Time to give up the frunk (if you want the Harvester engine)...

[maynard]

OP, what do you think Scout's concept is for their planned engine/generator "module" that fits in the space between the rear axle and bumper. I can't think of any existing VW 4-cyliner that would fit. If they have one, it will have to lay flat and have the generator integrated into the engine block. The engine will need a dry sump design with an electric coolant pump. And if they want to keep the same frunk design as the BEV, where does (do) the radiator(s) go? In the rear fenders? As well as the engine cooling system coolant reservoir and oil reservoir, where do they mount? Corrosion prevention of the engine will be a nightmare to solve.

I've been mulling this over for months now. I just don't see it being easily solvable and fitting within a realistic cost target to engineer and produce.

I'm perplexed by all that you mention as well... I have seen some compact RV ICE/generator solutions but nothing that would deliver the KWH required by this truck...

 

[John W]

The frunk is a big selling point. I can back into a parking space - easier for me than pulling in forward, plus it looks cooler - and load groceries. (I get it that grocery pickup is not the intended purpose of the Scout, but I'm psyched.)

 

[colinnwn]

At 100 HP it will be underpowered.

I expect the actual output will be about 125 hp, and I don't believe that will be underpowered. As I recall the actual rolling horsepower requirement for a pickup even fully loaded, as long as there isn't protrusions into the wind, at 70 mph on flat ground is around 50 hp. Hills are short term increased demand that would be supplemented by battery depletion and caught back up on the descent, or when you level out the generator would catch back up.

Headwind, or towing, is obviously a sustained increased demand there will be some headroom for, plus the battery which if fully charged and 150 mile normal range, should theoretically be able to power the truck while towing around 70 miles without Harvester (also minus the 80-10% charge recommendation). This is why I suspect the combination of factors of lower battery max depletion rate and size, engine/generator size limitation and resulting cooling requirements are the cause of the expected lower Harvester max towing.

Scott said it would be "no compromises" when running solely off the Harvester. I think that's probably a little bit of an exaggeration, but they are probably designing it to be able to tow that lower limit to the full requirements of SAE J2807, and you could tow much heavier to the BEV rating limit if it was for short distances or slower speeds or no hills.

 

[PNW Nate]

So, now you want a 16-gallon gas tank to share the space with the engine and generator between the rear axle and bumper?

Nope - we are talking about the generator in place of the frunk. The "module" would fit into the frunk space.

 

[colinnwn]

The OP is saying just have a one-size battery for both the Hybrid and BEV versions. The issue is the NCM chemistry of the smaller Harvester battery is more suitable for constant charging cycles that the generator system will provide, where the LFP chemistry of the BEV battery is better suited for plug-in charging cycles.

Well I expect even the BEV to have 2 battery modules at least - one in front of the rear axle and one behind the rear axle. While I expect that they do change up the chemistry for Harvester, has Scout actually confirmed this? If they do it, it would just be a swap of the front module from LFP to NCM, and not including the back module. It is likely preferrable that they have 2 different battery suppliers and chemistry options now as many of the electric car companies including Tesla have been swapping cell design and chemistries as they have development or sourcing problems. But I don't see this as a real big additional level of complexity beyond what we see in BEV cars.

Anyway that part of OPs statement makes a lot more sense now. Lots of assumed mutual understanding and detail in that, which if Scout has confirmed I've missed reading.

 

[drwing]

I doubt the current location of the Harvester engine will be an issue. There is a ridiculous amount of space under a truck. The bed to the bottom of the rear axle on my Ram measures 24 inches, which is basically the same height of the "biggest" 2.0L EA888 engine currently produced in Mexico. Without a turbo, AC compressor and alternator that engine is something like 16 inches wide. When mounted transversly, as it will be in this case, it typically gets a 12 degree slant. It probably wouldn't be difficult to tilt it rearward a bit more for ground clearance and to fit a gen, intake, exhaust and cooling.

Regardless of where the Harvester is located it should be significantly easier maintenance than an ICE connected to a transmission, or God forbid, a parallel hybrid.

I have no concerns about cooling. Any decent engineer can figure that out.

I suspect the towing capacity won't be much different than the BEV version if they allow an upgrade to NMC batts on Harvester models.

 

[E90400K]

I expect the actual output will be about 125 hp, and I don't believe that will be underpowered. As I recall the actual rolling horsepower requirement for a pickup even fully loaded, as long as there isn't protrusions into the wind, at 70 mph on flat ground is around 50 hp. Hills are short term increased demand that would be supplemented by battery depletion and caught back up on the descent, or when you level out the generator would catch back up.

Headwind, or towing, is obviously a sustained increased demand there will be some headroom for, plus the battery which if fully charged and 150 mile normal range, should theoretically be able to power the truck while towing around 70 miles without Harvester (also minus the 80-10% charge recommendation). This is why I suspect the combination of factors of lower battery max depletion rate and size, engine/generator size limitation and resulting cooling requirements are the cause of the expected lower Harvester max towing.

Scott said it would be "no compromises" when running solely off the Harvester. I think that's probably a little bit of an exaggeration, but they are probably designing it to be able to tow that lower limit to the full requirements of SAE J2807, and you could tow much heavier to the BEV rating limit if it was for short distances or slower speeds or no hills.

Yup, I agree with your 50 HP number for steady state cruising. That leaves another 75 HP (56Kw) to charge the battery. The Gen 1 GM Volt total power was 149 HP. The 1.4L produced 84 HP, so about 60% of the EV drivetrain. The Scout hasn't stated horsepower figures I can find, but it has said a combined 1,000 pounds of torque, so I'd guess the motors are probably in the 400 HP range, which is where I get my 250 HP for the generator. The Volt when it switched over to gas mode drivability did not change (unlike the way under powered BMW i3 REX). But the Volt weighed 3,700 pounds and had a cd of .28, and didn't haul or tow anything.

If it were me, I'd drop in a 250 HP 2.0L supercharged straight-6 in the nose with a generator integrated into the engine block. But I like to spend engineering money. LOL

 

[Chuckles]

Yup, I agree with your 50 HP number for steady state cruising. That leaves another 75 HP (56Kw) to charge the battery. The Gen 1 GM Volt total power was 149 HP. The 1.4L produced 84 HP, so about 60% of the EV drivetrain. The Scout hasn't stated horsepower figures I can find, but it has said a combined 1,000 pounds of torque, so I'd guess the motors are probably in the 400 HP range, which is where I get my 250 HP for the generator. The Volt when it switched over to gas mode drivability did not change (unlike the way under powered BMW i3 REX). But the Volt weighed 3,700 pounds and had a cd of .28, and didn't haul or tow anything.

If it were me, I'd drop in a 250 HP 2.0L supercharged straight-6 in the nose with a generator integrated into the engine block. But I like to spend engineering money. LOL

Until last year, VW offered a 2.5 L turbo VR6 in China. 295 HP. It's too bad they never brought it to North America.

 

[drwing]

Yup, I agree with your 50 HP number for steady state cruising. That leaves another 75 HP (56Kw) to charge the battery. The Gen 1 GM Volt total power was 149 HP. The 1.4L produced 84 HP, so about 60% of the EV drivetrain. The Scout hasn't stated horsepower figures I can find, but it has said a combined 1,000 pounds of torque, so I'd guess the motors are probably in the 400 HP range, which is where I get my 250 HP for the generator. The Volt when it switched over to gas mode drivability did not change (unlike the way under powered BMW i3 REX). But the Volt weighed 3,700 pounds and had a cd of .28, and didn't haul or tow anything.

If it were me, I'd drop in a 250 HP 2.0L supercharged straight-6 in the nose with a generator integrated into the engine block. But I like to spend engineering money. LOL

Ah, knowing how you came to 250 HP explains a lot. You might be right if 1000 lbs of torque were set in stone. A turbo would be necessary to get to 250 HP, and a turbo mounted on a 2.0L TSI likely wouldn't fit rear of the axle. But, there isn't going to be a turbo. I'm sure people will freak out when they realize this but 1000 lbs of torque and 0-60 in 3.7 seconds is not happening. Now might be a good time to temper expectations with regards to performance. Scout isn't going to be a speed demon or have the towing of Ramcharger, and that's a good thing.

 

[E90400K]

Ah, knowing how you came to 250 HP explains a lot. You might be right if 1000 lbs of torque were set in stone. A turbo would be necessary to get to 250 HP, and a turbo mounted on a 2.0L TSI likely wouldn't fit rear of the axle. But, there isn't going to be a turbo. I'm sure people will freak out when they realize this but 1000 lbs of torque and 0-60 in 3.7 seconds is not happening. Now might be a good time to temper expectations with regards to performance. Scout isn't going to be a speed demon or have the towing of Ramcharger, and that's a good thing.

They should supercharge it rather than turbo. Supercharging would do better in a generator application. But again, the Harvester was an afterthought. Scout was going to be BEV only until someone figured out going into the woods or desert needs gasoline. I doubt they have the engineering budget to do a cleansheet design.

 

[E90400K]

Until last year, VW offered a 2.5 L turbo VR6 in China. 295 HP. It's too bad they never brought it to North America.

Fords 2.3L EcoBoost makes 300 HP and 325 torque. No way it's going to fit in the ass end of a SUV or pickup under the floor.

 

[E90400K]

Assuming the tire is a 35" (for reference to scale). An engine AND generator is going to fit here...?

 

[Chuckles]

Assuming the tire is a 35". An engine AND generator is going to fit here...?

It will be interesting to see where they put the spare in the Terra. For the Traveler, a 33-in spare should fit in the BEV where the Harvester would go. I think the Harvester Travelers will have to put the spare in the cargo area or the external carrier.

 

[E90400K]

It will be interesting to see where they put the spare in the Terra. For the Traveler, a 33-in spare should fit in the BEV where the Harvester would go. I think the Harvester Travelers will have to put the spare in the cargo area or the external carrier.

I meant the tire on the rear axle is 35" for a perspective of the scale of the location where the engine and generator are supposed to fit.

 

[Chuckles]

I meant the tire on the rear axle is 35" for a perspective of the scale of the location where the engine and generator are supposed to fit.

I hear you. There been a lot of posts about Harvester and packaging lately that just got me thinking about the spares. Scout engineers are definitely earning their money!