Moderate rock crawling- how much protection will the underbody protection provide?

[Todd C]

I plan to use my Scout off road, not just as a daily driver. I often do trails that make full use of the underbody protection in my 2021 Bronco, and have in all of my past vehicles. It’s not uncommon to drag the skid plates over rocks, when they’re used as they were truly intended- rugged off-roaders.
With that being said, how protected will the battery and other underbody components be? I obviously don’t want to damage crucial components- especially the battery. Can I confidently use it exactly as I do an ICE off-roader, in what can be described as moderate+ crawling?

 

[Yamapro]

I’ve seen zero indications that the Scout will have any capabilities anywhere near the Bronco. I’m sure the whole truck can be skid plated. Honestly the only item worth mentioning are the potential lockers. My personal opinion is that the company is pandering the Scout name to push this vehicle when it’s a polar opposite from the brand’s heritage.

 

[Hedrock]

There’s also the claim to expect a front sway bar disconnect with the locker. If that’s the case I’d expect at least some skids.

Marketing material showed rock rails, and they’ve mentioned a factory winch option as a possibility.

 

[PMurphy]

I think answering the question of factory available off road protection for the battery/vulnerable motor/control components is important for Scout to address sooner rather than later. Scout has positioned itself as an off road capable vehicle but the initial promo vehicles appeared to only have plastic aero trays underneath the vehicles. We know rock rails were shown as an accessory (though did not appear to be designed for heavy duty use). It is too early to draw significant conclusions from the demo vehicles but more details on protection would be appreciated.

Not really sure how much/what to protect on an EV. On ICE vehicles the oil pan/tranny/fuel tank/diff’s are obvious areas prone to damage. Except for the diff’s a EV should has less exposure below the floor pan. IF the factory response is less than acceptable for heavy duty use the after market will quickly step in to fill the void. Most hard core off-roaders I know replace much of the factory protection over time with more heavy duty aftermarket parts which provide additional protection beyond the stock factory designs.

 

[Todd C]

PMurphy, I completely agree with your entire comment. I’m very interested in both Scout’s response, and in the aftermarket availability. The latter of which can be expected to be plentiful.

I’d also say that this early in the preproduction phase, we can expect any number of the plastic pieces to be metal, by the time production rolls around. Possibly even by trim level, or as options. Either way, it’ll be interesting (and very important) to see how this play out.

I think those of us who are looking at these as legitimate successors to the original Scout will base our potential for purchasing directly or heavily on how we are able to use the vehicle in its factory form.

 

[Todd C]

Something I want to add here, that’s on a different topic, but that may be an indication of Scout Motors’ intent, with respect to capability and off-road use. I hope my observation isn’t wrong.

During the Motor Trend interview with CEO Scott Keogh spoke extensively of the importance of the Harvester. He went into great detail about why it was important, and this was as a means to make the vehicle appealing to a more broad group of vehicle buyers. However, the glaring omission from this entire conversation was any mention of the need to have this extended range capability for extended off-road use, and for off-road buyers. Not once was this mentioned.

That’s a huge concern in my eyes, as it calls their level of dedication to off-road use into question. To me, his responses indicate a desire to appeal to more (generic) buyers, but not necessarily to more off-road buyers.

If I were asked this question, my first answer would have been that this is critical to make this vehicle visible for true overland and extended off-road use, which is a core priority for these vehicles. Maybe this type of use isn’t quite the priority that many of us hope it is, after all? I’d love to hear a response from Scott on this.

So for this reason, I think that topic might shed some light on how important this topic is, for off-roaders.

 

[1966sportop]

I’ve seen zero indications that the Scout will have any capabilities anywhere near the Bronco. I’m sure the whole truck can be skid plated. Honestly the only item worth mentioning are the potential lockers. My personal opinion is that the company is pandering the Scout name to push this vehicle when it’s a polar opposite from the brand’s heritage.

So that’s quite an opinion you have on the lack of off-road ability of the scout and it seems you are a big fan of the broncos. With 35’s, lockers and crawl ability of an ev drivetrain how exactly is the bronco so much more capable then the new scout? FYI I’m not saying the scout will be but based on the specs they are aiming for it will be as good or better than a v-6 bronco.

 

[swambeach]

Something I want to add here, that’s on a different topic, but that may be an indication of Scout Motors’ intent, with respect to capability and off-road use. I hope my observation isn’t wrong.

During the Motor Trend interview with CEO Scott Keogh spoke extensively of the importance of the Harvester. He went into great detail about why it was important, and this was as a means to make the vehicle appealing to a more broad group of vehicle buyers. However, the glaring omission from this entire conversation was any mention of the need to have this extended range capability for extended off-road use, and for off-road buyers. Not once was this mentioned.

That’s a huge concern in my eyes, as it calls their level of dedication to off-road use into question. To me, his responses indicate a desire to appeal to more (generic) buyers, but not necessarily to more off-road buyers.

If I were asked this question, my first answer would have been that this is critical to make this vehicle visible for true overland and extended off-road use, which is a core priority for these vehicles. Maybe this type of use isn’t quite the priority that many of us hope it is, after all? I’d love to hear a response from Scott on this.

So for this reason, I think that topic might shed some light on how important this topic is, for off-roaders.

Jerry cans... travel with extra fuel for overlanding and extended off-roading just as you would with practically any other overlanding adventure rig.

If I'm doing the math correctly, the generator engine will produce electricity to move the vehicle about 23 MPG. Carry 2 five-gallon jerry cans and you've got another 200 miles + of range.

 

[Yamapro]

So that’s quite an opinion you have on the lack of off-road ability of the scout and it seems you are a big fan of the broncos. With 35’s, lockers and crawl ability of an ev drivetrain how exactly is the bronco so much more capable then the new scout? FYI I’m not saying the scout will be but based on the specs they are aiming for it will be as good or better than a v-6 bronco.

I currently own a Bronco 2 door and a Bronco Raptor. I have owned Scouts as well as over a dozen Jeeps in the past. My opinions are based on everything that has been provided by the company. The vehicles approach and departure aren’t great, ground clearance looks dismal. With Jeeps and the Bronco there is an endless variety for aftermarket suspension systems. This being electric and or hybrid adds the battery weight issues. With a 4cyl engine, “on the rear axle”,as well as electric motor on the f/r driveline, do we really expect to be able to modify the vehicle to be actually capable? I just know that the vehicle shown won’t touch trails that a Jeep Rubicon or Bronco would tackle with little trouble. Ford claims my wife’s Expedition is off road capable as well but I am smart enough to realize that it would be destroyed on basic trails that we off road the Jeep and Bronco on.

 

[Todd C]

Swambeach, you’re correct, which is why I’ve reserved a Harvester-equipped Scout. That’s the whole idea of why the Harvester makes this a viable off road and overland vehicle.

My comment and question, though, is purely of the company’s and CEO’s motives with respect to its trail users. This use case wasn’t mentioned in the interview, which has me questioning why not.

To me, for a vehicle that follows the true Scout heritage, this should be at least somewhere in the noise, as a priority, along with appealing to the broader audience that was mentioned. I would have expected it to have therefore been in the forefront of his mind on this topic, and at least somewhere in that conversation. I’m just questioning why it didn’t seem to be.

 

[Todd C]

1966sportop and yamapro, my expectation, or at least hope, is that the Scout will be somewhere in between your two expectations. With decent underbody protection, it could potentially get somewhere in the ballpark of some of Bronco’s stock configurations.​

​

However, I don’t see it exceeding Bronco’s or Jeep’s top capabilities, for a handful of reasons. And it doesn’t necessarily need to. I also don’t see it being as dismal as yamapro’s assessment. I’d like to see it at least hold its own with a stock 4-door Bronco Sasquatch and 4-door Wrangler Rubicon. I think those would be reasonable apples-to-apples aspirations.​

​

 

[swambeach]

Swambeach, you’re correct, which is why I’ve reserved a Harvester-equipped Scout. That’s the whole idea of why the Harvester makes this a viable off road and overland vehicle.

My comment and question, though, is purely of the company’s and CEO’s motives with respect to its trail users. This use case wasn’t mentioned in the interview, which has me questioning why not.

To me, for a vehicle that follows the true Scout heritage, this should be at least somewhere in the noise, as a priority, along with appealing to the broader audience that was mentioned. I would have expected it to have therefore been in the forefront of his mind on this topic, and at least somewhere in that conversation. I’m just questioning why it didn’t seem to be.

I hear you brother! These dudes are so focused on the broad market and selling vehicles... the conversation seemed to be stuck on the Midwest market mentality. Let's face it, we are the minority in our mindset to utilize our vehicles for true recreation. That being said, I agree with you that Scout has been pandering to the recreational market and for the CEO to make no mention of the EREV application for overlanding off grid camping is a miss on his part... he could have really pumped the satellite internet capabilities, potential accessories, full size spare, etc. to make us feel like we are a meaningful part of the market share.

 

[Hedrock]

1966sportop and yamapro, my expectation, or at least hope, is that the Scout will be somewhere in between your two expectations. With decent underbody protection, it could potentially get somewhere in the ballpark of some of Bronco’s stock configurations.​

​

However, I don’t see it exceeding Bronco’s or Jeep’s top capabilities, for a handful of reasons. And it doesn’t necessarily need to. I also don’t see it being as dismal as yamapro’s assessment. I’d like to see it at least hold its own with a stock 4-door Bronco Sasquatch and 4-door Wrangler Rubicon. I think those would be reasonable apples-to-apples aspirations.​

​

Given the size and weight differences, I wouldn’t expect it to match them. The break over angle is likely to be significantly worse (if they keep the battery fairing level with the rear axle like the prototypes) as is the departure angle.

Plus, the actual body on Traveler would appear to be way wider - vehicle width excluding mirrors on Bronco and Jeep measures to the fenders, which stick out considerably from the actual sheet metal. Makes going tight places and corners far easier.

Plus EVs are notoriously heavy. R1 is in the 6500-7k range.

…all that said, I’d bet it’ll handle up to level 6 or 7 difficulty trails just fine, minus my concerns about break over angle. I’m hoping that there won’t be a logging road it can’t conquer, but don’t expect it’ll do something like Rubicon without a lot of metal contact.

EDIT: of course until they finalize the design this is all just a stupid wild ass guess

 

[Todd C]

Hedrock, totally I agree. I was surprised to see they’re the sizes of an Expedition and F-150! Within inches, which I’m a bit bummed to find out. I was expecting, like my old Scout, a mid-size. I suppose the proper comparison would really be the upcoming Expedition Tremor. I suspect for capability it will fall between that and a 4-door basic Bronco, in reality.

 

[1966sportop]

I currently own a Bronco 2 door and a Bronco Raptor. I have owned Scouts as well as over a dozen Jeeps in the past. My opinions are based on everything that has been provided by the company. The vehicles approach and departure aren’t great, ground clearance looks dismal. With Jeeps and the Bronco there is an endless variety for aftermarket suspension systems. This being electric and or hybrid adds the battery weight issues. With a 4cyl engine, “on the rear axle”,as well as electric motor on the f/r driveline, do we really expect to be able to modify the vehicle to be actually capable? I just know that the vehicle shown won’t touch trails that a Jeep Rubicon or Bronco would tackle with little trouble. Ford claims my wife’s Expedition is off road capable as well but I am smart enough to realize that it would be destroyed on basic trails that we off road the Jeep and Bronco on.

Dismal…really? I think in st

I currently own a Bronco 2 door and a Bronco Raptor. I have owned Scouts as well as over a dozen Jeeps in the past. My opinions are based on everything that has been provided by the company. The vehicles approach and departure aren’t great, ground clearance looks dismal. With Jeeps and the Bronco there is an endless variety for aftermarket suspension systems. This being electric and or hybrid adds the battery weight issues. With a 4cyl engine, “on the rear axle”,as well as electric motor on the f/r driveline, do we really expect to be able to modify the vehicle to be actually capable? I just know that the vehicle shown won’t touch trails that a Jeep Rubicon or Bronco would tackle with little trouble. Ford claims my wife’s Expedition is off road capable as well but I am smart enough to realize that it would be destroyed on basic trails that we off road the Jeep and Bronco on.

dismal….really? In stock form will you run the rubicon, no but neither will most vehicles and most people don’t truly wheel their rigs anyway. I like broncos and jeeps hell I just saw a brand new Suzuki jimny in Mexico and wish the were available here but to bash a vehicle that is 2 years out with very little technical information leads me to believe you just don’t like ev’s or something else.