Jay Leno drives Scout Hybrid Harvester - Towing Capacity, Gas Fuel Tank Capacity, More Specs Revealed

[TwoJacks]

AFAIK, 5,000 lbs. is the limit without a WDH.
IOW, a WDH is required for more than 5,000 lbs "conventional" towing regardless of the total tow rating (even HD pickups that are rated to tow upwards of 18k lbs.)
So I wouldn't assume that having a WDH will increase the tow rating.

Except for unibody vehicles like my Defender which can tow over 8,000 lbs but is not supposed to ever use a wdh per guidance from Land Rover.

 

[JesseS]

Diesel is just under $6 a gallon here too.
Elections have consequences.

Yep, diesel used to be cheeper than gas, until all of the diesel cars & pickups came out and the oil companies decided they could make more money by jacking up the price.

 

[jesemd]

Yep, diesel used to be cheeper than gas, until all of the diesel cars & pickups came out and the oil companies decided they could make more money by jacking up the price.

Diesel has increased less than inflation over the last 10 years, and much of the increased cost is due to the mandate for Ultra Low Sulfur formulations.

 

[Rouse]

Price is the question, the difference in battery cost (both material and size) should more than make up for the 4 cylinder generator. If they price the Harvester similar to the BEV models with the same features and options, that will be a really hard sell. If the Harvester is priced something like $5,000 below a comparable BEV trim that will be compelling for a lot of people.

I also agree with others, I so wish the Harvester had a generator that took the place of the frunk. It seems like that would improve some of the towing capacity issues and be better packaging.

 

[TwoJacks]

If anything the harvester is going to cost more. No way it’s going to be cheaper than the BEV.

 

[lunterhow]

I also agree with others, I so wish the Harvester had a generator that took the place of the frunk. It seems like that would improve some of the towing capacity issues and be better packaging.

Losing the frunk would be a deal breaker for me, it’s one of my most valued features in my Ford Lightning

 

[Pickles85]

The towing numbers for the Harvester models is a real disappointment and if those are the actual numbers I will be cancelling my reservation. A full size truck that can only town 5,000 LBS is useless

 

[NukeDukem]

The towing numbers for the Harvester models is a real disappointment and if those are the actual numbers I will be cancelling my reservation. A full size truck that can only town 5,000 LBS is useless

I’m sure it’s not useless to everyone. Wonder how many need to tow with the Terra?

 

[E90400K]

Price is the question, the difference in battery cost (both material and size) should more than make up for the 4 cylinder generator. If they price the Harvester similar to the BEV models with the same features and options, that will be a really hard sell. If the Harvester is priced something like $5,000 below a comparable BEV trim that will be compelling for a lot of people.

I also agree with others, I so wish the Harvester had a generator that took the place of the frunk. It seems like that would improve some of the towing capacity issues and be better packaging.

Agree.

After watching the video, I came away unimpressed with the Scout CEO. I don't know what his creds are, but his talking points made it clear to me the Harvester generator option is an afterthought from an EV engineering perspective. I think two years ago when the Scout resurrection materialized, the company had no intention of making a serial hybrid version and both Scouts were going to be BEV only.

Placing an ICE generator between the rear axle and rear bumper is a poor engineering choice, dictated by the imagined need to keep a large frunk. I think the reduction in towing weight with the Harvester is directly related to a lower tongue weight rating due to the added weight of the generator sitting at the rear of the chassis. As you've stated, placing the ICE generator in the front would recover the 10,000-pound towing capacity and IMO allow for a stronger ICE generator. From what I've seen of the currently released information about the Harvester, it is undersized because it is constrained by its rear-chassis location.

 

[Hedrock]

Price is the question, the difference in battery cost (both material and size) should more than make up for the 4 cylinder generator. If they price the Harvester similar to the BEV models with the same features and options, that will be a really hard sell. If the Harvester is priced something like $5,000 below a comparable BEV trim that will be compelling for a lot of people.

I also agree with others, I so wish the Harvester had a generator that took the place of the frunk. It seems like that would improve some of the towing capacity issues and be better packaging.

Yeah, I’d trade the frunk for towing capacity. Realistically, towing is an edge case for me, but “I want a frunk!” doesn’t seem like a primary buying motivator. I wonder if engineering is too set in stone at this point to change?

 

[Dive Bar Casanova]

As long as it looks good I'm good to go .
I'll take style and color over practicality, sensible abilities and reason every time.

My opinion is useless. Hold that thought.

 

[lunterhow]

Agree.

After watching the video, I came away unimpressed with the Scout CEO. I don't know what his creds are, but his talking points made it clear to me the Harvester generator option is an afterthought from an EV engineering perspective. I think two years ago when the Scout resurrection materialized, the company had no intention of making a serial hybrid version and both Scouts were going to be BEV only.

Placing an ICE generator between the rear axle and rear bumper is a poor engineering choice, dictated by the imagined need to keep a large frunk. I think the reduction in towing weight with the Harvester is directly related to a lower tongue weight rating due to the added weight of the generator sitting at the rear of the chassis. As you've stated, placing the ICE generator in the front would recover the 10,000-pound towing capacity and IMO allow for a stronger ICE generator. From what I've seen of the currently released information about the Harvester, it is undersized because it is constrained by its rear-chassis location.

Wouldn’t say the need for a large frunk is at all “imagined” it’s one of the key selling points of an EV for me and one of my most used features in my Ford Lightning.

 

[lunterhow]

Yeah, I’d trade the frunk for towing capacity. Realistically, towing is an edge case for me, but “I want a frunk!” doesn’t seem like a primary buying motivator. I wonder if engineering is too set in stone at this point to change?

Frunk is definitely a primary buying motivator for me over towing capacity. As someone that golfs multiple times a week, and goes on cross country road trips multiple times a year it’s a huge value add. Obviously that’s just my use case tho

 

[E90400K]

Don’t

Wouldn’t say the need for a large frunk is at all “imagined” it’s one of the key selling points of an EV for me and one of my most used features in my Ford Lightning.

I believe it is "imagined" that the market sees a frunk as a must-have selling point. Individual cases are what they are, Individual.

 

[OshnDoc]

Well a towing capacity of 5000lbs for a vehicle the size of the Harvester is a deal breaker for me. If that stays the way it is, I am out and will when time comes and it is a given fact, pull my deposit, as that is a very unusable payload for anything related to any longer distance vacation travel towing a modern travel trailer. Very disappointed in those changes.