Official: Fisker Karma EPA certified: 52 mpge, 32-mile electric range, 20 mpg on gas
10-19-11, 08:23 PM
#1
Official: Fisker Karma EPA certified: 52 mpge, 32-mile electric range, 20 mpg on gas
Fisker Karma gets EPA certified: 52 mpge, 32-mile electric range, 20 mpg on gas
Yikes. The EPA has finally released its official fuel economy rating for the Fisker Karma, and it's not high: just 52 MPGe, an all-electric range of 32 miles and 20 miles per gallon on gasoline when the battery runs dry. This is well below the numbers that Fisker reps were bandying about in past years: 67.2 mpge and an all-electric range of 50 miles.
American conservatives – who really have it out for plug-in hybrids that the federal government helped fund with loan guarantees – are already calling the Karma's numbers a "flop." It's kind of hard to say if that's the right word to use since luxury car buyers probably won't be turned off by these figures – 20 mpg is nothing surprising for the class – but we agree that the PHEV needed to be more efficient when running on gasoline to truly impress us on the green front. At least a 32-mile electric range isn't all that shabby, and company CEO and co-founder Henrik Fisker said he still thinks most drivers will beat the EPA estimate and be able to wring 50 electric miles out of their $95,900-plus cars.
Whatever they are, the numbers do contain some good news for Fisker. With EPA certification now in the bag, sales can officialy begin. Fisker said the first sales marked a "major milestone" and that his company "can deliver many more of these truly amazing automobiles to customers during the remainder of 2011 and for many years to come." The first 39 Karmas should be rolling out "now-ish" to dealers for use at demonstration vehicles and the first customer vehicles should arrive from Finland in about two weeks.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/19/f...lectric-range/
10-20-11, 06:51 AM
#2
So, just so we're clear...
I can drive this plug-in hybrid to/from work every day of the week (12-15 miles each way), buring exactly ZERO gallons of gas, plugging it in each night and charging it during the off-peak hours.
And, on the weekends, I can take this same car, and wring out it's 400+ HP on the twisty bits, traveling as far as I want, being able to refuel using existing infrastructure.
And this is a "flop"?
This is the kind of hybrid people will WANT to buy. Not just to feel environmentally superior...not just to use the HOV lanes...but will buy it because they want to drive it!
I can drive this plug-in hybrid to/from work every day of the week (12-15 miles each way), buring exactly ZERO gallons of gas, plugging it in each night and charging it during the off-peak hours.
And, on the weekends, I can take this same car, and wring out it's 400+ HP on the twisty bits, traveling as far as I want, being able to refuel using existing infrastructure.
And this is a "flop"?
This is the kind of hybrid people will WANT to buy. Not just to feel environmentally superior...not just to use the HOV lanes...but will buy it because they want to drive it!
10-20-11, 07:21 AM
#4
This car looks amazing. Well a flop in relative terms I assume. If they were expecting over 67mpg and only received a 52, but then again we know the EPA thing is so accurate... Again, purple who spend this much on a car won't really be bothered. More performance and exclusivity than the bluetec S class while seeming more environmentally conscious is winning all the way around.
10-20-11, 10:59 AM
#7
So, just so we're clear...
I can drive this plug-in hybrid to/from work every day of the week (12-15 miles each way), buring exactly ZERO gallons of gas, plugging it in each night and charging it during the off-peak hours.
And, on the weekends, I can take this same car, and wring out it's 400+ HP on the twisty bits, traveling as far as I want, being able to refuel using existing infrastructure.
And this is a "flop"?
This is the kind of hybrid people will WANT to buy. Not just to feel environmentally superior...not just to use the HOV lanes...but will buy it because they want to drive it!
I can drive this plug-in hybrid to/from work every day of the week (12-15 miles each way), buring exactly ZERO gallons of gas, plugging it in each night and charging it during the off-peak hours.
And, on the weekends, I can take this same car, and wring out it's 400+ HP on the twisty bits, traveling as far as I want, being able to refuel using existing infrastructure.
And this is a "flop"?
This is the kind of hybrid people will WANT to buy. Not just to feel environmentally superior...not just to use the HOV lanes...but will buy it because they want to drive it!
i dont think so:
However, if you do go choose to go forever, your Karma will be relying on the maximum 235-hp output of its engine-spun generator. Which, even if it pads the battery's state-of-charge a bit during cruising (the engine-generator follows your power needs, not your right foot) probably won't deliver much sizzle given the car's estimated 4100-lb curb weight. On the other hand, those first fifty miles offer some interesting possibilities.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1bLVySDCm
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1bLVySDCm
Offering some 241 hp of electrical power, you can stealthily whine to 60 mph in a stated - and stately -- 7.9 seconds...which is 4-banger Camry territory.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1bLW8bezb
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1bLW8bezb
It is horrible... lol.
Trending Topics
10-20-11, 11:08 AM
#8
This car looks amazing. Well a flop in relative terms I assume. If they were expecting over 67mpg and only received a 52, but then again we know the EPA thing is so accurate... Again, purple who spend this much on a car won't really be bothered. More performance and exclusivity than the bluetec S class while seeming more environmentally conscious is winning all the way around.
This car gets:
- 32 miles EV electricity range (takes 10 hours to recharge in 120v mode, 6hrs in 240v mode).
- 20 MPG after than 32 miles is out.
20 MPG for 4cly 235hp engine that makes this car slower than any Camry sold in the USA? Thats just horrible.
Lexus GS450h has 340hp, goes 0-60 in 5.6s and gets 30 MPG.
10-20-11, 11:11 AM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Not impressive at all, it will flop. It is very expensive, not very efficient, and if you do try to use it as a sports sedan once the battery is depleted your talking about a GM turbo 4 cylinder that was in the Solstice. Of course some celebrities will buy it and drive it claiming they are saving the world but I don't see it getting much market beyond that. 20mpg for the ICE is worse then what many cars in its class get with V6 and even V8s in a few cases. It is a good looking car and interesting but an answer to a question nobody was asking.
Please don't tell me buyers of this car will be getting a big gov tax credit paid for by taxpayers.
Please don't tell me buyers of this car will be getting a big gov tax credit paid for by taxpayers.
10-20-11, 11:58 AM
#10
Pole Position
4Cyl engine has nothing to do with powertrain. ICE never drives the wheels so it could have 1000hp it would not matter since its only supplying batteries. After e range is used Karma can travel 250 miles using ICE as generator. I don't know how bit is the fuel tank actually.
Karma can hit 60 in 6 seconds if put in sport mode.
Karma can hit 60 in 6 seconds if put in sport mode.
10-20-11, 01:38 PM
#11
4Cyl engine has nothing to do with powertrain. ICE never drives the wheels so it could have 1000hp it would not matter since its only supplying batteries. After e range is used Karma can travel 250 miles using ICE as generator. I don't know how bit is the fuel tank actually.
Karma can hit 60 in 6 seconds if put in sport mode.
Karma can hit 60 in 6 seconds if put in sport mode.
After 32 miles, your car is powered by ICE which gets 20 MPG and goes 0-60 in 7.9s.
Thats terrible.
Since ICE is what powers the electric motors, I am not sure how can it not matter? When you press gas, it is ICE that will spin faster and rpms will rise to the top. How exactly do you think this works? Fact that it doesnt directly power the wheels is just hinderance, as extra part in equation (motor) has its own power losses and as result, you end up with car that gets 20 MPG and that is slower than any Camry.
10-20-11, 05:57 PM
#12
The Fisker Karma electric car, developed mainly with your tax money so that a bunch of rich VC’s wouldn’t have to risk any real money, has rolled out with an nominal EPA MPGe of 52.
Not bad? Unfortunately, it’s a sham. This figure is calculated using the grossly flawed EPA process that substantially underestimates the amount of fossil fuels required to power the electric car, as I showed in great depth in an earlier Forbes.com article. In short, the EPA methodology leaves out, among other things, the conversion efficiency in generating the electricity from fossil fuels in the first place.
In the Clinton administration, the Department of Energy (DOE) created a far superior well to wheels MPGe metric the honestly compares the typical fossil fuel use of an electric vs. gasoline car.
As I calculated in my earlier Forbes article, one needs to multiply the EPA MPGe by .365 to get a number that truly compares fossil fuel use of an electric car with a traditional gasoline engine car on an apples to apples basis. In the case of the Fisker Karma, we get a true MPGe of 19. This makes it worse than even the city rating of a Ford Explorer SUV.
Congrats to the Fisker Karma, which now joins corn ethanol in the ranks of heavily subsidized supposedly green technologies that are actually worse for the environment than current solutions.
Postscript: I will say, though, that the Fisker Karma does serve a social purpose — Hollywood celebrities and the ultra rich, who want to display their green credentials, no longer have to be stuck with a little econobox. They can now enjoy a little leg room and luxury.
Not bad? Unfortunately, it’s a sham. This figure is calculated using the grossly flawed EPA process that substantially underestimates the amount of fossil fuels required to power the electric car, as I showed in great depth in an earlier Forbes.com article. In short, the EPA methodology leaves out, among other things, the conversion efficiency in generating the electricity from fossil fuels in the first place.
In the Clinton administration, the Department of Energy (DOE) created a far superior well to wheels MPGe metric the honestly compares the typical fossil fuel use of an electric vs. gasoline car.
As I calculated in my earlier Forbes article, one needs to multiply the EPA MPGe by .365 to get a number that truly compares fossil fuel use of an electric car with a traditional gasoline engine car on an apples to apples basis. In the case of the Fisker Karma, we get a true MPGe of 19. This makes it worse than even the city rating of a Ford Explorer SUV.
Congrats to the Fisker Karma, which now joins corn ethanol in the ranks of heavily subsidized supposedly green technologies that are actually worse for the environment than current solutions.
Postscript: I will say, though, that the Fisker Karma does serve a social purpose — Hollywood celebrities and the ultra rich, who want to display their green credentials, no longer have to be stuck with a little econobox. They can now enjoy a little leg room and luxury.
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice car and all. It just doesn't come close to the Tesla Model S numbers for efficiency.
For me Fisker is D.O.A.
10-21-11, 01:20 AM
#13
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenme...e-than-an-suv/
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice car and all. It just doesn't come close to the Tesla Model S numbers for efficiency.
For me Fisker is D.O.A.
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice car and all. It just doesn't come close to the Tesla Model S numbers for efficiency.
For me Fisker is D.O.A.
10-21-11, 08:09 AM
#14
Out of Warranty
^^ 
Very true, we seem to think that "electric" is interchangeable with "green" . . . it's not. When you drive an electric car, you are only displacing the source of pollution from your ICE to a coal-fired (in most cases) electrical generation plant. We may remove a vehicle from the line at the gas station, but we are putting it on the national power grid. With the quick-charging demanded by most users, that car can represent a pretty heavy load for about the first three or four hours if the battery has been heavily discharged.
There's no free lunch here. Moving your butt from here to there still requires energy. If you move it quickly and singly, it's really going to cost. About the only way to cut the environmental cost per passenger mile is to cut miles or add passengers. Public transportation or working from or near home is about the only option if you really want to make an impact on the environment. This isn't just a "car" problem, but a need to re-think our whole culture.
Very true, we seem to think that "electric" is interchangeable with "green" . . . it's not. When you drive an electric car, you are only displacing the source of pollution from your ICE to a coal-fired (in most cases) electrical generation plant. We may remove a vehicle from the line at the gas station, but we are putting it on the national power grid. With the quick-charging demanded by most users, that car can represent a pretty heavy load for about the first three or four hours if the battery has been heavily discharged. There's no free lunch here. Moving your butt from here to there still requires energy. If you move it quickly and singly, it's really going to cost. About the only way to cut the environmental cost per passenger mile is to cut miles or add passengers. Public transportation or working from or near home is about the only option if you really want to make an impact on the environment. This isn't just a "car" problem, but a need to re-think our whole culture.
10-21-11, 08:25 AM
#15
Performance numbers are similar to the MB S350 Bluetec. At similar price. With much better performance for the first 35-50 miles. And better over all economy. I still think it will do fine. I don't know what people are comparing this to...
Last edited by T0ked; 10-21-11 at 08:30 AM.
