I’m a pretty big fan of Volkswagen’s products, so whenever I hear about the company not doing well, it makes me sad. These days, I feel like this has been happening a lot.
According to a new report from German publication Manager Magazin, VW is in fairly dire straits financially right now. Net cash flow—or, how much money is left after taking away all costs—is reportedly falling to dangerously low levels, which is leading the company to make some tough cost-cutting decisions.
Those decisions lie with Arno Antlitz, VW Group’s chief financial officer. Manager Magazin reports that he’s assembled the CFOs from the conglomerate’s biggest brands to figure out how to turn things around. From the article:
CFO David Powels (63) was present for VW, Jürgen Rittersberger (53) for Audi, and Jochen Breckner (48) for Porsche. The group, not a popular topic within the company, was designated the “Net Cash Flow” Task Force.
Antlitz’s mission for the high-profile group caused unrest: According to those involved, the CFO demanded €12 billion in additional cash flow, and specifically for 2026. “This magnitude, so quickly; that’s never happened before,” commented one top executive. It’s a massive cost-cutting shock.
The CFO apparently sees no other way out. By 2024, net cash flow had already halved to €5 billion, a level that Antlitz likely considers a minimum.
Things are looking even worse this year. Sales in China, once a money-printing region for VW Group, have collapsed due to heightened competition from domestic models. Going by deliveries, Audi is down nearly 5% globally through he first three quarters. Porsche, meanwhile, is down 6%. Even the company’s historically market-proof brands, Bentley and Lamborghini, are down slightly year-over-year. The VW brand itself, as well as Euro-centric brands Skoda, SEAT, and Cupra, are up slightly this year.
It’s not just China. The North American market isn’t helping either. Spiking prices due to tariffs and the disappearance of the federal EV tax credit mean sales are waning, with deliveries for the group down nearly 8% in the region this year so far. The result of all this, according to Manager Magazin, will be stuff like more platform-sharing:
For example, the next Audi A6 and the second generation of the Porsche Taycan could be based on a common architecture. Despite the models’ quite different profiles (a conventional premium sedan and a sports car), this would reduce costs.
One of the more interesting bits Manager Magazin reports involves the launch plan for VW’s newest brand, Scout Motors. The revived American nameplate that relaunched in 2022 plans to introduce an electric SUV and truck by 2027. Last year, the company revealed it would also offer its vehicles with a range extender option, which quickly became the most popular drivetrain amongst those placing pre-orders. Going by this article, it sounds like VW is smartly prioritizing those buyers:
[A]ccording to information from manager magazin, the Scout electric truck, intended as a promising prospect for North America, will initially only be available with a combustion engine as a range extender – and not as a purely battery-electric vehicle.
Scout declined to confirm to me whether this is its plan, but considering the state of the EV pickup truck market in the US right now, it makes the most sense. Even the most popular pure BEV trucks occupy a tiny niche of the market, so building the battery-powered Scouts first wouldn’t have moved the needle.
The range-extended Scouts, meanwhile, are a far more promising proposition. They pair a 60-to-70 kWh battery pack to a naturally aspirated four-cylinder mounted under the bed, just in front of the rear axle, there just to keep the battery charged. With a fully charged pack and a full tank of gas, Scout promises around 500 miles of range. Importantly, these range-extended Scouts can also tow long distances without drivers having to stress about topping off the battery at a charging station, something that a lot of buyers seem to care about, whether they’re actually towing stuff frequently or not.
This prioritization of extended-range electric vehicles in the pickup segment is starting to become a bit of a trend. Just last month, Ram did something similar, electing to cancel its all-electric 1500 and putting more of its eggs into the Ramcharger EREV basket. As the United States continues to carve out its own market, separate from the rest of the world, more stuff like this will continue to happen. I wouldn’t be surprised if the all-electric Scouts are killed off altogether (that’s just a guess at this point, but man, it feels very possible).
Top graphic images: Scout Motors; DepositPhotos.com
Smart!
We’ve had our Q5 for nearly 10 years now and are looking at a replacement. We will not be looking at Audi. On the one hand, so many less overpriced brands have gotten so much nicer, that it’s just not worth paying a premium for the OOOO. On the other, the new Q5 that we had for a few days (while ours was in the shop for a 5-figure repair for a known issue…) was just unpleasant to drive. The seats are hard and lumpy. The pedals and controls are just awkwardly spaced. This is mostly an issue of having not bought a new car in 10 years (I drive a 96 Trooper), but all of the tech that we already found annoying and unnecessary is just turned up to 11.
What should they do with Audi? It appears that VAG’s desire since the aughts is to compete with BMW and MB and charge similar prices. That doesn’t seemed to have worked out. I think Audi’s sell when they’re a cheaper alternative.
It has always been a strange brand. I remember buying a new ’84 Coupe GT for four thousand dollars less (that’s a $12,000 difference today according to the web!!!) than than the 318i I cross-shopped at the time. The Audi dealer was selling at near invoice, the BMW dealer was MSRP all the way, of course. I mean, there was no just no comparison in terms of the drive, the Audi trounced it in every area (except I suppose looks, which are subjective, and the BMW was rear wheel drive which you couldn’t really feel because it had the power of a Snapper riding mower). The Audi’s NVH was leagues better, acceleration from the 5cyl was quick for the time, 0-60 in 9 secs (the 318i was 12 secs), it was a great handling car, a comfortable long distance tourer, and I had no mechanical issues.
However, I learned that when one wants to sell an Audi, the money one saved when it was new comes around again to have a word with you.
VW has an awesome range of vehicles available for purchase in Europe – why can’t the company go back to its roots and offer European vehicles to North American customers, instead of trying to build vehicles specifically for North America? I’m pretty sure they don’t sell Atlas trucks in Europe.
Maybe I’m an oddball (I bought a W12 Phaeton, new, and would have bought another one if they hadn’t stopped importing them to North America so quickly). I think the problem is the importers, VW of America & VW Canada, not VW AG.
Scout’s business model didn’t make much sense even before the mentioned issues. But that’s VW and electrification in general; it feels like they are intentionally doing it the worst way possible.
Good – the EREV version is the one we want.
I don’t care about these, just bring me a Skoda Fabia.
It’s not that surprising there were a lot more reservations for the hybrid then the pure Bev. It’s a big vehicle the Silverado ev already exists in that weird space of a 9000lb allegedly 1/2 ton truck that can tow 12k lbs. They would be better off making a smaller truck that’s pure Bev. Maybe call it the scout e truck or something as international went a, b, c, to d and of course electric.
You know VW brass is infuriated that they cannot just sell all Scouts with a naturally aspirated V6 on loan from another automaker.
Not a big surprise here at all.
I’ve bought two new VWs. Build me another GTI with a stick, real gauges, and no capacitance-touch nonsense, and I will cheerfully help out with that cash flow.
Make it a long-roof and I will help out even more.
“Audi is down nearly 5% globally through he first three quarters. Porsche, meanwhile, is down 6%. Even the company’s historically market-proof brands, Bentley and Lamborghini, are down slightly year-over-year. The VW brand itself, as well as Euro-centric brands Skoda, SEAT, and Cupra, are up slightly this year”
Seems like this is an indication that people are souring on overly complex, expensive vehicles, but still want cheaper, more basic, simpler vehicles? Too bad the Scout doesn’t appear to be a modernized take on the old one’s simplicity, and size
Curious about the US numbers. I feel like I see less Audis every day.
So what you’re saying is that a $70,000 lifestyle truck with a pathetic 5000lb towing capacity should be just the thing to reverse VW’s fortunes? (/s)
Scout should have designed something like the Slate, just with a normal interior and 4 doors. Full BEV, plus a regular hybrid model to compete with the Maverick.
Instead, they designed a Rivian that you still have to take for oil changes.
I’d say so, more or less. A Slate style wago-van would be awesome. If the Scout had been something like that, I’d probably have a deposit on one. Instead, about my only (morbid) curiosity is how much the thing ends up weighing
That 5,000lbs towing part is a huge bummer, and I hope is somehow increased before launch.
The Scout website is saying 10k lbs for the truck and 7k for the suv.
It does, however in the Jay Leno interview with Scout CEO Scott Keogh, the CEO says that’s for the electric only version, and that the “Range Extender” (Harvester) will be 5,000 lbs (mentioned at the 5:08 mark). This has caused many on the forums to question their reservation now.
I’m not sure if links can be added in here but I’ll give it a shot. I think that this will end up being a big deal if it remains at only 5k lbs.
https://youtu.be/KJbBCAVhXuc?si=yfCVLmVcXUpRl_Tl
Holy smokes. Thanks for sharing the detail. That’s abysmal.
European EV market is up, regardless of what source or publication you use for the numbers. Why is VW flailing so much? Of course, their problems are across the board.
I see this as a good news story… for Rivian.
“They pair a 60-to-70 kWh battery pack to a naturally aspirated four-cylinder mounted under the bed, just in front of the rear axle”
Oh I bet that’s gonna be fun and easy to service as the vehicle ages… and not overly complicated at all.
No Siree!
Porsches… 911s and Boxers specifically. People are willing to suffer sometimes.
Also see: Honda Acty, although there’s a removable “hood” in the truck bed, which is a viable solution to this problem.
Don’t worry, the engine will be a “lifetime oil fill” sort of thing, just like modern transmissions, not even an oil change necessary for the life of the vehicle. If it self destructs, the vehicle can remain drivable, for shorter distances. Then just replace the entire thing as a single module. Or remove the range extender entirely for simplicity’s sake. I’m sure no fuel filters or other accessories will be needed either /s
“Then just replace the entire thing as a single module. ”
So… Replace the entire vehicle then? Lol
Sure, why not, sounds like the future- no maintenance ever needed again!
Having owned almost a half-dozen VW and Audi products over the past few decades, I’m now thoroughtly disinterested in products from either company. My impression is that the upcoming Scouts will be expensive and complex (like most everything in their price range) and coming from a company with such a poor track record for longevity/durability/servicability of their cars, I don’t feel compelled to open my wallet for them at all.
I’m sure VWoA is sure there’s no market for small/affordable/relatively simple cars in America anymore, and they’re probably right outside of some urban areas, but that’s literally the only way I’d even consider buying from them again… and even then, it’d be with some trepidation.
Yeah, discontinuing the Golf in America seems like a seriously foolish move. If you want to buy an American-style crossover, I think other brands can do it better, and VW is going to have a harder time competing. However, if you wanted a Euro-style hatch, VW was really the only option around! Now they don’t seem to care to compete in their distinctive market, instead focusing on mass-market ones that they’re at a disadvantage in.
The foolishness was on the part of the buyers who failed to understand how awesome Golfs are. That’s my version and I’m sticking to it.
No it wasn’t. It was a straight up business decision based on sales.
In 2019 Golf the ENTIRE family (eGolf, Golf, GTI, R, Sportwagen, AllTrack) only sold 37,393 vehicles in the USA. VW needed an assembly line in North America for the Taos so the Golf was killed and the GTI and R get imported from Europe. The Taos sold 66K last year – one model easily outselling 6.
I can see the short-term benefit there, but I wonder about the long-term effects of axing such a core model, with probably the strongest enthusiasm of anything in the lineup. Would it have been that hard to import some normal Golfs as well, even if they don’t expect to sell many?
Importing a car takes money. First you have to do the modifications to make it US compliant. Then you actually have to do the certifications to prove it. Then you have to stock the parts for service, train the techs, and make the service manuals and software. This costs millions. If the product has a high profit margin like a GTI or R that makes sense – but notice they consolidated powertrains to cut the cost. Makes no sense at all to do that and then sell a car with a tiny profit margin.
A model is only a core model if people actually want to buy it. The Golf got the axe for the same reason as other cheap hatchbacks – the sales don’t justify the effort. If you want to buy a Golf – VW will sell you a GTI.
In the USA the Jetta has always been the core offering.
70kWh + a range extender is exactly what most of us BEV truck owners are asking for.
Enough to commute with plug-in only, and the range to go forever with gas.
Signed,
A Rivian Owner
Be careful what you ask for.
“They pair a 60-to-70 kWh battery pack to a naturally aspirated four-cylinder mounted under the bed, just in front of the rear axle“
Soooo tell me about your experience with servicing engines that are mounted under truck beds ahead of the rear axle. I’m sure VW will totally not make servicing it a convoluted nightmare.
No way VW would ever do that.
They NEVER have made anything stupidly complicated.. ever.
*cough*
The VW Transporter pickups had the engine under the bed, albeit behind the axle. They were serviceable.
I am trying to think of another vehicle where pulling the engine for repair service is as fast and easy as the old VW Vans, or the Bug was.
Still on first cup of coffee, so?
I got to where I could pull one of those engines (above) in my driveway with hand tools in about 15-20 minutes.
It’s way past time for VW to remember how it all began.
And to start to build and design easy to service, reliable offerings again for the US market.
Yeah that’s how the “old VW” was
Old VW is dead.
I agree with you – it’s a design decision made by VW and therefore plagued with potential problems.
But I would think of it with a slightly different spin – under most use, assuming you are charging daily, that motor is going to see very, very little run time. If it’s only 50kWh, that’s more than enough for my daily commute round-trip with plenty of buffer. The motor would likely get used more for maintenance starts than actual driving.
Of course, they’ll stick the one part most likely to fail in the one place I can’t get to, but VW gonna VW.
I think it’s interesting the article and comments are focusing on the truck. 2/3 of the reservations are for the suv reportedly. If cash flow is deeply a problem, the truck may very well be delayed/canceled too.
Seeing Rivian has focused more on the SUVs I would not really be surprised. EV trucks do not seem like they are going to be as big of a seller vs SUV’s.
Rivian’s problem with the truck is people buy trucks to do “trucky” things. In the process, things tend to get bent and/or dented.
Rivian’s repair costs are ridiculous, so you really don’t want to be doing “trucky” things with them. Hence you really don’t want one as a truck.
My guess is that is precisely why their SUV outsells their truck by so much. And I’d also guess the next generation would sell a lot better if they focus more on repairability.
By all accounts they’re great vehicles, except when it comes time to visit the body shop.
That would make me the big sad. I need the truck to sell well so I can buy a nice one used in 2032.
I have a feeling there’ll be another update in six months announcing it’ll just get the Atlas’ 2.0T and that should be good enough as their internal preorder data will indicate most owners plan to only rarely tow if at all so 273lb-ft of torque is plenty. Come on VW, prove me wrong!
It’s a series hybrid, so the engine is only there to charge the battery pack. The electric motors provide all the torque for the drivetrain.
My prediction was VW says JUST a 2.0t is enough. No EV, No EREV, No Hybrid.
Why wouldn’t the 2.0T be perfectly adequate in it? Back in the ’80s and ’90s we could only dream of so much power in the average truck. People are ridiculously spoiled today.
I don’t care personally since I’ll never buy another VW product anyway, but this is America which VW hasn’t understood since about 1970.
I’ve been perfectly happy with the seven VWs I have owned. But I wouldn’t buy anything they currently sell here either.
VW has gotten into trouble mainly when they tried to make cars that appealed to the average American. They need to learn to sell the stuff that appeals to Europeans to above-average Americans – we are the ones with all the money anyway. Which is exactly what they did 50-60 years ago. Beetles were actually quite expensive for what they were.
Since this is an EREV, the torque output of the ICE doesn’t really matter at all, just power output because it’s running as a generator. They need to package the engine underneath the bed as the underhood space is being used as a frunk, which cannot be sacrificed in this type of lifestyle vehicle, especially the pickup version. I predict they’ll use a version of the 718’s flat engine, ideally non-turbo, bored out and put into Atkinson cycle; doing so will likely increase reliability.
My prediction was not an EREV just a 2.0T….
oops forgot to read properly ????
Funny, the several million ICE pickup trucks a year sold in the US do just fine without a frunk.
It’s one of the utility features that makes EV pickups more compelling for some buyers compared to ICE ones. Sure, you might be stuck at a charging station during long trips, but at least your groceries aren’t getting drenched in an unexpected downpour (or simply just stolen)
I guess – if the space is there, why not?
But I feel like just buying a vehicle that generally doesn’t easily allow your shit to get wet or stolen is a much better approach than having a tiny bit of extra storage up front. The times when you actually NEED an open bed for the average wanker are pretty damned rare. For most of the things people actually use a pickup for in the US, a van or SUV would be infinitely better. Which is why the Europeans hardly buy any of them – they are smarter than we are as a rule. If they need an open bed for something, they rent a trailer. Which has the advantage of being FAR easier to load than a modern pickup truck, even the smaller pickups are stupidly high off the ground now.
Oh I definitely agree, but I’m guessing much of the target audience is predisposed to get a pickup for relatively arbitrary reasons (aesthetics, image, etc). If EV pickups can attract buyers away from ICE pickups using frunks, I guess it’s a net positive for society (fewer locally produced emissions and potentially lower noise pollution) if it’s impossible to get those buyers to choose a more efficient body type (van, SUV, wagon, etc)
I hope GM for their next generation Suburban/Tahoe and trucks lineup (same platform), they consider an EREV as option. I think the 4 cyl turbocharged engine could be a good application from efficiency standpoint with the 85 KWH battery from the Equinox. They have the knowledge from Voltec, just repeat the same formula.
I hope they shrink things a bit. Those vehicles have become an over-inflated caricature of themselves, and are far larger than they need to be.
They sell the Equinox, why would they stop making the Tahoe/Suburban which probably make them the highest margins.
I never said anything them not making them. I suggested they make them smaller.
The Equinox is a unibody SUV design that’s got absolutely nothing in common with the body-on-frame trucks and Suburban/Tahoe lineups, so I’m a bit confused by your comment.
The Suburban has grown 6 inches in length in 30 years. No much really. What has changed is the hood got taller. The Denali XL I rented had horrible forward sight lines.
And about 4 inches wider and 5 inches taller. Doesn’t seem like much as linear measurements, but cube that all out into three dimensions and it’s a pretty significant increase in volume.
Their mantra seems to be “we gotta be bigger than Ford” which has resulted in a size arms race yielding massive behemoths that dwarf their earlier versions.
The very first generation of Suburban (AKA the 1935 Chevy Carryall) had a wheelbase of 113.5″ and weighed 3,300 lbs. (Granted, it was also just a two door.) Now the twelfth gen has a 134.1″ wheelbase and weighs almost three tons.
Heck a current “midsize” Ranger is about the same size as an ’80s F-150.
Like my belly, these things just keep growing and growing. They (like me) need to go on a diet.
Great decision by VW, which is something I don’t find myself saying often. The Scout EREV is the revolutionary product here. There are already BEV pickups on the market for buyers who want them (also, it is worth pointing out buyers have shown they don’t really want them). If you are going to start a new brand with one product, you may as well start with one that has no obvious competition. If the Scout EREV is semi reasonably priced and doesn’t suck, it will be a huge success. I don’t think it would be a great loss if the BEV version was cancelled entirely, at least for now.
This point always irks me. Towing 3 times a week or a few times a year is irrelevant. If part of what you’re buying that vehicle for is towing capacity, then it has to work when you do it.
This is like saying “Buyers seem to care about roofs being water tight, whether they live in Oregon or Arizona.” It has to do the job when the job is required.
It’s inevitable to have a counter push to toxic brodozer culture. I agree that the “smart” crowd goes too far. I think that a smaller EV truck is fine to compromise on, but if you’re driving something that large and brutish, it might as well do everything you want it to
Exactly. If you’re buying a half ton class, you expect half ton capability.
Compare that with the likes of folks buying say, a Maverick hybrid. Chances are that 4000lb towing capacity is hauling a utility trailer around town where range matters less cause you’re likely not getting more than 60mi from home, and towing at non-highway speeds.
But if my plan is to go pick up a project car with a U-Haul an hour or two away from me? I’m probably charging a Lightning 3 times just to complete the endeavour.
Compare that to me taking my 2018 F150 on a 11 round trip to pick up my ’81 RX7, and I stopped for fuel twice. Once to top off for piece of mind, and one cause I was nearly empty 15 mins from home. That 11 hour trip was MAYBE 20 mins at the pump.
Now, if I were to do that ~600 mile trip in a Lightning, which involved the hills of Northern Ontario, how often am I stopping to charge? 5 times? Maybe more? Chargers are thin on the ground along that part of the Province, so more stops may be necessary.
Now, if I had an EREV, that trip is a no-brainer. Then on Monday I’ll be back to commuting on batt and topping off at the charger in my driveway.
I’ve tried several times to justify a Lightning. But owning a boat and living 2.5 hours away from our lake house, completely rules it out for me. I have zero desire to stop and charge the truck just to get to the lake.
But EREV would be in my garage ASAP (excluding Ram, I don’t trust them to pull it off reliably).
Yup. Hell, even when I make the trek to my sister in law’s place, I’m often hauling things for her hobby farm. They live over an hour away, and I’d have to go off route to charge in between for a route I don’t normally stop on. She, and most of my family, exist in areas between major metropolitan areas where chargers just aren’t a thing.
And it’s gonna be a hard sell to get her to unplug her dryer and run a 250ft charging cord through the house, across the yard, to where the cars are parked. Not to mention she already actively plans her day around electricity rates.
I think the criticism can have validity. If a person is only towing a few hundred miles once a year or so would be hard to justify the additional expense and emissions that are applied to every mile driven every day. The occasional rental for the rare need to tow would likely be a far better option.
An extreme example of this would be buying a box truck because you plan to move at some point in the future. Everyone’s use case needs to be looked at for what it is, but we know people aren’t typically very rational when buying a vehicle and certain types of vehicles, sports cars, luxury cars, and trucks, tend to be further into the irrational purchase category than a Camry or CR-V.
Except that the argument is, if we’re buying the same physical form factor of vehicle, that they should go all electric unless they’re regularly using the towing capacity?
EREV does the same carting around families on pure electrons that the BEVs do. But they do it with a smaller battery, which is more efficient from a resource perspective.
There’s nearly zero downside to an EREV platform beyond lost storage space and some maintenance of the generator.
I agree that PHEVs or EREVs (no functional difference) are the best all around choice. I was just commenting on the issue around pickup purchases in general being justified based on a need to tow once every year or two.
I mean, I buy them as a general hauling rig for 90% of my uses (like getting a scoop of earth or stone at the local landscaping company).
But if I’m gonna drop 60k or more on a vehicle, I expect it to tow as well. Especially since we’re planning to explore a lot more of remote Canada in the coming years (the US exploration is paused for the foreseeable future, for obvious reasons).
The wife is content in a tent, but I’m a princess and I want a real bed and a bathroom onboard.
I have owned pickups as well for general hauling, we are big gardeners and just finished a big basement remodel project and the truck was a must have. I have also used them with a topper and air mattress for a great quick camper.
I’m with you on the pause of the U.S.. I’m actually enrolled in a masters program in Toronto currently. It is online but I am planing on a few visits to meet with my advisor and my partner and I are going to take a few weeks and hit some areas around Toronto and Montreal.
I traded in the pickup for a Sienna so we will be driving and taking the dogs along.
If your travels take you through Ottawa, hit me up!
Will do!
I’m a little torn on this. One the one hand, I concur that it’s reasonable to expect a certain level of capability from certain vehicles. On the flip side, Silverados and F-150s are the Impalas and Galaxies/LTDs of our day – buyers are choosing them because they want a relaxed, full-size vehicle. Same as they always have. Yes, you see ones that tow – but, that’s because they’re *everywhere*. Same as you used to could option your full-size sedan or wagon to be a towing beast, but most people didn’t want to spend the extra money, have a less comfortable suspension, etc. The OEMs are already starting to support this – especially Chrysler, with pathetic towing and payload ratings on a lot of Ram and Wagoneer models, as popularly equipped. The reality is, for most buyers, they have no plans to do anything with their full-sized truck that the aforementioned Maverick couldn’t comfortably handle. I don’t see it as disingenuous to point this out.
Fair. The only thing I’ll point out, as I have in the past, is current half tons are pretty much on par with 7-seater SUVs/minivans for fuel efficiency.
The ones that aren’t, are hybrids. But the few truck hybrids out there don’t leverage the tech the way the SUVs/vans do.
Plus, the unfortunate reality is if you want that truck bed and have family members at the 6ft or taller mark, you’re not taking long trips with the family in a Maverick.
That’s my current dilemma. a Ranger/Frontier/Tacoma is all I need for capability, but that back seat is a torture device for anyone trying to fit behind my leggy wife.
My feeling on rear seats is anyone who doesn’t like the accommodations is free to arrange alternate transportation on their own. If you want a ride, sit down and STFU.
I regularly transport my family several hours by car, and I’d like them to be happy and comfortable. But I’m a hippy-commie bleeding heart like that.
Then pay the piper. <shrug> Personally, I would charge them for the rides.
I’ve had difficulty getting anything more than attitude from the 6 year old, and the rottweiler just grunts.
Attitude can be beaten out. You can get a smaller dog.
I want a dog, not a cat or rat masquerading as a dog. I already had a Shiba Inu.
I’ll leave the beatings for the guys who don’t want their kids to call or visit when they grow up.
Kids always call or visit. They inevitably need money. Or rides.
It’s the ones that aren’t beaten enough that NEVER LEAVE.
Wow, okay then. Good to understand that you are single and childless. Best of luck to you…
I call them as I see them.
Or that rare chance that they should start thinking like the Menendez brothers, right?
Yeah the flip side is that things like “12000 lb tow rating” are used constantly in marketing for half ton trucks and I’d be willing to guess that the majority of buyers don’t realize their crew cab 4WD version of that truck is lucky to be rated for 8000 lb of towing (and probably has less payload capacity than a Honda Ridgeline). The brands know people won’t be using their trucks as advertised anyway (or when they do, they use them in an unsafe way because no one wants to RTFM). Or that their crew cab diesel 2500 truck is less capable for towing/hauling than some 1500 series 2 door 2WD V6 trucks.
I know everyone on this website is the exception, but based on the numbers of LS-powered Miatas we all see every day, we can probably safely say that Autopians are not representative of the average consumer.
I’m almost positive that few consumers are buying a half ton based on the 12000lb claim, other than the jackwagons who want a 5th wheel and are determined to avoid paying the price to step up to the 3/4 ton they actually need for their rolling palace.
What I DO see in my area is a lot of half tons pulling 4000-6000lbs. Either tandem axle utility trailers, ATV/SXS/Snowmobile trailers, travel trailers, car haulers, flatbeds with lumber, and all of that.
A half ton suits those jobs well. I know my F150 did it’s job great, which was mostly towing broken cars around.
Personally, I’ll tow 10k once with my half ton, but if it becomes a thing even one more time, I would move to a 3/4 ton. But, luckily we keep one in the family for those situations. Anybody wanting to regularly tow 8,000+ with a half ton would greatly benefit from moving to a 3/4 ton.
I agree, I’m speaking more to the people who may not need to tow regularly (or ever) but still want tow capability in their purchase and are influenced by the marketing that shows 4 door 4WD trucks alongside 2 door 2WD tow specs.
I like to think that most people that actually tow stuff start reading their door placards and manuals. But then I see all the dualie landscaping trucks with lifts and huge offset rims and tires and realize not everyone is interested self preservation.
Anybody buying a half ton truck, and planning to tow 10-12000 lbs is a FOOL. Anybody who regularly tows knows that towing at the limit is not what half ton trucks are built for.
People always forget the weight of people and stuff in the bed as well.
Yep, I have a half ton RAM and my 23′, 5500 lb GVWR trailer is pushing the limit of the payload rating, and I certainly can’t load it up with 5 passengers and a bunch of stuff in the bed too while towing. Tow ratings are a nearly useless number (it’s useful for advertising and that’s about it). It’s payload that matters.
I use my truck about 30% of the time for towing and would never consider a full EV. On the other hand, I really want a PHEV or EREV so I can commute on 100% electric. I’d be very happy with 30-40 miles of EV range. My 1st gen Volt was good enough to do 85% of my driving on electric.
Which V6 1500 class trucks are better at hauling than tow class diesels?
Ram 1500 V6 2WD quad cab: 2360 lb payload
Ram 2500 4WD Diesel Mega Cab: 2080 lb payload
Not like-for-like specs, but if you parked them next to each other and asked anyone which could haul more mulch, how many are going to point at the 1500?
To be fair the ram 2500 with the diesel and coil springs are really an awful configuration when it comes to towing and payload specs.
Most heavy haulers need a rear sway bar.
I don’t know what they did with the coil models.
Diesel models always required big upgrades in capacity.
8 lug hubs here.
Not me.
I’m fairly skeptical of cargo ratings anyway, esp after seeing 500 lb ratings on some 90s rangers with four cylinders.
I moved 16 foot trailers with mine, once loaded with lumber.
My 2500 diesel had a full bed of concrete blocks, Amish made heavy castings.
Enough weight to make the rear wallow without a rear anti sway bar.
Being unwilling to unload and reload it, I daily drove it up a steeper than allowed driveway without it balking.
There is no substitute sometimes.
Agree with first half. Second half is a massive stretch. If you need towing capacity you can rent it for cheap and minimal effort. Moving everything you own into a house with a water tight roof for the one time it rains that year however…
If I’m already buying a vehicle in that size/weight class, why am I going to rent a DIFFERENT vehicle in the same size class when I can have that same capability by just shoving a generator on board? Renting a towing truck because the truck you own can’t tow just seems like the least environmentally friendly approach to this.
Cheap?
Past fall FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc rent and park, or reserve everything within 500 miles.
Only Penske would even offer an oncall day cab on short notice only.
Everyone else was simply no.
I’ve never had the pleasure of renting a vehicle where I could describe the process as minimal effort. It sucks and there was always pre-existing damage.
Only the U-haul was cheap.
A little weird since wouldn’t the BEV be the same thing just without the range extender? Is there they big change in architecture between the two?
Also I am assuming this also has to do with the EREV costing more then the BEV so obviously they want to sell whatever cost the most as that always seems to be the way with EV’s.
For me personally I understand the EREV’s but I prefer the none range extender BEV because for a daily driver I am sick of the maintenance ICE engines (oil change, air filters and so on) since getting the Polestar 2 I do not miss oil changes every month and a half (I commute over 90 miles a day).
The whole selling point of an EREV is the battery pack is the most expensive piece of an EV. By reducing that, we can make it cheaper. The brands (like Ram) who have hinted at “it’ll cost more cause it DOES more!” are gonna end up shooting themselves in the foot if they plan to price higher than Already Expensive EVs.
I’d have to think the BEV will need a bigger battery pack than 60-70 kWh to have a half decent range… 90-130 kWh seems more likely. But I’d think the overall engineering will be pretty close to the BEV version, but at least an EREV would be a unique offering in the market, while the BEV version is going to be just another Rivian.
EREVs promise:
Hell-to-the-yeah on all points. I firmly believe EREVs can be an end-goal on climate sustainability, not just a stepping stone. The fuel might change, but I have a feeling it’ll be the dominant powertrain of the next 20 years.
I strongly agree! I think they are the future, and have said as much.
They can’t. Unless something radically changes and we discover a physics cheat code to economically draw carbon out of the air in gigaton amounts.
Without extensive carbon capture to get to negative emissions, the world is on track to blow past 3C above the pre-industrial average. That means billions dead over the next 40 years. Take a look at what the actuaries are worried about: https://actuaries.org.uk/planetary-solvency
Scroll down to the supplementary material PDF and take a look at the risk matrix.
EREVs would’ve been an amazing transitional tech 25 years ago. They are in no way a long term solution if your goal is a sustainable climate. But they are the transitional tech we have now, so here’s hoping the football doesn’t get spiked again.
Potential efficiency of oil based vehicles has never been fully exploited, and is the obvious next step if that matters.
The theory that we can affect climate in any measurable way is still awaiting science.
It doesn’t matter with the current population growth anyway, which will inevitably self correct with rapid disease mutation.
I will take it seriously when jets get grounded.
I’m pretty sure the theory we can and have affected climate in measurable ways is pretty settled among the serious scientists. It’s the non-serious ones (and the politicians and fossil fuel lobbying groups) that are doing everything they can to sow doubt about the issue.
The data is there; too many people just choose to ignore it.
We increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere 50% from pre-industrial levels. That’s 2.4 quadrillion pounds, or 1.1 trillion metric tons. No science disagrees that this affects the climate significantly. Full stop
Affects climate? Easy guess.
Quantifying it? More difficult.
Then we need proof we can affect it deliberately, say by only restricting cars, and in a positive way.
Politicians act like this is a done deal, but no one has offered any proof, or even reasonable conjecture.
Actual legitimate scientists questioning assumptions have been redlined.
That suggests it’s uncomfortable to look at evidence.
I would like to see some, taking into account that China is producing pollution faster than others reduce it.
Otherwise, efficiency is its own reward.
Actually, we’ve got physics for a couple different solutions, with pilot plants being built. The work is engineering and scale at this point.
But aside from those points, EREVs kind of suck, right?
Not serious, of course.
Genuine question – why has no one released an EREV? Is there an engineering challenge or some other limitation those of us in the peanut gallery haven’t considered? EREVs seem like such an obvious choice for most buyers.
The answer: China is full of EREV platforms, and Europe has some too. The Nissan Rogue E-power is an EREV as well.
North America is just lagging behind.
This is why I’m hopeful of Canada both adopting EU standards and removing tariffs on Chinese vehicles. I want some EREV platforms!
The truth is, EVs needed to happen first to make EREVs palatable.
EVs painted a picture of high performance/fantastic drivability and low maintenance, but also all sorts of issues with infrastructure.
EREVs capitalize on the excellent “performance”-brand that so many EVs helped establish, while promising to solve their pitfalls.
Not to mention, BEVs have helped bring down the cost of electric vehicle technology, so now EREVs really have potential to be (relatively) affordable. (I fear the Scout won’t be, however).
That makes sense.
BEVs showed both the advantages and disadvantages of EVs.
EREVs were a solution to the disadvantages of BEVs.
Therefore, without BEVs, EREVs would be a solution to a problem that didn’t exist.
So not an engineering challenge as much as EREVs previously not having a reason to exist.
I hope the Scout EREV ends up being reasonably priced. I genuinely want one.
Haven’t battery cars driven up the cost of batteries and materials, with worse to come in electric rates, as the rest of us subsidize them with our bills?
It did temporarily drive up battery/material costs in the 2020-2022 time frame, which then caused those supply chains to rapidly grow and push down costs a lot in 2023 and after. The willingness to build extremely power hungry AI datacenters very quickly is showing that building out power infrastructure is very much possible as long as there’s a will to do so.
Since the power grid is already inadequate for the intended purpose, as California rather hilariously keeps demonstrating, it will be a long dirty, costly trip to useful battery cars.
The west side of the country especially has little power infrastructure near freeways.
With the current system of billing first customers for the grid expansion, charging stations in those locations will be powered by diesel or some other fuel in the near future.
Bah! My alma mater built a series hybrid pickup truck in the 1990’s!
(It started charge depleting above about 45 mph; batteries weren’t as good back then.)
If your needs are satisfied by the EV than then yeah, EREV is usually going to be worse. But they do a really good job of covering a much wider band of needs.
Pretty sure no one has launched a US one yet ’cause they’re for BIG vehicles and they’re going to be $$$$. The Scout in this article still has a battery the same size as a Model 3/Y, and an entire engine (and supporting hardware) and generator. The BEV version would have to add A LOT more battery to be more expensive and heavier.
Still need to start somewhere, and if consumers snap them up we’ll see them move downsize and downmarket.
Yeah, cost is probably the limiting factor in the US market given what we like to drive. Scout’s website says “under $60,000” but I suspect $70k+ is more realistic.
I could justify spending that much on an EREV pickup, but I currently have an ICE pickup for towing/hauling/long trips and an EV for local driving/short trips. It would be nice to have one vehicle that can do everything. Plus, it would save on insurance, which is a non-trivial expense. I’m not sure how many buyers are in a situation where a $70k EREV makes logical sense, though.
Correction to your question: Why has no one released a EREV *in the US market post-2020*?
The Chinese market has a ton of EREVs, which have been exploding in popularity in the luxury/full-size SUV segment since 2023; this year saw nearly every Chinese NEV brand in the space release at least one. They aren’t as popular in Europe yet, as EREVs are subject to the same import tariffs as BEVs, and range/size demands in that market are much smaller anyways.
The fact that the US, probably the most suitable market in the world for EREVs, doesn’t have a modern EREV on the market yet (and at least until late next year) illustrates how far behind North America is in EV tech. It is one of the reasons why there’s so much ‘China ahead, US/EU/Japan behind’ alarmism.
One of the reasons why is policy; both US federal and state CARB programs gave far less incentives to PHEVs and EREVs than pure EVs, but EREVs with decent range aren’t actually much cheaper than pure BEVs now that battery prices aren’t insanely high anymore. I think this policy was suitable for the 2010s when high battery prices were the dominant factor in designing an EV, so they needed to discourage lousy ICE-dominant compliance EREVs designed to lazily farm credits. However in the 2020s post Tesla Model 3/Y, the public’s perception of EVs changed and component costs fell once things started to scale. From ~2021 onwards, the policy should’ve been amended to allow EREVs with over 80-100mi of range to receive closer to the full BEV incentives.
Hmm, EERVs and ICE maintenance. Since the ICE is only used part-time, I wonder if the maintenance intervals will shift from mileage-based markers to time-based markers, like boats and their running-hours-gauges. That will take some getting used to, from both a user-perspective and from the vehicles system monitoring and notifications systems.
It’ll just be a light on the dash that will account for a number of factors. I myself change my i3’s oil once every 2 years (but I’m sure to run the engine for at least 20 minutes every month)
I wonder if they can have a way to have these range extenders run like once a week? My home generator runs on a schedule to run for like 30 mins every Saturday wonder if they could do something like that with EREV’s to just kick on at least once a week while you are driving. As I said in my other comment you are going to have a lot of people that it will most likely never kick on for and won’t do oil changes because “it wasn’t used”
PHEVs already have such protocols that will run the gas engine every so often to circulate and heat the oil as well as burn through gas in the tank before it goes stale
That would make the most logical sense my tractor at home is all based off engine hours when I do maintenance. Would be dumb to change it every 5-7k miles and all you did was commute they whole time and the range extender never even kicked on. My concern would be with the lazy people who only run on battery and don’t change the oil for 2+ years because “oh the range extender never kicked on so the oil should be fine”
BYD makes PHEVs and EREVs, but all their hybrids have separate odometers for EV and hybrid mode, and their dealers in China schedule ICE servicing based on the hybrid odometer. Though it’s really common for other brands to demand servicing every 3000 or 6000 miles, even when many penny-pinching Chinese drivers are driving their EREVs solely in EV mode, 60 miles at a time.
But this is essentially a German car so will maintenance be less complex? Haha if they do make EREV’s just as reliable as BEVs and actually cheaper I might hop on board but right now until I see that it seems they are going to make the BEV cheaper then the EREV will cost more because they slapped the range extender in there.
I guess I’ll really see when the fiance and I take a road trip down to Florida from NW Indiana in the polestar 2 to see how bad my range anxiety will be and if I will yearn for a range extender haha.
Other note it is nice the oil changes shouldn’t be as frequent as a ICE car but as I am getting older I am having less drive wanting to wrench on my daily vs the weekend cruiser/fun cars.
I just took delivery of my Mazda 6E EREV. A LFP 28kWh battery + a 1.5L range extender, with a combined range of more than 600 miles! Apart from towing, all 10 of your points are absolutely valid for my use case (20% city, 80% highways); I wanted the EV experience without the anxiety of ending up at a busted charger or long ass queues. And I’m glad to be a card-carrying member of the DT EREV cult 🙂
EV range is just 100 miles, but its more than enough for two days of commuting, if I forget to charge I just wait until the generator kicks in. In fact I had to force myself to deplete the battery so the engine could complete the break-in cycle!
Hi Kevin, congratulations! Are you coming to us from China?
Yep, the Autopian is one of the few English sites that work reliably behind the Great Firewall, especially when the VPNs conk out!
“One of the few English sites that works reliably behind the Great Firewall.”
I think using that quote as a byline for a little bit under the site’s logo would be just wonderful.
Maybe
Maybe
Yes
Depending on implementation
No, hybrids experience more cycling and will wear out faster for equivalent chemistries
Yes
Yes
Maybe
Maybe
EREVs are incredibly implementation dependent for them to work how people dream they do. They, like all engineering solutions, are not a silver bullet, and we each version will only be as good as what they manage to get to the show floor.
Yeah. I think the idea is great in theory- “The best of all worlds”.
In practice, I believe an EREV pickup truck that *actually matches* the hauling specs of its ICE or BEV brethren is going to be heavy, complex and expensive. They will remain a niche in the market, a luxury truck for those who can afford ‘the best’.
The things David never mentions when boosting EREVs as the solution to electric pickup trucks, is that the Scout with Harvester tows 50% less than its full-battery equivalent. It also houses a 60-70kWh battery.
Based on the price of other large VAG products with similar-sized batteries, the Scout is guaranteed to be an expensive truck before the range extender is even added.
So we’re looking at a $70,000+ half-ton truck, that only tows 5000lbs.
While I’d argue 5000lb is plenty for how much most people actually tow, we all know that’s not how the truck market works.
Sure, you might have to stop to have lunch and recharge, but at least a Lightning will eventually get you and your 10,000lb load to Grandma’s house.
EREVs may have a different set of compromises VS an EV, but they are still heavily compromised.
This. So much this.
Generator drivetrains should have longer maintenance intervals for two reasons:
-They’re not always operating
-When they are, they are running steady state in their optimal efficiency range
I’ve had first-hand experience even with my own vehicle that steady state work can extend intervals. I’ve been in fleet maintenance for 20 years.
But even my own anecdotal evidence of my 2016 Sorento. I change my oil at 5000km intervals and the oil comes out black with heavy smell of gasoline. The engine is also audibly noisier by change time.
But, when I did a trip out west, I changed the oil before leaving and dropped it again on return, 7300km later, and it came out still golden. The engine cruised steayd and didn’t even heat cycle for 38 hours in each direction.
All of this to say, your EREV maintenance intervals will likely be based off of “time passed” as opposed to running hours. So a yearly oil change or changing the coolant every 5 years still isn’t going to be a cost killer.
I like the idea of a EREV but I wonder how much maintenance the ICE will need if it actually only is used a few time a year or a month. I also hate all the ICE maintenance so I am switching out stuff like snowblower, mower etc to battery and when I am shoping for my next vehicle I may want a EREV.
This may indeed make business sense. I was already on the fence about Scout. Great prototypes, but too wide for serious off-road work. If they cancel the all electric model, I’ll be asking for my $100 deposit back. I still have deposits on the Aptera and the Rivian R2 with the latter most likely to make it to market first.
Sadly nearly everything is too wide for serious off-road work anymore.
would anyone be taking a new Scout for serious off roading, though? An all electric Scout to boot? I smell shenaningans
I would take and EREV one off road, absolutely. Not to the off road park for rock crawling but overlanding and trails yes. I do not thing I will be affording one anytime soon.
I was more concerned with the OP’s pearl-clutching.
Auction cars are great for hooning regardless of trail width
Makes total sense. the EV should have come second always. The world has a few BEV trucks that people are already sorta “meh” on these days. No one has a range extended hybrid truck yet.
I agree. Most pre-orders were EREV anyway.
Why does Volkswagen need another brand? Scout is like GM’s Saturn for Volkswagen…
Good move on Volkswagen to switch to hybrid. EV is getting smashed, anyway.
The VW brand is probably strongest among boomer hippies (potential ID Buzz buyers wishing the SWB version came to the US) and lovers of sporty euro hatchbacks and wagons (who don’t really get any love from the current VW lineup).
VW is the last brand on the mind of anyone into trucks/overlanding/cool looking rugged vehicles. If this were Subaru of GMC making this thing I’d agree a separate brand wouldn’t be needed, but I think renaming it Scout is the right call… this is a new segment that doesn’t fit into VW, Porsche, Audi… International might be the only other good option under their existing corporate umbrella!
I wonder if it was initially done to break any sense of stigma of VW / Diesel / EVs, and break the connection to the current VW ID-series which doesn’t appear to have gotten off the ground well in the US market – and create a premium EV-feel. It seems a bit of a slash-and-burn strategy.
Yeah the ID series is all SUV/van shapes, but with absolutely zero offroad credibility… they’re going for more of a mainstream high tech vibe (yay capacitive touch everything :-/). I love our RWD Buzz but it’s not a candidate for an overlander… the most rugged thing about it is the interior.
Their other cars outside of the GTI don’t have much of a strong brand identity beyond maybe “cleanly styled, high value”.
Shame as the Touareg had been a solid entry into the Paris Dakar that American’s never felt was big enough or had enough brand cachet for its pricetag.
The Buzz is for boomers with $$$$’s. The hippies (me once upon a time) will wait for the obvious and dramatic depreciation to occur and buy them in 3 to 4 years. I’m guessing about 25 to 30k used. Then we will convert them to campers for trips of 100 miles from home.