Last night, the International Scout’s long-dead corpse, which had been spirited into a laboratory funded by Volkswagen a few years ago, was re-born and presented to the world as the new Scout Motors Traveler (an SUV) and Terra (a pickup). So far, everyone seems pretty thrilled with what they saw. Our own Editor-In-Chief David was absolutely smitten with the body-on-frame construction, solid axle, and series-hybrid (or range-extended electric) drivetrain. The design is, of course, hugely important, too, and while some of the design was inspired by the original incarnations of the Scout, there’s plenty of new ideas here, and it’s all worth talking about. So let’s do that!
Oh, and if you’re dismissing it as a Rivian knockoff, I just don’t think that’s right.
I suppose first we should talk a bit about the design of the original Scout, which was designed by International Harvester chief designer Ted Ornas on a scrap of mat board, a last-ditch attempt to convince IH management that a competitor to the Jeep in the then-small recreational vehicle market made sense. It worked.
The IH bigwigs took the bait, and the Scout – which was originally intended to be made of fiberglass– was born. It went on to become an iconic off-roader and do-anything machine, never achieving the numbers or fame of the Jeep, but developing a strong following of its own.
There were two main generations of Scout – the original very boxy scout went from 1961 to 1970, and then a full redesign happened in 1971 with the Scout II. This new interpretation of the Scout seems to have most of its heritage visual elements taken from the Scout II, as you can see here, where I’ve tried to call out the more obvious design cues:
There’s some pretty obvious ones, like that rear window kick-up, and some more subtle ones, like the general design of the corner chamfers and the shoulder line, the “masks” at front and rear, and, of course, the overall proportions with the minimal overhangs, long hood, and visual weight shifted to the rear.
Scout themselves definitely wants us to notice the graphic elements of the DLOs (Day Light Openings, that’s designer-talk) and the front and rear masks, because they made this whole slide about them:
One exception to the Scout II design cues is the inclusion of this incised character line on the Terra pickup’s bedside, cribbed right from the first-generation Scout 80:
It’s an overall quite clean and relatively unadorned vehicle, but there’s a lot going on in the details. Let’s take a closer look at the front “mask” area that fills in where a grille would be on a conventional combustion car; there’s a lot going on here:
The Scout logo badge is almost unchanged from the original 1960s script, and the contrast between the curvy forms and the more slab-sided body is visually compelling. Plus, I just like a truck or SUV logo that uses typography that doesn’t look like it was beaten out of a slab of granite.
I’d have been tempted to include round headlamps like the original Scout, but if you think about it, the original only had round lights because there was literally no other option, so maybe it makes sense to try something else in this age of radical illumination freedom. The quad-per side lights are interesting, but lighting-wise, more interesting are the DRLs, the horizontal bands of light that wrap around the corners and appear to disappear under the bodywork at the sides, revealed by those little cut-outs, where they reference the Scout II’s side marker lamps.
Yes, side markers! I’m not the only one who gives a rat’s rectum about the aching, utilitarian beauty of those amber and red lights, Scout mentions it in their press release, too:
The daytime running lamps (DRL) form clean, horizontal lines. They continue from the mask, into the body and mimic the visual of the side markers on the original Scout II™ SUV. The front and rear DRLs are drawn in one line that sweeps around the vehicle like the equator sweeps around the earth, creating a subtle but proudly present grounding line for the vehicles.
I can’t really vouch for that whole equator business, which feels like something of a reach, but I do appreciate the side markers, front and rear.
Speaking of rear lighting, the taillight design on the truck is especially striking:
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a pickup truck with a taillight graphic that circumscribes the entire tailgate area of the truck, but I think it works beautifully here. The illuminated logo provides a nice bit of visual interest as well, though I am curious about the locations of the turn indicators and reverse lamps, which are not obvious.
The Traveler SUV takes a different approach, especially with the rear-mounted spare tire:
The rear-mounted spare provides plenty of visual interest of its own, and the swing-out arm provides the primary rear graphic, punctuated with a red script Scout badge.
It’s not a radically-different vehicle, it’s just a very straightforward and clean take on a pickup and SUV. It’s clearly body-on-frame, the overhangs are quite minimal, and it’s worth noting that the bumpers are differentiated from the body, and are black plastic and metal instead of a stupid painted plastic bumper cover. These bumpers may actually work, which is a pleasant change.
Looking at the profile here, I can’t help but think a two-door version of both Traveler and Terra would look great, too.
I already mentioned this in the headline, so it’s worth comparing the Scout to another VW joint venture and maker of electric trucks and SUVs, Rivian:
They seem similar at first glance, and while basic shape and proportions are close, there are vast differences in details and design vocabulary when you really look at them. The suspension and solid rear axle of the Scout gives it a very different stance, the overhangs are shorter, the pillar/window graphics are radically different, the lighting design isn’t even close, and it does feel overall a bit more rugged, a bit less techy/sleek, which I suspect was the intent.
The Rivian’s prominent body-colored C-pillar is a huge design element that defines the window graphic, and is quite different from the Scout, which leans heavily on that angled cargo area window to define the window graphic. The body undercuts front and rear make the Scout feel like a leaner vehicle, and the shape of the wheelarches – rounder on the Scout, flattened on the Rivian, along with the more pronounced flare of the Scout’s wheelarches give it a very different look as well.
Plus, at the front end, the Rivian’s distinctive oblong vertical headlamps make it pretty unmistakable. Yes, they’re both big electric SUVs of roughly the same shape, but I don’t think the Scout was looking to Rivian for design cues, and besides, once that range extender got in the Scout, they’re completely different animals.
[Ed Note: Beyond the obvious design differences, to call the Scout just a rebadged Rivian when the former offers a range extender and the latter doesn’t is silly. The range extender completely transforms the vehicle’s capabilities and audience. -DT]
I’ll be very curious to see one in person, to see how the thing feels when you’re standing right next to it. So far, though, I think the design is successful, and I’m excited to see how the production version ends up looking. What compromises will have to be made? What’s going to disappoint everyone, and what will delight? I guess we’ll have to wait and see until, ugh, 2027? Oy.
In the bedside detail photo, I appreciate the representation of a Soong-type android.
Has anyone else noticed the nod to the International badge on the spare tire carrier? It’s one bump shy of being enough letters to emulate “INTERNATIONAL”
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-xabjiyiwa/products/138/images/77884/JBVY_SO-SCT80-GDN-IMG_001_P04_ANG_A__31343.1718292172.1280.1280.jpg?c=1
Like an idiot I read the comments on another tech-heavy site about the Scout. Pretty sure most of them had no idea there was a Scout before or that International Harvester built vehicles. Lots of ‘looks like they copied Rivian’ and other things that made me realize that I’m old.
Glad to come back to Autopian, where it is a car site and I know I’m not the only one who remembers that things existed prior to the 90s.
Well said. I am old but glad I remember when 1970s cars were new.
Thanks. And yeah, same here. Malaise era was what was for sale, none of those funny ‘foreign’ cars. (Midwest, not the coasts where I’m sure herds of Hondas terrorized Mercury dealerships.)
When my wife and I bought a new 99 Hyundai her old crap can driving western MN relatives were NOT OK with it.
Yeah when I saw this new scout it reminded me of the scouts of old but modern vs a Rivian. Also I was just at International Motors world headquarters early this week wish I could post pictures as they had a few older Internationals there a Scout included.
Agreed – saw a lot of Rivian talk last night, and it felt lazy to me…
The SUV I think looks pretty distinctive from the Rivian counterpart, but the truck seems pretty derivative IMO.
I think it looks good, and it highlights just want a misstep chevy has taken with its blazer/trailblazer naming foolishness.
I hope the roof can come in body color like the old Scouts. The contrast – especially dark – roof is so overdone, and it makes the cabin hotter in exposed sunlight.
It’s encouraging to see such enthusiasm and clear and obvious research and surveying went into the design of this.
I can’t disconnect it from being part of VW, though. If it were BMW or Mercedes I’d be less wary of it (but still wary) but with VW doing such a horrid job with almost all of their EVs – the e-golf is probably the only one they have made – and include audi with that – that doesn’t entirely seem like a mediocre blob of overpriced blandness.
I think my greatest hope is that this and Toyota’s new BOF hybrids make Ford produce a hybridized Bronco and its relatives (Ranger and Everest) sooner.
2027!?UUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That front Mask design is taken straight from the 1980 model Scout to me. That year (maybe 79?) they switched to rectangle headlights, and that mask is highly reminiscent of that 1980 grill and headlight design. https://bringatrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/5952ec954bccb_Photo-Jun-26-8-25-11-PM-e1498698767378.jpg?fit=940%2C656
This thing looks great! I heard it was as large as the Sequoia though so hopefully they push out some smaller vehicles later; something R3-sized with the Range Extender would be nice.
so where’s the traditional 2 door Scout, these 4 door versions are just so huge and long. On the history where it states they initially planned on a fiberglass body, that would have made a world of difference as the originals, especially the Scout II’s were quite the rust buckets.
I think the size and dimensions of the battery prevent a shorter wheelbase.
They’ve done so much to make this thing become a reality and you’re stuck on the 2-door vs 4-door argument?
“Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”
“so where’s the traditional 2 door Scout,”
You mean the version that won’t sell? Yeah I think the beancounters killed that one. Even when you look at the Wrangler, the 4 door greatly outsells the 2 door… even though the shorter 2 door is what you really want if you’re gonna go off road.
But the truth is the vast majority of SUV customers are posers who never go offroad.
Those customers that actually just need a station wagon… which is what most 4 door SUVs/CUVs actually are these days.
There are some of us that DO off road our SUV and the longer 4d wrangler provides more storage for camping gear and dogs and there are times and places where a bit longer wheelbase is actually helps, not everywhere but the trade off is nice. https://www.theautopian.com/why-the-new-lexus-gx-and-every-land-cruiser-has-the-golden-ratio-wheelbase-of-112-2-inches/
“There are some of us that DO off road our SUV”
There are dozens of you… DOZENS!!!
Let it go dude. enough of the hate and mocking. There are loads of people that off road and they get to enjoy the hobby. Are you mocking people with sports cars that are not at the track every day? Just drop it or go back to jalopnik.
My tone was intended to be more of a joking/kidding-around tone. And I definitely didn’t feel any hate while writing that.
I feel that people can buy whatever they want and do what they want with it.
thanks. It just gets so constant the anti jeep/suv comments.
You say that like two door Broncos aren’t relatively common
Around my area, I see mostly 4 door versions of both the Wrangler and Bronco.
I wouldn’t say the 2 door is rare for either… but they’re relatively uncommon compared to the 4 door ones.
It’s probably more accurate to say that the Rivian vehicles are an homage to classic trucks and SUVs than to say the Scouts are a Rivian ripoff
I never disliked the Rivian’s look, but the Scout’s more ‘3D’ design of the sides (more…concavity…for lack of a better styling term?) suddenly makes it look plain.
Get ready for the old scout prices to shoot up! https://bringatrailer.com/international-harvester/
I own a scout, I don’t hate this new contraption, but I also don’t love it. at least not enough to shell out 50K after incentives. But I will give them credit for at least trying to use American input on the new vehicles. Of course the tops, or lack of them and the Terra not being a top and midgate swap option kind of suck in my opinion, but I do appreciate the REX feature if Electric of some sort is the only option at this time.
At one time IH was pretty deeply embedded with Chrysler. If this thing does not pan out, I would take one these reworked to include a supercharged 6.2 V8 with a proper manual trans that includes a 7th gear crawl ratio to go with an atlas 4.3 to 1 T-Case.
Body on frame, so just taking this shell and dropping it on a shortened TRX frame or whatever seems completely doable.
Except they don’t have a common frame or hard points. A modified Ram frame could be made to fit it, though that would take a fair amount of engineering.
What? I don’t understand your comment at all. Body on frame body swaps are massively common and done in garages.
You can swap one body to an identical frame, yeah, but you can’t – for example – put a Ford Expedition body on a Ram 2500 frame without significant modifications to one or both of the mating pairs. Or to be more extreme, you can’t put the cab of a Volvo VNL semi truck onto the frame of a Ford Bronco II.
But something like an OBS Ford F-150 body to the same cab- and bed-configured OBS F-150? Certainly, bolt off and bolt on for the most part.
I certainly aware of that. I built a Travelall by cutting out the floor pan and putting it on the floor pan of a 2003 Tahoe. I also have a Datsun quad cab going on a Dakota frame.
But I stand by my statement. Being body on frame it is completely doable. Yes, shorten a frame, shorten a driveshaft, remove body mounts and build new body mounts. All totally doable steps. And 99% of them out there aren’t re-engineered. They are just a dude in a garage with a welder. My favorite kind of people.
I would definitely consider shelling out 70 large for a Scout TerraX
TeRraX? 😀
Overall, the Scout presents as an attractive, clean and suitably rugged design absent the overly aggressive styling cues appearing in too much of the competition. That’s refreshing.
Can’t speak to performance as it has yet to perform, though it sounds promising. Very much like the REX option.
Sadly, for me, it’s too large and the 4-door form factor only is a dream killer. Should be a hit though with those who are not concerned with overall size or cabin configuration.
David is excited because he wants to see if these things will rust like the originals
They are pretty bad, but let’s be fair, so were plenty of other brands from the 70’s
Ooooh I donno, IH stuff was especially bad. Even in arid eastern WA, they were always rustier than the squarebodies and broncos. Funnily enough, the neighboring store to ours used a scout as a plow truck, with the top off! Poor thing was pretty much see through, but kept going! And this wasn’t way back in the day, this was last year.
70’s K-5’s had plenty of wheel arch rust after only a few years on the road, though to be honest, I am from the rust belt where salt eats everything. I will say the rockers on scout 2’s had little stoppers in them that actually resulted in trapped mud and fluid, the front fenders seem to trap all manner of debris that make it past the cowl vents and the floors are notorious for deleting themselves. But those are the common spot for this vehicle, Jeeps had plenty of issues with similar stuff as well as the big three’s pickups, just in different spots usually. Possibly more so in my area since the 4wd trucks of any type generally were used a lot more in the winter for things like pushing snow or dragging small rwd economy cars out of ditches.
Neighbor in the 80s had about a dozen IH travelalls and the like- all rusty all anything
Which is all the more amusing because the original plan for the Scout was to give it a fiberglass body.
I think at the very end they Made a couple prototypes out of Fiberglass.
But even more amusing, at one time because of the amount of rust usually associated with the scout 2, you could get a complete fiberglass body similar to Jeep body tubs and fenders. I always wondered how those lived up to flex and trail rash, but I imagine it was not that good or they were just to pricy as I think both are no longer available.
I have had friends with fiberglass jeeps they hold up to a point then they crack. Still often better than the rusty old body and a lot lighter.
Keeping the Scout logo unchanged is so incredibly, deeply perfect. In a world where logos look like damn clip art from 2003, a retro but unforced logo on a clean, respectful throwback design is just so clean. A bit of flourish on a relatively simple car just ads so much character and desire.
I’m not an old Scout fanboy, nor do I have much knowledge of them, but the reborn Scout is so incredibly fantastic. It shows that the Scout team is wholly independent from their VW owners. Nobody at VW corporate could have done this, just look at the CARIAD and ID lineup fiascos for proof.
I like the strait upright back of the Rivian but prefer the overall look of the scout. Sloped backs kill storage.
Depends how it’s configured. If the cargo area extends to the same point in the top, then you actually would get more storage from a sloped rear as its lower dimensions are further out from the same point on the roof. But if it’s defined by the lower aft rear corner of the cargo area then yes, a straight/vertical shape would be more practical, like a van.
of course. I was thinking more of the ubiquitous crossovers with the super sloped backs and no room for luggage or a big dog.
Gotcha. So more like the shape of the rear of the Volvo V90 versus its boxier V60 sibling (which actually has more usable cargo room, despite having a smaller footprint).
I really like it and depending on what else is announced between now and the release I may look at getting one of these to replace my FJ. It might be between this and the R3X but I think this will edge out the Rivian as this looks much more capable.
I like the design and hope it’s successful enough to offer something smaller in the future.
I imagine that the design language has to be a certain way to achieve aero-truckiness, so that might be why both the Rivian and Scouts look similar. I feel like they should have stuck with the round headlights to give them some added charm, but this is another solid entry into the relatively un-crowded EV (or ev adjacent) pickup segment.
Looking forward to any possible breakdowns of the battery tech they’re using for it like the articles we had for Rivian and Tesla.
Didn’t later Scout II’s have square lights? Also, these echo the old IH logo if you look carefully.
I just find them both exceedingly bland.
You’re definitely in the minority
Those rear lights look comically high.
Better than having them in the bumper. Plus then operators of semi trucks and other tall vehicles can see them.
Guess that explains why I’m constantly getting run over by semi-trucks in my Fiesta.
The Scout is automatically a hundred times better design by not having those shitty flush door handles. No but really they have some refreshingly good designs going on.
(And the Rivian front end is still a weird gimmick)
The fact that there isn’t an overlay of an R1S and a Traveler, and a R1T and a Terra, is kinda telling.
No one is saying they are exactly the same. But there clearly is some shared language here. It’s most apparent in the pick-ups, especially when you compare these vehicles to the closest offerings from “traditional” manufacturers.
Unless the scout would have stolen the weird Rivian front end I would just say they both share the same bronco DNA from back in the day. Only so many ways you can do a variant on the upright bronco look.
The Scout (the International Scout) pre-dates the Bronco by ~5 years.
The upright look was just how SUVs looked for decades.
I’d submit Jeep and Land Rover rather than Bronco, but there’s only so many ways to shape an offroad-focused human-driven box on wheels.
An R1T and a Terra look similar exclusively because they are the only two pickups on the market with a stubby little ~5′ bed and a highly styled bedside with a huge fender flare.
And because they both use kind of a smooth, sleek styling as opposed to the extra chunky and angled styling of a Tacoma TRD or Ranger Raptor.
But “smooth and has a short bed” isn’t really enough grounds to say “there is some shared language”.
Maverick is smooth and has a shortbed, but looks nothing like these…
And aren’t you the guy grilling me over a 3″ discrepancy, and yet, here you are calling it a 5′ bed.
Well ackshually, the R1T has a 4.5′ long bed, while the Terra has a 5.5 bed. You’re off by roughly 6″ in both case, which is twice your 3″ complaint from before! And, AND, nearly every single mid-size truck on the market has a roughly 5′-5.5ft bed length!
You’re a douche canoe.
So there’s this symbol: ~
It means “approximately”. So yes, when I am referring both to a 4.5′ bed and a 5.5′ bed, approximately five feet would be the most accurate way to refer to both. You seem to have missed that part.
I never intended to grill anybody about anything, and I hope I didn’t come off as belligerent or rude; that was never my intent.
People like you and your exceedingly rude “douche canoe” comments are pretty much 100% of the reason why I don’t read or comment on the Autopian as much as I used to. Does that make you happy? Is that really what you want to be doing?
Aside from the many obvious and significant differences, they are exactly the same!