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

[joewilk45]

Their forcing you to buy a house on the water this way there's no need for towing that's the long game

 

[Roger 123]

But if they put the extender up front, they can have both range and towing capacity. And still have auxiliary storage in the back. Why compromise on towing capacity when there is an alternative storage area? Keep the frunk for the BEV version.

Unfortunately at this point I think it's knee jerk reaction to market forces and they're backed into a corner with no way out. I fear that by launch this thing is going to be a cobbled together mess.

 

[joewilk45]

That's why sticking with the original idea is a good one I'll wait longer for the original concept full EV I don't want to come off as being a tree hugger EV guy I just after owning and driving on long trips have no issues in my orbit and share those experiences. I cannot see going back to gas powered vehicles. To those who care not to venture into the Electric Vehicle Market enjoy your ride and safe motoring but my whole life 66 yrs I have always been in search of horsepower and torque and I've found it in a EV

 

[joewilk45]

Nice to see advances in the future of automotive technology.
https://www.designnews.com/automoti...ty-with-modular-design-and-air-cooling-system

 

[cptcolo]

Scout has said they are going for a gas and go 'no compromise' experience with the Harvester. To do that you'll need a good bit more hp for altitude and mountain driving at highway speeds.

They are also targeting a Harvester towing rating between 5,000-7,000 lbs based on some conflicting comments and to advertise that they will have to meet the SAE J2807 standard.

They've selected a 2.0 non turbo engine. So if they stay with the Otto cycle it will likely make about 150 hp. If they pick Miller or another cycle it may be closer to 120.

Yeah it needs to be a no compromise solution. More power is generally better.