I just got back from a dinner during which I was able to chat with some folks from the Scout team. Yes, Scout, the Volkswagen spinoff — a 4×4 brand that promises America-made four-wheel drive electric machines meant to compete with the Rivian R1S, Jeep Wrangler, Ford Bronco, Toyota Land Cruiser, and more. The little I learned from the Scout representative tonight has me insanely excited, and you should be, too. Here’s what I know.
Man, Scout is not playing around with this press trip here in Nashville. The brand invited everybody under the sun, and for good reason: You only get to launch a brand once. The pressure is high.
OK, technically the brand was launched a few years ago, but if we’re being honest, the true brand launch happens when a company shows its first product, and that’s happening on Thursday right here in Nashville. I wasn’t sure what to expect, but after having dinner with a Scout rep, I’m now amped.
We really don’t know a ton about what’s coming from Scout, a subsidiary of VW that — unlike Audi or, say, Skoda — operates independently from its VW investor. What we do know is that Volkswagen has a huge product problem, spending too much of the past couple of decades seemingly misunderstanding the tastes of American buyers. Scout, whose engineering operations are predominantly in Michigan, with business and manufacturing facilities in Virginia and South Carolina, hopes to change all that by leveraging American product planning and marketing acumen with German manufacturing skill. It’s a dynamic duo, and one that hopefully will sell lots of cars. 
Recently, we’ve seen the teaser above showing a compass on the overhead console, and previously we’ve heard that Scout will reveal both an SUV and truck, with the brand showing off some rough sketches:
But tonight, I got a bit more detail — not a lot — but enough to have me excited for tonight when the thing is revealed (come back at 5:00 PM ET for more). First, I asked the Scout rep if the brand is “married” to BEVs, and he responded with something along these lines (I jotted it down as close as I could): “Scout is married to BEV in that a battery will drive an EV drivetrain.”
Wait. Hold on.
Be still my beating heart, because I don’t want to get my hopes up too much. But he didn’t say “Yes,” he said a battery will drive an EV drivetrain. Why did he put it like that?
Is this… is this going to have the Holy Grail of powertrain options? Will this be the coveted Extended Range EV? Please car gods, grant us an EREV! Give us a normal EV powertrain/drivetrain to get us a few hundred miles EV-only, and then a gasoline “range extender” to act as a generator when the battery runs out. Please solve our range anxiety problems not with the same solution as every other EV automaker — big-ass heavy, expensive batteries — but instead with a small gas generator.
Right now, only the Ram Ramcharger is offering this Holy Grail of vehicle powertrains in America; I believe in my heart that someone at Scout sees what I and so many Americans see — EREV is the answer. It’s irrefutably the right powertrain for America right now.
Don’t let me down, Scout!
But there’s more. The Scout rep promised “tactile controls” and switches. Yes, physical buttons and not just touchscreen controls! Eureka! What’s more, the car will have “door handles that don’t [require] a Ph.D.” Plus, there will be a swing-out tire carrier, an open-roof, and locking differentials! Yeehaw!
I’d like to take this moment to draw your attention to an article I wrote six years ago titled “The Proper Spot For A Spare Tire Is On The Rear Door.” Here’s what I wrote in it:
Packaging the tire on the back door is simply the best solution. It doesn’t eat into cargo space, it doesn’t compromise ground clearance or departure angle, it doesn’t limit how big the spare can be (though it may require some reinforcement of the door if you put 40s on it), it doesn’t get too filthy during off-roading, it’s easily accessible and, most importantly, it’s downright sexy.
Seriously, show me one SUV that doesn’t look better with a spare tire on the back? Hell, even the tiny Ford EcoSport looks better with a big cylinder hanging off its tail:
Plus, you can customize these tire carriers with political opinions or funny off-road-y text, so that’s always fun.
I pointed out some downsides to a rear-mounted spare — with a big one being that it doesn’t allow for a tailgate:
To be sure, there are a few downsides. For one, the tire reduces rearward visibility, and it also limits what style of rear door automakers can employ—a tailgate and full lift-gate are both out of the question if the tire’s mounted directly to the door. So you’re pretty much limited to some sort of swing-gate unless there’s a separate swing-out carrier (in which a tailgate or a full liftgate are possible). In any case, getting that rear door open is made harder because that large mass is in the way.
Notice how I point out that there is one way to get both the coveted tailgate and a rear-mounted tire carrier — offering a spare tire carrier that is separate from the door. Like on this Jeep CJ-7:
Look at that: a rear-mounted spare and a tailgate. It’s the holy grail of spare tire designs, and it looks like we’ll be seeing it on at least one of the new Scouts. More to come on Thursday, including information on how Scout plans to actually distribute/sell the things, info on preorders, and more.
Someone asked Scout’s rep about how many different variants/trims there will be, and the rep basically said the company will encourage owners to modify/accessories their vehicles to make them their own, though at the same time the company wants to reduce manufacturing complexity. So there will be some trims, but I don’t expect customers will able to order piece-by-piece like the old days.
Anyway, tonight I’ll see the two body styles on a single platform — a truck and an SUV that are expected to be “85% reality, 15 percent fantasy.” Expected delivery is somewhere around 2026 to 2027, which feels a long way out. I have concerns about the market for such machines given that Rivian hasn’t exactly been raking in cash, though let’s see tomorrow. If this is a badass, open-top, tailgate-having hardcore off-roader with an EREV drivetrain — and with excellent VW engineering to push it through production — it will in many ways have the competition beat.
CEO Scott Keogh recently published a blog — titled “Why Scout: Scott Keogh’s Vision For The Future Looks To The Past” — describing a few attributes of the upcoming machines, writing:
Know this: we are not going to deliver a badge-engineered, jellybean-shaped soft-roader. There are already plenty of those available for people who don’t want or need the serious capability that only a vehicle purposefully designed from the ground up as an off-roader can deliver — that only a Scout can deliver.
We want to embrace some of the simplicity that Scout has always represented. We want to hang onto the intuitive, mechanical spirit that made these archetypical SUVs a companion as much as a conveyance. We are keeping things pragmatic, taking advantage of the technology only where it has a great application. That’s why we chose to build something body-on-frame, where you flip a switch to turn on the lights, rather than flipping through a menu on a screen.
But make no mistake: the technology will be there, efficiently and effectively deploying the monstrous torque from the electric motors in service of your next adventure, among other applications that we are eager to reveal during our October 24 event.
So a simple electric off-roader. That doesn’t exist yet; Rivian has the R1S, but I’d hardly call that simple. Still, to make a high-range squared-off 4×4 EV requires huge batteries, and that requires huge sums of money… unless Scout goes with an EREV.
There have been absolutely zero rumors about an EREV Scout, so it seems unlikely, but I still hope it happens. I will say my prayers to the car gods ahead of the debut that’s happening later today.
Color me highly skeptical of a completely new EV platform (and brand) being launched by a currently very troubled automaker with a history of making garbage vehicles. IMO, Ford timed the announcement of the base model Bronco’s return perfectly here – I’d be shocked if the Scout comes in under $60k and weighs less than 3 tons.
I agree with this take. And really for the USA you need to have some range in an off roader. Never know when you might not have enough juice to get back if spinning your tires a lot or if you get stuck. Extra jerry cans and gas engine always do the trick. What if you want to take a long trip to off road destination??
How are they not getting sued by International?
I believe they bought the Scout brand from Navistar
They bought Navistar, the owner of the International and Scout brands.
VW Truck wholly owns Navistar. They bought Navistar in 2021. So they already owned all the rights necessary.
Have you been living on Mars?
I’ll put money on the “simplicity” starting at $60,000.
That said… if the idBuzz had a plug-in hybrid drivetrain… I’d consider it.
Hyundai? Can you _please_ bring your Staria Camper to the US?
Honestly I don’t have much hope for VW vehicles in the US. I look forward to the future article and hopefully a deep dive into what we can see in the reveal, but my guess is there will be technophilic crap like electric door handles that seemingly makes it into every BEV made today 🙁
I’m betting no on the electric door handles since they are touting how they will have real buttons on the interior and not make all functions require use of the touch screen.
I hope you’ll end up being right
I should clarify that it probably won’t have electric door handles like say Tesla but it will almost certainly have electric latches since that is what they use in many of the other VW products.
What’s the difference? Short of it being a squeeze flashlight generator you’re reliant on a battery to open your door…
Well with the motorized handles you have to worry about them freezing up/icing over so they don’t “present”.
From the article:
What’s more, the car will have “door handles that don’t [require] a Ph.D.”
Bears don’t go to school and they can open up most car doors just fine, so saying it doesn’t require a Ph.D is a bit much imho.
My guess why they didn’t say mechanical door handles is because while they look like normal door handles they’re probably electrically actuated because some technophile got final say.
With the investment that VAG made in Rivian for their tech, I’m just expecting a reskinned Rivian.
Scout Motors and pretty much all of the development for it predates the tie up with Rivian. So no it won’t be a reskinned Rivian, at least for the initial generation.
true, but the illustration that’s been bouncing around (and up above) looks a lot like a rivian, IMO
I agree that based on the sketches it does look a lot like the Rivian but those sketches or very similar ones have been bouncing around the internet since shortly after VW announced Scout Motors.
They were hiring for ID positions. I applied but no dice. Oh well.
Not related to the Scout, but I know that hotel lobby! (Nashville resident)
If you get spare time, check out Legends and Robert’s Western World on Broadway.
Bobby’s Garage in Printer’s Alley is a good time too.
Or have room service bring you up some shower spaghetti.
Those silhouettes alone are concerning. Why would an electric pickup need all that hood? Move the cabin forward and add that space to the bed!
That’s where the range extending motor goes probably
So it looks like a Canoo? I for one wouldn’t buy that. These are lifestyle vehicles. Appearance is way more important than bed space in their market.
As a former owner of an EV VW, let us hope that they carry forward the ethos of “fix it with a 4×4 and a roll of duct tape” of the original.
At the very least, please don’t let the car get bricked because you used a $1 servo for the charge port lock that, when it inevitably fails, prevents you from charging the battery rendering the vehicle useless. (true story)
Imagine the joy of working on a VW designed engine crammed in with all those other bits of electronics of a EREV system when it comes time to replace some critical component that is inexplicably made of plastic.
I hope this scout suv does have a rear spare and tailgate. I would love a tailgate but not enough for the cost to convert my wrangler to a drop down.
I just hope it is attainable. like make it Rubicon capaiable with sport s price. I know that is a dream. I would like to shop for one someday and would hope that Scout (VW) prices it for normal people and not aim it at the Grenadier/Defender rich folks.
I want to know if they did anything to protect the battery from salt water intrusion and outside battery corrosion, otherwise these tigs ha no business being in the gulf states.
You know people will drive them through saltwater flooded roads before, during, and after a hurricane. We don’t need potential firebombs on the road
I hope, for the sake of the International fanatics, that it ends up being good.
I’ll give it to Scout Motors though, they are really immersing themselves into International’s heritage and the off-roading community. I bumped into a group of sales/engineers at the Overland Expo in Flagstaff, AZ and they were super cool.
Why is this the holy grail? For a daily use-case, this seems horrible. You’ve got to move a spare tire out of the way every single time you want to access the trunk. Plus you’ve got to reach over a tailgate when you want to access what you’ve put in the trunk. And it presents the opportunity for someone to mess up the correct order of closing it (which already happens on Wrangler rear-windows). What’s the advantage here?
Tailgates are useful for sitting, landing place for the dog when it jumps up. working on stuff, camp cooking, etc.
Which are like the least common situations. Gotta swing a tire out of the way every time you go grocery shopping (and get home) for the five times a year you go camping? Heck, even if you go camping every weekend, just buy a damn table.
Plus, you can still sit in a standard trunk (SUV/crossover) that has a hatch.
You roll down the rear window and put stuff in without opening the gate. Modern FOBs could easily have a “double-press roll-down” or a foot swipe sensor under the rear bumper to make it easy.
Swing-out+tailgate is one of my big wishes for my Bronco.
^^^
What vehicles have windows that roll into the tailgate?
K5 Blazers and the equivalent Broncos. Also 4Runners.
Blazer and Bronco aren’t available today (with that feature). The 4Runner is top hinged.
Correct. Which is why it’s something I wish I had on my ’23 Bronco, as a former K5 owner.
IH Travelalls, old suburbans, broncos, blazers, 4 runners,
What ones of those were bottom hinged tailgates and had rear mounted spare tires? I didn’t make it clear, but I’m not against roll-down rear windows. I like them. I just don’t see it as a big selling point, given the other features it’s combined with. So my real question, given the previous posts I made in the chain, was what ones have rolldown rear windows, with drop-down tailgate, and a swing-out spare tire?
Ahh, yes I misunderstood your statement. Sorry. None probably combined all those elements, but I very much understand why an offroader would prefer them together. I hate roll down windows in tailgates myself. I prefer a split gate. I have a ’71 Travelall and I deleted the roll down window and installed an upper lift gate over the factory tail gate. If a vehicle has a full rear lift gate, I prefer the window open as well in that lift gate.
I’ve got barndoors on my ’65 Suburban and they work fantastic. That being said, they sure a fuck limit rearward visibility.
Can you even reach much or fit much through the open rear window in any SUV with a rear-mounted spare tire? Seems like the spare still blocks huge parts of the opening that already relatively high to begin with so as to fully fit the glass inside; not exactly something that screams convenience to me. Honestly, seems easier to just go LM002 style but with some beefy air springs if you really want rear-mounted tire and fold down tailgate.
I want to see an averaged height person trying to reach something sitting on the floor of the 4Runner through the open back window, without crawling up onto something. Now yeah, mount a spare tire in the way.
“Holy grail” my ass. Huge PITA is more like it.
I’m guessing that would look similar to my 4 year old climbing through the window into my old Jeep, feet kicking in the air and all, but much less elegant since she’s probably far more coordinated than the average adult.
Personally, I have zero desire to move the spare tire in said Jeep from it’s original spot in the trunk, a rear mounted swing carrier seems like worst of all worlds, and would likely cause injuries when it inevitably swings closed while getting stuff out of the back camping, parked on uneven ground.
Then the Scout would not be for you. They make a Tiguan for that.
It is horrible. Makes it a real pain to actually use it to put things in the back.
Also, nothing is uglier than a spare tire tacked on the back with the exception of camper-equipped pickups where the owner mounts the tire in front of the grille.
Form follows function for (good) 4WDs. I’d rather have the spare hanging off the back – though high enough that it won’t smack into a ledge I’m descending – than taking up valuable space for my tools and camping gear, especially in something with a short wheelbase like a Jeep or Bronco.
Its the best design for those who share David’s use cases. Increased internal storage, without limiting clearance and off roading angles, and its not a complete nightmare to access and use when it becomes necessary on a trail, as he discussed in the article. Which is exactly the group of people who still own classic IH Scouts. Seems reasonable to think that if VW is claiming Scout is a brand for people who want real offroading, those considerations matter every bit as much, if not more, than a 2 step process to open the tailgate.
I’m not complaining about rear-mounted tires. I’m complaining about a design that requires having to move a tire out of the way, just to access the trunk. The current Wrangler design has it mounted to the trunk hatch, so it all opens at once. This is an entirely extra thing to have to do each time you open the trunk.
As somebody who owns a CJ with the spare on the back, and XJs with the spare inside the cargo area, and several cars with the spare under the vehicle;
I agree with you, the rear mounted spare is not my favorite.
I’m afraid you are right in that the spare is likely mounted on the outside, the worst possible place to put it.
I certainly hope that it is not an EREV, truly the worst possible powertrain, particularly for a pickup where it will preclude the best feature of a EV pickup the frunk.
Either way I won’t be buying one despite my handle as I wouldn’t daily drive such a vehicle and won’t spend new car money on a toy car that won’t be used on a daily basis.
EREV is ideal for a pickup. EV trucks don’t have the range when towing, gas trucks burn too much fuel daily. EREV is Goldilocks!
The spare tire location thing is an opinion, but I’m not a fan of wasting interior space on it, nor do I like trying to fish it out from underneath, especially when it’s muddy.
This^^^^^^
I know you are a Chrysler alum, but, while I have a $100 deposit in on the Procharger, I am REALLY worried they won’t get it right…
If this thing tows just 6k, it may be worth the wait. I don’t need the 14k that the Procharger can tow.
EREV is not ideal for any application. It is a dead end and most companies know it.
I guess we’ll see what the sales reveal when the EREV Ram drops. I have 32,000 miles on my truck and 7,000 of them are towing my camper. I have a PHEV car, but would not buy an EV truck for my use case. I would buy a EREV or even a PHEV truck though, gladly. Then I could daily without using gas, but can tow as far as I want, plus get the sweet torque of that EV motor and all the regen from stopping that load. Plus I can use the truck as a generator when boondocking, so it’s one less thing to carry with me. Seems ideal for that application, and there are a lot of people with camping trailers out there.
A PHEV truck would be great. Just enough battery for daily use and a properly efficient hybrid drive train for towing with enough battery capacity for storing electrons from regen braking. EREV you have an overly expensive, overweight truck with poor efficiency when towing and daily driving.
True. 40-50 miles of EV range is enough for me. Then I still have 30-35 in the winter.
I’m genuinely curious to know your thoughts on the issue because I’m afraid I’m not understanding your rationale that a PHEV is a superior/more efficient option to an EREV. A PHEV requires an internal combustion engine, as well as the associated transmission drivetrain to transmit power from the engine to the wheels (and comes with the associated drivetrain/efficiency losses). These have to be programmed/designed to work in conjunction with the EV drivetrain.
An EREV, as you’ve undoubtedly heard, is like a diesel locomotive.
You still have the same type of internal combustion engine you would use in a PHEV, but you don’t need any of the associated drivetrain/transmission components. The engine gets to run at its most efficient RPM to charge the battery, and do nothing else (with some variance to allow for vehicle load/demand conditions).
The added bonus with an EREV is your driving/performance characteristics don’t drastically change depending on whether the internal combustion engine is running or not. With a parallel hybrid/PHEV, the EV drivetrain only makes a portion of the entire systems total power output. As such, a strictly EV-only mode will “drive differently” (significantly reduced acceleration) than with the internal combustion engine engaged. This admittedly isn’t a huge deal breaker issue (the current gen Prius prime has this trait, if I recall correctly).
With an EREV (or series hybrid), the electric motors are the only thing driving the vehicle, so the performance envelope is the largely the same whether the internal combustion engine is running or not.
To my engineering brain, the optimal drivetrain for many folks, taking into consideration our current infrastructure, is a plug-in vehicle that has a small EV battery (40-75 mile EV range), and a relatively small range extending internal combustion engine that only charges the battery, and is able to provide an additional 2-300 hundred miles of range (while, in this case, meeting the demands of off-roading and/or towing).
Ill freely admit that my field of engineering is in aerospace, not cars, so its very possible that maybe I’m overlooking some major EREV disadvantages here?? What am I not seeing?
Some efficiency loss compared to locking the ICE to the wheels at freeway speeds (Assuming it’s matched for max efficiency).
Other than that I dunno.
The series only hybrid just isn’t very efficient because of the conversion losses. The primary reason diesel locomotives work the way they do is because it is easier and smoother to multiply the torque, transmit and distribute the power electrically than it is mechanically at the extreme power levels.
GM thought that series hybrid operation ie an EREV was the right way to go with the Volt. When they announced it they claimed that the engine would not drive the wheels. Of course what actually launched is set up so the engine drives the wheels in certain conditions when in hybrid mode. The reason they stated was that it was more efficient than a series only version.
When Honda needed a PHEV to meet the then looming CA EV mandate, they too thought that series hybrid operation with no ability for the engine to directly drive the wheels was the way to go. All of their testing showed that it just wasn’t efficient at higher speed operation. What they brought to market in that original Accord PHEV was a system that does indeed operate as a series hybrid at lower speeds and then engages a clutch to create a direct drive at higher speeds operating as a parallel hybrid. While they dropped the PHEV version when CA backed off on their mandate the same basic powertrain with a smaller battery became their default hybrid system. Now they have back pedaled again and the CR-V includes a “low” gear for direct drive operation at medium speeds in addition to the direct drive mode. Again that was done to increase efficiency.
Now we get to BMW who did bring a EREV to market. Lets see how it stacks up to PHEVs from the era.
2017 i3 Rex 111 MPGe 35 MPG combined
2017 Prius Prime 133 MPGe 54 MPG combined
2017 Volt 106 MPGe 42 MPG combined
2014 Accord PHEV 115 MPGe 46 MPG
2014 i3 Rex 117 MPGe 39 MPG
It is true that the i3 does have a much larger battery than those PHEVs but has extensive weight reduction measures such as the carbon fiber construction and skinny tires to achieve numbers that don’t even match larger vehicles that don’t use extensive weight reduction measures or super skinny tires.
A PHEV like the Honda or Toyota/Ford systems is much simpler than an EREV. On both with with the starter/generator and traction motor in the same case that means a single coolant and lubrication system is needed, saving weight and complexity. That co-location also allows a single inverter again with a single cooling loop. It also means lower transmission losses since the power from the starter/gen never has to leave that inverter on its way to the traction motor.
With the Honda system the traction motor is fairly large and it was the very small battery’s max current output that limited the EV only power. Meanwhile when the engine is running and vehicle speed is high enough the power goes mechanically from starter/gen to the traction motor with no additional friction loss and no electrical transmission or conversion losses.
On the Toyota/Ford style system it is possible and Toyota has used a sprag on the engine input allowing both the starter/gen and traction motor to send power to the wheels when in EV only mode. In Hybrid mode it does send some of the power mechanically through a single planetary reduction with its resulting frictional losses and some does go electrically from the starter/gen to the inverter and to the traction motor but the co-location reduces the transmission losses as much as possible.
Meanwhile on EREVs we’ve seen so far the generator and motor are not co-located which means, two cooling loops, two lubrication systems, two inverters, two motor housings and extra cable between the two inverters. That all add up to extra weight and losses.
Very interesting- thank you for that in depth reply. I figured I was missing some nuances and details, not being intimately familiar with how these systems have been implemented so far.
I hadn’t considered the possibility of conversion losses and inefficiency in high speed operation on an EREV having a larger impact than the losses resulting from mechanically driving the wheels through the ICE engine in a parallel hybrid.
I am curious what obstacles have kept the OEMS from co-locating the generator and traction motor on EREVS up to this point?
That big old battery pack is a huge obstetrical in transferring power to both axles mechanically on something where AWD is desired.
I think one of the biggest reasons however is the fact that the vehicles were primarily designed to be EVs and the range extender just had to be fit in where it could.
I think that is a big reason the i3 is designed like it is and I think for the Scout that plays a part in that they didn’t want to give up one of the unique things an EV brings to pickups and that is the frunk. That locking, weather tight, out of sight, out of cab storage is incredibly useful whether you are a tradesman storing and charging your tools, or just running to the grocery store, Costco, or Home Depot.
I agree. There is a difference of opinion on spare tire location between those who do not like the look and those of us who have had to change a tire on a muddy deeply rutted trail in the middle of nowhere and want the thing easily accessible on the back.
The reality is that far more owners will be taking it to the grocery store than will be on a deeply rutted muddy trail in the middle of nowhere.
I was just talking about spare tire location, not this particular vehicle. ALSO, I have changed a tire in the parking lot of a city gas station on the way to the airport and the rear-mounted spare tire was super easy to access, no need to move luggage, no need to crawl underneath and hope the lowering mechanisms still work. I was not even late for the flight.
I’ve never had to crawl under my vehicles with under vehicle mounted spares when changing a tire operated by a winch system. Yes the mechanism getting gunked up and/or rusted could be an issue, but one I haven’t encountered, but then again I don’t live in the rust belt.
I don’t even live in the rust belt but >50% of all spare tire winches are nonfunctional on cars over 20 years old
I have had to do this, and let’s just say that when you do it once, the spare starts to get mounted to the rear of the vehicle after. It was some mild rust but a whole lot of gunked mud and so on that didn’t allow it to drop.
You think the best feature of an EV pickup is a frunk? The fact that you can use it to charge your powertools on a jobsite, or your camper at a campsite? The lack of GHG? The lower cost to fuel/power it (in most of the US)? Also… the bed? My husband is a contractor and he’s dailied a pickup truck for 20 years. I don’t know if either of us has ever said, “Damn, I wish this had a few more cubic feet of cargo space that is separated from the bed.”
This “EREVs suck” opinion is also new to me. What’s your beef? The complexity of 2 DTs? B/c PHEVs and HEVs have that as well.
Hmm, I’ve owned lots of pickups and yeah I’ve said many times that it would be nice to have locking, weather tight, out of sight storage for things like tools. I’d rather not have to have crew/extended cab trucks where the back seat’s function is as a tool box. Now my truck with a Workmaster canopy is good with the tool box on the side, but having a canopy does limit the usability of the bed which of course is why I have a second pickup without a canopy and a back seat full of tools.
EREVs “suck” because they are extremely inefficient and actually have two separate power systems, a battery and a dedicated gen set that takes up a lot of space. PHEVs don’t have two drive trains they have one drive train, that has proven efficiency and a larger battery for EV only use. Ditto for HEVs except the part about a large battery.
Fair, I guess we have usually had a capper on the back, and our kids are young enough that the (huge, imo) back seat has lots of floor space even when they’re in it.
“EREVs “suck” because they are extremely inefficient and actually have two separate power systems, a battery and a dedicated gen set that takes up a lot of space.”
What real world examples are you basing this on?
Note it was pupmeow that said EREVs suck, not me. But the i3 is the poster child of just how ineffecient a EREV is. See above for how it compares to PHEVs in effeciency, both in EV only and Hybrid/ER modes.
You need a lot more than a single data point to condemn a technology. You might as well condemn EREVs because the i3 requires premium fuel!
There are a lot of reasons the i3 may not be particularly fuel efficient including using a not particularly efficent engine. This is what happened with the Mazda MX30; Mazda used a wankel because packaging, smoothness and heritage were prioritized over fuel economy.
If only we had an expert on the BMW to ask.
GM and Honda agreed that pure series hybrid/EREV weren’t the way to go which is why they didn’t bring such a vehicle to market as they had originally intended and even announced in the case of GM.
Fair point but lets keep in mind the data set is still quite small and development continues. Past performance does not promise future results and all that. An ICE that is tuned to be hyper efficient within a much narrower set of conditions would for example be more suited for EREV than PHEV since road conditions would be constantly changing but generator duty is a lot more consistent.
Physics haven’t changed since those early attempts at serial hybrid operation.
Physics no, technology and economics yes.
The economics haven’t and won’t change, it simply is more expensive to transfer the power electrically than mechanically. No matter how much more efficient they make motors and inverters it will still be more efficient to just let the engine drive the wheels directly. Engine to wheels is always going to be more efficient at freeway speeds than mechanical power to AC electrical power to DC electrical power to AC electrical power and finally back to mechanical power.
It does if ICE thermal efficiency gains outweigh those losses.
The question is whether its better to have an efficient generator and traction engine within the relatively broad RPM and engine load needed for even highway driving or a hyper efficient generator only across a very narrow RPM and load range.
As you pointed out Chevy said the former. Nissan OTOH the latter:
“e-POWER’s internal combustion engine achieves 50% thermal efficiency
Efficient, fixed-point operation is achieved by restricting the engine’s operating range, which is only possible for an engine that is dedicated to electricity generation”
https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY/ARCHIVE/E_POWER50/
There are other attractions of an EREV. The ICE can go wherever it packages best vs going where it’s needed to drive the wheels. Sure you can use driveshafts, differentials, universal joints etc but those will come at the costs of weight, complexity, cost, and volume as well as their own saps on system efficiency.
You’ll notice that the E-power system combines the engine, generator, and traction motor in one unit. It is an ICE powered vehicle designed that way from the start. Keeping them mounted together saves weight complexity and cost and minimizes the electrical transmission losses.
If you look at the graphics on this page https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/INNOVATION/TECHNOLOGY/ARCHIVE/E_POWER/ You’ll see that they are comparing it to a ICE only powered vehicle, not to a good hybrid system, which does exactly what Nissan claims is the E-power’s benefit operate significantly limit the time the engine is operating out of its peak efficiency range, as mentioned in Lewin’s article from a few weeks ago.
Yes it does so packaging it all together was the best option in this case. Even so Nissan thought it best to leave out the mechanical link.
As to the graphic I’m pretty sure comparing the epower to a regular ICE was a marketing decision to maximize the contrast to regular folks. That’s not to say the epower isn’t more efficient than a PHEV but that graphic might take an engineer to appreciate the subtleties.
TBH I don’t care how the energy from gasoline gets to the wheels, PHEV or EREV . All I care is that the vehicle uses as little energy as possible to do the job and I have a good reserve of both so I can get where I need to be on the cheaper option.
All I care is that the vehicle uses as little energy as possible. Then you do prefer a PHEV.
Also Honda powertrain engineers > Nissan powertrain engineers.
Actually I prefer a bicycle.
It sure seems that the high price point off road lifestyle market is saturated already.
Someone probably said that BEFORE the Bronco came out.
“15 percent fantasy” That’s a LOT of wiggle room
EV Portal Axels would be nice
What do you mean by that? Hub motors acting like portal axles, or actual portal hubs?
Actual portal hubs
Given VW’s recent track record, I’d calculate the Scout is about an ID Buzz lightyear away from making it on to American roads.
Given the pricing on the new ID Buzz, I don’t have very high hopes for an affordable Scout, so I’m not holding my breath in anticipation on this one.
Its a peoples car
…
No, not you people, real, non-pleb people
What sound business. Targeting an ever shrinking pool of buyers with your premium bullshit.
I love International. I grew up with my great grandfather and grandfather bleeding International Red. I was taught to actively scowl at John Deere tractors at the tractor shows. Hell, my great grandfather only had Cub Cadet lawnmowers and drove a Travelall for quite some time into the 90’s (before switching to a Toyota pickup). My grandfather drove a 7.3 Ford because, and I quote, “The only damn good thing in that truck is the International engine!”
As such, I’ve always been fascinated by International Scouts and pickup trucks. Sadly, I live in the Midwest so you either find rusted out hunks or fully restored Barret Jackson cars. Both are out of my league, so I watch from afar with love and admiration.
This new Scout though? This might be the perfect SUV for me. A brand that I’ve loved since a kid, an off-roader that competes with Jeep, all while being eco-concious? I love to hear that their is tactile buttons and switches, it’s why I love my Mini Paceman. I’ve been interested in the new Bronco, but I’m not a fan of the powertrain and reliability issues. I’d love a Jeep Wrangler but I’m too tall and big to be comfortable. Hopefully this is a Goldilock’s situation and it turns out to be just right.
Don’t fuck this up VW.
My father grew up on a WI dairy farm and likewise after making the switch from Belgiums they ONLY drove Internationals.
Man I hope this isnt an IDBuzz in hiking boots.
Please VW don’t fuck this up!
Well said. As a wrangler owner, I want to replace it someday with some kind of off roader and I want a EREV. I hope it is not super expensive and more modern bronco/wrangler than modern blazer.
Please VW get this right.
Let’s hope for someone to make a extended range battery electric vehicle soon. The Civic Hybrid Sport is interesting with it’s dual setup transmission where it is a BEV with the engine acting as a range extender at around town speeds, then switching to a hybrid with highway speeds. But a true small engine for extra range when way off road would make a lot of sense. Particularly in keeping with the “true off road” marketing they are using. Maybe it will be a option – not required, but a add on? I am disappointed in the 2 year wait for the actual vehicle.
I know that intellectually they seem like great ideas, but we’ve seen over and over that consumers don’t understand PHEVs. The i3 and Volt are both out of production with no descendants.
I like PHEVs – I’ve owned 3 including a Volt – but in talking to people about them, even intelligent people seem to struggle to comprehend how to best use them. So people use them as a crappy hybrid (with the weight of the battery) rather than as an EREV.
You’ve got that all wrong, it acts as a serial hybrid at low speeds and a ICE powered vehicle at high speeds. It is a great design that was intended from the get go to also be used in a PHEV.
So they’re unveiling concept cars? I am doubting that this ever comes to production, especially if Trump wins and Makes Inflation Great Again with tariffs, deportations, and tax cuts.
It’s hard for me to get excited. In my opinion the last retro-EV VW group made was pretty dang disappointing. The ID.Buzz is laughably expensive with pretty mediocre range and horrible infotainment while not getting the biggest benefit of an EV (awesome packaging) when minivans sells almost exclusively on their packaging and ease of use. I think the packaging is worse than existing ICE minivans out there. It’s hard to go easy on it because it is so expensive.
Maybe VAG gets pricing right and we can be more forgiving of any faux pas since the offroader/SUV EV market seems to have more players compared to the EV minivan market?
The idea would be that it’s VW money and industrial support but Scout pixie dust so the Buzz flop wouldn’t apply. We’re about to find out, their arrangement will be pretty clear through the product itself. VW is currently being Stellantified so they need a win, badly.
The thing about being an externally funded skunkworks ninja seal team secret project is that there aren’t that many supporters within the funding org, so when times get tough the funding goes away. I hadn’t realized until this article that the “unveiling” today was going to be “15% fantasy”. They are a looong way from their first sale.
If VW handles this like the ID.Buzz, all C-suite people should be fired, along with the board.
Interested but would actually be very interested if it was a hybrid instead of pure EV.
Exactly; show us an EREV please!
Absolutely. I know that eventually everything will be EV (according to what I’ve read online, so that MUST be true) but make money now and in the future.
I didn’t see him say he wanted an EREV, or even a PHEV, just a simple old hybrid.