4-Cylinder Harvester EREV engine confirmed by CEO Scott! + 0-60mph, range, payload, towing specs discussions

[Mr._Bill]

I want a Terra Harvester, but I'm going to wait and see what actually rolls off the production line. I'm skeptical that they can accomplish what they want to achieve without putting the generator up front. I would prefer it there, instead of stuffed underneath.

 

[E90400K]

I want a Terra Harvester, but I'm going to wait and see what actually rolls off the production line. I'm skeptical that they can accomplish what they want to achieve without putting the generator up front. I would prefer it there, instead of stuffed underneath.

I see the rear placement as too big of an engineering compromise. Any engine is going to have to lay flat or be a boxer architecture. Then there is the reduction in tongue weight and resultant lower trailer weight limits. Cooling system requirements. Ground clearance and under-body protection. And service accessibility; I guess the pickup box gets removed for service and the Traveler has an access cover?

I don't see it happening.

 

[Mousehunter]

Just an indirect observation. My old Dodge truck had the fuel filter on the fuel pump in the tank. I talked with fleet managers at the time - they knew it was an issue. Pulling the bed was a lot faster than dropping the fuel tank. Pulling the bed was a couple of plugs and 4 bolts IIRC. Modern trucks probably have a few more plugs.

Of course, I used to have a bug - got it down to 15 minutes to pull the motor to work on it. Oh for simple vehicles. In all fairness - I did pull that motor way too often.

 

[E90400K]

I figured it out. Scout should move the Harvester to the frunk (where it belongs) and create a trunk in the bed (a la the Ridgeline) and call it the "Bedunk" for the Terra and the "Brunk" for the Traveler.

 

[Timmdodge60]

I figured it out. Scout should move the Harvester to the frunk (where it belongs) and create a trunk in the bed (a la the Ridgeline) and call it the "Bedunk" for the Terra and the "Brunk" for the Traveler.

You beat me to it. I was just thinking of this also. And for the BEV versions, you get both of these dry and secure storage compartments.

 

[Pogeegitz]

I see the rear placement as too big of an engineering compromise. Any engine is going to have to lay flat or be a boxer architecture. Then there is the reduction in tongue weight and resultant lower trailer weight limits. Cooling system requirements. Ground clearance and under-body protection. And service accessibility; I guess the pickup box gets removed for service and the Traveler has an access cover?

I don't see it happening.

I've heard some claims in other forums that the location of the Harvester isn't the reason for the reduction in towing capacity, but has to do with a different battery chemistry used in conjunction with the Harvester that isn't capable of as much power output. Anyone know which is true?

 

[E90400K]

I've heard some claims in other forums that the location of the Harvester isn't the reason for the reduction in towing capacity, but has to do with a different battery chemistry used in conjunction with the Harvester that isn't capable of as much power output. Anyone know which is true?

The battery chemistry has most to do with cost and energy density. I doubt there is much difference in instantaneous current delivery between Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) and Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC). The lower-cost, less energy dense LFP does better with short, numerous charging cycles, which it would see in an EREV hybrid application. The lower energy density is offset by the gas hybrid generation.

 

[E90400K]

Just an indirect observation. My old Dodge truck had the fuel filter on the fuel pump in the tank. I talked with fleet managers at the time - they knew it was an issue. Pulling the bed was a lot faster than dropping the fuel tank. Pulling the bed was a couple of plugs and 4 bolts IIRC. Modern trucks probably have a few more plugs.

Of course, I used to have a bug - got it down to 15 minutes to pull the motor to work on it. Oh for simple vehicles. In all fairness - I did pull that motor way too often.

Integrated in-tank fuel filters are common industry practice these days. I have a 19-year-old car with 400,000+ miles on it with an in-tank fuel filter integrated with the fuel pickup. I've never had to replace the filter. The engineering is just better.

 

[Timmdodge60]

Integrated in-tank fuel filters are common industry practice these days. I have a 19-year-old car with 400,000+ miles on it with an in-tank fuel filter integrated with the fuel pickup. I've never had to replace the filter. The engineering is just better.

Apparently, the in-fuel tank location is the best place for the pump because the gasoline acts as a lubricant and coolant and provides sound deadening. It is also the most efficient location for pump operationally, thus increasing the life of the pump. And is the safest location too. They normally outlast the life of the tank or vehicle.

 

[Mousehunter]

Oh it might be a good location for the pump and filter-but kind of sucks when you randomly get questionable gas. I never went over 15k miles without some problems. Dealers would not fix them under warranty - always needed $200 worth of injector cleaner. Eventually figured out it was the filter - went through 3 or 4 of them. Towards the end, I had less than 70k miles on the truck, and it would leave me on the side of the road if I tried anything past a 2hr trip (or it needed another $750 fuel filter/pump replacement). Most of my trips were just under 2hrs, so most of the times no problems - but over 6 months, 4 trips on the side of the road was just too much. Other than that, and the dealerships-loved the truck. Overlanded hundreds of trips with it-just mostly shorter ones.

Funny part was it would die, and 30 minutes later it would run again. I think it was 4 trips in a row-can only remember it dying y2k eve in S. Texas on the way home from Mexico. Died on the way back to Austin from Dallas, died on a date to the beach (we ended up going to a party in Austin instead-and she hooked up with someone else). Next truck-no love for that one - sold under warranty for a great bath. Truck after that, lasted 15 years-but made the short bed mistake so it ended up being a negative life changer - shitty at overlanding.

I miss overlanding. My Jeep is good-but it is far from dependable. Loud, and engine trouble most every trip.

 

[TheConedCat]

maybe they could have a v6 or even a v8

 

[Chuckles]

maybe they could have a v6 or even a v8

This is real out of the box thinking. I don't think this has ever been brought up before!

 

[TheConedCat]

This is real out of the box thinking. I don't think this has ever been brought up before!

Yeah I mean the Jeep Wrangler already has a V6 as the base engine and the Rubicon 392 has a slightly detuned (it has 485 hp in normal trim, the Wrangler has 470 hp so that's like 15 less) 6.4L V8 from the Dodge Challenger and Charger. Maybe they could have it optional on other trims but stock on the off-road/performance oriented model (Wrangler Rubicon 392, Bronco Raptor). I'd like it if they named that special trim level "Dune edition".