backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Mar 5 at 2:46 AM


2013 Fisker Surf
Pricing hasn't been released for the Surf yet, but many expect that it will be priced higher than the Karma

Fisker Automotive plans on showing off its production version of the 2013 Fisker Surf shooting brake this September at the Paris Motor Show.

Fisker was a little behind in getting its $100,000 2012 Karma plug-in hybrid out to customers, which resulted in the loss of its Department of Energy (DOE) loan last May. But now that the Karma is complete and on its way to customers, Fisker is on a roll and ready to continue pumping out more hybrids.

Last September, Fisker revealed its Surf shooting brake concept at the Frankfurt Motor Show. The Surf resembles the Karma with four seats and a lithium-ion battery pack in the central tunnel in the middle of the car, but differs when it comes to looks.

The Surf Concept extends the Karma's roofline straight back and has a hatchback-like rear end. Its electronics are tucked in a hump behind the back seats, but the rear seats can still fold down.


A Fisker executive has said that the Surf, which was compared to Ferrari's FF, will be similar to the FF but with four doors and one-third of the price.

Pricing hasn't been released for the Surf yet, but many expect that it will be priced higher than the Karma.

In addition to the Karma and Surf, Fisker is also working on its Nina midsize sedan. It's currently looking to order tooling for the Nina at the Delaware factory, which recently experienced 26 layoffs after the lost DOE loan, for $336 million. The Nina has finished the development phase and there is currently a running prototype.

Source: Green Car Reports



Comments     Threshold


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

Why?
By waryman on 2/28/2012 2:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one that sees that this car is a piece of shit?

If you are delusional and you disagree with my statement, then I suggest reading a nice an objective review of the vehicle.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-fisker-ka...




RE: Why?
By tng on 2/28/2012 2:33:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Am I the only one that sees that this car is a piece of shit? If you are delusional and you disagree with my statement, then I suggest reading a nice an objective review of the vehicle.
Read the article... Where exactly did they call it a POS? Seems to me like the liked it, but saw it as impractical. Not sure what you are talking about.


RE: Why?
By Mint on 3/5/2012 2:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty curious why you got rated down. POS? Let's see:

Top Gear Magazine Luxury Car of the Year (and these guys usually hate hybrids/EVs). James May's overall COTY.

Automobile Magazine design of the year.

Automobile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLCL14F75LA
"As it turn out, I'm so impressed with the way this Karma drives, and looks, and does everything, that I can't find an answer to this question: If I was in the market for a $95,000 luxury sedan, why would I be driving one of the ones from the past when I could be driving the future?"

Even the Car and driver review, which BTW had no problem using nippy to describe a GEM E825 (google it), said the steering "shames some cars currently wearing blue-and-white propeller badges—it’s that good", and along the same line Autoblog said it's "the best handling large premium car in this entire segment".

What more could you want? It's drop-dead gorgeous (well I'm not a fan of the Surf, but the Karma is), has better-than-BMW steering and top-of-class handling (to me, these are incredible for a startup's first car), comfy and smooth ride, will do 80% of its mileage as a silent EV, very luxurious, and despite not being as efficient as a Leaf, is way better than any other car in its segment. The only downside is a 6-second 0-60. Cry me a river.


RE: Why?
By BZDTemp on 2/28/2012 2:51:57 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, that is certainly a great review you link to. To me it's all over the place contradicting itself and what not.

Take for instance this quote "Even in sport mode, the Karma is not particularly nippy, taking 6.1 seconds to reach 60 mph...". I am sorry but 6.1s to 60 seems pretty nippy to me especially considering we are talking a four door luxury thing.

It seems to me you simply do not get what the Karma is and what it is competing with. It really only has three rivals or four at the most if you include the Ferrari FF. There is the Porsche Panamera which frankly looks like a 911 that has eaten way to much rich food, the Aston Martin Rapide which is very nice but cost like 3x the Karma, The Masserati QuatroPorte which is nice but a bit Italian and finally the FF with it's stupid 4wd solution and costing 3.5x the Karma.


RE: Why?
By Keeir on 2/28/2012 3:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
He's got his hate visor fully engaged... though I must admit, not entirely without cause.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/28/2012-fisker-kar...

Karma is like most exotics. Doesn't make practical sense. It is "greener" than most exotics...

But you'd be better off giving away 4-5 Insights/Priuses to working class people who can't afford a new car, let alone a hybrid, and driving your tree killing V12.... (If you cared about helping the enviroment, reducing oil, etc and had more than 100,000 to drop on a car)


RE: Why?
By Mint on 3/5/2012 12:22:07 AM , Rating: 2
A Karma being chosen over a 15MPG Maserati or Aston will save more gas than a Prius chosen over a 35MPG econobox. So yes, it absolutely is green.

On top of that, the Karma is cheaper. It's a PHEV that's priced competitively against its competition.


RE: Why?
By Spuke on 2/28/2012 3:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am sorry but 6.1s to 60 seems pretty nippy to me especially considering we are talking a four door luxury thing.
Considering its competition AND its price, I agree with C&D that it's NOT nippy. Sorry but that's slow for that money. But by all means, you go buy one.


RE: Why?
By BZDTemp on 2/29/2012 3:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
Nippy is not about price.

And as for competition - do please point out a competitor that offers a similar package at a similar price that is faster than the Karma.


RE: Why?
By bah12 on 2/29/2012 10:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
CTS V ~$65K and sub 4 seconds to 60. THAT is nippy. And spare me the Caddy is not in the same class BS, if you even try to spew that tired rhetoric you've never driven a 2009 or later CTS-V.


RE: Why?
By BZDTemp on 2/29/2012 10:16:15 AM , Rating: 2
Have you driven or even sat in the Fisker Karma? I'm guessing not else you would not put the two in the same class.

Oh, and how is the mileage on the CTS V?

I actually think the CTS V is a pretty cool car and it sure brings a lot of power for the money but it is not the most sophisticated thing on four wheels.


RE: Why?
By testerguy on 3/1/2012 12:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
What about the Tesla Model S?

Same price, much faster, electric.


RE: Why?
By Mint on 3/5/2012 12:45:55 AM , Rating: 2
Even the Model S with the biggest battery is tethered to within ~120 miles to your home (unless you're lucky and find a charger near your destination and have some time to kill). Pure EVs can work as a second car for urban driving, but IMO that's just too much of a limitation for a luxury car.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By Spuke on 2/28/2012 3:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That "stupid" solution also allows the FF to hit 0-60 in 3.7 seconds.
The FF is an awesome masterpiece of a car. Fisker is on crack if they think this rolling, bloated penis is competition for the FF.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/2012 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
Agree.

But of course. It's a Ferrari. One would expect nothing less than a masterpiece. :)


RE: Why?
By Keeir on 2/28/2012 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
(I agree that the FF is in now way a comparable to the Karma, but you don't seem to know much about the FF)

quote:
Okay you're an idiot who knows nothing about cars. Clearly. 4wd is the ONLY way to safely harness 660HP.


Which is why the "default" setting in the FF is non-4WD right?

Lets see, shortcoming with FF's "4RM" system.
A. Only active in 1st to 4th Gear. (not 5, 6, or 7)
B. At most transmits 20% of Torque to Front Wheels.
C. Requires Clutch Engagement
D. Requires Instrament Setting
E. Saps power more than other 4WD (significant "slippage")

(Keep in mind, there are alot of -good- things as well)

quote:
That "stupid" solution also allows the FF to hit 0-60 in 3.7 seconds.

Run without the 4WD active.

quote:
That "stupid" solution also allows the FF to hit 0-60 in 3.7 seconds. See ya Fisker Surf! You call 6.1s's "nippy"? For the money Fisker is asking, that's an embarrassment.


Course you should keep in mind the FF starts at 300,000+.

quote:
Who in the hell wants to pay exotic car money to get a crappy GM turbo 4 banger?


Which just shows you really don't understand how the Fisker works. Its a pure serial hybrid. Its powered by 300 kW and 1300 Nm... IE 400 hp and 950 ft-lbs. Who really cares how many cylinders the electric generator has? Its much more bothersome to me that the Battery only delievers around 300 hp. That's messed up. (Similiar to the Prius battery that only outputs around 30 hp to a 80 hp electric motor)


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/2012 4:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which is why the "default" setting in the FF is non-4WD right?


I know that. So? This is a problem or a negative how? The FF allows you to have the best of both worlds, when you need it most. It's beautiful.

quote:
Lets see, shortcoming with FF's "4RM" system.


Those aren't shortcomings at all. In the interests of full disclosure, I drive a Subaru and have owned and amateur raced AWD cars for years now.

A. The benefits of AWD diminish the faster you go. Ferrari correctly identified that there's really no benefits for AWD in the higher gears. Unless you're insane and are trying to do 100+ MPH in the rain or something? I'm trying to figure out why you call this a negative. These are POSITIVES. Less drag at higher speeds, more efficiency, etc etc. You simply don't need AWD in 5,6,7'th gear.

B. The more torque to the front wheels, the more the car will under-steer. This is still a Ferrari after all. We CANNOT have under-steer in a Ferrari, no sir. Also this is under normal conditions. If the rear tires loose traction, more torque is transferred to the front wheels.

That's the point of new AWD systems like the Nissan GTR and the Ferrari FF. You WANT the car to drive like a rear drive when they have traction. The benefit of AWD, however, becomes self evident when the rear tires begin to lose traction. Or when you're launching the car from a dead stop :)

C. Non issue
D. Non issue
E. It's also 50% lighter than any AWD system on the market! I guess we'll call this one a toss up.

I'm disturbed by your lack of adoration for anything Ferrari makes. This thing is a marvel! Every car publisher and blog is simply enamored with Ferrari's first AWD system, and here you are trying to cite negatives? Keeir, shut up. Ferrari has, overnight, revolutionized AWD. Car companies will be copying and adopting some of these concepts and approaches for decades to come.

quote:
Course you should keep in mind the FF starts at 300,000+.


Absolutely. But hey, he identified it as competition to the Fisker, not me.

quote:
Who really cares how many cylinders the electric generator has?


Because it's very expensive. The most expensive the car, the more cylinders it should have. God, don't you know anything about cars :P

Seriously I know exactly how the Fisker works, you just misinterpreted my statement. Regardless of how it works, it's a very mediocre vehicle considering the price.


RE: Why?
By Keeir on 2/28/2012 5:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
Hm. You seem to be missing my point.

Ferrari's "4RM" system is overall well matched to the Ferrari mindset and performance goals.

HOWEVER

The Ferrari system isn't really "needed" to get the HP to the road.

If I had a choice, I'd still prefer the Nissan GT-R system. The ability to go from 2:98 -> 50:50 in any gear is a significant advantage over 0:100 -> 20:80 in 1st through 4th.
The constant slippage of the front gearbox also sounds... less than ideal. Again, this all sounds great for a Ferrari. As a replacement for my AWD system... not so great.

quote:
Every car publisher and blog is simply enamored with Ferrari's first AWD system,


Hahaha, its a Shooting Brake Ferrari with AWD. Talk about Rose Colored Glasses!

(BTW, The EPA Combined Cycle on the FF is expected to be in the range of 12-13 MPG based on the Euro of 15.)


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/2012 5:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Ferrari system isn't really "needed" to get the HP to the road.


SIGH.

I give up. I can't say one thing without you trying to make an argument. Damn troll.

You don't NEED an AWD system to get that power to the road. I never said that. It's needed to SAFELY put it to the road, yes. The FF is a four seater. Why do I have to keep bringing this up? It's clear they are NOT targeting the racing track day Ferrari segment with this vehicle. It's an everyday, all weather, driver!

Go watch the FF video on the Ferrari site. It's the first time you've ever seen them showing Ferrari's being driven in the rain or on snow competently as a marketing tool. Why do you think that is? AWD.

quote:
The constant slippage of the front gearbox also sounds... less than ideal.


It's designed to do that for a very good reason. Thus, it's very ideal. The Ferrari engineers who designed this have FORGOTTEN more about drive-trains than you'll ever know. Stop pretending you know everything.

quote:
Hahaha, its a Shooting Brake Ferrari with AWD. Talk about Rose Colored Glasses!


Heretic! I was talking about the AWD system, not the car it's in. It's truly revolutionary, and in typical Ferrari fashion, a cut above anything out there.

quote:
(BTW, The EPA Combined Cycle on the FF is expected to be in the range of 12-13 MPG based on the Euro of 15.)


Who cares about economy when you're spending $300,000 for something? I think you're missing the point. WOW Keeir, you're telling me a V12 Ferrari isn't great on gas!!?? I'm shocked!!! How could this happen?

quote:
If I had a choice, I'd still prefer the Nissan GT-R system.


This is the ultimate insult. The GT-R is okay, but come on, you've never even driven the FF. Not sure how you can even make such a claim. Nissan is a good brand, but Ferrari they are not.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By Keeir on 2/28/2012 6:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is the ultimate insult. The GT-R is okay, but come on, you've never even driven the FF. Not sure how you can even make such a claim.


Which is why I said -SYSTEM-. I'd prefer a car built on the current GT-R system than the FF system. But I will admit, I will be unlikely to ever get enough seat time in a FF to make a personal judgement.

quote:
It's an everyday, all weather, driver!


Which is of course why it does at most 20%, with different forced speeds on the wheels, requires active driver engagement, and only works in certain speeds.

Its a compromise. Its a poor AWD system to make a good handling car.

quote:
Heretic! I was talking about the AWD system, not the car it's in. It's truly revolutionary, and in typical Ferrari fashion, a cut above anything out there.


I disagree. Its a great AWD system for a Ferrari. Its a poor AWD system. Both of these statements can be true at the same time you know?

quote:
Who cares about economy when you're spending $300,000 for something? I think you're missing the point. WOW Keeir, you're telling me a V12 Ferrari isn't great on gas!!?? I'm shocked!!! How could this happen?


I realize that, which is why its in Paras. Just an FYI to others. Some people have trouble remembering that all exotics have incredibly poor fuel economy.

On the BMW M5, I'll be curious how the AWD system is setup, although I think its still one more generation till the actually use it. (I thought it was nixed for the upcomming F10) I doubt it will be 20% max.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/2012 7:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its a poor AWD system to make a good handling car.


Ferrari doesn't make "poor systems". They don't make poor anything. If it's in a Ferrari, it's the best. Period. You should learn to respect your betters.

quote:
Its a poor AWD system to make a good handling car.


??? Care to back that up? The numbers I'm looking at point to the FF being, all things considered, a GREAT handling car.

quote:
Which is of course why it does at most 20%


Why do you keep harping on this? 20% torque to the front wheels is a significant increase in overall traction. Not to mention Ferrari achieves the 20% to the front with less than 90 pounds of hardware! This is an incredible achievement! Get over yourself and look at the big picture.

quote:
and only works in certain speeds.


The AWD cuts off at 124 MPH. Keeir, you keep trying to make this sound like a negative. But who in the hell needs AWD at 124 MPH!!!??? The fact that it disengages at such high speeds is a GOOD thing, great in fact.

quote:
I'd prefer a car built on the current GT-R system than the FF system.


Where you have drive-shafts running back and forth along the vehicle, poor torque balance from right to left, and tons of under-steer? Not to mention the weight penalties. The GT-R for being a strict 2 seater coupe is SUCH a pig! Well, to each his own.

Popular Mechanics said it best:

"You simply don't notice the front-wheel drive unless you really hammer the car, whereupon it really does pull the car straight out of a slide like an invisible hand."

Ideally you NEVER want to feel like you're driving an AWD car. Unless you're on the edge of traction and need help keeping control. In this aspect, Ferrari nailed it. This is EXACTLY why they made the decisions they did on the FF.


RE: Why?
By MotoAsh on 2/28/2012 9:04:05 PM , Rating: 3
You sir ... are a huge troll. All that is needed to prove it is the quote

'Ferrari doesn't make "poor systems". They don't make poor anything. If it's in a Ferrari, it's the best. Period. You should learn to respect your betters.'

Perhaps if you stopped saying such biased sounding and insulting things, you would not look like such a douche.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/2012 9:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
You think someone could sell a car for $300,000+ if the car wasn't of uncommonly high quality, styling, and performance?

Please, YOU are the troll. Of course I'm "biased" toward Ferrari. Any car enthusiast in his right mind would HAVE to be!


RE: Why?
By Spuke on 2/29/2012 12:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You sir ... are a huge troll. All that is needed to prove it is the quote
Never seen you before. Troll much? Rec is right, Ferrari is the best. Far superior to any other marque including my absolute favorite, Porsche (997tt S cab please). They do no wrong period.


RE: Why?
By BZDTemp on 2/29/2012 6:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ferrari doesn't make "poor systems". They don't make poor anything. If it's in a Ferrari, it's the best. Period. You should learn to respect your betters.


LOL - The FF is questionable in many ways and as for the Ferrari California the best...

Also the Farrari mugs, caps, bicycles and all the other crap is hardly "the best" anything. Ferrari is a greedy branch of the FIAT empire and while they do make great things they certainly also make mistakes.

Oh, and I also think that soft drink firm that keeps beating Ferrari in F1 is the one with the best cars :-)


RE: Why?
By Keeir on 2/29/2012 5:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The AWD cuts off at 124 MPH. Keeir, you keep trying to make this sound like a negative. But who in the hell needs AWD at 124 MPH!!!??? The fact that it disengages at such high speeds is a GOOD thing, great in fact.


No, it disengages when you enter 5th gear. I highly doubt 5th gear is only engaged at speeds above 124 MPH. (Though I guess this is possible)

quote:
Why do you keep harping on this? 20% torque to the front wheels is a significant increase in overall traction. Not to mention Ferrari achieves the 20% to the front with less than 90 pounds of hardware! This is an incredible achievement! Get over yourself and look at the big picture.


20% is alot when you have Ferrari Torque! 20% is not alot if your starting at ~200 at the drive shaft!

Again, give Ferrari and Ferrari's goals, the AWD system on the FF is amazing. I still would not like a car built on it to use as a "daily driver". Its inferior AWD tech. It is superior "prevent RWD idiots from spinning out" tech though....


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/29/2012 6:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its inferior AWD tech.


That's your opinion. One that, coincidentally, I cannot find shared by any car magazine writer, tech writer, journalist or car industry insider on the planet.

Ferrari's are meant to be driven. What looks "inferior" on paper becomes a better than sex experience behind the wheel.


RE: Why?
By testerguy on 3/1/2012 12:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect the Nissan GTR would run rings around the FF in just about any racing scenario, largely because they mastered the AWD system to such an extent that they can achieve massive G-forces while cornering. It's also simply faster.

It's also probably got more grip in just about every scenario than any of the cars in question - in my view they managed to create a far superior AWD system and far better balanced car than Ferrari did in the FF.

I would normally say 'but then, the GTR isn't exactly an impressive looking car' - but for many people the FF isn't exactly a looker either.

:-)

I quite like the look of the Tesla Model S - the fast version. 0-60 in 4.4 seconds :-D


RE: Why?
By Keeir on 3/1/2012 2:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ferrari's are meant to be driven.


Okay, this is exactly what I mean. Ferrari's AWD system is probably a great driving experience.

Its going to be a more classic and smooth handling experience than the GT-R system.

BUT

Its not going to be as fast as the GT-R system.
Its not going to be as safe as the GT-R system.
Its not going to be as versitile as the GT-R system.

IE, its inferior AWD tech for the -primary- reasons people put/want AWD in cars.


RE: Why?
By Spuke on 2/28/2012 5:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm disturbed by your lack of adoration for anything Ferrari makes.
Some people dream about things they can't/don't have and others are disturbed. Me? I used to have MUCH less than what I have now. I'm definitely NOT disturbed.


RE: Why?
By Mint on 3/5/2012 1:09:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But hey, he identified it as competition to the Fisker, not me.
He named three cars, and said there's a fourth only if your consider the FF a competitor, and he then proceeded to explain why it's not a competitor because it costs 3 times as much.

You then proceed to write several thorough posts on the least relevent of the examples, and explain that 6.1s is not nippy because it don't match the 3.7s of a car costing 3x as much. Thank you for that insightful knowledge.


Ugly
By Flunk on 2/28/2012 12:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
The Karma is not a great looking car but this just screams Panamera to me, just atrocious looking. I can't see the people who buy $100k cars buying too many of these.




RE: Ugly
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/28/2012 12:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
The Model S looks soooooo much better to me (compared to the Karma sedan)


RE: Ugly
By Keeir on 2/28/2012 12:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder at the Project Nina sedan. The Karma sedan was always ment to be an exotic... maybe with the Nina they managed to get the mass down...


RE: Ugly
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/28/2012 12:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Karma is not a great looking car but this just screams Panamera to me, just atrocious looking. I can't see the people who buy $100k cars buying too many of these.

If you think it's ugly on the outside, wait until you hear the curb weight.

My prediction is 15 mpg. (/semi-sarcastic) :P


RE: Ugly
By tng on 2/28/2012 12:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
just atrocious looking
I don't think that it is all that bad, definitely better than the Panamera.

But as another commenter here said, from the side view it just looks like a phallus and needs a sack hanging from the rear.


RE: Ugly
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/2012 3:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. That is one shockingly ugly vehicle. But it IS debuting in France. Not to be nationalistic, but umm, have you seen many French vehicles? Their styling taste is...ahhh, unique to say the least.


The Ugly Tree
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/28/2012 12:57:07 PM , Rating: 3
As stated by others, this car appears to have fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

I think the Chevy Volt is WAY better looking, and that puts things in perspective, right?

(P.S. Tesla clearly is the leader in looks, but the Volts, though modestly unattractive, aren't as bad up close as they are in pictures. On the road they are very recognizable and look better than a Prius, imho.)




RE: The Ugly Tree
By wyrmslair on 2/28/2012 1:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, and I was just looking at it and thinking that I'd buy one in a second if I had the money and the right driving habits (over 50 miles each way to work does not make a plugin happy). The lines look sleek to me... reminds me of the old Jags and the FF. Then again, I want to puke when I look at a Volt and I do agree that the Prius is not really attractive or all that functional. Like you said, puts things in perspective.

Gub'ment subsidies or no, at least they're trying something to make performance meet with the real world necessities. Personally, I think we missed the boat with hybrids over diesel but it's better than what happened in the 70's. For those of you can't remember, it would take an hour or more to get gas and it was crazy expensive. The car market went from preferring big block power to Vegas and Pintos almost overnight. It (especially most of the cars) was uglier than these could ever be.


RE: The Ugly Tree
By Spuke on 2/28/2012 3:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It (especially most of the cars) was uglier than these could ever be.
Looks like we're back to the future. Ugly cars have made a comeback.


RE: The Ugly Tree
By Motoman on 2/28/2012 2:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
It looks like an emaciated station wagon. Seriously...it's like someone's Vista Cruiser has gone bulimic.


RE: The Ugly Tree
By TSS on 2/29/2012 8:28:51 AM , Rating: 2
C'mon now it's not that bad. IMO the only thing really wrong with it is it's too long for it's shape. If they'd scrunch up the front end (the front door to the nose) it'd look acceptable.

In it's current state though.... kinda looks like the head of a platypus.


Now All It Needs Is Two Ballsacks...
By Arsynic on 2/28/12, Rating: 0
By bebimbap on 2/28/2012 1:05:17 PM , Rating: 4
is it just me or does it look like a stationwagon humped a dodge viper and then ran off after seeing how ugly his kid was?


To each his own....
By GotThumbs on 2/28/2012 1:35:28 PM , Rating: 1
It's an individual choice, but I like what I see so far, and I'm sure all the wealthy house wives will like the new family wagon. SUV's are so 5 seconds ago....you can see how common they are today....and with gas prices rising...why not live it up and save some money on gas?

I think it's progressive and hope it does well.




RE: To each his own....
By Spuke on 2/28/2012 3:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
And wagons are so 30 years ago. That's why SUV's are popular cause no one wants to be caught dead in a wagon.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"?
Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"? 





0 Comments












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