Questions about the Harvester

[R1TVT]

The good news is that nobody knows the specific details or exact specs for the Harvester (yet) and that everyone here has a reservation (not a binding P&S)... Even if someone had specs and details to share at this stage (from early testing or a lab environment), they would still be too early to share from a production perspective.

Nothing wrong with a little speculation about "the possibilities" and some dialog about the potential Harvester benefits based on what we know so far, but the hard and fast claims and the statements about "how it MUST be implemented this way or that way" have proven to create some pushback. We have not seen any OEM configure an EV truck or EV SUV like this (with such a compact generator, with a full frunk up-front, and 500 miles of range), so there are going to be unknowns for some time during development.

 

[J Alynn]

The good news is that nobody knows the specific details or exact specs for the Harvester (yet) and that everyone here has a reservation (not a binding P&S)... Even if someone had specs and details to share at this stage (from early testing or a lab environment), they would still be too early to share from a production perspective.

Nothing wrong with a little speculation about "the possibilities" and some dialog about the potential Harvester benefits based on what we know so far, but the hard and fast claims and the statements about "how it MUST be implemented this way or that way" have proven to create some pushback. We have not seen any OEM configure an EV truck or EV SUV like this (with such a compact generator, with a full frunk up-front, and 500 miles of range), so there are going to be unknowns for some time during development.

Well stated M.

 

[Sockdoc]

I have read with keen interested all the forums posts on the scout and harvester in the last few weeks. I have a reservation for a Scout Traveller SUV with Range extending harvester (essentially a plug in hybrid in series). I am a current owner of a Jeep Wrangler 4xE (plug in parallel hybrid) since 2021.


What I love about what Scout is doing:

1. Simplistic engineering (series is so much simpler than parallel) which should make repairs cheaper and less things that can go wrong—but indeed more complex than pure EV.
2. Extended range in EV only mode. Currently 25 miles gets me to and from work 90% of the time IF all things go right such as feathering the accelerator, reducing highway speeds, and not to cold). Then I have to plug in daily. 150 would allow me to commute and charge once a week—love that!
3. Extended range when needed. Still can get into the mountains of Idaho, Sawtooths specifically, where charging infrastructure is absent. I would need 500+ miles of stated range to get where I like to go while pulling our little gear hauler. Cannot do that with a pure EV—I don’t expect changes to infrastructure to remote areas of Idaho anytime soon. (This is different than road tripping on freeways)

My predictions (really a summary of the thoughts and contributions of all the great enthusiasts here).

1. Similar to my 4xE (when in esave charge) the excess kw produced by the engine will keep a level change (and maybe even be able to charge the battery up to a certain point—95% in the 4xE)
2. The engine will provide kw to the motors directly (with excess going to the battery) but the engine is not connected directly to EV motors. Much like most series hybrids. It will be marketed as energy to the battery because that is what people think but reality is that makes no sense to constantly charge and decharge a battery, not to mention the inefficiency dc/ac conversions (and vice verse).
3. A 80-100kw engine should be sufficient to keep a steady charge at anticipated loads (hauling, freeway speed, crawling and climbing up mountain passes). I have been monitoring my Jeeps kw use when in hybrid mode and 80-100kw of sustained engine power should get what we want (I haven’t tested recently while towing) with excess kw needs being provided by the battery charge “in reserve”.
4. The battery will provide 150 miles of EV range but then an additional ~20% of the battery kw will be “reserved” for when the harvester is in use and needing extra juice (such as accelerations, steeper hills etc.) If sustained juice is needed beyond and the battery is fully drained then you may experience “limp mode” where there is limited power. The engineering will likely limit this from happening but I predict YouTubers (and some of you likely) testing the limits to the harvester. You may (most likely can) override the EV reserve power (at your own peril) to extend EV only range—up to a point (maybe 5%). That extra range is beyond the stated 150–perhaps around 180-190 total without towing.
5. I hope (and should be able to) charge via the harvester at idle (ie charging camping/utility mode).
6. We will see the scout with harvesters in 2028 using current battery technology (not solid state). I hope for LFP due to the fact that it will be more frequently charged/discharged leading to less battery degradation over time (see issues with 4xE battery getting below 70% state of health and being replaced in just 4 years). I would not be surprised if LFP is used in the harvester model (accounting for some of the reduced range) and NCM for non harvester models (which will get the longer EV only range). But this last part is just purely speculation.

 

[mbeadnell]

Do we think Terra/traveler harvester will be cheaper or roughly same price as full EV? I read smaller battery pack could drive cost down. Thoughts?

 

[J Alynn]

Do we think Terra/traveler harvester will be cheaper or roughly same price as full EV? I read smaller battery pack could drive cost down. Thoughts?

A new thee
Ad was just started today with this exact question. You may want to take a look

 

[LastDayScout]

Do we think Terra/traveler harvester will be cheaper or roughly same price as full EV? I read smaller battery pack could drive cost down. Thoughts?

It’s likely the Harvester will be more expensive and arrive after the fully electric version.

 

[ohvrider]

So pay more to get less towing?

 

[R1TVT]

Its all trade offs... And we don't know final towing specs for production yet, b/c nothing has been published. With the Harvester you are adding an entirely extra sub-system to an otherwise very simple EV truck. That takes parts, SW, HW, and extra build time (and also takes SPACE in the physical skeleton and frame of the vehicle.

You are paying more to get extended range benefits, and for some with lesser infrastructure, you may be getting some extra piece of mind. For others that want to go boondocking in the wilderness for days on end, they are getting a benefit by carrying along jerry jugs so they can charge when off grid.

People want to buy a Deep-V boat to cut through the waves, then wonder why its not good at flats fishing in skinny water... Trade-offs.

 

[TreeKiller]

I predict that if Scout is listening to the reservation holders, the Harvester will be produced and delivered concurrently or even before the all electric models. There are, after all, 4 EREV reservations for every 1 BEV. If I have two products and one of them looks like it's going to sell 4x the other, that's the product I'm making sure I get launched first, engineering hurdles be damned. Now add on that more popular product will also be more profitable.

Yep. Harvester is coming first.

 

[LastDayScout]

I predict that if Scout is listening to the reservation holders, the Harvester will be produced and delivered concurrently or even before the all electric models. There are, after all, 4 EREV reservations for every 1 BEV. If I have two products and one of them looks like it's going to sell 4x the other, that's the product I'm making sure I get launched first, engineering hurdles be damned. Now add on that more popular product will also be more profitable.

Yep. Harvester is coming first.

I will politely counter that the BEV was in development long before the Harvester, the BEV is simpler, and they want to get something on the market in 2027-28. I think the BEV will be first.

 

[dreamweaver]

I will politely counter that the BEV was in development long before the Harvester, the BEV is simpler, and they want to get something on the market in 2027-28. I think the BEV will be first.

In the event that a staggered production release is decided upon, this appears to be the most probable outcome for production readiness. However, when Scout mentioned a 2027 production release, it is possible that they could have considered the extended timeline required for the EREV engineering to be ready for production, resulting in the EV simply awaiting the EREV’s catch-up. In my opinion, they would be highly enthusiastic about releasing both simultaneously.

 

[Chavannigans]

I will politely counter that the BEV was in development long before the Harvester, the BEV is simpler, and they want to get something on the market in 2027-28. I think the BEV will be first.

I’m obviously not the one making the decisions at Scout, but it would make sense to fulfil the BEV orders first since there are less of them.

If I could only produce one or the other at a time at launch I’d pick the ones with higher margins or are easier to assemble.

It will be interesting to see where pricing lands. An article I recently posted alluded to the fact that an EREV is cheaper to produce than a full blown BEV with larger more expensive batteries. They swagged a number around $7,000.

So the Harvester could be cheaper, or could be the same price even if it costs less due to value added through other features the BEV won’t get… or it may end up being more expensive.

I am not sure if the price will influence my decision though because I am looking at Scouts for my specific use case.

 

[cyure]

I’m obviously not the one making the decisions at Scout, but it would make sense to fulfil the BEV orders first since there are less of them.

If I could only produce one or the other at a time at launch I’d pick the ones with higher margins or are easier to assemble.

It will be interesting to see where pricing lands. An article I recently posted alluded to the fact that an EREV is cheaper to produce than a full blown BEV with larger more expensive batteries. They swagged a number around $7,000.

So the Harvester could be cheaper, or could be the same price even if it costs less due to value added through other features the BEV won’t get… or it may end up being more expensive.

I am not sure if the price will influence my decision though because I am looking at Scouts for my specific use case.

This is another one of those patience is a virtue situations. I just have faith that SM is going to do what they need to to be as profitable and successful as possible right out of the gate.

 

[Chavannigans]

This is another one of those patience is a virtue situations. I just have faith that SM is going to do what they need to to be as profitable and successful as possible right out of the gate.

Of course!

Besides, we are already waiting 2 years… some even longer than that. What’s a few more months?

I’m fine either way the cards fall despite my excitement.

It does seem that certain options will influence delivery times in the FAQ section about changing reservations between models and BEV/Harvester.

But I am sure nobody is going to let that influence which model they choose.

We are just along for the ride.

 

[cyure]

Of course!

Besides, we are already waiting 2 years… some even longer than that. What’s a few more months?

I’m fine either way the cards fall despite my excitement.

It does seem that certain options will influence delivery times in the FAQ section about changing reservations between models and BEV/Harvester.

But I am sure nobody is going to let that influence which model they choose.

We are just along for the ride.

And what a fun ride it’s gonna be!!

 

[LastDayScout]

In the event that a staggered production release is decided upon, this appears to be the most probable outcome for production readiness. However, when Scout mentioned a 2027 production release, it is possible that they could have considered the extended timeline required for the EREV engineering to be ready for production, resulting in the EV simply awaiting the EREV’s catch-up. In my opinion, they would be highly enthusiastic about releasing both simultaneously.

Great point and I hope that is the case. A simultaneous, or close release date would be the best possible outcome.

 

[J Alynn]

I’m obviously not the one making the decisions at Scout, but it would make sense to fulfil the BEV orders first since there are less of them.

If I could only produce one or the other at a time at launch I’d pick the ones with higher margins or are easier to assemble.

It will be interesting to see where pricing lands. An article I recently posted alluded to the fact that an EREV is cheaper to produce than a full blown BEV with larger more expensive batteries. They swagged a number around $7,000.

So the Harvester could be cheaper, or could be the same price even if it costs less due to value added through other features the BEV won’t get… or it may end up being more expensive.

I am not sure if the price will influence my decision though because I am looking at Scouts for my specific use case.

If EREV is the max range it becomes an “add-on” option so to speak and makes it more desirable and there is all the extra engineering that now has to be paid for so they have to make that up somewhere. The BEV buyers shouldn’t have to pay for it. I still bet the EREV will be $2000-$3000 more compared to BEV. They provided a product that is more desirable and should be able to make some extra money in the process. I once read that the dough to make a medium and a large pizza is exactly the same. One just gets stretched further and you pay $4-$5 more. You are still getting something you find more value with and you pay more even though the cost is all but identical.

 

[dreamweaver]

Great point and I hope that is the case. A simultaneous, or close release date would be the best possible outcome.

Fingers crossed.

 

[dreamweaver]

If EREV is the max range it becomes an “add-on” option so to speak and makes it more desirable and there is all the extra engineering that now has to be paid for so they have to make that up somewhere. The BEV buyers shouldn’t have to pay for it. I still bet the EREV will be $2000-$3000 more compared to BEV. They provided a product that is more desirable and should be able to make some extra money in the process. I once read that the dough to make a medium and a large pizza is exactly the same. One just gets stretched further and you pay $4-$5 more. You are still getting something you find more value with and you pay more even though the cost is all but identical.

Now your sounding like a bean counter. Are you thinking about a career change?

 

[J Alynn]

Now your sounding like a bean counter. Are you thinking about a career change?

I’ve been doing a lot more costing of options and spreadsheets so….. oh good lord I hope not