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?