For me it is as well.
However, weather or not one aspect or another is a compromise is very subjective. For me, the range isn't a compromise. For someone who needs it though, the range would be a large compromise.
Same car, different drivers, means different levels of compromise.
This is why I really don't like that marketing phrase.
To the poster who rehashed some of the media's exaggerated claims, let me be clear about a few things as a Karma owner. The interior is not "as small as a Yaris" - it is actually larger than the Aston Martin Rapide, a bit smaller in the back than a Panamera. The front two seats are spacious and very comfortable, and the rear are adequate for anyone 5'10 and shorter (although my buddy who's 6'1 fits fine). It's worth noting that the Bentley Continental is classified as a subcompact. The car handles exceptionally well, despite its weight. Could the car be improved (lower weight, better software, etc)? Absolutely. This is a first gen car from a brand new company. For a first showing, I have to say it is pretty awesome. I do a ton of driving when I am in LA, and probably average 250-350 miles easily on a weekend. I cannot stress enough the covenience of a range extender (eg day trips to/from San Diego which are about 275 miles roundtrip, not including driving in/around town). I think Tesla's architecture is really elegant, and the moment that charging gets quicker and/or range is increased (to say, 500 miles), I'd seriously consider one.
To the poster that is a Fisker apologist that is rehashing fisker's maketing bs. a Yaris is a subcompact, The karma is classified by the epa as a subcompact, the same as a YARIS. So in one breathe you're saying it's not the same size as a yaris, then you say its competitors are when they actually have larger interiors than the Karma. So the Karma has the same internal space as two coupes... that would be unacceptable in any other car, but since it's fisker's first no compromise car, it's ok because it's pretty. I will tell you that the materials are top notch in the Karma. the seats are nice.
Take this from someone that had his hands on a Karma long before anyone could buy one, or even sit in one. Look back through the Karma thread. I actualled liked the karma and I was going to reserve one, but after the issues. a non functioning command center is ridiculous. Fisker could have outsourced to a ton of companies that would have done it right, but no they chose visteon which has always produced crappy infotainment software. The to have Fisker basically state that anyone that bought the 2012 karma is SOL in regards to getting most of the promised functionality because the microprocessor in the command center is too slow.This i s a Hardware problem not a software one, there's no patch to fix it.
I will also say that the Karma was designed from the ground up. a lot of the compromises/short comings of the Karam could have been designed around/minimized, but weren't for the sake of the look.
Last edited by ljbad4life; 06-16-2012 at 10:02 AM.
In terms of the Yaris vs the Karma, the Yaris has more head room (1" F/ 1.9" R), rear leg room (1.9") and about twice the cargo room. But the Fisker does have more shoulder, hip, and front leg room (2"). Overall, the Karma has about 10 cubic feet more EPA passenger room than the Yaris (95 vs 85). The Versa is closer to the Karma, it has 95 cubic feet of EPA passenger room (similar to the Yaris, it has more head and rear leg room).
I looked at the Panamera and the story is about the same (it is 98 total EPA passenger volume, has more rear head, leg room, cargo room, and less shoulder room).
As a side note, the shoulder and hip room say that the Karma is much wider than competitors.
So in general, the front seats are okay, but the rear seats are cramped (even compared to subcompacts) because of reduced leg and head room. The magazine reviews say that too:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-reviewThe Karma’s wheelbase—124.4 inches, or about the same as a 1958 Edsel’s—is 9.4 inches longer than a Porsche Panamera’s. Yet the back seat is smaller than a Honda Fit’s. A Kia Rio’s trunk is more than twice the size of the Karma’s.
If you treat the car as a coupe it shouldn't be an issue though (use the rear seats only occasionally).
Last edited by stopcrazypp; 06-16-2012 at 11:19 AM.
Because there are tons of crazy people in this world...
Ok, really guys. Chill out. It's ok for someone who owns a car to be enthusiastic about it. How can you tell someone else what their opinion should be?? I don't think the Yaris comparisons are particularly useful either. Yes the interior volume of the Karma is small, but it's a completely different style of car. When I've sat in the drivers seat of a Karma (at 6'2" 190lbs), it fells rather nice, and the materials seem high quality. Ok the back is way too cramped.
Back seat of the Model S is super spacious, though my head does touch the ceiling and there really should be some flip down arm rests.
My main issue with the rear seats in the Karma (and the front seats a little too) is how high the battery tunnel is. Makes me claustrophobic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)