backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by Penti.. on Oct 27 at 12:29 PM

Karma is too heavy for sipping fuel

The official EPA numbers came out recently for the Fisker Karma and they were much, much lower than many expected. The EPA rated the Karma at a scant 20 mpg on gasoline. Considering the car was supposed to be a green hybrid, it's rating is disappointing, especially when you think that other hybrids of the size can achieve much better numbers. The all-electric (battery) range is rated at 32 miles for a combined 56 mpg-e.
 
If you were wondering why a car with a hybrid power plant was rated so low on gasoline power, it’s due to the massive weight of the Karma. The Karma has a curb weight of 5,300 pounds. Most of the weight is due to the heavy and expensive lithium-ion battery pack that motivates the Karma in electric mode.

The Fisker Karma weighs nearly as much as an 8-passenger Ford Expedition 

With the low economy rating of the Karma and the fact that Fisker was one of the green firms that was loaned $529 million in federal funds, some are afraid it will be the next Solyndra. Solyndra is the solar firm that went under after receiving Federal funds for operation. While the EPA thinks its numbers for the Karma are accurate, Henrik Fisker thinks that drivers will see a better driving range.
 
Fisker said, "We firmly believe that most owners will get up to 50 miles of driving range on a single charge, and will use our electric-only mode most of the time they drive the car."
 
Much of the Karma is already made from aluminum, so the place to save weight is going to be the battery pack. This will be something that happens in the future as battery technology improves. Another choice would be going to lighter and more exotic materials for the construction like carbon fiber.
 
The problem is that the Karma is already priced at about $96,000 and moving to exotic materials would only drive that cost up. So far 1,300 people have placed deposits on the Karma


Fisker Karma

Source: Plugincars



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not to worry
By MeesterNid on 10/25/2011 1:39:20 PM , Rating: 5
Our illustrious leader has another $500 million standing by for Fisker to experiment with as they produce these wonderful automobiles that will surely be something the general public can afford!




RE: Not to worry
By augiem on 10/25/2011 2:12:11 PM , Rating: 5
Gotta love it. Waste yet more money we don't have and never will. Our debt will never be paid. What's it gonna take to end our govt's addiction to spending?


RE: Not to worry
By Ryrod on 10/25/2011 8:30:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Our debt will never be paid. What's it gonna take to end our govt's addiction to spending?


People holding their politician's feet to the fire during times of economic prosperity. However, people would rather just cut taxes than to use that money to pay down the debt. Why pay for things now, when we can force future generations to pay it for us?


RE: Not to worry
By Paj on 10/26/2011 6:28:25 AM , Rating: 1
Raising taxes usually helps with that.


RE: Not to worry
By autoboy on 10/26/2011 4:56:07 PM , Rating: 4
"Raising taxes usually helps with that."

Actually not really. Tax revenues have always averaged around 20% of GDP for like 80 years regardless of the tax rates. In reality, making little changes to the tax rates on individuals and business and cap gains has had little effect on overall revenue and the "tax the rich" mantra out now would have an itty bity effect on overall debt. Especially since the top 1% typically have ways to delay paying taxes until a more favorable tax system rolls around. Simply raising income tax rates would just cause them to shift their money into longer term investments, tax shelters, etc. You'd need to rewrite the tax code big time to make any change. The big problem is spending 40 cents of every dollar over our actual revenue and most of that is in non-discretionary spending like Medicare and neither party will touch those sacred cows because it would cost them an election. We are robbing our future for the present and nothing will get done about it until it fails. That's pretty much guaranteed since politicians only care about the next 2-6 years till their next election cycle.


RE: Not to worry
By BaronMatrix on 10/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Not to worry
By DT_Reader on 10/25/2011 2:20:16 PM , Rating: 3
Are you in the 1%, or do you bicycle to work? We 99%ers will be buying ICEs for some time to come. $96,000 is way beyond my bank account.


RE: Not to worry
By autoboy on 10/25/2011 2:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
You can get a Nissan Leaf. You'll only need to push it home once in awhile as you exhaust the 50 mile range.

ICE is now cleaner than our coal power plants. Give it a break and it may surprise you.

According to new studies out we've had a break in warming for the last 10 years giving us some extra time to stay away from range anxiety.


RE: Not to worry
By Omega215D on 10/25/2011 5:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well, there's always the concern of depletion of oil but that's still a ways off and the US barely touched its own reserve.

ICEs make sense because it can be refueled in a matter seconds to minutes and be on your way. Don't always need to rely on gasoline for combustion as there are other sources available. A gas/ electric generator is a good option for commuters and cross country and possibly even performance autos.


RE: Not to worry
By autoboy on 10/25/2011 7:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
There is a LOT of oil sitting around undiscovered or too expensive to extract. We're not going to run out of oil but eventually we may run out of cheap oil. Until that happens there is no economic sense to battery power unless we somehow discover a cheap and disruptive battery technology capable of 400+ miles to a charge which would probably be enough to exceed anybody's ability to drive that far in one day.


RE: Not to worry
By Ringold on 10/25/2011 10:10:17 PM , Rating: 3
Idk, 400 is a lot, even for this huge country. I'd say 200 miles with a quicker recharge and 5 to 10k lower price on the Leaf with those specs would be the end-of-the-ICE sweet-spot.

Plus, improvements to the grid to accommodate the fact that some people will want/need to recharge during the day around peak usage times instead of purely at night.


RE: Not to worry
By autoboy on 10/26/2011 5:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
with 200 you would still need another car for road trips. I'm actually considering buying a Tesla Model S with the 200 mile battery. It's kinda strange too cause I don't actually believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming but I like the idea of the technology of the Model S, would love to be able to refuel at home, and 200 miles would leave me with 50% charge left after a pretty much any single trip I can take around the Bay Area. I'd like to keep 50% in case of emergency, like needing to pick a friend up from the airport or some other unexpected trip.

I see the Tesla Model S all over the place here and it's gorgeous, roomy, and fast. I'm actually planning on running over to the dealer this weekend to see what's going on with the waiting list.


RE: Not to worry
By dsx724 on 10/25/2011 2:47:35 PM , Rating: 1
I would love for every car to observe the PZEV standard so that we don't have to breathe in the dirty fumes coming out of the pipe. However, banning ICE altogether is stupid. I would love some 1000-2000lb single seaters with 100HP for 10k though. Lower insurance rates, better mileage (esp city), and wicked acceleration while not really compromising safety.


RE: Not to worry
By Spuke on 10/25/2011 3:19:42 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
However, banning ICE altogether is stupid. I would love some 1000-2000lb single seaters with 100HP for 10k though.
You'll never see a $10k car again. Buy that Versa while it's hot! Sorry, cheap cars are going away guys!!! Have you not seen ANY of the estimated prices for just the tech to improve fuel mileage to meet the 56 mpg CAFE standard? Do you really think that once EV's take over the automakers are going to lower prices? China just cut off lithium supplies to everyone for the next month. Do you really think that won't happen again sometime in the future, especially once we're all dependent on it? Some of you really live in a fantasy world.


RE: Not to worry
By wookie1 on 10/25/2011 3:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention you have to have 15 airbags (OK, I'm exaggerating a little), seatbelt pre-tensioners, tire pressure monitoring system, ABS, stability control, and very stringent engine controls.

I once had an '89 Suzuki Swift GTi though, that was exactly what you're talking about. I bought it used with a bunch of miles on it, but new it was ~$8K (in '89). It weighed something like 1700lbs, and had a 100HP 1.3L 4-cyl. No power anything except brakes (maybe they were manual too, I can't recall). It did have disc brakes all the way around. It was pretty fun to drive.

The Suzuki would be totally unsaleable in the US now, though.


RE: Not to worry
By Flunk on 10/26/2011 10:32:31 AM , Rating: 2
Not that much of an exaggeration, the Chevy Cruze has 12 airbags.


RE: Not to worry
By brybir on 10/26/2011 10:58:43 AM , Rating: 3
What cost $8000 in 1989 would cost $13884.91 in 2010. Lets call it $14,000 now. However, a quick check of new retail pricing stated the whole thing had a base price of $8,995. Air conditioning was a $830 option. So, what cost $8995 in 1989 would cost $15611.84 in 2010. Then I checked fuel economy: EPA estimated fuel economy at 25/32 mpg city/highway. Last, the NHTSA gave it 3/5 stars in front impact and 4/5 in side impact in 1989 testing.

Then you have the subjective factor that that car is terribly ugly (by modern standards) and would be destroyed in an accident with a modern heavier car or SUV. Today, for the same inflation adjusted price, you can get a Mazda 3, a Mitsubishi Lancer base, a Kia Soul, a Chevy Cobalt, or a Dcion xD. Each of these cars are larger, have much nicer interiors and exteriors, are notably safer during crashes, and get respectable gas mileage, all while having many additional safety features.

So, the Suzuki would be totally "unsaleable" right now, as no one would buy it given the equivalent priced (adjusted for inflation) offerings that are far superior for the same price.


RE: Not to worry
By Penti on 10/25/2011 10:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
WV Lupo 3L that was sold here in Europe equals 78 mpg US and was never expensive hell, a Volvo S60 DRIVe diesel is around 56 mpg. 60 mpg for full sized sedans and station wagons and higher for smaller cares aren't exactly unreasonable or anything exotic. The Lupo 3L was around 16k US equivalent in 99. An ordinary (Europe) VW Polo 1.2L BlueMotion would do about 69 mpg, a 105 hp 1.6L TDI should be about 56mpg. Not 10k cars, but certainly not more expensive then other cars.

China manufactures most battery cells, if you like to assemble some cells into battery packs in US I'm sure they would let you. It's not like any other countries then the Asian industry powerhouses of PRC, South Korea and Japan can really build battery tech any way.

Besides trucks like F-150 doesn't need to hit more then 30 mpg 2025. Fleet wide average is suppose to be 54.5 mpg. It's a lot, but certianly not something that takes much more then new/tuned engines. EV's will never ever take over, hybrids (plug-in) should be fairly common though. But the dollar as low as it is and as overvalued it is, cars will cost more if your economy ever corrects itself and certainly not 10k for a new car, but that's inflation and disastrous economic policies. The Versa is almost 15k right? Not dirt cheap.


RE: Not to worry
By Spuke on 10/26/2011 2:25:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
WV Lupo 3L that was sold here in Europe equals 78 mpg US and was never expensive hell,
I guess you missed the last 1000 comments about how you can't compare US and Euro fuel economy. I won't explain it again but I'll just say that the VW Lupo would NOT get 78 mpg here in the US.


RE: Not to worry
By Penti on 10/27/2011 12:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
I know the test cycles are different but it's even over 65+ (euro driving cycle) mpg in city driving.

Plenty off room.


RE: Not to worry
By callmeroy on 10/25/2011 3:07:14 PM , Rating: 1
Good for you.

I will.

Nuff said.


RE: Not to worry
By Samus on 10/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Not to worry
By Ringold on 10/25/2011 10:17:28 PM , Rating: 4
Stop trolling. There's a huge difference between bleeding-edge academic research, advanced military research, supporting basic science and doing things that were probably 75 years from ever being remotely commercially profitable, compared to industrial policy that attempts to pick winners in already mature tech fields. If you weren't foaming at the keyboard, invoking the nazi's, maybe, with great effort, you could understand the difference is actual research funding, and crony capitalism. (Which both parties engage in, yes, they simply have different industrial backers)


RE: Not to worry
By kjboughton on 10/25/2011 4:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
Wonderful! More for me! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!


RE: Not to worry
By NellyFromMA on 10/25/2011 4:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
Like there are any viable options. Suit yourself. Ps, I pictured a dirty oily kid saying this ;)


RE: Not to worry
By NicodemusMM on 10/25/2011 6:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
Good for you, but you may have to pay through the nose for it considering the current lanthanide situation. Oh... and currently your choices for buying a vehicle without an ICE is pretty limited.


RE: Not to worry
By idiot77 on 10/25/2011 3:05:57 PM , Rating: 5
"Our illustrious leader...."

I stopped there because you're apparently North Korean.


RE: Not to worry
By MeesterNid on 10/26/2011 8:46:10 AM , Rating: 1
And you apparently have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old with complete inability to deduce sarcasm.


RE: Not to worry
By Dorkyman on 10/26/2011 3:14:44 PM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't call him that. I call him Messiah because that's what his followers think of him.


RE: Not to worry
By idiot77 on 10/26/2011 5:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
You apparently have no clue that they call him "Dear Leader" and "Illustrious Leader".

If I can only read on a 5 year old level, then the American medical system is in deep. I scored slightly higher than 55% of applicants on reading comprehension.


Misleading Article
By Keeir on 10/25/2011 2:20:40 PM , Rating: 5
This article has problems from begining to ending.

#1. The ~500 Million Government Loan to Fisker was done in support of the Project Nina. Project Nina DNE Karma. Project Nina is more in lines with a normal sedan. Fisker has raised more than 600 Million for support of the Karma. Further, Fisker has not even drawn 50% of thier Government Loan as of yet...

#2. The Karma is an exotic car. It has a 125" wheelbase, an 195" overall length! Its essentially as long as the Ford Expedition and as wide.

#3. The Closest Car in terms of price, size, and panache is the Porsche Panamera Hybrid. It has an EPA combined rating of 25 MPG. (And a Curb Wieght of 4,300 lbs) The S400 Hybrid is another car that is around 90,000+... gets only 21 MPG combined.

If you plug-in the Karma and drive between 0-50 miles a day typically, the Karma is significantly more green than the Panamera and reduces use of oil by considerable amounts.

Where Fisker could really lose some wieght is to

A. Shorten the Car to 105-108" Wheel Base
B. Reduce the Width of the Car, by slightly raising the greenhouse. You know more like Prius/Volt/Sedan Proportions
C. Switch to low wieght interior materials. The Karma is drapped in wood, leathers, fancy electronic, etc.

But you know what? Those are all planned for Project Nina. Along with a 50,000-60,000 price. Project Nina is the compeditor to the Model S, the BMW 528i, midsize Hybrids, etc. Not the Karma.

The entire point of any Plug-In Hybrid is to drive upto the AER. If you are driving much more than the AER, the particular Plug-In is not good for you. Diesels are wonderful machines for Highway Driving. Gas-Electric Hybrids are usually very good in stop and go conditions. Its up to the individual consumer to choose the best choice for them if they want to be enviromental.

If you drive mixed mode driving between 25-50 miles a day, then a Karma is a pretty sound enviromental choice. If you drive really long distances, not so much.




RE: Misleading Article
By autoboy on 10/25/2011 2:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
If you drive it beyond 25 miles it's not much worse than comparable vehicles. But then you look at the Porsche Panamera V6 that gets 27mpg highway and you wonder where all our money went. They are losing efficiency when operating on gas because they have an extra entropy step in converting gas energy to electric. The Chevy Volt avoids much of this on the highway because its ICE is actually connected to the drive wheels and directly powers the car at speeds above 70mph.


RE: Misleading Article
By Keeir on 10/25/2011 3:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh.

Autoboy, the 2012 Porsche Panamera V6 base gets 18/27, 21 Combined.

The Karma gets ?/?, 20 Combined. Hwy? Unknown. It might be 25, 26, or even 27.

It simply boggles my mind why people get so bogged down comparing the Karma's COMBINED number to X, Y, or Z HWY number or possible number. The Karma is NOT designed to travel 80, 90, 100 HWY Miles a day.

In comparison, even with the 27 HWY rating, a person needs to drive ~75 miles a day (max 10 City miles) to make a Panamera V6 a better enviromental choice.

The inclusion of the mechanical transmission is the worst "feature" of the Volt. It adds significant complication, mass, and creates packaging problems. All to raise a fuel consumption number than should be in use less than 10% of the time! BTW, the EPA HWY testing cycle includes very very little time spent at over 60 mph, let alone 70.


RE: Misleading Article
By autoboy on 10/25/2011 8:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
You are assuming that the Karma will get better highway mpg than city which is probably not correct considering that aggressive hybrids get better city mpg than highway because of lower speeds and efficient kinetic energy capture. Electrics motor are less efficient at high rotation speeds so who really knows what the real numbers will be. It could be 25 mpg city and 15 highway for all we know.

The mechanical transmission was designed to make the Volt a capable freeway cruiser. Without the transmission it would have had less than average highway mpg for it's class and would have been universally panned as a bad investment. A little extra weight isn't always horrible since it has little effect on steady state cruising, and the kinetic regen system on the Volt can regain some of that energy used to get the extra weight moving.

While you may live in a city, the US is a large country and freeway miles are an important part of most American's lives. The transmission kept it from being limited to a city car and turned it into a relatively efficient all around car. It made it a REAL car unlike the Leaf, which is probably a great choice for a lot of people looking for alt energy. Certainly in my home town of Palo Alto CA I see a LOT more Leafs than Volts. Still see more Tesla Roadsters though. I actually see more Model S Teslas than Volts around here but that's because I live near their headquarters.

The Model S certainly seems to me to be the real deal if you are looking for an electric car. With the 300 mile range battery it could be your primary car with no fear of range anxiety pretty much ever. It won't be your road trip car, but other than that you can have no fear of ripping around town as fast or as far as you want.


RE: Misleading Article
By Keeir on 10/26/2011 1:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
I have come to conclusion you either have insider information, or you have drank the GM Kool-Aid.

What we know from public information. The Volt, a Series Hybrid with Mechanical Connect Mode, scores 93 MPGe Combined (95/90) and 37 MPG RE (35/40). The Karma, a Series Hybrid without Mechanical Connect Mode, scores 52 MPGe Combined and 20 MPG RE. If we dive 52/93 * 37, we should get the MPG RE mode that Karma would get if using a direct connect system... 20.7... IE 21. This is within rounding errors and is essentially identical.

Why would this happen? Well, we need to look at the GM statement that the Tranmission only comes on in certain conditions above 70 mph.

If we examine the EPA testing cycles of which there are five found here http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/dynamometer.htm
only one of the cycles exceeds 70 mph... the US06. It exceeds 70 mph for a total for ~30 seconds. Thus, if GM is to be believed, the mechanical connection only occures on 30 seconds of the approx 5,000 seconds that comprise completing each of the EPA testing cycles... 0.6% . Clearly this should have little to no effect on the EPA Rating!

What does this mean for the Karma? Well, it means that the Karma's HWY number likely exceeds to City and Combined number, even without the direct connection to the wheels. I believe from the information the HWY number should be no greater than 25. But this is unknowable to me. Fisker could have choosen many different ways for the ICE to react.... if Fisker choose to leave the ICE unresponsive, its possible the RE mode City is higher than the RE mode HWY. I doubt they did this however and the Karma could drain its batteries pretty fast.

A second question might be why GM decided to use such a complicated transmission if it posses such little EPA benifit... one reason could be that GM is fibbing and the mechanical connection occurs at speeds significantly lower then 60 mph (the point at which it will significantly effect EPA ratings).

But I think the answer is a little murkier. GM has also stated at no point will the ICE be the only thing pushing the Volt forward. Why even bother running the electric portion if its less efficient? Wouldn't disconnecting the electric portion be even better than? I think the answer lies in the ~111 kW electric motor and 53 kW generator. Either the motor loses torque and response at the higher speeds (requiring mechanical connection) or GM is wanting to acchieve a higher steady state output than 53 kW. Its also possible a GM engineer or manager put the mechanical transmission in simply as a fail-safe mechanism.

In any case, having examined the best case numbers, the direct connect will provide at best a 10% improvement over Series connection... and only if you truely never change the ICE RPM.

If you have insider information, good for you. But from the outside it appears GM is lying somewhat about the function and benifit of thier complicated transmisson on the Volt. Since the main benifit of the Volt is its 35 miles on electric mode, and the transmission will likely only benifit customers (GM offical version) who travel at above 70 mph more after 35 miles and then only (significantly) if they travel 30-40 miles extra at a time... not sure why everyone is being saddled to help those few customers save a few gallons of gas a year. IE, if you drive 75 miles a day (which I think is not good for a Volt, and far exceeds the average of 33 miles for Compact Sedans) the difference between 40 MPG (EPA rating with no mechanical assist) and 44 MPG (10% bonus for EPA rating with mechanical assist) the grand difference comes out to be 32 gallons a year.... over 27375 miles! Over 100,000 miles of 75 miles a day with the mechanical assist the grand fuel savings is ~120 gallons... for less than 500 dollars. Is the fancy tranmisson more or less than 500 dollars? I bet significantly more. In conclusion, I don't think the Volt's fancy transmission was a good choice (even if it works as GM claims) as an addition as the only customers that will economically benifit from the transmission are those that travel more than 75 miles above 70 mph consistantly. These customers would likely be better off with a Prius or a Diesel anyway.

I also have a problem with this

quote:
Electrics motor are less efficient at high rotation speeds so who really knows what the real numbers will be.


While true, its also important to point out that the EPA HWY Cycles take significantly more energy per mile to complete than EPA City Cycles. This concept has been masked by the incrediblely poor performance of ICE engines at low and high loads leading to lower City Mileage. Electric Engines have the same relative efficieny in comparison to ICE engines. This means in all electric modes, HWY cycles take more energy that city! But in Series mode who knows... the Volt suggests that a on the EPA HWY cycles a Series Hybrid is more efficient than a Series Hybrid on the EPA City.


RE: Misleading Article
By Dorkyman on 10/26/2011 3:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/11/shocker-chevy-s...

Especially Update #4. The engineers have done an "efficiency map" and use the ICE when it makes sense.


RE: Misleading Article
By autoboy on 10/26/2011 5:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
Complicated transmission? It's a planetary gear set. It's similar to the Prius planetary gears except connected differently.

Sure they could have dropped the transmission and left off 50-100 lbs, but the claimed efficiency gains are 10-15% which is very significant considering the small weight gain.

GM pretty clearly lied about its Volt initially since they were claiming it was an electric car with extended range. All the press thought it would be driven only by the electric motors and then it turned out to be nothing more than a standard hybrid vehicle with a bigger electric motor and more battery that allowed it to operate as an electric vehicle longer than the Prius. If everyone thought it was just a better Prius, it wouldn't have gotten as much praise and you can guarantee.

The reviews of the car should be coming soon. I guess we'll see who's right.


RE: Misleading Article
By Dorkyman on 10/25/2011 2:59:37 PM , Rating: 1
I really doubt they would save much weight by shape-shifting, maybe just a few hundred pounds.

Any large-capacity battery pack is going to be heavy, even lithium.

It looks like the best way to deliver power from an ICE is via direct mechanical connection, rather than via generator/battery/motor. There's a reason the Volt engine can drive the wheels directly.

And I am coming to the conclusion that NO ONE, outside of a purist, is going to be willing to plug in a car night after night for more than a month or so. Perhaps an automatic charge station needs to be developed.


RE: Misleading Article
By Keeir on 10/25/2011 3:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really doubt they would save much weight by shape-shifting, maybe just a few hundred pounds.


Errr... mass savings leads to mass savings. Using the same type of aluminium frame and ditching the transmission, a normal C/D segment sedan would likely wieght between 3,300-3,600 lbs. The Volt uses Steel and has a complicated transmission and its ~3,900.

Karma has a Wheelbase of 125! Inches. Thats longer than the Audi A8 L.

quote:
And I am coming to the conclusion that NO ONE, outside of a purist, is going to be willing to plug in a car night after night for more than a month or so.


Why? Data from Volt users? Plug-in Prius Fleet?

I live in an area where electricity costs 0.09 cents per kWh and gas costs 3.80 a gallon. If I told you that you could buy gas for ~1.20-1.50 a gallon directly from wall at home with the only restriction being you could only buy one gallon a day, but only had to pay once a month... would you think people would fill up at home every night, or would they wait to fill up at 3x the price at a gas station where they need to pay immediately?

I am sorry. Pluging in might seem difficult, but the real ECONOMIC difference is gigantic. People are often willing to drive 5, 10, or even 15 minutes out of there way to save 2-3 dollars on a fill up. Imaging saving that much each and every day.


RE: Misleading Article
By Spuke on 10/25/2011 5:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I live in an area where electricity costs 0.09 cents per kWh and gas costs 3.80 a gallon.
Are you really trying to justify the economic value of a $90,000 car? NO ONE in this market cares. Those 1300 people are buying novelty. Those cars will be up for sale the following year.


RE: Misleading Article
By Keeir on 10/25/2011 5:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
I am not trying to justify the Karma, but simply to respond to the idea that anyone with a Plug-In electric would not plug-in... simply because it is a hassle.

Once you have a Plug-In car, whether it is a Leaf, Volt, Prius, etc... there is a significant financial incentive to continue pluging in said car. Maybe overall there is not an incentive to buy said car... but there is significant marginal financial incentive to use the plug-in capacity if it is available.


RE: Misleading Article
By Spuke on 10/25/2011 6:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not trying to justify the Karma, but simply to respond to the idea that anyone with a Plug-In electric would not plug-in... simply because it is a hassle.
Gotcha. I agree.


RE: Misleading Article
By BZDTemp on 10/26/2011 6:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I am coming to the conclusion that NO ONE, outside of a purist, is going to be willing to plug in a car night after night for more than a month or so. Perhaps an automatic charge station needs to be developed.


Valid point however here is a couple of things to consider.

a. The likelihood of a Karma buyer to "a purist" is pretty high. Either in the form of being fanatical about the environment or in the form of being a car geek wanting something different and interesting tech.
b. It's also likely that most Karma buyers employ people that take care of trivial things so that the actual task of plugging in is handled for them.


RE: Misleading Article
By autoboy on 10/26/2011 5:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
"It's also likely that most Karma buyers employ people that take care of trivial things so that the actual task of plugging in is handled for them."

Not likely. The era of servants is long gone. I guess you'll see some Hollywood types with "personal assistants" but it's not that common and they typically don't do menial tasks like plugging in your car cause you are too lazy to.

Also, when you consider that a normal family GMC Acadia averages about 35K off the lot and the Karma is less than 3X more, you don't need to be ridiculously wealthy to afford one. The working wealthy, doctors, management, lawyers, etc could afford one pretty easily if they really wanted one and they don't sit around drinking tea served on silver by Jeeves.


RE: Misleading Article
By Dr of crap on 10/25/2011 3:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
If you can afford this car why not get the Tesla?
It will blow the pants off this car and NOT USE GAS at all.

OR any hybrid from the more expensive brands would be better than this over priced gas hog. Yes gas hog.

The 1300 that have reserved a car already are fools and you know what they say about them and their money!


RE: Misleading Article
By Keeir on 10/25/2011 4:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you can afford this car why not get the Tesla?


Tesla is limited to the range of the BEV. Thats the truth. It probably is not an issue for someone who can afford 100k car.

quote:
OR any hybrid from the more expensive brands would be better than this over priced gas hog.


Really? Give me an example. The Porsche Panamera Hybrid costs ~95K.

But unless you are traveling more than 50 miles a day constantly, the Karma uses less energy, less fossil fuels, less imported oil, AND costs less to run.

Absolutely must remember than the first 32 miles are electric.


RE: Misleading Article
By Spuke on 10/25/2011 5:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tesla is limited to the range of the BEV. Thats the truth. It probably is not an issue for someone who can afford 100k car.
Didn't you make an argument against using the Karma past its EV range?


RE: Misleading Article
By Keeir on 10/25/2011 5:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big deal between

160 miles --> 24 hour recharge --> 80 miles maximum radius
30 miles --> 10 minute recharge --> infinate maximum range, 15 mile recommended radius

The Karma (like the Volt) gives you the ability to use electric for daily driving but retain the ability to drive long distances in an emergency. A Roadster/Leaf gives you the ability to cover significantly more ground via electricity, but there is a maximum amount you can drive without significant time penalties.

The Karma/Volt is for someone who drives 25-50 miles a day who needs to flexibility to be able to drive 1,000 miles in a day at the drop of a hat. The Roadster/Leaf is for someone who drives less than 150 miles a day who doesn't mind having to call/wait for/arrange other transportation in emergency situations.

I admit that most people who can afford a 95K+ car likely own multiple cars and/or have the type of money to pay for emergency service.


I missed my calling
By LBID on 10/25/2011 3:10:01 PM , Rating: 3
Obviously, the money to be made isn't in real work. It's in selling snake-oil schemes like this to an idiotic populace that just continues to blindly lap them up.




RE: I missed my calling
By idiot77 on 10/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: I missed my calling
By NicodemusMM on 10/25/2011 6:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
I would argue that his statement could more easily apply to politicking.

Anyway... Crony capitalism excluded, products like this would never find their way to market in a truly capitalistic society. The risk would be too great to bring something so half-baked to market... unless the average consumer is uneducated and or unmotivated. At that point they'll just buy anything and companies could do as they please.

Oh, wait...


RE: I missed my calling
By Ryrod on 10/26/2011 12:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
You must not watch a whole lot of infomercials and 'as seen on tv' product ads. Most of those products are risky and they are extremely half-baked, but tons are bought up each day. Don't overestimate the average consumer's intelligence and motivation.


RE: I missed my calling
By autoboy on 10/26/2011 5:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously comparing a 90K car to a two-for-$20 automatic pot stirrer?

Does it take a billion dollars to invent a vegetable chopper? You get those products because they are cheap to invent, cheap to make, and cheap to market.


RE: I missed my calling
By HoosierEngineer5 on 10/25/2011 4:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
Close to half the US households don't pay taxes anyway. Think they care?


RE: I missed my calling
By idiot77 on 10/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: I missed my calling
By autoboy on 10/26/2011 5:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
The point he wants to make is that a large # of people are government consumers in that they receive more service from government than they pay in. Agreed the 47% pay no taxes is a bit disingenuous, but the overall point is valid that it's a problem if there are more people who gain from growing government services than there are people who are paying for the services. You reach a point where the majority can vote themselves benefits that are paid for by the minority.


Set sail for fail
By Fracture on 10/25/2011 2:50:40 PM , Rating: 5
Prohibitively expensive? Check.

Crappy fuel economy? Check.

Sports car that handles like a 5300 lb brick? Check.

Poor electric-only range? Check.

Going to complain about the economy and receive a bailout? Dammit.




RE: Set sail for fail
By Dr of crap on 10/25/2011 3:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Damn that was funny!


RE: Set sail for fail
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2011 8:16:18 AM , Rating: 1
Lol.

Seriously. 5300 pounds!?!?!?

Makes a Dodge Challenger look like a lightweight. Shit might as well buy a Chevy SSR. Gets about the same fuel economy and looks a lot less like a penis.


Sigh...
By Masospaghetti on 10/25/2011 3:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
What's left out of the article is that the Karma has 401 total horsepower and 960 ft-lbs of torque. 960, as in more than the Cummins turbodiesel, and more than twice that of a big block Chevy.

This is a high performance exotic, of course it doesn't make financial sense, just like how any car from Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, and Land Rover don't make financial sense. At least in this case, the Karma has cutting-edge drivetrain technology. I hope people buy these in droves so the next generation becomes more affordable. I would much rather those that are well off to spend their money on Karmas than Range Rovers that get 11 mpg and is dressed in a dozen cows' worth of leather.

Besides, 52 mpg-e around town is great considering how much fuel its competition uses.




RE: Sigh...
By idiot77 on 10/25/2011 3:34:47 PM , Rating: 1
You and your facts can go straight to a Liberal website.


RE: Sigh...
By Spuke on 10/25/2011 5:12:42 PM , Rating: 3
Cars in the exotic category don't "become more affordable". This will always be an expensive car. Also, exotics aren't "bought in droves" either because of their expense.


RE: Sigh...
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2011 9:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
And yet with all that torque it still only manages a 0-60 time of 6.3 seconds. Putting it slower than a V6 Camaro and only slightly faster than an Altima SE-R.

Some "performance" car. Not to mention the top speed of 125 mph. Great so a Focus can go faster than it and probably get there quicker since that 4 cylinder has to lug that 5300 pounds pretty much by itself. I don't see that motor lasting too long under the strain of keeping this thing at speeds where the electric motor does nothing but add weight. See the 4-cylinder minivans of the 80s as an example of what happens when you put a heavy vehicle behind a small engine.


Another 500 million dollar turd
By btc909 on 10/25/2011 1:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
Once the production of the Tesla Model S ramps up this will become even more evident.




Already already
By DT_Reader on 10/25/2011 2:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Is it really "already made from aluminum already", really? Are you sure you're sure it's already already aluminum?




squeezing weight
By OS on 10/25/2011 3:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
if the chassis is aluminum and battery lithium, i don't think there is much good way to squeeze weight left.

carbon fiber chassis seems to only offer marginal weight savings, see the LFA.

lithium batteries already the lightest battery type.




I gotta toot my own horn...
By mkrech on 10/25/2011 5:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=22703...

I guess this was hard for some people to see coming. Maybe they should wipe the green out of their eyes.




Abysmal?
By danikuci on 10/25/2011 6:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a combined 56 mpg-e.


What's abysmal about 56 mpg? Certainly no more than any of those SUV hybrids that get 20-something combined.




logic
By cokbun on 10/26/2011 2:07:15 AM , Rating: 2
a 5,300 pounds vehicle to move a 100-200 pounds of ass, that's logical.




By BZDTemp on 10/26/2011 6:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's ridiculous. Whenever someone is critical about Fisker the loan is mentioned and it's made out to sound like the money has gone into making the Karma.

It is not so the money is a loan funding part of the work on the next car which is gonna be a 4-door for most people rather than a luxury item.

Also it is silly to compare numbers about the Karma with the small tree-huger boxes so while the numbers are lower than expected it is no big deal. The Karma is a luxury boat like the Porsche Panamera and the 4-door Aston Martin, not a Volt with a little bling.




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki