What If the Harvester Shed 1,000 lbs and Got Better? The Case for LTO + EA211-ERV

  • 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.

ritterf

Active member
Mar 20, 2026
52
16
Oregon.
e90 M3 / Jeep LJ Rubi owner · Preorder #3933623624 · replacing an X5 with this

I've been sitting on this for a while. Already sent it to Scout directly — got a very polished "thanks, noted" from support. So I'm bringing it here, where the people who actually care about this stuff are.

The Harvester has a real shot at being the most capable EREV ever built. But I think the current architecture direction is about to repeat the same mistake every other EREV has made. Here's what I mean — and here's the fix.

---

THE PROBLEM: EREVs ARE JUST BLOATED EVs WITH A GENERATOR BOLTED ON

Every current EREV design makes you haul 1,200–1,500 lbs of low-C-rate NMC or LFP just to provide range. That weight spiral kills towing dynamics, destroys payload headroom, and wrecks off-road agility. It's engineering compromise stacked on engineering compromise.

And the cruel irony — you're carrying all that pack weight specifically so the generator doesn't have to work as hard. The tail is wagging the dog.
1774484387629.png



---

THE PROPOSAL: A HIGH-RATE BUFFER ARCHITECTURE


Instead of a 80–100 kWh pack, pair two modular 10 kWh LTO (Lithium Titanate) packs with a purpose-built turbo generator. Total buffer: 20 kWh. Total pack weight: ~350 lbs vs ~1,400 lbs conventional.

For the generator: the EA211-ERV — the exact engine VW just put into production for the ID. Era 9X. 1.5L, Variable Turbine Geometry, Miller cycle, ~105 kW sustained output. Real production engine. Not a concept. Already validated in a large-platform application.
1774484509781.png

[ INSERT: Architecture diagram ]

---

WHY TWO 10 kWh PACKS INSTEAD OF ONE 20 kWh PACK

This is the part I'm most excited about. Two modular packs changes everything:

Modularity across the lineup. Run one pack in the lighter Traveler build. Run both in the Harvester towing config. Same skateboard platform, two different buyers. Scout sells both without redesigning the chassis.

Serviceability. Replace one pack at a time if one degrades. ~$4,500 instead of $9,000+. A dealership swaps one in an afternoon. This is the crate engine philosophy applied to batteries.

Weight distribution. Two smaller packs gives chassis engineers real flexibility — one under each axle for 50/50 balance. Try that with a 1,400 lb monolithic slab.

VW group platform play. Here's the part that should get a VP's attention: a validated 10 kWh LTO module proven in worst-case truck duty is a group-wide asset. Audi, Porsche, Cupra, VW ID. Buzz — every EREV in the portfolio gets lighter, more durable, more serviceable batteries. Scout doesn't just ask VW for an engine. Scout hands VW the business case for their next battery standard.

"Scout isn't asking VW for parts. Scout is the validation platform for VW's next battery architecture."

---

THE REAL-WORLD CASE: HIGH ALTITUDE MOUNTAIN PASS TOWING


This is where the architecture earns its money. The EA211-ERV's VTG turbo compensates for altitude power loss that kills naturally aspirated engines. The LTO buffer absorbs full regen on descents without thermal gating — consistent, predictable braking feel all the way down. And on the climb back up, the buffer delivers burst power while the generator sustains.

At 10,000 ft towing 5,000 lbs, a conventional EREV with a weak NA generator hits turtle mode. This architecture doesn't. The generator never stops. The buffer never gates. The truck never quits.

---

WHY LTO WINS THE LONG GAME
1774484458254.png

[ INSERT: Cycle life / cost math graphic ]


20,000+ verified charge cycles — Toshiba SCiB production cells. At one full cycle per day that's 54 years. The pack outlasts the chassis by decades.

Full KERS capture. LTO absorbs 100% of hard regen energy on a mountain descent without thermal gating. NMC and LFP gate regen when the pack gets warm — you feel it as inconsistent brake response. LTO doesn't. Ever.

Long term replacement cost. When your 100 kWh NMC pack degrades in year 8–10, you're facing a $15,000–20,000 replacement that may not even be available. With two 10 kWh LTO packs doing 20,000 cycles — that conversation essentially disappears.

Tire life and payload. 1,050 lbs off the chassis is real tire wear reduction over a 15–20 year ownership cycle. Multiple sets of tires. On a truck people actually keep, that math matters.

The cost math works. LTO is ~3–4x per kWh vs NMC — but at 20 kWh vs 100 kWh you're buying a fraction of the cells. The delta funds a better generator, better suspension, and still comes out ahead.

---

THE 30-YEAR TRUCK

Scout's heritage pitch is durability. A Harvester with this powertrain is the first EV-based truck that actually backs that up with physics. The battery outlasts the chassis. The generator is a production VW engine with a global parts supply. There's no $20,000 pack replacement hanging over the owner in year 10.

That's what "legendary Scout durability" means in 2025. Not a marketing line. An engineering decision.

"Two 10 kWh LTO packs + EA211-ERV = the first EREV that drives like a truck, lasts like a Land Cruiser, and costs like one too."

I'm not an engineer. I'm a preorder customer who's done the homework. Curious what the technically-minded people in here think — especially anyone who's worked with LTO chemistry or knows the EA211-ERV spec sheet better than I do.

---
Ritter Friedrich · Preorder #3933623624
e90 M3 / Jeep LJ Rubi / replacing an X5
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mastertroll
Upvote 0
It sounds to me like the Scouts just aren’t the vehicle for you. Sometimes it’s hard to accept but maybe that’s simply the case here
hahah, Based on?
Not good for people who only drive 20-30 miles a day and 500-800 miles on a weekend a month?
How am I excluded from the demographic? If a vehicle with 150 miles of electric range and a gas backup isn't for someone who drives 30 miles a day and 800 miles a weekend, who is it for? I think the Scout engineers would be pretty surprised to find out they built a car for a demographic that doesn't exist.
In fact, Scout CEO Scott Keogh explicitly stated they added the gas-powered Harvester™ range extender because over 80% of their early interest came from people who felt "pure EVs weren't meeting the needs" of long-distance hauling and regional travel. My 30-mile daily drive is 100% electric efficiency, and my 800-mile weekend is exactly why that on-board generator exists. I’m not 'excluded'—I’m the bullseye for the brand."
 
I commute 30 miles a day. Having a larger range means I don’t have to plug in every night. I can park on the street, or forget about plugging in for a while.

150 miles is pretty good for most people though, and it supports the hour-long commuters with a bit of headroom.

Honestly most harvester reservation holders would prefer longer EV only ranges, and if it became 200miles I would super happy.

I also tow, and I have a tractor and a boat, a lot of garbage and some soil/plants to move places. The harvester tow rating is just squeaking by for towing the tractor, but I do it so rarely I’ll compromise by not going all mad max and being careful about my weight. Maybe have one less pancake the morning of.

The point is… a general market vehicle is full of compromises. The harvester fits my expected usage but I’m not surprised it doesn’t fit everyone’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maynard and J Alynn
well now I've learned of an even better tweak of chemistry. they bridge the gap between LTO and LFP.
NTO with the SCIB Nb cells... the cells are larger then the 20ah ones I was calculating with before..

I've refined the math with the newest Niobium (NTO) specs. By using just 200 cells (23kWh), we shed 1,000+ lbs of dead weight. We get a 400V architecture that fits in a carry-on suitcase, captures 400kW of regen, and provides 60 miles of range that never degrades. It turns the Harvester from a heavy compliance-tank into a lightweight, indestructible 30-year truck."

But my personal recommendation still stands. using the 20ah packs for the most punch and using the smallest battery to still get the 7.5kWh federal tax credit.
164 cells of 20ah-hp cells - about 200lbs for entire battery enclosure.
400v.
but I get why 20Kwh would probably be the minimum people would want or easy to sell..

Comparison Summary


200-Cell NTO (50Ah)350-Cell LTO-HP (20Ah)
System Voltage~460V~800V
Total Weight~430 lbs~480 lbs (with enclosure)
Energy Capacity23 kWh16.1 kWh
Max Regen Power400 kW665 kW
  • Range: 46–58 miles. Range: 32–40 miles
1774570900676.png
1774570952773.png



 
hahah, Based on?
Not good for people who only drive 20-30 miles a day and 500-800 miles on a weekend a month?
How am I excluded from the demographic? If a vehicle with 150 miles of electric range and a gas backup isn't for someone who drives 30 miles a day and 800 miles a weekend, who is it for? I think the Scout engineers would be pretty surprised to find out they built a car for a demographic that doesn't exist.
In fact, Scout CEO Scott Keogh explicitly stated they added the gas-powered Harvester™ range extender because over 80% of their early interest came from people who felt "pure EVs weren't meeting the needs" of long-distance hauling and regional travel. My 30-mile daily drive is 100% electric efficiency, and my 800-mile weekend is exactly why that on-board generator exists. I’m not 'excluded'—I’m the bullseye for the brand."
Right now they have over 160,000 reservations. I think SM has it right and your push for an energy system that isn’t mainstream and risks failing a brand new company is just a bad business approach. So you can argue all you want but SM is at least 4 years into this and I doubt they are thinking of changing. I’m sure at some point they explored a lot of alternatives and came to the conclusion that what they intend to offer was the best option for success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maynard
Please tell me the ideal customer use case then.
It’s not the customer user. It’s your personal desire for a technology that isn’t reasonable and is late to the game. It’s been 4 years with top engineers working on this. If your thoughts supported with AI were truly better, I would have thought SM would have gone that route by now. And since it is highly unlikely, I question whether it is the right vehicle based on your desire to go with a different harvester approach
 
It’s not the customer user. It’s your personal desire for a technology that isn’t reasonable and is late to the game. It’s been 4 years with top engineers working on this. If your thoughts supported with AI were truly better, I would have thought SM would have gone that route by now. And since it is highly unlikely, I question whether it is the right vehicle based on your desire to go with a different harvester approach
My ideas are not being done because of government subsidies pushing KWH over performance.
there has not been one serious critique that holds any water other than... that is what they already decided...

Watch what happens when the first tow test and this goes into limp mode because at altitude while towing it can't keep up.
I speced VW groups brand new engine designed explicitly for this and you not even looking into specs.

but the logic from 5 years ago thinking people want BEV's is going to kill this company..
Truck guys don't want Huge heavy expensive flammable batteries.
they love a small battery that recovers all braking energy for more torque off the line ... but a 1000 lbs a the cost of towing or payload is a fail.
 
Right now they have over 160,000 reservations. I think SM has it right and your push for an energy system that isn’t mainstream and risks failing a brand new company is just a bad business approach. So you can argue all you want but SM is at least 4 years into this and I doubt they are thinking of changing. I’m sure at some point they explored a lot of alternatives and came to the conclusion that what they intend to offer was the best option for success.
160,000 reservations is a great sign for Scout. It doesn't settle an engineering question.


Boeing had 10,000 orders for the 737 MAX before the MCAS decisions became public. Institutional momentum and good engineering aren't the same thing.


I'm not asking Scout to abandon four years of work. I'm suggesting one specific upgrade — swap the NA EA211 for the EA211-ERV that VW literally just put into production. Same engine family, same platform, turbocharged and Miller cycle tuned for serial hybrid duty. It's not a moonshot. It's a parts decision.


The NTO angle I just posted is even more interesting — Toshiba's new SCiB Nb cells bridge the energy density gap while keeping the fast charge and cycle life. The chemistry is moving fast and Scout's specs aren't frozen yet.


That's the window. Not a wholesale redesign — a better engine and a smarter cell choice before the specs lock.
 
For anyone who wants the primary source on the NTO chemistry — this is straight from Toshiba, June 2025:

https://www.global.toshiba/ww/news/corporate/2025/06/news-20250604-01.html

The headline specs: 130 Wh/kg energy density matching LFP, 80% charge in 10 minutes, 15,000 cycle lifespan, -30 to +60°C operating range. Sample shipments already started.

And this line from Toshiba directly: "ideal for commercial e-vehicles like e-buses and e-trucks that operate on specified routes with high utilization rates."

That's the Harvester use case. Described by the manufacturer. In a June 2025 press release.
Think about what the range extender actually means.

90% of daily driving is under 40 miles. A 20kWh NTO buffer covers that — silently, efficiently, never touching the generator.

The other 10%? That's what the generator is for. It runs. You don't stop. Range is infinite.

So explain to me why the Harvester is carrying 63kWh of LFP — roughly 860 lbs of cells — for a use case the generator already solves. That's 43kWh of battery above what daily commuting actually needs, hauled everywhere, every day, wearing out your tires and suspension for zero additional capability on the road trips the generator already handles.

We're not buying range. We're buying a heavier, more expensive, faster-wearing truck so the spec sheet says 150 miles instead of 46.

The 200-cell NTO pack — 23kWh, ~380 lbs of cells, 460V, 10 minute charge, 15,000 cycles — covers the daily commute and gets out of the way. The generator handles everything else.
 
Something nobody's calculated yet — actual stop-and-go range accounting for real regen rates.
63kWh LFP caps regen at ~140kW before thermal clipping. On a 6,500lb truck at 20mph that's recovering maybe 50% of braking energy — and that number drops as the pack warms up through the day.
23kWh NTO is rated 400kW input. At 20mph you're capturing essentially 100% of braking energy. Every stop. Stop #150 feels identical to stop #1 because NTO physically cannot plate lithium — the BMS never needs to gate it.
Run the actual math on Portland stop-and-go:
63kWh LFP23kWh NTO
Gross consumption~480 Wh/mi~435 Wh/mi
Regen recovery~95 Wh/mi~175 Wh/mi
Net consumption~385 Wh/mi~260 Wh/mi
Real urban range~130 miles~77 miles
Spec sheet says 150 vs 46. Real stop-and-go says 130 vs 77.
The gap closes from 3.3x to 1.7x in actual daily driving conditions.
My 18-24 mile school run uses 25% of the NTO pack. Generator never starts. The LFP truck gets home with 82% remaining — having hauled 570 extra pounds all day to get there.


The spec sheet is measuring the wrong thing.
 
If it was so great, I have to wonder why the Jeep 4xe used an MNC battery - and became the laughing stock of the EV world with it's dismal range.
 
Something nobody's calculated yet — actual stop-and-go range accounting for real regen rates.
63kWh LFP caps regen at ~140kW before thermal clipping. On a 6,500lb truck at 20mph that's recovering maybe 50% of braking energy — and that number drops as the pack warms up through the day.
23kWh NTO is rated 400kW input. At 20mph you're capturing essentially 100% of braking energy. Every stop. Stop #150 feels identical to stop #1 because NTO physically cannot plate lithium — the BMS never needs to gate it.
Run the actual math on Portland stop-and-go:
63kWh LFP23kWh NTO
Gross consumption~480 Wh/mi~435 Wh/mi
Regen recovery~95 Wh/mi~175 Wh/mi
Net consumption~385 Wh/mi~260 Wh/mi
Real urban range~130 miles~77 miles
Spec sheet says 150 vs 46. Real stop-and-go says 130 vs 77.
The gap closes from 3.3x to 1.7x in actual daily driving conditions.
My 18-24 mile school run uses 25% of the NTO pack. Generator never starts. The LFP truck gets home with 82% remaining — having hauled 570 extra pounds all day to get there.


The spec sheet is measuring the wrong thing.
I’m completely not qualified to comment here, but aren’t you asking Scout to then use an 800 volt architecture for the BEV and a 400 volt architecture for the EREV?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ritterf
If it was so great, I have to wonder why the Jeep 4xe used an MNC battery - and became the laughing stock of the EV world with it's dismal range.
The 4xe has two problems — NMC chemistry and parallel hybrid architecture. Neither applies here.

NMC is the lightest lithium chemistry which is exactly why Jeep picked it — every pound matters for off-road geometry. The tradeoff is 1,000–2,500 cycles and a tendency to catch fire when the anode swells and punches through the separator. That's not a small tradeoff. The people in my school pickup line love their 4xe — they also can't park it in their garage.

The Harvester is a series hybrid — the engine never touches the wheels. Completely different architecture. The 4xe comparison is apples to transmissions.

And 1,000 cycles at one charge per day is 2.7 years before the pack hits 80% capacity. Jeep is selling people a $55,000 truck with a 2.7 year battery warranty baked into the physics.

LTO and NTO don't swell. The ceramic-like anode doesn't expand and contract with charge cycles — which is exactly why there's no lithium plating, no separator stress, no thermal runaway pathway. It's not just better cycle life. It's a fundamentally different failure mode. Or rather — the absence of one.

Jeep chose NMC because Stellantis buys batteries by the millions and NMC is a commodity. That's a procurement decision dressed up as an engineering one.

1774607439167.png

 
I’m completely not qualified to comment here, but aren’t you asking Scout to then use an 800 volt architecture for the BEV and a 400 volt architecture for the EREV?
The 800V question is worth addressing directly because it sounds like a gotcha but isn't.

800V architecture exists because NMC and LFP cells have relatively low nominal voltage — around 3.2–3.7V per cell. To get usable pack voltage you need a lot of cells in series. More cells means more energy, which enables faster charging at the same C-rate. That's the 800V story — it's compensating for cell limitations, not delivering an inherent advantage.

NTO SCiB Nb cells are 2.3V nominal. 200 cells in series = ~460V. That's the natural architecture for this chemistry.

Is 460V slower to charge than 800V? Only if you're limited by voltage rather than C-rate. The NTO pack charges at 5C — 10 minutes to 80% — because of the chemistry, not the voltage. At 460V and 5C that's ~115kW of charge power, ~250 amps. Perfectly manageable cable gauge.

The practical electronics argument actually favors lower voltage. MOSFETs and IGBTs — the switching components in the inverter and BMS — have lower switching losses at lower voltages. 800V systems need more expensive, higher-rated components throughout. Higher voltage also means more complex insulation requirements and more expensive service procedures.

800V is the right answer for a 100kWh+ BEV that needs 350kW charging to refill in 20 minutes. It's an over-engineered answer for a 23kWh buffer pack that charges in 10 minutes at standard rates and spends most of its life being topped up by a generator anyway or overnight at home charging..

The voltage architecture follows the chemistry. NTO at 460V is cleaner, simpler, and cheaper to build and service than forcing an 800V topology onto a pack that doesn't need it.
 
The 800V question is worth addressing directly because it sounds like a gotcha but isn't.

800V architecture exists because NMC and LFP cells have relatively low nominal voltage — around 3.2–3.7V per cell. To get usable pack voltage you need a lot of cells in series. More cells means more energy, which enables faster charging at the same C-rate. That's the 800V story — it's compensating for cell limitations, not delivering an inherent advantage.

NTO SCiB Nb cells are 2.3V nominal. 200 cells in series = ~460V. That's the natural architecture for this chemistry.

Is 460V slower to charge than 800V? Only if you're limited by voltage rather than C-rate. The NTO pack charges at 5C — 10 minutes to 80% — because of the chemistry, not the voltage. At 460V and 5C that's ~115kW of charge power, ~250 amps. Perfectly manageable cable gauge.

The practical electronics argument actually favors lower voltage. MOSFETs and IGBTs — the switching components in the inverter and BMS — have lower switching losses at lower voltages. 800V systems need more expensive, higher-rated components throughout. Higher voltage also means more complex insulation requirements and more expensive service procedures.

800V is the right answer for a 100kWh+ BEV that needs 350kW charging to refill in 20 minutes. It's an over-engineered answer for a 23kWh buffer pack that charges in 10 minutes at standard rates and spends most of its life being topped up by a generator anyway or overnight at home charging..

The voltage architecture follows the chemistry. NTO at 460V is cleaner, simpler, and cheaper to build and service than forcing an 800V topology onto a pack that doesn't need it.
So you are saying all the required components stay with the battery pack/module?
Sorry - I wrote software and don’t thoroughly understand hardware…
 
  • Like
Reactions: ritterf
Something nobody's calculated yet — actual stop-and-go range accounting for real regen rates.
63kWh LFP caps regen at ~140kW before thermal clipping. On a 6,500lb truck at 20mph that's recovering maybe 50% of braking energy — and that number drops as the pack warms up through the day.
23kWh NTO is rated 400kW input. At 20mph you're capturing essentially 100% of braking energy. Every stop. Stop #150 feels identical to stop #1 because NTO physically cannot plate lithium — the BMS never needs to gate it.
Run the actual math on Portland stop-and-go:
63kWh LFP23kWh NTO
Gross consumption~480 Wh/mi~435 Wh/mi
Regen recovery~95 Wh/mi~175 Wh/mi
Net consumption~385 Wh/mi~260 Wh/mi
Real urban range~130 miles~77 miles
Spec sheet says 150 vs 46. Real stop-and-go says 130 vs 77.
The gap closes from 3.3x to 1.7x in actual daily driving conditions.
My 18-24 mile school run uses 25% of the NTO pack. Generator never starts. The LFP truck gets home with 82% remaining — having hauled 570 extra pounds all day to get there.


The spec sheet is measuring the wrong thing.

I don't know if this will be as much of an issue as you suggest. Or at least that the other battery supporting more charging rates would increase actual range in stop and go traffic that much.

I say that because my Hyundai Ioniq 9 has a screen where you can see exactly how much energy the regen (or accelerator) is absorbing/using, in real time. And the highest number I can recall seeing for regen, was just the other day. And it was 86kw of regen.

I was coming downhill, at around 50mph. I had it in level 3 regen mode, and lifted off the accelerator. It was a pretty aggressive slow down, as Level 3 regen is the second highest mode (one away from one pedal driving, and the real difference is it won't come to a complete stop, the actual regen level is the same I believe). And again that peaked at 86kw. That same drive, coming down a freeway offramp, I saw a peak of ~68kw.

I don’t think a maximum of 140kw regen rate, is going to prevent any meaningful amount of regen into the battery in normal day to day driving. Just because to reach levels higher than that, you have to be very aggressively come to a stop, which is not something people do regularly with passengers in the vehicle, just because its sort of "neck snapping" deceleration that is pretty disruptive to passengers.

In panic braking situations, on a race track , or coming down mountain passes while towing (and actually having to come to a stop, rather than just slowing down/maintaining speed), sure, I could see that. I just don't think thats a regular occurrence.

For context, 400kw of regen is quite high. That’s 533hp of “reverse thrust”. Think about accelerating in a vehicle with 533hp (even a heavy one). Thats stronger than most people brake regularly. And while 140kw is "only 186hp", I'd wager that is still enough to capture the large majority of braking energy.

All that aside:

I'm curious about the temperature statement. Because, even if the max recharge rate was 140kw... you'd think the system would be designed to handle that during DC fast charging, even at high temperatures. Because if this is an 800v system, I'm sure they're targeting more (ie, faster) than 140kw of charging, and it needs to be able to do this in Arizona summers.

Looking at LFP battery packs of similar size, it seems like most of them peak at between 150-170kw of charging speed (The Tesla Model 3 LFP is 170kw). So maybe the 140kw was chosen as a more average power?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ritterf
This is a good sign! It means you are actually human (and not an agent of AI trolling humanoid life forms on a Scout forum 🤖).

😁
is it that bad being an AI bot? Do tell us all about it.
But as to what you are eluding too..

Yeah I use AI to help research and check my math. So does every engineer with a calculator. The numbers are either right or they're not — happy to be corrected on specifics.