backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 68 comment(s) - last by evident.. on Nov 15 at 2:09 PM

Fisker Hybrid Premium Sports Sedan   (Source: Fisker Automotive)
Fisker promises a driving range of 680 miles with its new hybrid

Up until this point in time, production hybrid cars have been homely-looking (Camry, Civic) to downright hideous in the eyes of some people (Prius, Insight). Fisker Automotive is looking to add a dash of style to the hybrid realm with its new Hybrid Premium Sports Sedan (HPSS).

The sedan was penned by famed automotive design Henrik Fisker whose credits include the gorgeous BMW Z8, Aston Martin DB9 and Aston Martin V8 Vantage. The equally impressive HPSS looks somewhat like a cross between a 2009 Chevrolet Camaro (rear 3/4 view) and a 2007 Maserati GranTurismo (front).

"The sleek design accentuating the long hood is a direct result of our breakthrough chassis which carries the battery pack at the center of the vehicle between the two axles," remarked Henrik Fisker, CEO of Fisker Automotive. "This positioning provides optimal vehicle driving dynamics, maximum safety, proportionate design as well as industry standard performance figures within this car class."

Fisker provided no details on specific powertrain details, but did note that the HPSS will be a plug-in hybrid with a battery-only range of 50 miles. When used in conjunction with a gasoline or diesel engine, the range jumps to an impressive (and very optimistic) 620 miles. The resulting fuel economy is estimated to approach 100 MPG.

Given the rakish looks of the HPSS, one would expect a potent internal combustion engine to be paired to the hybrid system, but the fuel economy numbers provided by Fisker suggest a more meager engine.

Fisker's HPSS will debut at the Detroit Auto Show in January 2009, while deliveries are expected to commence in Q4 2009. Annual production of the HPSS is expected to reach 15,000 while each car will set you back roughly $80,000 USD.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why?
By Spivonious on 10/31/2007 2:02:34 PM , Rating: 5
People who feel comfortable plunking down $80k for a car probably don't really care about fuel economy.

Why doesn't someone make a 100mpg car that costs under $15k?




RE: Why?
By ButterFlyEffect78 on 10/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Alexstarfire on 10/31/2007 3:09:23 PM , Rating: 3
Except that people define slow in a really funny way. Apparently if a car can't do more than 100 MPH then it's slow. I'll never understand that since you can't legally go 100 MPH anyways. I do see the problem with a lower top speed though, and that's slower acceleration. I'm not sure about you guys, but I don't put the petal to the metal when I accelerate. That means that there is still plenty of acceleration left if I need it. This is usually the biggest problem with the cars that get good gas mileage. I think that if the acceleration were higher and nothing else, that people would buy the car, provided they like how it looks.

A $15k 100 MPG car is quit attainable, but it'd be quite small. Probably smaller than the Insight, which is pretty small already. Of course, a smart person once said "It only satisfies 95% of the population" so it'll never be accepted. I think it's a very good quote because it's really true, probably not 100% true, but very close.


RE: Why?
By TimberJon on 10/31/2007 3:48:39 PM , Rating: 1
a 3rd generation maxima GXE with a 3.0L SOHC V6 tears asphalt on the low end, but can barely get going once at speed. The same generation maxima SE which switches to a DOHC has no low end power and all high-end.

Having a higher HP rating and a "higher top speed" means very little to the people who like to "go fast". We like torque and require more of it than HP if we can get it. Like you said, you cannot legally go 100+ MPH and so it becomes more important to smoke the ricer or poser in the honda with sheer low-end power for short sprints.

In southern california, that means red light to red light.
Give me a V6 or better, Minimum 1 turbo, and at least 30 more torque than HP at the wheels, with a minimum of 240 HP at the crank with no more than 3200 lbs total vehicle weight.


RE: Why?
By Hare on 10/31/2007 4:38:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
so it becomes more important to smoke the ricer or poser in the honda

I see...

Maybe you should just grow up? ;)


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/1/2007 11:08:54 AM , Rating: 3
Where's the fun in that?


RE: Why?
By Tsuwamono on 11/2/2007 8:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
I guess i should have thought about that before buying a skyline...

I guess ill go sell it and buy a civic...

</sarcasm>


RE: Why?
By Assimilator87 on 10/31/2007 11:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you want a V6 or better when everyone knows that you get better torque distribution with less cylinders? I want to see a 10L V twin car.


RE: Why?
By lagomorpha on 11/1/2007 12:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'd love to see the balance shafts needed to keep a Vtwin that size from shaking violently enough to free itself from its mounts or the car from the road. (Yes similar silly things have been done and it is possible) That being said much of the superior torque characteristics that come from having fewer cylinders are actually a result of having lesser valve area and therefor a higher velocity of incoming air at lower RPM. You can do even more for torque distribution by increasing the stroke or doing clever things with the valve lift or number of intake valves operating at lower rpm. It might not give you the nice "thump-thump" of a fine Italian motorcycle but it also won't vibrate you to death.


RE: Why?
By mindless1 on 11/1/2007 10:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
True, but the green-minded folks who want these are not going to want the perpetual maintenance seen with engines tweaked to get every last ft/lb out of them. For this car, a 6 cylinder would be surprising but reasonable, and a 4 cylinder expected.

Ultimately, people just need to stop thinking of their car as an ePenis. The only reason they think it needs to do 0-100 in 2 seconds is because something else can, but the whole reason that something else can is because it isn't trying to achieve such high MPG. If ALL cars were just optimized towards higher efficiency, we'd still have the crowd who felt elite driving something that did 0-100 in a /mere/ 15 seconds as all they really need is to be faster than the other guy.

Then one day they grow up and just want a comfortable car that corners well, realizing that you'll get to the other stop light and have to sit and wait either way, being the first one to it is just mindless.


RE: Why?
By theapparition on 11/1/2007 10:20:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Give me a V6 or better, Minimum 1 turbo, and at least 30 more torque than HP at the wheels, with a minimum of 240 HP at the crank with no more than 3200 lbs total vehicle weight.

Turbos love higher RPM's, they don't work well at low rpm's.
You want 30ftlbs more torque than HP. HP = Torque * RPM/5250. So HP always equals torque at 5250RPM. To get more torque than hp, the engine would have to have a max redline of 4666RPM. I don't know any engine that redlines that low. So your saying you want a low reving engine with a turbo??? Sounds like turbo diesel in your future.

I understand where your coming from though. Torque is a better metric for daily driving than hp. The problem is, if the engine is designed for maximum power in the low RPM bands, you also hurt fuel economy. The problem comes down to power, economy and emissions. You can't have all three at once. And the primary focus of automakers, still above all others, is emissions.

quote:
it becomes more important to smoke the ricer or poser in the Honda with sheer low-end power for short sprints.

I constantly remind myself to "take-it-to-the-track". As an owner of several very high hp cars, professional driving training, and racing in various HPDE roadcourses, it only takes someone stupid in the next lane to end your life, theirs or some bystanders. Do your thing, and don't worry about the idiots in the next lane.


RE: Why?
By DerwenArtos12 on 11/1/2007 3:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Turbos love higher RPM's, they don't work well at low rpm's.
You want 30ftlbs more torque than HP. HP = Torque * RPM/5250. So HP always equals torque at 5250RPM. To get more torque than hp, the engine would have to have a max redline of 4666RPM. I don't know any engine that redlines that low. So your saying you want a low reving engine with a turbo??? Sounds like turbo diesel in your future.

Not necessarily true about the turbo's for one. It depends a lot on the size of the turbo and the size of the engine predominantly. A turbo with a big turbine and a small compressor will spool very slowly but, make big boost on a smaller engine up high. If you reverse that, a big compressor and a small turbine will spool very quickly and make big boost fast but, will overboost your engine if you're not careful or, if sized properly will just run out of boost.

Also, your statement about calculating torque is true but, with a dual plane intake or a properly tuned runner length and diameter, it's very easy to build an engine that peaks at 5500 - 6000rpm that has more torque than horsepower, it just depends on how rapidly torque curve falls off after it's peak.


RE: Why?
By theapparition on 11/2/2007 12:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
True with the sized turbos, but even smaller ones need appropriate exhaust velocity to spool, hence the ole' turbo lag.
quote:
Also, your statement about calculating torque is true but, with a dual plane intake or a properly tuned runner length and diameter, it's very easy to build an engine that peaks at 5500 - 6000rpm that has more torque than horsepower, it just depends on how rapidly torque curve falls off after it's peak.

It is impossible to have an engine with a RPM over 5250 to have torque exceed hp at that RPM. No amount of engine design can change the basic equation.

Yes, you can have a very early torque peak, that falls off where HP peaks higher up. Most pushrod engines fall into this catagory, producing a lot of low end torque. The LS1 had 10ftlbs more peak torque than peak hp.

I mistook the OP's request as peak torque and hp at the same RPM.


RE: Why?
By rbuszka on 11/1/2007 8:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well if torque's your goal, you've got no better friend than the electric motor. The reason the Tesla roadster has such insane acceleration is because it takes advantage of the performance characteristics of a motor instead of a gas engine. A smaller motor could be used to bring the performance more in line with today's V6 sedans.


RE: Why?
By evident on 11/15/2007 2:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
you forget about times when accelerating and flooring it may be necessary to get out of a precarious situation, like maneuvering away from a deer or just even going from a ramp onto a highway. if you don't floor it when there's alot of traffic you may cause a pileup or maybe worse


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2007 2:16:21 PM , Rating: 5
Because it would be made of Legos, run on crushed hopes and dreams, and no one would buy it.

Seriously though, the tech isn't cheap.


RE: Why?
By Spivonious on 10/31/2007 4:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
run on crushed hopes and dreams


LOL!


RE: Why?
By zombiexl on 10/31/2007 2:40:04 PM , Rating: 5
Its hard to feel smug while driving a 15k car.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 10/31/2007 4:02:38 PM , Rating: 5
But you could still fart into a wine glass and sniff it.


RE: Why?
By ZimZum on 10/31/07, Rating: 0