Audi’s never had a real SUV. Sure, it’s had a few Dakar rally cars that might fit the bill, but as far as production vehicles go, I’m not sure any version of the Q5 or Q7 qualifies as anything more than a crossover meant mostly for the road, rather than the rocks.
The German subsidiary of VW Group is also struggling in the United States. Sales are down 8% through the third quarter, with many believing tariffs are to blame. Like its sister brand Porsche, which is also not doing so hot right now, Audi doesn’t build cars in the US, instead relying on imports from Europe and Mexico.
Instead of building a factory in America and developing a vehicle of its own to counteract both of those problems, Audi is reportedly going to rely on Scout Motors to do the heavy lifting.
Designed for America And Built In America
The dormant Scout brand was purchased by VW Group in 2020 before being relaunched in 2022 as a nameplate to help the conglomerate sell SUVs and pickup trucks in the United States. It plans to begin production of its two vehicles, the Travler SUV and the Terra pickup, in 2027.
Its Blythewood, South Carolina factory, which is currently under construction, will be adding a third vehicle to its production line, at least if this report from Automotive News is accurate. It claims the facility will assemble an Audi-designed vehicle based on Scout architecture:
Scout CEO Scott Keogh recently highlighted the potential for expanding production within the Scout Motors Production Center. “There is certainly a possibility that other exciting products from the group will definitely be built there,” Keogh said.
Audi would develop a new electric SUV with a range extender on Scout’s rugged body-on-frame platform with a focus on durability and American consumer preferences.
The report says that, like the first Scouts to roll off the line in 2027, this Audi will allegedly be a range-extended electric vehicle with an internal combustion engine to charge an onboard battery. Scout’s setup will reportedly use a naturally aspirated four-cylinder engine mounted near the rear of the vehicle—there’s a good chance Audi would use the same setup, should such a vehicle be built.
Is This The Key To Audi’s Success?
A range-extended electric SUV would solve a few problems for Audi. A tough body-on-frame SUV would fill a gap in the company’s lineup for a hotly contested segment in America dominated by vehicles like the Land Rover Defender and the Mercedes-Benz G-Class. Latching onto Scout production also avoids having to build a factory of its own, while still getting some production stateside—something Audi hasn’t been able to commit to, according to Autonews:
Audi has been weighing the possibility of setting up a U.S. production facility for months, with locations such as Texas or VW’s existing plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, under consideration.
Audi is wary of the exorbitant costs of building a U.S. plant and is also facing internal opposition.
Jörg Schlagbauer, head of Audi’s works council, criticized the idea of a new U.S. factory, describing it as “difficult to understand,” especially given that existing plants are underutilized.
As Autonews points out, this isn’t the first time Audi has relied on local production to lower costs. It pulled a similar move in China last year when it launched AUDI, a sub-brand created in partnership with local manufacturer SAIC to produce vehicles locally that are specific to that market and buyer base. But unlike that move, this partnership between Audi and Scout would be contained within the VW Group portfolio.
I don’t think I’d mind an Audi-branded off-roader with a true body-on-frame construction. While it doesn’t sound very Audi, it still sounds interesting. And “interesting” is what the brand needs right now.
Top graphic image: Scout Motors
“There is certainly a possibility that other exciting products from the group will definitely be built there”
“Certainly” and “definitely” lose all meaning when paired with “a possibility”.
This is nothing but uncontrolled market testing of a vague idea.
I’m certain that some brand in the VW group might produce an in demand, price competitive, reliable and long lived vehicle profitably without violating regulations. I’m also certain they might not.
“Picture this, but with an Audi badge.”
Er, no. Audi is not in the habit of badge engineering. If they go down this road, the vehicle will get its own sheetmetal and appropriately Audi-esque interior. Now, whether people will take a legendary on-road brand seriously as an off-road competitor is another question entirely.
Audi and its antecedents do have some history with 4×4 military vehicles. They probably don’t want to say much about the Horch 901 of 1937-43 though. The post war DKW Munga and the later Audi designed but VW badged Iltis have much better press, plus the Iltis was the basis of the Quattro
Dunno about hotly contested. Upmarket luxury SUV – Denali, the Cadillac badge-engineered version, BMW X7, sure. In the “competent offroad” department, you’ve got the Land Cruiser, the Ineos Grenadier, the Ford Bronco, and… that’s about it.
Part of what is going to kill the Wagoneer is a fundamental failure to adhere to its roots. David Tracy wrote something about this (an article I can’t find now) – where in one of the meetings discussing next-gen Wrangler, somebody proposed making the front suspension ISV. That’s antithetical to the whole Wrangler image.
Likewise, Ineos makes the Grenadier because Land Rover has moved well past its roots, and the new Defender is nothing like its namesake on which the Grenadier is based. 4Runners and Broncos have a pretty clear evolution from an era in which International Scout, Jeep, Toyota, Ford Bronco, and Chevy Blazer were the dominant offroad solutions – if Audi wants to trade off the “Scout” name, they’d better build a solution that can go head-to-head with an actual Scout. Both BMW and Mercedes (the chief German competitors) have cachet from their sedan and military contracts; “Scout” has no such reputation it can trade on from the past 40 years.
That’s stoopid.
That’s stOOOOpid.
Audi is like hazelnut flavored coffee. Nobody takes it seriously.
They don’t need a plant in the US yet. Give those funds to the F1 team lol
I hope this doesn’t create a situation where Scout is being forced to keep it’s specs down over time so it won’t compete against the AUDI, as is often the case with big OEMs. If so, that is the exact opposite of the whole stated plan to let Scout flourish on it’s own, without the typical corporate restraints and bureaucracy. Based on the past, I’m cautiously optimistic.
On the other hand, it might force Scout to make their vehicles at more affordable price points, which might end up being better for them as a company with corporate backing.
I like your way of thinking!
Wait, doesn’t this hurt VW’s argument in the lawsuit by their dealer network?
The dealers are arguing that they should sell Scouts, not have Scout be a direct to consumer brand. And VW is arguing, essentially, that Scout is a totally separate company not part of VW of America..
This was my first thought as well.
Dealers didn’t say “make a VW version by buying the tech from Scout”, they said we should get to sell Scout. Audi is offering to purchase parts and labor. This is the same as any arms length purchase deal, same as buying a platform from GM instead of Scout. Even though they are under the same umbrella, if the terms are reasonable in the market, there’s limited legal recourse to two independent businesses selling and buying.
Re your first sentence.
How is the Ford EcoSport in the adjacent post a “rugged SUV?”
“Off-road capable vehicle” etc. would make much more sense than “real SUV.”
Needs a longer hood to be a Defender Fighter. Also no information about how many astronauts it can carry underneath for safe return to the ground.
Are all the other automakers standing around waiting for Scout to make the EREV truck, then when it starts selling try and play catch up. I’m guessing the Ramcharger will come out after the Scout. Why is the EREV avenue so slow to come into view?
Marketing gives green light, then 2-3 years of testing, production ramp up while navigating logistics including tariffs
No, “competitive volume seller” is what the brand needs right now. According to ChatGPT, the average selling price of a Q5 is ~$5k higher than a comparable BMW X3 or Mercedes GLC. Coupled with the fact I don’t find Audi to have as nice of interiors as BMW or Mercedes, and that $5k premium (which as the article states is just tariffs) seems really hard to justify. When I was in Germany, I asked my coworkers (none of which work for German car brands or live in a brand’s main city) to rank BMW, Mercedes, and Audi, and while the BMW and Mercedes rank seemed up to personal preference, they all put Audi in 3rd place.
Is the Defender even selling well enough to be worth competing against? The Ineos Grenadier only exists because people didn’t like the new Defender.
I don’t think Audi even has the cache to pull off a proper SUV in the first place. Even though the new Scout seems VERY good indeed, Audi is known for rally stuff, not trucks. To your point about the Defender, lately I’ve been seeing more Ineos Grenadier’s in SoCal than I have Defenders.
Yeah, I see more Grenadier’s here in the PNW. I’m sure neither are going offroad in my area, but the Grenadier nails the “boxy offroad truck” aesthetic.
Maybe they could take a page from the China playbook and launch a new sub-brand in the US and call it….AUDI
I dunno, I’d rather have another rally car than a half-assed luxo-barge. Will it be capable like a G-Wagon? Probably not. Will it be as reliable as a 4Runner? Probably not. So, we need another half-assed Defender? Probably not.
But it will be more expensive
Is this enough to save Audi? I don’t hate it, but I also don’t think it is enough.
This would be the perfect vehicle for a return of the V10 TDI engine.
I know that’s NEVER going to happen, but damn, that would make an impressive rock crawler.
Why not go all-out and bring back the V12 TDI?
You’re not wrong there Brian. Also, you were recently name dropped in a YT video about the EV1 on the channel Electrek Garage. Nice!
Will we poors have lots of luxury SUVs to choose from in 10-20 years when they depreciate enough to be affordable?
Even if they were affordable, you wouldn’t be able to afford the parts, assuming the electronics that will have failed by then are even available.
Do you want a 10-20 year old Audi today? If not, I doubt you would in another 10-20 years.
You remind me, my Q3 is going to be 10 years old next year.
Actually, I do want my 2001 Audi S4 back, but whatever.
Neat take on a luxo SUV. Being a more expensive badge means they can price it with plenty of margin. Toyota has had their recent turbo V6 stumbles so this seems a good time to pick off disaffected Toyota/Lexus customers.
The other thing is they can position Scout as the more rugged/outdoorsy brand while this is a more environmentally friendly way to get to the ski cabin or across the less than perfectly manicured parking lot at the horse barn.
I know there are probably big margins in the Lux SUV segment, but, like, is the market that big? You’ve got Land Rover, the G Wagon, BMW trying to make a play, and now Audi thinks there is also room for them? Or that they can bring something new and good enough to capture share?
I guess maybe they are taking a big swing because things are looking bad and this gamble might be what saves them… but damn, even if you make it “big”, you aren’t going to sell another 100k vehicles a year, are you?
Incredibly salient points.
True – counterpoint, rebadging and putting different bits here and there on already-developed and paid-for technology is (not entirely, I know, but still) basically the entire schtick of Lexus, Acura, Audi, Porsche, Infiniti, etc. etc. So though there are some costs I don’t think its really such a big swing because the margins are huge and the engineering and even assembly are pretty much already covered. We’ll see I suppose!!
Fair! I may be overestimating the work involved.
This is probably an exterior reskin and interior restyle using similar/identical hard points. Additionally, a suspension retune but very little powertrain work. Not sure what the software will be, it could even be Rivian’s. The fact that Scout is a startup might actually make this easier and cheaper as they’re likely more flexible.
I actually think this whole EREV SUV business makes more sense for a luxury brand than it does for Scout. Scout was never associated with luxury, and regardless of DT’s optimism, there is no way these range extender trucks won’t be expensive AF.
We’re talking a large BOF truck body, plus a 70kWh battery, plus a whole ICE drivetrain powerful enough to move the vehicle on its own. Nobody spending that inevitable $70k++ on a personal vehicle is going to put up with crank windows and halogen lights. These will be do-everything, lifestyle super-trucks, with the electric-only range serving as a bit of guilt mitigation for the monied and environmentally aware (but not enough to let it change their habits) crowd.
I would look to Wagoneer as an example for Scout in terms of attempting to create a luxury brand out of legends past. And the SJ wagoneer was a much better call back than the… IH Travelall?
I’m not optimistic, especially in a challenging, post Covid economy.
Is Audi really the right brand for this kind of truck, and is this truck the right long term fit Audi? I don’t think so, but it’s better than nothing. It certainly won’t be a volume seller.
Understatement of the year.
What, you never looked at a Ford Bronco and wished someone would sell a less-refined alternative with even more rust?
Don’t forget the parts-bin sourced everything. They always felt so slapped together. And I love them anyway.
The ICE drivetrains on an EREV are not meant to move the whole vehicle. They’re meant to charge the battery.
Of course. But if the battery is allowed to run ‘empty’- with only a gas station fill up available- the ICE generator MUST have enough reserve output to move the vehicle, while taking into account generator losses. This is especially critical for a vehicle expected to tow long distances.
Obviously the vehicle will do everything it can to avoid running the battery empty, kicking the generator on early to maintain some electric reserve. But eventually it WILL hit a threshold where it has to function primarily as an ICE with hybrid transmission, and the vehicle must be designed to account for this. Of course the efficiency is now worse than a standard hybrid because you are now dragging around a nearly empty 70kWh battery with no way to replenish it.
Without plugging in, a standard hybrid is only capable of (or benefits from) re-generating and holding so much electricity- Not coincidentally, about the 1-2 KWH you’ll find in typical non-plugin hybrid battery.
The only alternative is some sort of limp mode, which is shown to be unacceptable by consumers as it brings back range anxiety- Negating the whole point of an EREV.
From everything I’ve seen, the range extender doesn’t have a mechanical connection to the rear wheels. Have you seen something that says otherwise, or are you just speculating?
All range extender vehicles are a type of Series Hybrid, so the transmission being referred to in this case is the generator motor powering the drive motor, not a mechanical transmission.
I’m not claiming it has a mechanical connection. The series hybrid shares some of the same advantages as a parallel hybrid over pure ICE- namely the battery acting as a buffer, and as Needles Balloon says, allowing brief surges of output beyond what the ICE generator or engine could provide on its own. But there is only a few kWh to spare before it must be regenerated.
Under a constant load with the battery depleted, the ICE must provide all the output. In this situation, the series hybrid is actually less efficient than an ICE with a direct mechanical connection, due to generation losses.
Standard parallel hybrids from Toyota, Honda etc with the “E CVT” planetary gearbox avoid this situation by allowing the engine to directly power the wheels during sustained highway driving.
Maybe this whole EREV thing makes sense for certain people. Personally, I’m not convinced it actually offers real savings over a hybrid or PHEV, while still generating tailpipe emissions. Even for a truck. Yeah, in theory you drive on electric power most of the time, but a PHEV with a decent range already provides that functionality- without needing a 1000lb battery. The PHEV still maintains the direct connection to the wheels for efficiency in towing situations, or if you run out of juice.
A lot of people on this site seem to think EREVs are the best of both worlds. I’m thinking it’s kinda the opposite- The upfront cost of a full EV, with the maintenance and complexity of gas- But we’ll just have to wait and see.
They’re meant to charge the battery… at least as fast as it is being depleted by moving the vehicle. This means it needs to produce enough power for the (quite boxy, and thus draggy) vehicle to sustain highway speeds up a realistic hill with a slight headwind; it would be unacceptable if a $70k+ luxury lifestyle vehicle is perceived to struggle up hills. This will be much harder if it also needs some towing capacity. However, it does not need to be powerful enough to cover <30sec burst loads like WOT on-ramps.
This seems like….a good idea? From Audi of all people?
Especially if they don’t change/complicate the drivetrain much from the Scout AND don’r charge an Audi premium for maintenance and repair on a Scout in Audi clothing. It could actually be a selling point. High maintenance and repair costs are one of the main reasons people don’t buy German cars.
I doubt they’ll be able to mess with the powertrain even if they tried given the packaging constraints, likely some software tuning at best. Maintenence is unlikely going to be cheaper for a lifestyle startup vehicle, but buyers at this price point usually don’t care that much.
Fair enough. Hopefully, they will both have longer warranties and the small ICE engine will be less likely to break under less stress- not to mention less parts throughout to break(since EV). All that said, will they charge the same to repair the Scout and Audi- if the Scout is not prices at a Premium level by comparison? That’s what I was wondering about. Then again, it doesn’t sound like they will be serviced in the same for anyone to know.
Did I miss the pricing announcement?
I don’t have a history with Audi at all, except for periodically thinking “That’s a nice looking car” here and there. A guy at my work drives an RS6 Avant, which are nice looking, though its white, which gives me the sads.
But anyway, what I’m getting at, is that as an Audi outsider, I thought the same thing as you. This might actually be a really good idea, and a spark that helps Audi find its own identity again. Cadillac were NOT the kings of the SUV, until they tried it once, and suddenly, they were. Inflection points happen in business, and this could be one.
Cadillac has done this a few times. They weren’t kings of performance sedans, until they were. They weren’t leading the luxury EV market, until they were. Etc. I have a slightly different perspective than you because I grew up around Audis and for most of my life they were more or less THE aspirational vehicle for me.
This was mainly due to their performance models and halo cars. The original V8 S4 was always something I lusted after. The TT’s seductive art deco design captured my imagination when I was young. The original R8 was the stuff of teenage boy daydreams.
But you even felt it in their regular cars, because they’d borrow elements from the high end ones. Of course there’s the whole rallying angle as well. They also dominated Le Mans for years.
But now? What the fuck has Audi done in the last 5-10 years? There’s nothing lust worthy. There’s no serious racing. Rather than having cutting edge, envelope pushing designs they’ve gone with the very German anti-styling approach and tried to make their vehicles as inoffensive as possible to appeal to the widest range of customers while simultaneously offending no one.
They’re utterly lost and the sales figures show it. They just sell anonymous techno blobs like everyone else. Their selling point is screens at this point. They hopelessly chased the Tesla dragon.
Anyway I digress. Audi is near and dear to me but I can’t think of a single one of their cars I’d consider today outside of an RS3, and I still couldn’t bring myself to drop $70,000 on what’s essentially the spiciest Golf. Do you know what could help this problem? A new boxy SUV that’s built on the Scout architecture that appears to be very promising.
If true, this could save Scout from losing funding as VAG currently has a severe cashflow problem. An off-roady Audi reminds me of the news that BMW is trying to make a G-wagen competitor too. It would also make it among the first EREVs to the US market, the joint first non-pickup along with the Scout itself. Not a terrible idea as long as it doesn’t step on Scout’s toes too much, but I imagine they’ll try extra hard to differentiate a prestigious Audi away from a measly startup.
I drove through Blythewood yesterday, and the Scout facility is really impressive. They’re currently adding exits to I77 and it’s a massive project.
With the EV credits ending, I admit I was/still am skeptical of Scout really taking off enough to sell the ~200k or so cars they need to from that plant, but my thought was that if they had to they would shift production to something else from the Volkswagen group.
It’s nice to see that’s being confirmed, even if it still has the EV/EREV risks. I really liked working at Honda and am intrigued by the possibility of getting back into the automotive space down here one day.
If we’ve learned anything from Honda moving metal on a GM platform, this will likely sell to those who buy based on the badge.
I can’t see a world where I’d pick the Audi variant over the Scout one, but I predict there’ll be a lot of these in the school pick up line if it’s priced like it’s competitors.
I have the complete opposite take. This vehicle is absolute danger for VW as a brand. They either destroy scout before it has a chance to start, or they waste all the money re-badging it to an Audi and sell lackluster numbers. Also, it’s an EV, so you know, despite what people want to pretend on here, it’s destined to fail in the current environment.
Too much competition in this area, not enough buyers and Audi/VW are not well looked on brands these days.
Time will tell!
There’s nothing a startup brand (badge) in a crowded market needs less than more competition! Brilliant strategy, Audi/VW!
But wait… what if it fails outside the environment?
Yeah, it feels more like a recalculated risk – throw it at an established brand and network to lock in some sales in case the Scout channels struggle more.
Or the real crux of it is US assembly and it’s all just PR speak for the path of least resistance to a US-built Audi. Fresh product would be good but it doesn’t really counter the existing lineup sales decline which predates tariffs – Q1 was already down YoY, and 2024 was down over 2023.
If the sales declines are due to Tesla and poor design direction, this vehicle is potentially something that could attract those customers back to the brand.
It will primarily be sold in the range extender version, which is still an extremely unique segment in the US with no other direct competition other than PHEVs with presumably far less range. It also likely won’t arrive until ~2028 when the environment is likely to change. If they style, market, and price this correctly, I think it’ll have a decent chance at success. Also consider that shifting some Audi sales away from the mainline models and onto this model would reduce the tariff load, which is currently 25% and may only decrease to 15%, when competitors like BMW have US production.
The range extender, would be a saving grace I think. I’m still not sure it fits audi’s brand image, but it would be much better received with an extender like you are saying.
Yeah the branding will be interesting. Scout said 80%+ of their pre-orders are for the EREV version, so the EV version will likely be delayed or even canceled.