's a heavy, loaded vehicle. How will this engine perform with a battery that hits its reserve just as you begin a 50 mile section of hill climb into the mountains. I'm thinking of I-70 in Colorado or Utah but there are many examples of extended uphill climbs where flow of traffic is 75mph+. Do we have the specificaitons to determine how the vehicle will perform in these circumstances? Apologies in advance if the following estimate is wrong. But, if a 4-cylinder engine only outputs 70-100kW (maybe on the lower end) a battery reserve would be required for many driving scenarios to maintain expected performance. Consider the power required to meet the needs of a roughly 8000 vehcle (when loaded for a back country trip) driving an extended uphill with a few 7-8% grades in the mix over 50-100 or so miles. Seems this would be an important consideration and would require a bit of trip planning as well to avoid a situation where the motor output is derated to match the genset. Imagine not being able to pass a slow moving semi in the mountains or worse holding up traffic on a one lane mountain road for 50 miles. A 70kW genset might actually struggle in much milder conditions than I descrbed. Towing a camping trailer would make the problem much worse. I'm very curious. We've touted the benefits or EREV which are valid but have seemed to gloss over the downsides outside of maintenance. Most of the EREVS coming out in China are running into the issue of undersized gensets. I'm not anti-EREV but this seems to be a serious drawback. @SpaceEVDriver how far off am I with this concern? Scout engineers are most certainly aware of this requirement but as @ROMR_Casey says "physics is physics" and you can only pull som much from a 4-cylnder engine tuned to operate as a generator.
All hypothetical - You won't know anything until there are production specs & you have the spec's for your "fully armored" truck. You would need to calculate a whole new coefficient of drag, GVWR, wheel efficiency, tire efficiency (errrr inefficiency), road and weather/temp conditions. You can draw up all kinds of scenarios but the rubber hits the road with production testing.
I have a feeling that when the specs do come out a lot of the Harvester reservations will either change to bev or go away. I hope not but so many folks on this forum and FB are expecting way to much from the Harvester. They just hear gas and goand 500 mile range and they want that.
Not completely hypothetical. We can guess vehicle weight conservatively, and the weight of after market overlanding equipment isn't hard to identify. A conservative estimate of payload should be possible as well. Most importantly, Scout has at least informally announced the class of genset they intend to use. Road, weather, and drag while impactful aren't absolutely necessary for this conversation. We could assume no wind, ideal temps, an acceptable drag coefficient and perfect tires etc... The driving conditions exist and are not exotic. They are fairly common in the mountain west. The question is can this class of engine output enough energy to move a vehicle configured for overlanding in high draw driving scenarios? I chose this example because it is used an argument for EREVs. The case against BEV is range, the case aganist EREV may well be performance. I could be wrong and agree that we'll know more with production testing if the numbers are revealed. For now, I'm simply strugging with the numbers given the announed engine. I'm persnoally leaning heavily towards BEV but if the EREV has adequate performance and sole availability for an extended period of time I might consider it. I could come at this another way I supppose. What is the most a vehicle could weigh for adequate performance with a 4-cylinder engine at 1.4L (I assume turbo charging here)? Perhaps this is too much speculation, but I find it to be an interesting topic.
Sadly I concur. I think a big group loves the looks of thinks gas makes it acceptable and I think price may scare some for the final performance of the vehicles
If that’s the case, Scout could fail. With 80% or more of the reservation being for a Harvester, Scout has to deliver with this setup.
Only time will tell for sure. I wait patiently and optimistically to see what Scout can deliver, and hopefully to its customers by late 2027 or early 2028.
We don’t know much about the Harvester genset. We know it will not be an off-the-shelf engine; there’s no way to shoehorn any existing VWAG engine into the space, shape, and orientation that’s been planned. There will have to be some major modifications. This means it will not be a well-established, unmodified engine with a well-established maintenance/repair profile. That’s not to say it will be unreliable. It’s just that we cannot take an existing engine and say it’ll be this one with all of its known performance and known issues.
Preface: This is me making up some numbers. They’re based on reality and known systems, but we don’t know what clever things Scout engineers will accomplish; we don’t know weights all that well… So, don’t take this as me saying this is exactly what the results will be. It’s an estimate. It’s an educated estimate, but it’s not a fully-informed estimate.
We can estimate the power it needs to accomplish the Davis Dam Grade test for SAE J2807 tow rating.
Scout has said they’re aiming for a tow rating of ~10k pounds with the Terra. I’m guessing that the BEV may reach 12k and the EREV might get 10k (the need for extra thermal management and other issues will reduce the EREV’s towing capacity and I expect Scout will use what they’ve figured out for the EREV to increase the BEV’s towing capacity). The major hurdle in the SAE J2807 towing tests is thermal management. This is one reason we see such huge front ends of the big three trucks these days. Previously they could just lie about their towing capacity. Now they have to pass real tests.
With a 10k towing capacity, the EREV Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR; the gross weight of the truck + the maximum weight of the trailer) will be similar to the Lightning (14,300-17,300), R1S (19,500 or so), or Silverado EV (19,700 for my truck).
Throwing the various numbers into the math machine, we can estimate that the minimum power output to complete the Davis Dam Grade Test at 40 mph is up to about 205 kW (after accounting for various inefficiencies). A BEV truck can easily produce that; the ebeam axles Scout has said they will be using are rated for 335 to 570 kW. Add a second motor in the front, and the axles aren’t a concern. The battery can easily produce that. At 800 Volts, 205 kW is less than 260 Amps. That’s pretty easy to manage, thermally and electrically.
But can the Harvester genset produce that when the battery is too low to contribute stored energy to making power?
Well, 205 kW is about 275 HP.
The VWAG engine with a designation of “EA211" that some people think will be used is rated for 110 kW or 150 HP. There are lots of ways to increase a small 4-cylinder peak HP. But I don’t think the EA211 can be modified to nearly double its power rating while maintaining decent NVH and decent reliability.
If the EREV gets 7500 pound towing instead, and has a 7000 pound Gross weight, that brings the GCWR down to 14,500 pounds. That requires a power output of approximately 120 kW, or 160 HP. That’s achievable with some tweaks to the existing EA211 engine. Again, the existing engine will not be a drop-in to the system, it’ll require significant modifications.
After doing the math, I think I have to adjust my guess as to what the EREV tow rating will be. I’m guessing it’ll be around 7500-8500 pounds. This will also account for the higher thermal load the EREV will be producing.
Preface: This is me making up some numbers. They’re based on reality and known systems, but we don’t know what clever things Scout engineers will accomplish; we don’t know weights all that well… So, don’t take this as me saying this is exactly what the results will be. It’s an estimate. It’s an educated estimate, but it’s not a fully-informed estimate.
We can estimate the power it needs to accomplish the Davis Dam Grade test for SAE J2807 tow rating.
Scout has said they’re aiming for a tow rating of ~10k pounds with the Terra. I’m guessing that the BEV may reach 12k and the EREV might get 10k (the need for extra thermal management and other issues will reduce the EREV’s towing capacity and I expect Scout will use what they’ve figured out for the EREV to increase the BEV’s towing capacity). The major hurdle in the SAE J2807 towing tests is thermal management. This is one reason we see such huge front ends of the big three trucks these days. Previously they could just lie about their towing capacity. Now they have to pass real tests.
With a 10k towing capacity, the EREV Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR; the gross weight of the truck + the maximum weight of the trailer) will be similar to the Lightning (14,300-17,300), R1S (19,500 or so), or Silverado EV (19,700 for my truck).
Throwing the various numbers into the math machine, we can estimate that the minimum power output to complete the Davis Dam Grade Test at 40 mph is up to about 205 kW (after accounting for various inefficiencies). A BEV truck can easily produce that; the ebeam axles Scout has said they will be using are rated for 335 to 570 kW. Add a second motor in the front, and the axles aren’t a concern. The battery can easily produce that. At 800 Volts, 205 kW is less than 260 Amps. That’s pretty easy to manage, thermally and electrically.
But can the Harvester genset produce that when the battery is too low to contribute stored energy to making power?
Well, 205 kW is about 275 HP.
The VWAG engine with a designation of “EA211" that some people think will be used is rated for 110 kW or 150 HP. There are lots of ways to increase a small 4-cylinder peak HP. But I don’t think the EA211 can be modified to nearly double its power rating while maintaining decent NVH and decent reliability.
If the EREV gets 7500 pound towing instead, and has a 7000 pound Gross weight, that brings the GCWR down to 14,500 pounds. That requires a power output of approximately 120 kW, or 160 HP. That’s achievable with some tweaks to the existing EA211 engine. Again, the existing engine will not be a drop-in to the system, it’ll require significant modifications.
After doing the math, I think I have to adjust my guess as to what the EREV tow rating will be. I’m guessing it’ll be around 7500-8500 pounds. This will also account for the higher thermal load the EREV will be producing.
Last edited:
That's what we've assumed the target will be from a sae rating perspective and Scout has said it will be North America sourced 2.0 NA 4cyl, existing engine.
SAE is like trying to PR a 5k on the hottest day of the year, straight up hill at altitude, wearing a sweater and a weight vest and not drinking any water 24 hours before. It's a torture test.
These trucks are going to be very capable for folks that apply just a little bit of thinking to their setup and trip profile.
Had they? Some people showcasing the truck have said 1.4L. I just haven’t seen anything concrete on the engine.
All any of us can really do is I see a lot of posts on Facebook and it’s a lot of complaining about range or asking for under $40K. Certainly hope it’s a success. Been wanting another Scout for over 35 years
I've never found a direct statement from Scout that indicates which ICE they're going to use. There's a lot of guessing out there. The EA211 (1.2L and 1.4L) and the EA888 (1.8L and 2.0L) are the two 4-cylinder engines produced in Silao, Mexico. But... The EA211 is currently only available with a turbo and the EA888 is currently only available with a turbo. Scout have made several statements indicating their engine will not be a turbo. To my knowledge, VWAG doesn't currently build a 4-cylinder naturally aspirated engine in any North American factory.
They have also directly stated it won't be the EA888.
They have also directly stated it won't be the EA888.
Many thanks for the thoughtful reply. This is excatly the information I was looking for and I think it helps set realistic expectations with the potential for people to be pleasantly surprised. There seems to be a blanket assumption that EREV technology has few if any limitations. We know similarly sized 1.5L and 1.6L engines in China have been reported as underpowered by Kyle Conner from Out of Spec who has had hands on experience. I'm certain Scout will account for scenarios like these in their battery management and route planning software so that drivers can plan for edge cases such as these. But I do believe drivers will have to route plan to some degreee when boondocking in some locations. Can you clarify one more thing for me? You mentioned the 120kW figure for towing 14,500 GCWR. Would that cover the grade test as well or a tow up I-70 in the low battery scenario. I ask because earlier you mentioned 205kW for that scenario and I am trying to get my head around how a 120kW engine can meet that need. Mostly I'm unaware about how tow ratings are set. Thanks again for the insights.
IIRC KC did not specify why they were underpowered. In addition to the motor there is the generator output, and the power output of the electric motors & HV battery. Pinning the issue on just the motor size is an incomplete picture.
Here’s a table to give you a rough idea of what’s required for two different GCWRs and several speeds and grades.
This assumes a drivetrain inefficiency for gas vehicles, so it’s a little pessimistic.
Note that this doesn’t care (much) about the power source. This is how much power has to be generated at the power plant assuming the inefficiencies of power transfer through the drive train, rolling resistance, wind resistance, etc.
I welcome someone double-checking this. I threw this code together this morning, and haven’t had a chance to compare to hand calculations.
| GCWR (kg / lbs) | Grade (%) | 64 km/h (40 mph) | 80 km/h (50 mph) | 89 km/h (55 mph) | 97 km/h (60 mph) | 105 km/h (65 mph) |
| 6,577 kg (14,500 lbs) | 3% | 89 hp (67 kW) | 121 hp (90 kW) | 142 hp (106 kW) | 162 hp (121 kW) | 184 hp (137 kW) |
| 4% | 108 hp (80 kW) | 144 hp (107 kW) | 167 hp (125 kW) | 189 hp (141 kW) | 214 hp (159 kW) | |
| 5% | 126 hp (94 kW) | 166 hp (124 kW) | 192 hp (143 kW) | 217 hp (162 kW) | 243 hp (182 kW) | |
| 6% | 144 hp (107 kW) | 189 hp (141 kW) | 217 hp (162 kW) | 244 hp (182 kW) | 273 hp (204 kW) | |
| 7% | 162 hp (121 kW) | 212 hp (158 kW) | 242 hp (181 kW) | 272 hp (203 kW) | 303 hp (226 kW) | |
| 8% | 180 hp (134 kW) | 234 hp (175 kW) | 268 hp (200 kW) | 299 hp (223 kW) | 332 hp (248 kW) | |
| 10% | 216 hp (161 kW) | 280 hp (208 kW) | 318 hp (237 kW) | 354 hp (264 kW) | 392 hp (292 kW) | |
| 8,845 kg (19,500 lbs) | 3% | 116 hp (86 kW) | 154 hp (115 kW) | 178 hp (133 kW) | 202 hp (150 kW) | 227 hp (169 kW) |
| 4% | 140 hp (104 kW) | 184 hp (138 kW) | 212 hp (158 kW) | 239 hp (178 kW) | 267 hp (199 kW) | |
| 5% | 164 hp (123 kW) | 215 hp (160 kW) | 246 hp (183 kW) | 275 hp (205 kW) | 307 hp (229 kW) | |
| 6% | 189 hp (141 kW) | 245 hp (183 kW) | 280 hp (209 kW) | 312 hp (233 kW) | 347 hp (259 kW) | |
| 7% | 213 hp (159 kW) | 276 hp (206 kW) | 314 hp (234 kW) | 349 hp (260 kW) | 387 hp (288 kW) | |
| 8% | 237 hp (177 kW) | 306 hp (228 kW) | 347 hp (259 kW) | 386 hp (288 kW) | 427 hp (318 kW) | |
| 10% | 286 hp (213 kW) | 367 hp (274 kW) | 415 hp (310 kW) | 460 hp (343 kW) | 506 hp (378 kW) |
Here’s a table of assumptions:
| Parameter Description | Value | Imperial / Context Notes |
| Trailer Frontal Area | 5.95 m² | 64.0 sq ft |
| Trailer Drag Coefficient (Cd) | 0.60 | Standard high-profile trailer profile |
| Standard Air Density (At 10,000 ft) | 0.850 kg/m³ | 0.0023769 slugs/ft³ |
| Tire Rolling Resistance Coef (Cr) | 0.012 | Average truck/trailer tire on asphalt |
| Mechanical Drivetrain Efficiency | 85.0% | Flywheel to driving wheels energy conversion |
| Mechanical Powertrain Loss | 15.0% | Internal friction (Transmission & Differential) |
| Acceleration Due to Gravity (g) | 9.80665 m/s² | 32.174 ft/s² |
Last edited:
Similar threads
