Print 37 comment(s) - last by Keeir.. on Oct 31 at 2:29 PM

The $96,000 Fisker Karma is an exotic luxury sedan with a length of 16.5 feet, a width that surpasses 6 feet, a weight of over 2.5 tons, and it has a 403-horsepower powerplant

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently gave the Fisker Karma hybrid a lower-than-expected 52 mpg-equivalent rating in combined city and highway driving. The massive weight of the Karma was blamed for the poor EPA rating, and now, the EPA has determined that the 2012 Fisker Karma range-extended plug-in hybrid is a subcompact.

The $96,000 Fisker Karma is an exotic luxury sedan with a length of 16.5 feet and a width that surpasses 6 feet. It's weight is over 2.5 tons, and it has a 403-horsepower electric powerplant. So why did the EPA categorize it as a subcompact? The interior volume of the Karma doesn't quite make the cutoff of 100 cubic-feet that distinguishes between a compact and a subcompact.

The auto industry typically uses overall length to determine the class of a vehicle, but the EPA uses interior volume to do so. This means that the Karma cannot be compared to other hybrids such as Chevrolet's Volt range-extended plug-in hybrid because it's considered a compact vehicle. The Prius is classified as a midsize.

Fisker said the classification of the Karma wouldn’t affect sales because those willing to spend $96,000 on the car "know what they are getting." Fisker also called the EPA's fuel economy rating the "worst case scenario," and still insists that the Karma will provide 50 miles on a single charge.

Another Fisker employee was a bit more annoyed with the EPA rating and subcompact classification, saying that comparing the Karma to other subcompacts like the Chevy Sonic "gives you a good idea of how much faith you should put in these fuel economy ratings."

The 52 mpg-equivalent rated by the EPA includes 32 miles of all-electric range and 20 mpg when its gasoline engine/generator kicks in to provide electricity once the battery pack is drained.

Source: Auto Observer

Comments     Threshold

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

By corduroygt on 10/28/2011 10:27:47 AM , Rating: 1
a 4-cylinder BMW 3 series or even a VOLT are not only more efficient, and have about the same amount of space inside as this lemon.

RE: LOL...
By Flunk on 10/28/2011 10:36:22 AM , Rating: 1
This car has less internal space than a Nissan Versa (which is $10,000), it's significantly less fuel efficient and it weighs as much as an SUV. What a turkey car, you don't just have to rich to buy this. You have to be a complete idiot as well.

RE: LOL...
By AssBall on 10/28/2011 11:01:25 AM , Rating: 1
Once again the EPA tries to dupe the American public with false pretenses. You think we'd be used to it by now, but it still stings knowing what a corrupt and hindering entity the EPA has become.

RE: LOL...
By Ryrod on 10/28/2011 2:26:18 PM , Rating: 5
How is it the EPA's fault that this car sucks when it comes to weight and MPG? It's not like the EPA designed the car for Fisker. All the EPA did was test the car according to its normal procedures, just like any other hybrid vehicle.

The EPA being "corrupt" has nothing to do with Fisker being incapable of producing a car that is both lighter than a SUV and gets better gas mileage than a SUV.

RE: LOL...
By AssBall on 10/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: LOL...
By Ryrod on 10/28/2011 3:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
The EPA are a bunch of lobbiests [sic] and liars.

The EPA just reported the numbers regarding fuel economy based upon a standardized test. They haven't lied about those. And at least the EPA is attempting to act altruistically, compared to actual lobbyists who only act in the self-interest of the people who pay them.

It is their fault that tax money went into funding this POS car and Tesla, and the Volt.

No, actually it's not. The DOE is the department that loaned money to Fisker and Chevy to produce these vehicles.

DOE has been giving out loans, grants, and subsidies (LGSs) for a long time. These LGSs go to various companies and educational institutions to promote innovation for the private market. Funding has gone to companies ans institutions for clean coal, nuclear power, wind, solar, grid optimization, battery technology, and even oil companies.

So if you want the government to get out of science and innovation, I understand. However, the EPA is not to blame in this case (even if it does always make a great scapegoat for anything people disagree with).

RE: LOL...
By AssBall on 10/28/2011 4:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
Science and innovation are great. Expensive regulations and AGW paranoia are not.

RE: LOL...
By CharonPDX on 10/28/2011 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
Um, yeah... The EPA is just following what their standards say. It's a "line in the sand" specification, not a judgment call.

Vehicle less than 100 cu. ft.? Subcompact. Vehicle tested (by MANUFACTURER) following our test comes up with 52 eMPG? That's what they print.

RE: LOL...
By 91TTZ on 10/28/2011 11:51:16 AM , Rating: 5
We shall call it "The Homer"

RE: LOL...
By BZDTemp on 10/28/2011 2:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if you or corduroygt is the one sounding most stupid but it's clear neither of you don't get what a car like the Karma is about (or your attempt of irony sucks).

The Karma is not a van or a bus it's a luxury item. Tell me what sort of interior space do you think there is in a Porsche or Aston Martin?

RE: LOL...
By corduroygt on 10/28/2011 4:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
They're cars that go faster to 0-60 than the 5.9 seconds of the Karma, as well as drive and handle a lot better because they weigh a lot less.

What we don't like is paying tax dollars to prop up companies who only serve pretentious rich environmentalist ***holes...

RE: LOL...
By Keeir on 10/28/2011 4:28:45 PM , Rating: 2

Please provide me a source that says the Karma handles significantly worse than other 100,000 automobiles. I agree with your premise but you jumping there too fast.

Also, the government loan was for the PROJECT NINA car. This Karma is financed through private money.

RE: LOL...
By corduroygt on 10/28/2011 8:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
Please provide me a source that says the Karma handles significantly worse than other 100,000 automobiles. I agree with your premise but you jumping there too fast.
"the physics conspire against it keeping pace with other $100K sports sedans."

2012 BMW 528i = 23/34 mpg, 28 combined. Add the M-sport kit and its looks are very good, too. All for half the price of this, matches it to 0-60 and pulls ahead at higher velocities. Handles better since it's 1500 lbs lighter. More interior volume and more comfort as well. You also have no worries about plugging it in to be more efficient. Like the Prius, it's very efficient, all the time, regardless of the user's charging habits.

RE: LOL...
By Totally on 10/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: LOL...
By BZDTemp on 10/29/2011 1:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
You need to check facts before making claims!

Fisker Karma 5,300 lbs.
Aston Martin Rapide 4383 lbs.
Porsche Panamera 5,379 lbs. (base verion)

Now the Panamera uses 6s for the 0-60 so it's actually slower but to be fair the Aston uses only 5 secónds, however the starting price for it is $200K so there is that.

And with regards to the tax dollars then none of those has gone into the Karma, so you're wrong there as well.

RE: LOL...
By corduroygt on 10/29/2011 6:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Panamera V6 version weighs 3880 lbs. The 5379 lbs is the GVWR, so you should do your research before calling someone out.

Not to mention that any model Panamera is going to show this pig its taillights above 60mph, and for 95K, you can get the V8 version which will be faster throughout.

RE: LOL...
By FlyBri on 10/28/2011 6:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
@Flunk -- Riiiight, because the Nissan Versa and the Karma are such similar cars, offer similar amenities, look similar, etc. -- Give me a break. The Karma is a LUXURY car, in case you didn't notice (and it seems you haven't even opened your eyes and looked at the car, because if you did, it'd be pretty obvious). People don't go around comparing a Kia to an Aston Martin. The fact you're even comparing the Karma to a Versa is a joke in and of itself. The idiot isn't the one buying the's you.

RE: LOL...
By Suntan on 10/28/2011 10:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is buying this car for its fuel efficiency. Or its total cost of ownership.

If they are, they are idiots.

In any case, the only thing the EPA figures matter for is blog-fodder.


RE: LOL...
By kjboughton on 10/28/2011 11:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
Captain Obvious has spoken.

RE: LOL...
By Suntan on 10/28/2011 11:05:23 AM , Rating: 2
Are you that guy I did that to the other day? Minutes after I posted too, no less. Hold a grudge much stalker?


RE: LOL...
By Flunk on 10/28/2011 11:09:47 AM , Rating: 5
Your name is in the by line, you don't need to type it at the end of every message.

-Some D-Bag!

RE: LOL...
By ebakke on 10/28/2011 11:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
Such hostility in the forums today.

RE: LOL...
By Spuke on 10/28/2011 12:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Such hostility in the forums today.
Yeah, and it's still early.

RE: LOL...
By Brandon Hill on 10/28/2011 12:16:16 PM , Rating: 4
I know, FitCamaro and Reclaimer haven't even gotten here yet ;)

RE: LOL...
By lelias2k on 10/28/2011 1:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
You took the keys out of my hands... :)

RE: LOL...
By topkill on 10/28/2011 9:37:07 PM , Rating: 1
LOL Reading comments on DT is like watching two ethnic gangs trying to kill each other and then follow it up by blaming each other for all the worlds ills.

Both sides hate each other and spend hours a day trolling on here so they can spew vile shit at back and forth.

RE: LOL...
By Bad-Karma on 10/29/2011 4:54:33 AM , Rating: 3
A forum where people post about their disagreement......

Darn, and I hoped it was more like the Sharks and the Jets snapping their fingers at each other all the while doing choreographed dance.

RE: LOL...
By Ryrod on 10/29/2011 5:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's not so much the disagreement that people dislike, but the personal attacks that appear in the comments. I have no problem with people telling me I am wrong and presenting facts to back up their statement.

However, people are far too prone to play internet tough guy and call others idiots, stupid, and words far worse that the FCC doesn't even allow on television. Now, I'm an adult and can handle seeing the words, but far too often, that's the entirety of a post. It kinda ends the conversation when the only thing in the responding post is "You're f***ing stupid." How can you really address that besides saying "No, I'm not"?

RE: LOL...
By Ryrod on 10/29/2011 3:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
Of all the things I've seen said on DT over the past week, this is definitely top and deserves a +6. I couldn't stop laughing. Thanks for making my day.

efficiency + range <> efficiency
By drycrust3 on 10/28/2011 1:03:37 PM , Rating: 3
The 52 mpg-equivalent rated by the EPA includes 32 miles of all-electric range and 20 mpg

When I look at the 52 mpg-equivalent I just can't put my finger on why it looks wrong. To me, the 32 miles of running on the electric charge is the range of the vehicle on the electric charge (which is related to the size of the battery and the efficiency of running under electric power) and isn't an indication of the efficiency of the vehicle in converting energy into motion, which is what the mpg rating is all about. By the logic shown in this rating, if Fisher had increased the size of the battery the mpg-equivalent rating would have gone up, even though the extra weight would have made the car even less efficient than it currently is.
According to Wikipedia the electrical efficiency of this vehicle is 65kWh / 100 miles or 1462 kJ / km, which presumably equals 2353 kJ /mile (1462/0.6214) or 2.353 MJ/mile. The total range of the vehicle is 230 miles, meaning that with an electric range of 32 miles, the electrical power is 14% of the total range.
Since the petrol engine rating is 20 mpg, that equates to 0.05 US gallons of petrol per mile. 1 litre of fuel contains 32 MJ of energy, which presumably means 1 US gallon = (32/0.2642)= 121 MJ of energy per gallon, thus the car uses 6 MJ of petrol energy to travel one mile.
While there are lots of ways one could apportion the efficiency of these two means of motive power, the fairest way is to use their proportion of the total range of the car.
Since the electrical energy amounts to 14% of the total range of the vehicle and 86% of the range is from petrol, thus the car uses 520 MJ to travel the 86 miles and 33.6 MJ of electrical energy to travel the remaining 14 miles, thus using 554.4MJ to travel 100 miles, which equates to 5.544 MJ per mile, which is (5.544/121) 0.0458 gallons of fuel (real + equivalent) to travel one mile, or 21.8 miles per US gallon of fuel (real + electrical equivalent).

RE: efficiency + range <> efficiency
By Keeir on 10/28/2011 4:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hello... you obviously need to do a bit more thinking

The Fisker Karma is rated as

52 MPGe or stated as 65 kWh/100 mile for upto 32 miles on Electric Power. This is using the Combined EPA cycle calculation that is a combination of 5 EPA cycles.

After 32 miles on electric power, it becomes 20 MPG on the same combined cycle.

Putting an artifical label like 100 miles at a time is dangerous. Everyone drives different distances.

The Karma is capable of 32 miles of Electric Range between charges. The overall efficieny will be significant different at 25, 50, 75, or 100 miles between charges. The EPA is not attempting to project this number.

At one point in time the EPA was considering doing such a thing. By using data gathered in 2001, SAE created a curve that projected the average electric utilization rate of a car given its AER. The SAE then recommended to report the gasoline usage and electric usage over 100 miles of range using this curve as the "combined" cycle numbers. Unfortunely, this is just a little too complicated statistically for a population who do not really even have a grasp on how many miles they drive each day.

For the Karma, the numbers would have been
over 100 miles the average US driver should expect to use 39 kWh of electricity and 2 gallons of gas... or 31.7 MPGe. A pretty good number considering that a Porsche Hybrid would get 25 MPGe.

GM jumped the gun on this method and went straight to "X" MPG + Y Electricity. That was a big big mistake in my mind. People are not able to think that way.

I've always favor more of a chart approach

Always Electric: 52 MPGe (65 kWh/100)

Average US Driver: 31.7 MPGe ( 39 kWh + 2 Gallons /100 miles)

Always Gasoline: 20 MPGe (4 gallons/100 miles)

This type of chart gives a better idea to a perspective buyer than the current one and does a better job of being able to compare these different Hybrid.

For instance, the Volt and Prius Plug-in would seem natural compeditors.

The Volt gets 93 MPGe electric and 37 MPGe Gasoline versus 87 MPGe electric and 50 MPGe Gaslone for the Prius. At first glance, the Prius seems significant better. However for the Average US driver the Volt will be 67 MPGe (1 gallon/100 miles) and the Prius would be 63 MPGe (1.3 gallon/100 miles).

The Average US driver will use more Gasoline with the Prius Plug-In Hybrid than the Volt Plug-in Hybrid despite the Prius's 35% higher MPG number. If you drive more than the average US drive, then the Volt's number falls faster than the Prius number.... and the chart would give you that concept but not the point at which it becomes better.... since this does depend on how far you drive each time you get in the car, not even on average.

RE: efficiency + range <> efficiency
By drycrust3 on 10/28/2011 8:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
Hello ... I hate to disappoint you, but I do think, which is why I think that figure is nonsense! The text clearly states the 52 mpge rating is obtained by adding the 32 miles range of the batteries with the 20 mpg fuel efficiency rating. Thus, there is no indication of the efficiency of rectifiers, the batteries, and the electric motor in this rating. You could have used thermionic diode rectifiers and lead acid batteries and still got the same result, but the cost in your monthly power account would have been very different. There is no indication to the end user as to how much energy is used when driving, so the user has no idea what it will cost to travel. While I accept there is a need to present fuel efficiency figures in terms we can all understand, the current rating system is just playing with numbers to please hybrid car sales people.
I calculated the MPGe would be about 21.8 MPG over a distance of 230 miles, which is the maximum range of the vehicle using petrol and electricity. 14% of that distance was considered to be powered by electricity and the other 86% by petrol.
To me, the only fair way to take into account the different fuel injection techniques, the different battery sizes, and the other 101 other differences between one make and model and another make and model of hybrid is to base the efficiency rating on the maximum distance it can travel, then relate the electrical efficiency to the distance to it contributed, and the petrol efficiency to the distance it contributed.
The current system has an "efficiency" rating based upon an indeterminate distance and varies from driver to driver, thus it cannot be used to compare one car with another.

RE: efficiency + range <> efficiency
By Keeir on 10/30/2011 12:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
You certainly don't sound like you thought things through. I recommend for one thing not trusting Kaiser and reading at least one of the other 3 articles on the Karma here or go straight to the EPA label.

In your method of calculation, all the Karma would need to do to raise its efficiency rating is to reduce the size of the gas tank... or increase the size of the battery. Maximum Range has very little to do with efficiency.

We can both agree that Efficiency should be measured as X Consumed/ Y Miles or Y Miles/ X Consumed

But what should Y miles be? Clearly it should be consistent from car to car. It should also be a number relevant to the consumer. For example, the average car trip in the US is ~18 miles long from start to finish. Maybe that's a good point to start? No... in that case the consumer would have many unanswered questions as several plug-ins would get huge scores.

SAE developed using 2001 US Driver Data a profile of the Average US driver that tableted over a year the number of 10 mile, 20 mile, 30 mile, etc, etc driving days. They then created a curve to relate Electric Range and Electric Utilization for the Average US Driver in 2001. IE, for the Karma the Average US Driver in 2001 would use electricity 60% of the time! Even better this system accounted for mixed mode driving by allowing any two sets of propulsion to be mixed... even if there are not discrete.

In this SAE Method, efficiency is shown as a sample of 100 miles of the average efficiency over the entire year.

I still think this is a good place to start. For the average US driver of 2001, the Karma has an overall efficiency of ~31 MPGe.

Your method means next to nothing. Hopefully the average consumer would not wait till their fuel ran out to charge the battery. Most people do not drive 230 miles a day after all.

RE: efficiency + range <> efficiency
By drycrust3 on 10/31/2011 6:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
Maximum Range has very little to do with efficiency.

Well, if maximum range has little to do with efficiency then why is the MPGe rating obtained by adding the electrical range to an actual efficiency rating (MPG)?

RE: efficiency + range <> efficiency
By Keeir on 10/31/2011 2:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
Read the EPA sticker.

Go to

Search Fisker Karma EPA Sticker

Carefully look at the sticker, at let me know what you think the sticker says... its pretty clear to me.

The Karma gets 52 MPGe in Electric Mode and 20 MPG in Gasoline Mode

It's not just the Karma
By LonePalmBJ on 10/28/2011 2:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
It may not make common sense, but the Fisker Karma isn't alone in being a large car the EPA thinks isn't. They also classify the Bentley Continental GTC, Bentley Continental Supersports Convertible and Aston Martin Rapide as subcompacts, the same categorization and the VW Beetle and the Mini Cooper Clubman.

I've driven a Fisker Karma and it doesn't seem small inside. It's a four passenger, four door sedan. I'm sute the measurements are correct, I just don't think they matter.

RE: It's not just the Karma
By Keeir on 10/28/2011 3:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
That's because you've never read how the EPA calculates interior volume

Interior Volume= Front Head x Front Leg x Front Shoulder or Front hip + Rear Head x Read Leg x Rear Shoulder or Rear Hip + Luggage Capacity All Seats in Place

This is how a Prius is a "Midsize". The large hatch gives it significant more interior volume despite its essentially the same size as a Corolla.

The Fisker Karma is 53.8 cubic feet front, 35 cubic feet rear, and 6.9 cubic feet luggage. A Typical sub compact is 50 cubic feet front, 38 rear, 12 luggage. A Civic for example is nearly this.. (I believe its 52/42/12)

Fisker is really losing out on rear seat space and luggage. The Fronts seats probably feel pretty spacious and have as much room as Corolla --> Camry type car. The large center console is hurting the space as well... because the hip room is 3-4" less than the shoulder which is odd.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki