That’s why I hate advertisements by monthly payment. You can get a new Ferrari for $500 a month if you put $250k down.
We own EVs. Ask Us Anything.
- Thread starter SpaceEVDriver
- 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.
Finished the 10k regular maintenance on both the Mustang (50k miles) and the Lightning (20k miles) this weekend.
Mustang:
Lightning:
Dear @Jamie@ScoutMotors, please encourage the engineers to make it easy to access the LVB, which is a consumable. Also, please ask them to make it easy to clean out the sub-frunk space. If these are 4x4 vehicles, seeing mud, dirt, etc., they’re going to get very, very dirty in the insides, and some people like to clean that gunk out.
Here’s what it looks like after 41 months of driving the Mustang Mach-E on a dirt/gravel road. There’s been no true off-roading to speak of:
Mustang:
- 3.5 years, there were some hints that the low voltage battery needed replacing. This thing is tiny, so it’s no surprise that it sits at the bottom end of the 3-5 year replacement for AGM batteries. The replacement was a process. I had to pull off several “beauty covers,” remove the entire frunk tub, and then I could finally get to the LVB. I do not understand why so many manufacturers have decided to make it difficult to get to the battery. This isn’t just an EV issue.
- Check coolant levels
- Rotate tires
- Check various boots, joints, etc.
- Total cost: We’re outside of the warranty on the vehicle, so the LVB was on our dime. That was $180.
Lightning:
- Rotate tires
- Check coolant levels
- Check various boots, joints, etc.
Dear @Jamie@ScoutMotors, please encourage the engineers to make it easy to access the LVB, which is a consumable. Also, please ask them to make it easy to clean out the sub-frunk space. If these are 4x4 vehicles, seeing mud, dirt, etc., they’re going to get very, very dirty in the insides, and some people like to clean that gunk out.
Here’s what it looks like after 41 months of driving the Mustang Mach-E on a dirt/gravel road. There’s been no true off-roading to speak of:
Last edited:
Another road trip begun.
This time it's a caravan.
Write-up coming soon.
Teaser photo.
This time it's a caravan.
Write-up coming soon.
Teaser photo.
Our '22 Mustang Mach-E has AWD (2-motor) and the extended range (312 miles EPA) battery (91.7 kWh useable) .
Our '23 Lightning has AWD (2-motor) and the extended range (320 miles EPA) battery (131 kWh useable).
For reasons, we had to drive both to the LA area from Northern AZ.
We told both to be at 100% by the time we left. They were ready to go.
Before we left, we discussed where to stop to charge and use the restroom. The place has to have chargers. Then the truly primary consideration is always how clean are the restrooms and the next rule is how good are the food options. Third is how reliable are the chargers. Needles, CA used to be our restroom+charge break, but the charger choices there do not meet either of our main considerations. A few months ago, I learned of a new charger about 20 miles west of Needles at a Flying J truck stop in Yucca, AZ. It’s across the highway from the Yucca Proving Grounds. I had to stop. The restrooms are infinitely cleaner than the McDs or local greasy spoon in Needles. So this has become our primary stop between NAZ and LA.
When we arrived, all four charging plugs were free. So we each backed in to the spot that made the most sense for our charge port location.
By the way, we never even worried about whether we could find two charging ports at the same time. We just don’t run into that kind of issue very often.
The Mustang had used 50% of its battery to take us ~176 miles.
The Lightning had used 48% of its battery to take us ~176 miles.
Efficiency reported by the Mustang was 3.9 miles/kWh.
Efficiency reported by the Lightning was 2.5 miles/kWh.
Sanity check:
Mustang:
176 miles / 3.9 miles/kWh = 45.1 kWh
45.1 kWh / 50% of the battery used = 90.2 kWh. That’s fairly close to the 91.7 nominal useable battery.
The battery is nearly 4 years old, and has >50k miles on it. IF that small difference was due to battery capacity degradation, that’s only ~ 1.6% degradation in 4 years, >50,000 miles. I’m happy with that.
Lightning:
If we believe the 2.5 miles/kWh and we believe the depth of discharge for the Lightning:
176 miles / 2.5 miles/kWh = 70.4 kWh
But.
70.4 / 48% = 146.7 kWh. Which is more than the nominal full capacity, including the “buffer.”
Huh.
What’s going on here?
If we assume the battery state of charge report is correct and 48% of the 131 kWh was used, that’s 62.9 kWh to go 176 miles. That’s an efficiency of 2.8 miles/kWh.
Our '23 Lightning has AWD (2-motor) and the extended range (320 miles EPA) battery (131 kWh useable).
For reasons, we had to drive both to the LA area from Northern AZ.
We told both to be at 100% by the time we left. They were ready to go.
Before we left, we discussed where to stop to charge and use the restroom. The place has to have chargers. Then the truly primary consideration is always how clean are the restrooms and the next rule is how good are the food options. Third is how reliable are the chargers. Needles, CA used to be our restroom+charge break, but the charger choices there do not meet either of our main considerations. A few months ago, I learned of a new charger about 20 miles west of Needles at a Flying J truck stop in Yucca, AZ. It’s across the highway from the Yucca Proving Grounds. I had to stop. The restrooms are infinitely cleaner than the McDs or local greasy spoon in Needles. So this has become our primary stop between NAZ and LA.
When we arrived, all four charging plugs were free. So we each backed in to the spot that made the most sense for our charge port location.
By the way, we never even worried about whether we could find two charging ports at the same time. We just don’t run into that kind of issue very often.
The Mustang had used 50% of its battery to take us ~176 miles.
The Lightning had used 48% of its battery to take us ~176 miles.
Efficiency reported by the Mustang was 3.9 miles/kWh.
Efficiency reported by the Lightning was 2.5 miles/kWh.
Sanity check:
Mustang:
176 miles / 3.9 miles/kWh = 45.1 kWh
45.1 kWh / 50% of the battery used = 90.2 kWh. That’s fairly close to the 91.7 nominal useable battery.
The battery is nearly 4 years old, and has >50k miles on it. IF that small difference was due to battery capacity degradation, that’s only ~ 1.6% degradation in 4 years, >50,000 miles. I’m happy with that.
Lightning:
If we believe the 2.5 miles/kWh and we believe the depth of discharge for the Lightning:
176 miles / 2.5 miles/kWh = 70.4 kWh
But.
70.4 / 48% = 146.7 kWh. Which is more than the nominal full capacity, including the “buffer.”
Huh.
What’s going on here?
If we assume the battery state of charge report is correct and 48% of the 131 kWh was used, that’s 62.9 kWh to go 176 miles. That’s an efficiency of 2.8 miles/kWh.
Given those particular efficiency numbers:
Mustang: 3.9 miles/kWh
Lightning 2.8 miles/kWh
With this particular kind of driving, we could go:
350 miles in the Mustang (including the degradation).
367 miles in the Lightning.
At an average of 70 miles per hour.
Mustang: 3.9 miles/kWh
Lightning 2.8 miles/kWh
With this particular kind of driving, we could go:
350 miles in the Mustang (including the degradation).
367 miles in the Lightning.
At an average of 70 miles per hour.
That’s not the frunk. That’s the vehicle under the frunk.
To be clearer than I was:
We were going down off a mountain for most of those 176 miles. And we don’t do 85-90 mph.
But we also had an oncoming crosswind. (Crosswinds are worse than headwinds for efficiency—think about sailboats sailing faster than the wind with the right geometry).
The elevation profile of our route:
As usual thanks for the real world updates. Love that you do this for all of us
Charging speeds were nearly identical, which is what I expect and have experienced in separate road trips. Ford's strategy is capacity-based so a 90 kWh battery will charge in about the same time as a 130 kWh battery, in their strategy.
Lightning:
Mustang:
Lightning:
Mustang:
I just added up the cost of fast charging for our recent trip to LA and back.
It used to be about $30-$50 for a round trip.
This time it was $130, including charging at home and charging at the place I stayed.
That’s not much better than the cost of gasoline, which for my Tacoma would have been about $200.
The price of DCFC charging is increasing at an alarming rate.
It used to be about $30-$50 for a round trip.
This time it was $130, including charging at home and charging at the place I stayed.
That’s not much better than the cost of gasoline, which for my Tacoma would have been about $200.
The price of DCFC charging is increasing at an alarming rate.
What is the period between the $50 round trip and the $130?
Here in Texas what surpluses we had in capacity is going to AI data centers and bitcoin farms. ERCOT is forecasting demand doubling by 2030. Pair that with peak demand of summer HVAC, renewable energy contracts being cancelled, and there will be less and less supply for growing demand. I imagine summer travel with EVs will be pricey until we add some nuclear power plants across the country or federalize the energy sector.
It’s been about six months since I last saw about $50 for this trip. The last couple of times it was a bit higher, but discounts are becoming less available and, strangely, with more options the prices are increasing, not decreasing.
Last year we used mostly EA chargers. This past time we didn’t use any EA chargers, so that’s part of it too. EA has always been cheaper for us.
All things considered that is a startling increase for only 6 months.
In the past we paid about $0.32/kWh for DCFC. Most places held to that price or less for quite a while.
This trip we paid $0.66/kWh and $0.56/kWh.
Some networks just have a very high flat rate; others have introduced surge pricing.
Similar threads
- Suggestion
