-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Fisker Karma
- Thread starter vfx
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles fail Fisker karma
ljbad4life
Member
In stealth mode the 0-60 was 7.7 seconds, which isn't that much quicker than the volt, but I read that a while ago. since the sport mode was de-rated to 6.3 seconds recently maybe stealth mode followed suit. which would put it right at the same 0-60 as a volt (in stealth)
that 20mpg figure is horrid. If it was near 30 mpg then that's respectable. What sort of testing did fisker do to arrive at 50 miles of ev range and the epa got 32? Chevy promised 40 and got 36 which is pretty close. 50 to 32 is a huge drop.
This is what happens when you over design and give not even a thought to functionality. The karma's weight of over 5k lbs doesn't help and I wonder about its drag coefficient number. 52mpge is the worse of any car I've seen.
Doug was right when he joked that Fisker had to explain the epa cert. was damage control.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
And it only got 52mpge in all electric mode. That's roughly half of the Volt (93mpge), Leaf (99mpge), and Roadster (119mpge)! And that with disappointing performance for its class, especially in all electric mode (it's not much better in Sport mode, with the recent tweak in the specs, and with 20mpg in Sport mode).
Calculating the emissions on the average US grid: 1 gal / 52 miles * 33.7kWh/gal * 1.267lbsCO2/kWh US average 2009 * 1/94.15% grid efficiency = 0.872lbsCO2/mi
(19.4lbsCO2/gal) / (0.872lbsCO2/mi) / (83% refining and distribution efficiency) = emissions equivalent of a 26.8mpg gas car.
Ouch! Hopefully the Nina is much better, but I can see lots of conservative attacks coming against Fisker (given the amount of criticism the Volt got, even though it is comparatively quite good). Hopefully it doesn't hurt the whole plug-in movement, esp. the BEV one (with Fisker following in GM footsteps and insisting to call it an electric car)!
Calculating the emissions on the average US grid: 1 gal / 52 miles * 33.7kWh/gal * 1.267lbsCO2/kWh US average 2009 * 1/94.15% grid efficiency = 0.872lbsCO2/mi
(19.4lbsCO2/gal) / (0.872lbsCO2/mi) / (83% refining and distribution efficiency) = emissions equivalent of a 26.8mpg gas car.
Ouch! Hopefully the Nina is much better, but I can see lots of conservative attacks coming against Fisker (given the amount of criticism the Volt got, even though it is comparatively quite good). Hopefully it doesn't hurt the whole plug-in movement, esp. the BEV one (with Fisker following in GM footsteps and insisting to call it an electric car)!
Last edited:
The Decor Girl
New Member
Thanks!
I appreciate the invitation, I'll take for the threads and see if there is something I can add. :biggrin:
I appreciate the invitation, I'll take for the threads and see if there is something I can add. :biggrin:
Henrik Fisker is the Designer. The drive train was supplied by Quantum. Who was in charge to verify its efficiency? Was there a product architect? If yes, did he open his mouth and was overruled by Henrik?
As long as this story is not told, I stand back from blaming Henrik for the disappointing efficiency.
Mycroft
Life happens
I think, because of the drive train design, (where the care runs purely off the electric motors and they need the ginormous generator), they will only improve the cars specs when they can get a better ICE installed and possibly more powerful electric motors.
A better idea; chuck the batteries, generator and electric motors, then install a better ICE and a drive shaft. You'd lose a thousand pounds of weight and have the performance to match the looks of the car.
A better idea; chuck the batteries, generator and electric motors, then install a better ICE and a drive shaft. You'd lose a thousand pounds of weight and have the performance to match the looks of the car.
I guess this was to be expected:
How Fisker got $500 million in government loans for a fuel economy flop -- Jalopnik
How Fisker got $500 million in government loans for a fuel economy flop -- Jalopnik
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
And everyone is still focusing on the 20mpg number. It says this about the 52mpge number: "52 mpg-e overall rating".
I've seem numerous reports that says the same, assuming the 52mpge number is a mix of electric and gas, when it is actually the electric only rating. When the sticker comes out, it'll be clearer, but it demonstrates how misleading the Fisker press release was.
This article points to what we are all concerned about:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...armas-low-mpgs-hurt-doe-car-tech-loan-program
I find even though I criticize the efficiency of the Karma, most of the time I end up having to defend Fisker, the DOE loan program, and the $7.5k tax credit in articles talking about this news. There's too many responses saying this is the next Solyndra without being aware of the specifics.
Sure seems like they overestimated things in the past:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/08/18/474539.html
Fisker Karma Second Drive - Motor Trend
Quantum Divisions: Fisker Automotive - Quantum Technologies
QUANTUM OEM - Q-Drive - Quantum Technologies
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/08/18/474539.html
Fisker Karma Second Drive - Motor Trend
QUANTUM OEM - Q-Drive - Quantum Technologies
Last edited:
Hopefully, next year, Tesla can launch the S (successfully) and show them how it's done. I may be fan-boy blind, but it was quite obvious to me from the beginning that compared to Fisker and Aptera, Tesla had the best chance of not only delivering the best car (and sticking to their estimates since they'd danced this dance before), but also the best chance at delivering a car that would help change the opinion of EVs in general and perhaps.... bring on a revolution.
Honorable mentions go to the leaf (too short of a range IMO) and the Coda sedan (but also short-ranged, bland even by ICE standards, and possibly vaporware).
I wonder how many politicians will rally behind Tesla next year, using them as their halo bet... Or if they'll just ignore them.
Honorable mentions go to the leaf (too short of a range IMO) and the Coda sedan (but also short-ranged, bland even by ICE standards, and possibly vaporware).
I wonder how many politicians will rally behind Tesla next year, using them as their halo bet... Or if they'll just ignore them.
Yeah, I was always apposed to having any gasoline in the car for various reasons including extra regulations and complexity.
Hear you on the 'honorable mentions', although the LEAF is fairly close to the mark. I think they are a battery-cost-reduction-breakthrough and a minor restyle away from having a big seller...
Hear you on the 'honorable mentions', although the LEAF is fairly close to the mark. I think they are a battery-cost-reduction-breakthrough and a minor restyle away from having a big seller...
Very little leg room for some, but this rings true even if the rest of the article had a weird vibe.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Not entirely sure this is the same author, but I already disputed a similar argument around the time when the EPA stickers first came out.
1) He is using average powerplant efficiency numbers (32.8%) from the 1990s (Clinton administration).
2) His method assumes all electricity in the US is made from fossil fuel plants, which ignores substantial electricity made from non-fossil fuel plants (like nuclear, hydro, and renewables).
3) When measuring environmental impact, it is better to directly measure emissions equivalence rather than "efficiency" since you can't factor in non-fossil fuel plants any other way.
His articles don't seem to get much audience, so doesn't seem particularly influential.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I think Fisker has more to worry about explaining their EPA rating, all-electric range, and their loan situation (even though I've clarified a lot in comments that $169.3mil of the $528.7mil loan to Fisker when to US engineering and design of the Karma, with the rest going to Nina). They better put on the flame suit, because this is just the start of the media circus.
On the other hand, Tesla is safe for now, given manufacturing is in California. People can say it is risky, but they can't say much beyond that because the car isn't out yet. And when it does come out, I don't see how anyone can say a 300 mile EV with the cargo, passenger, and performance capabilities of the Model S isn't innovation (even a lot of the EV critics won't have much to say besides from complaining about price).
On the article overall. Seems like an inflammatory title, which I have already seen many internet commenters take at face value without bothering to read the rest of the article. It's also interesting they have so much of Sexton's comments and how they don't seem that positive on the DOE loans.
Similar threads
