Battery Size kWh estimated

[timmyhil]

Well, everyone with the BEV have fun finding a charger in the boonies, 150 on BEV is enough for 80% of my driving, and the other 20% off road can be with battery powered by the Harvester, with a spare gas can, no charger needed.

Yup, thats how I'm driving mine its also gonna help with not needing to stop at a supercharger to bring it home from the factory pick.

 

[JesseS]

Yup, thats how I'm driving mine its also gonna help with not needing to stop at a supercharger to bring it home from the factory pick.

Same, I wonder if people have thought that the range means nothing 'Off Road', that battery will go down fast off road in low range in hilly terrain.

 

[timmyhil]

Same, I wonder if people have thought that the range means nothing 'Off Road', that battery will go down fast off road in low range in hilly terrain.

Yup. Range is totally different when off road with tires slipping in dirt and mud. Thats why i think if anything the battery will be bigger than what everyone thinks. Because these are off-road purpose made vehicles.

 

[azerik]

I'm hoping for about a 130kW battery. I have a 91kW in my MME and it's lifetime is about 2.8m/kW I'd hope around town to get around 2.3 in the Traveler.

 

[SentinelOne]

I'd be happy with a real world 150 miles Battery Range + Range Extender - for me would cover 90% on electric with 10% on ICE!

Want to say 100kw battery but guessing it will be smaller for the range extender version. Guess it'll depend on what motor they use / charging speed / weight, etc

 

[NukeDukem]

I'd be happy with a real world 150 miles Battery Range + Range Extender - for me would cover 90% on electric with 10% on ICE!

Want to say 100kw battery but guessing it will be smaller for the range extender version. Guess it'll depend on what motor they use / charging speed / weight, etc

I would think it would have to be larger than 100 to get the 350 mile range.

 

[SentinelOne]

I would think it would have to be larger than 100 to get the 350 mile range.

It would, was referring to the harvester / range extender model, not pure BEV....BEV def needs > 100kw battery for a large and AT tire vehicle...current truck offerings have 123kw-200kw plus

 

[TwoJacks]

350 range for the BEV is plenty for just about any off-road adventure you could cook up in the lower 48. It’s not like we’re Africa. You’d actually have a hard time finding an off-road route away from civilization and chargers where that range would be an issue. That’s why all these overlanders with their external gas tanks just crack me up. Almost impossible to come up with a route where you won’t pass a gas station as well outside the typical range of any gas powered suv. The range issue for off-roading in a BEV is a non-issue.

 

[timmyhil]

350 range for the BEV is plenty for just about any off-road adventure you could cook up in the lower 48. It’s not like we’re Africa. You’d actually have a hard time finding an off-road route away from civilization and chargers where that range would be an issue. That’s why all these overlanders with their external gas tanks just crack me up. Almost impossible to come up with a route where you won’t pass a gas station as well outside the typical range of any gas powered suv. The range issue for off-roading in a BEV is a non-issue.

Try going camping where you have to run power to the campsite. Obviously you have never went camping or you would know. So you crack me up. And when you’re in your BEV thats dead from power your campsite, ill be flying by you in my Scout Harvester honking my horn laughing at you because ill have an extra gas can to get me home.

And 350 range on road is completely different when you’re off-road. You lose range off-road.

 

[SentinelOne]

350 range for the BEV is plenty for just about any off-road adventure you could cook up in the lower 48. It’s not like we’re Africa. You’d actually have a hard time finding an off-road route away from civilization and chargers where that range would be an issue. That’s why all these overlanders with their external gas tanks just crack me up. Almost impossible to come up with a route where you won’t pass a gas station as well outside the typical range of any gas powered suv. The range issue for off-roading in a BEV is a non-issue.

My personal experience / use case begs to differ.

350 EPA miles != 350 real miles if any high speed/freeway (it's a problem in CO / Wy where freeway speed limit is 75mph and everyone drives 85+mph because no traffic, also mountains, lots of mountains) or if have anything sticking up in the slipstream like dirtbikes or 4x4 accessories or camping tent, etc - definite impact vs. EPA range.. Would say 350 = 280-300 max real world miles if not driving city or county roads at 45-55mph.

I do Windsor CO to Rand Colorado (222mi round trip)- transit to, camp / daily loss + using export power for camping + 4x4 usage while there, transit back = not easy with my trucks 300miles EPA range - I charge inbound / on the way at the last charger before nothing and outbound closer to home and im still limited in what I can do as there's no chargers anywhere near the actual camping / offroad spot. Trip not possible with my trailer, take my diesel truck.

So 300 - 350 miles is a good usable amount for most of my circumstances (95%) , but there are places & scenarios where range extender would be beneficial and if I could buy one for my truck I would.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

These are my Scout BEV estimated battery sizes.

Based on these current examples of similar BEVs:

2025 Rivian R1S (SUV) Dual Standard: 79 MPGe combined city/highway driving

2025 Ford F-150 Lightning Flash (extended range battery): 70 MPGe combined city/highway

This is the EPA formula for calculating MPGe:
(Miles/kWh) × 33.7 kWh/gal = MPGe

My guesstimate for the Scout BEV Terra battery size for the 350 maximum range:

2027 Scout Terra BEV combined MPGe: 75

Terra miles / kWh x 33.7 = 75 MPGe

75/33.7 = 2.23 miles/kWh

Estimated 300 miles of combined city/highway range (based on 350 max range):

300/2.23 = 135 kWh battery

My guesstimate for the 2027 Scout Traveler BEV MPGe: 79

Traveler miles / kWh x 33.7 = 79 MPGe

79/33.7 = 2.34 miles/kWh

300/2.34 = 128 kWh battery

For economies of scale and modularity, I'm guessing that a 130 kWh battery would be used for both.

But with continuing battery and EV efficiency improvements, it is likely that the battery size needed by the time of production will be less than 130 kWh to get the targeted 350 miles of maximum range.

Don't forget that EPA's MPGe figure includes the inefficiency of transfer from the grid to the battery. Thus the MPGe cannot be used to directly estimate range, just cost--the vehicle's range doesn't care if it cost 5 kWh for every kWh put into the battery, it just cares how efficient it is to extract that kWh from the battery.

Range is dictated by wind resistance/drag and rolling resistance. Weight matters for when the vehicle is undergoing acceleration and deceleration, but that's (mostly) irrelevant during constant-speed driving. The battery chemistry matters for vehicle size and weight, yes, but if Scout doesn't change the front-facing profile of the vehicle, the battery chemistry is going to be mostly irrelevant for range (but not for overall cost of energy).

The best existing model, IMO, is the Lightning--it's about the same size as the Scout Terra, with a lower ground clearance.

The Lightning gets 320 miles on 131 kWh battery, according to the EPA estimate. 320/131 = 2.44 miles/kWh. Scout is claiming 350 miles target value, so 143 kWh usable battery seems the smallest likely battery. I get about 300-350 miles on the freeway with my Lightning, but I don't push my freeway speed.

But Scout is also suggesting it will come with 35" tires and will have a significantly higher ground clearance, so I would drop efficiency to 2.0 miles/kWh in the EPA test, suggesting a 175 kWh battery.

Somewhere between 140 and 175 kWh seems the best guess.

Again, while the weight will matter a bit, note that the Lucid Gravity weighs 2800 kg while the Lightning with ER battery weighs 2885 kg. That's a negligible difference in weight, but the Lucid Gravity EPA rating is 450 miles on a 120 kWh battery. It's almost entirely down to drag and rolling resistance. Change the Lucid's wheels/tires and the range drops by about 10%.

 

[JesseS]

I would think it would have to be larger than 100 to get the 350 mile range.

You mean 150 miles for the Harvester? The BEV 350 mile would definitely have to be larger.

350 range for the BEV is plenty for just about any off-road adventure you could cook up in the lower 48. It’s not like we’re Africa. You’d actually have a hard time finding an off-road route away from civilization and chargers where that range would be an issue. That’s why all these overlanders with their external gas tanks just crack me up. Almost impossible to come up with a route where you won’t pass a gas station as well outside the typical range of any gas powered suv. The range issue for off-roading in a BEV is a non-issue.

I guess you haven't spent much time off-road, I carry 10 gallons of extra gas in my Ranger and have had to use it several times, serious off roading will use up your fuel much faster than on road.

 

[M3_R2]

Serious off roading won't use up your electrons as fast as your engine's fuel but you won't want to get stuck out in the middle of nowhere and obviously carrying gas is easier than (or producing via solar) electrons. Though prudent use of your UX / metrics helps going past the point of no return.

How Scout will be able to price this out at their intended target with a battery pack that provides 350mi of range is beyond me but would be awesome if they can achieve this. I wouldn't be surprised if they came a little under that 350mi target in order to keep the battery size and cost down. Esp if they know they'll be introducing a solid state battery shortly after launch (I'd be surprised if it was an option at launch) that increases range by 10% to eventually hit that 350mi mark.

Though that said, a 400mi solid state BEV model might cause some to recalculate their need for the Harvester. At 500 miles of EV range, I think the Harvester starts becoming obsolete but that's a long ways off yet.

I agree that a 143kWh battery might be required to attain 350mi of range. Or maybe a 130kWh solid state. Just doesn't seem possible at the intended price point.

 

[Chuckles]

Serious off roading won't use up your electrons as fast as your engine's fuel but you won't want to get stuck out in the middle of nowhere and obviously carrying gas is easier than (or producing via solar) electrons. Though prudent use of your UX / metrics helps going past the point of no return.

How Scout will be able to price this out at their intended target with a battery pack that provides 350mi of range is beyond me but would be awesome if they can achieve this. I wouldn't be surprised if they came a little under that 350mi target in order to keep the battery size and cost down. Esp if they know they'll be introducing a solid state battery shortly after launch (I'd be surprised if it was an option at launch) that increases range by 10% to eventually hit that 350mi mark.

Though that said, a 400mi solid state BEV model might cause some to recalculate their need for the Harvester. At 500 miles of EV range, I think the Harvester starts becoming obsolete but that's a long ways off yet.

I agree that a 143kWh battery might be required to attain 350mi of range. Or maybe a 130kWh solid state. Just doesn't seem possible at the intended price point.

I'm sure Scout is factoring in reductions in the price of batteries. This article predicts in 2026 EV and ICE cars will have ownership cost parity.

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insigh...re-expected-to-fall-almost-50-percent-by-2025

 

[M3_R2]

Yes, I recall reading that article. In fact I kept the tab still open (amongst about 130 - who needs favorites!). It's definitely coming down. I hope they are right but I'm not sure it will be quite that aggressive. Scout has a very good idea of how many kWh will be required for 350mi of EV range on their vehicles and if they use VAG batteries, you'd think they would be very cost efficient.

Time will tell. In the meantime, I speculate.