Search results

Or they put the improved cells and get 400 ish. Kind of like they did with the M3 long range. Most flattish low snow states don't need 4wd.

I think you are mostly right except for the little demand levers they are pulling. The RWD performance will be surprisingly good. I would consider it if they kept the 4ws and the range, but if I recall they are planning on less range.

I am simply saying that the $80-100k plus truck market is nearing saturation. The % of people that can afford it simply doesn't exist at 200k units per year. Sure your have a buddy that paid $95k for a Silverado, but look at the big data. The lesser trucks will be discounted first, then...

It is a choice of priorities. To each their own. FWIW I could pay cash tomorrow.

My wife and I gross $250k and there is not a path to a $1000 payment for us. The pool of folks that can afford that is only so deep. No matter how you slice it, $80k is way more than the average wannabee truck owner can or should spend. Tesla won't make 250,000 per year at that rate...

That would work but the connector won't let the vehicle move and I don't want to have a plug draped over the side of the truck. I believe that safety is hard circuitry. It would need to be tricked somehow. You should be able to bypass the connector and wall charger all together.

Do share. On the CT I was envisioning a intake/exhaust board that the tonneau could interface with. You would hardly see it at all.

This is 170 lbs and can produce 7000 max running watts which could provide full power to the onboard charger. Obviously a purpose built fixed generator could be lighter and quieter than this, but it gives you an idea of the cost. Double or triple for detailing for sound and vibration...

My luck I would snag the wipper. Anybody have to replace on yet?

Superchargers are too scarce in rural Utah Idaho.... basically the west. Backtracking to the highway is not feasible.

A nice generator makes about 60 decibels. 20 kw is too much. This would be just for the 10 trips per year when 123 kwhr is not enough. The range extender battery heavy is not removable. The harvester concept is better with current battery tech.

This is why I love the small range extender. Low weight penalty, never truly bricked. Even a little fuel cell would work. Less noise and emissions equipment.

A 7000 w inverter generator can run 18 hours at full load with 14.5 gallon tank. So 18 hrs x 20 mph generator run time is 360 miles operation. Add back your 350 mile bev only pack you are 710 miles between charge stops. Granted this is not continuous driving. Not super efficient...

It is 150. And I think it will have enough tank to run 15 hours. You just can't drive more than 500 before it needs time to catch up. Just a guess though.

you first :)

There would need to be some sophisticated circuitry to be sure, but the voltages should match close without a lot of effort. Heavy regen braking while running the range extender comes to mind as a problem. Scout is figuring it out, unless they are putting in a larger motor than I think...

The point of a small range extender is you don't need to try to match the drain, you just have to slow the rate of drain while in operation. I am not an EE but if the onboard charger exceeds battery pack voltage it will flow to the battery pack. If it is used by the CT before it gets to...

The Scout Harvester concept is intriguing. It has the ability to add 150 miles of range to a 350 mile range BEV pack. I want to hear more. How big, what ICE tech? I am thinking this is the ~ 12 HP ICE that I have been lobbying for forever. It just needs to be big enough to take...

At some point gen 3 batteries will be installed. I am anxious to see if the weight changes and if they will software limit etc.

So how do weights compare be against other CT. Are they installing different batteries?